Obama: I Defy the Terrorists by Playing Golf

“It was like the time FDR went golfing after Pearl Harbor.”

We all fight terrorism in our own way. Obama fights terrorism by freeing terrorists from Gitmo and then going golfing. At least that’s what he tells FOX News.

Obama also defended his actions after several deadly attacks, including playing a round of golf after American James Foley was beheaded and going to a baseball game in Cuba after the Brussels terror bombings last month, for which the Islamic State has claimed responsibility.

“In the wake of terrorist attacks, it has been my view consistently that the job of the terrorists, in their minds, is to induce panic, induce fear, get societies to change who they are. And what I’ve tried to communicate is, “You can’t change us. You can kill some of us, but we will hunt you down, and we will get you.

“And in the meantime, just as we did in Boston, after the marathon bombing, we’re going to go to a ballgame. And do all the other things that make our life worthwhile.  … That’s the message of resilience. That we don’t panic, that we don’t fear, we will hunt you down and we will get you.”

It was like the time FDR went golfing after Pearl Harbor.

I was never a big fan of the “defy the terrorists by going shopping after 9/11” school of messaging, the original argument for it was that the economy had to stay up and normalcy had to return to a city that had been locked down in parts by a military and militarized police presence.

None of that applies here. Ordinary people should be able to get back to their lives after a terror attack. But leaders are supposed to shoulder responsibility by taking on the important tasks.

When the guy in the White House goes golfing after a terror attack, he isn’t showing resiliency. He’s showing that he doesn’t care.

And indeed Obama doesn’t care. He made it clear to Jeffrey Goldberg that, like much of the left, he believes the terrorism threat is widely overblown. And he repeats a carefully worded variation of that claim here.

But if you’re in the mood for more comedy…

President Obama repeatedly vowed there would be no political influence over the Justice Department’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state — in a wide-ranging interview with “Fox News Sunday” in which he also ardently defended his efforts to defeat the Islamic State and other terror groups amid criticism about his perceived indifference.

“I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case,” Obama told “Fox News Sunday.” “Nobody is above the law. How many times do I have to say it?”

Nobody is above the law. Except Obama, Holder, the State Department, the EPA, the DOJ, the VA and the rest of the administration. And yes, that likely still includes Hillary Clinton.

h/t Daniel Greenfield

Hillary Clinton, Arms Dealer

Great article by Arnold Ahlert …..

In a scathing column Fox News contributor Andrew Napolitano makes the convincing case that Hillary Clinton sold weapons to Libya in a direction violation of the U.N. arms embargo, and then lied about it under oath during her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi Oct. 22.

“To pursue her goal of a ‘democratic’ government there, Clinton, along with Obama and a dozen or so members of Congress from both houses and both political parties, decided she should break the law by permitting U.S. arms dealers to violate the U.N. arms embargo and arm Libyan rebels whom she hoped would one day run the new government,” Napolitano explains. “So she exercised her authority as secretary of state to authorize the shipment of American-made arms to Qatar, a country beholden to the Muslim Brotherhood and friendly to the Libyan rebels and a country the U.S. had no business arming—unless the purpose of doing so was for the arms to be transferred to the rebels.”

Memos recovered from the incinerated compound in Benghazi give great weight to the assertion. The documents were obtained by the Washington Times and they reveal the American diplomats stationed there were keeping track of numerous potential U.S.-sanctioned weapons shipments aimed at arming our allies, “one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government,” the paper reports.

A file marked “arms deal” reveals that one of those shipments was supposed to be sent by Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, CA, one of many arms sellers that work with U.S. intelligence. The file contained an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing, and Dolarian confirmed one of the licensing requests the State Department initially approved in 2011 was an authorization to send weapons to Libya via Kuwait. The certificate was inexplicably revoked before Dolarian could ship rocket and grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition originally manufactured by former Soviet-bloc nations in Eastern Europe.

“Dolarian Capital submitted the end user certificate in question to the U.S. Department of State for review and issuance of a license to transfer the arms and ammunition to Libya,” one of the company’s attorneys said in a statement issued to the Times. “The U.S. Department of State responded with a approval, which was revoked shortly thereafter. As a result no arms or ammunition was shipped or delivered to Libya under the end user certificate.”

Nonetheless, federal court documents obtained by Fox News reveal arms sales to Libyan rebels that occurred during Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State were ultimately transacted. “It was then, and remains now, my opinion that the United States did participate, directly or indirectly, in the supply of weapons to the Libyan Transitional National Council,” stated career CIA officer David Manners in a sworn declaration to the District Court of Arizona on May 5, 2015.

Manners’ testimony was part of a grand jury investigation into American defense contractor Marc Turi and his company Turi Defense Group, another entity licensed by State to sell and transport weapons worldwide. The investigation was focused on both the source and user of weapons defined in court documents as “end user” or “end use”  that were entering Libya in 2011 while Qaddafi’s regime was collapsing–but before any Libyan opposition groups were formally recognized by the United States.

Turi illuminated what occurred in the midst of that chaos, including the reality that poor oversight of the operation allowed America’s enemies to obtain weapons. “When this equipment landed in Libya, half went one way, and the half went the other way,”  Turi said. “The half that went the other way is the half that ended up in Syria.”

Turi admitted to Fox he had criminal past that included stealing a computer, his roommate’s car, and writing several bad checks including one for $100,000 dollars. They verified his arrest, conviction and a stint in an Arizona jail, all of which seemingly conflict with what Fox characterizes as the “painstaking compliance” required to get the “necessary approvals set by strict US government regulations” to become a licensed arms contractor.

Turi was one cog in a rather large machine of State Department-licensed contractors awarded a record number of contract during Clinton’s tenure. “More than 86-thousand licenses with a value of $44.3 billion dollars were granted in 2011… a surge of more than $10 billion dollars from the previous year,” the news site reports.

Turi, who provided documents to Fox revealing exchanges with officials inside and outside the government, including high level members of Congress, the military, and State Department employees, explains he was part of a “zero footprint” supply chain whereby one Arab nation would supply another. “If you want to  limit the exposure to the US government, what you simply do is outsource it to your allies,” Turi explained. “The partners-the Qataris, and the Emiratis did exactly what they were contracted to do.” Turi claims he never sent weapons to Qatar and that such transactions are handled by the government and the State Department’s Bureau of Political and Military Affairs headed by Clinton aide Andrew Shapiro, who oversaw State’s export control process.

On March 14, 2011, Clinton and Ambassador Chris Stevens met with Mustafa Jibril in Paris. Jibril was a senior member of Libya’s Transitional National Council (TNC). This occurred while a $267 million contract with Turi was working its way through channels. He insists Clinton was provided a copy of the application a day later when she and aide Huma Abedin were in Cairo, meeting with Egypt’s new foreign minister Nabil el Arabi. The information was given to the TNC, who subsequently gave it to Clinton. “That’s what was told to me…and emailed, “ Turi insists. Turi also alerted Stevens in an email, and received a reply from the ambassador thanking him and stating, “I’ll keep it in mind and share it with my colleagues in Washington.

A day later, a heavily redacted email provided to the Benghazi Committee revealed Clinton’s “newfound” interest in supplying weapons to rebels via contractors. “FYI. The idea of using private security experts to arm the opposition should be considered,” Clinton wrote. In May, Turi got State Department approval for supplying Qatar. Two months later, federal agents raided his home.

The feds are alleging Turi tried to arm Libyans directly by submitting false documents for weapons shipments to Qatar as a cover up. Turi insists the feds are prosecuting an innocent man to cover for Clinton.

Prior to her testimony on Oct. 22, Clinton only had to address the subject on one previous occasion, during an exchange with Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in 2013. “Well, Senator you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex,” Clinton answered at the time, apparently alluding to the CIA. “And, I will see what information was available.

During her Oct. 22 testimony she was equally duplicitous, stating, “I think the answer is no” when asked a direct question about supplying Libyan rebels, insisting that arming private militias may have been considered, but not “seriously considered,” and ultimately answering “no” when asked if she was aware the U.S. was shipping weapons Libyan rebels directly or indirectly.

Napolitano shreds those assertions. “How could she answer ‘no’?” he writes. “She not only knew about the sending of arms to rebels but also personally authored and authorized it…The FBI and CIA advised her —in documents that are now public—that U.S. arms were making their way to known al-Qaida operatives.”

The documents to which Napolitano refers were obtained by Judicial Watch (JW) via court order last May. They were “the first official confirmation that shows the U.S. government was aware of arms shipments from Benghazi to Syria,” JW revealed. “Once this plot was hatched, Clinton and her fellow conspirators realized that some of these rebel groups were manned by al-Qaida operatives; and selling or providing arms to them is a felony — hence the reason for months’ worth of missing and destroyed Clinton emails,” Napolitano explains.

Based on this additional evidence, which comes on top of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s failure to secure classified information—that now includes an email released Oct. 30 by the State Department demonstrating irrefutable proof she sent classified information—her obstruction of justice arising from the wiping of her server, and her perjured testimony before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan last August, when she insisted she had turned over all of her work-related emails to the State Department, Napolitano believes an FBI indictment is a virtual certainty. “When those recommendations are made known, no ballot will bear her name,” he concludes.

Perhaps. Yet nagging developments suggest otherwise. The endemic corruption of the FBI and the Justice Department, most recently manifested in the dropping of a criminal investigation against the IRS—despite documents obtained by Judicial Watch showing both entities were involved in the scandal itself—is extremely troublesome. So is the reality that two-term Vice President Joe Biden announced his intention not to run for president the day before Hillary’s testimony, suggesting he might have already known Democrats weren’t about to be saddled with the terminally-addled Bernie Sanders as their only presidential candidate. There is also the Benghazi Committee’s incomprehensible decision not to ask Clinton about a story that appeared in the Daily Mail on Oct. 17, revealing her unsecured server contained a 2002 email written by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to George W. Bush, marked “Secret/NoForn” as in confidential and not for foreign eyes. At the very least this demonstrates Clinton was extracting secure information from the State Department server. For what purpose, and why didn’t a single American mainstream media source pick up the story?

Clinton remains a virtual lock for the Democratic presidential nomination. As the National Journal’s Ron Fournier explains, “Demo­crats are eager to for­give Clin­ton’s lapses in judg­ment and honesty,” and despite the fact that Americans find her inherently untrustworthy (an NBC/WSJ poll re­veals that 53 per­cent of re­gistered voters don’t believe she is “be­ing hon­est and straight­for­ward,” while just 27 percent do), it is likely nothing short of a criminal indictment will derail her presidential ambitions. Sadly, that says as much about the American public as it does about Clinton herself.

Since 9/11, the Number of Mosques in America Has Grown By 75%

 

I’m certain you would have figured we’d be going the other way.

“Whatever We Once Were, We Are No Longer A Christian Nation” –
President Barack Obama tells us from his speech June 28, 2006 where we are headed. In his “prepared” speech, he was to read ” we are no longer “just” a Christian nation….” but in his speech he purposely or clumsily left out the “just”.

As the Islamic invasion advances, mosques are proliferating across the United States at breakneck speed. And there appears to be no end in sight.

Since 9/11, the number of mosques in America has grown by 75%. The timing of this is no coincidence. Mosques are a symbol of Islamic supremacism. Islam attacks. Then it plants a triumphal mosque on the battlefield. And another. And another. And another.

The proliferation of mosques is also a sign of our incomprehensible response (or lack thereof) to the threat of Islam.

War has been waged against the United States and what have we done? We have welcomed the enemy with open arms. Dhimmitude has paved the way for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of new mosques since the day nearly 3,000 Americans were murdered in the name of Islam.

If we don’t put an end to this madness, we will ensure the continued assault against us – an assault that, ultimately, will spare no one. (Do you hear that, dhimmis? That includes you.)

Mosques pose a dual risk to Americans. First there is the nature of what is preached inside the walls of the mosque. Second is the nature of the walls themselves.

As to the first point, recent studies show that 80% of mosques preach jihad (through sermons and/or materials) and that more than 95% of Muslims attend such mosques.

But the horror doesn’t end there as one considers the issue of funding. While many Muslims claim they raise the money for mosques within the local community, there is reason to doubt this assertion in many cases. Common sense alone would cause one to question how, for example, tiny communities of Muslims could raise millions of dollars to built gigantic mosques. Common sense aside, there is evidence that shows that 80% of mosques in this country receive funds from Saudi Arabia.

So here we are with at least 1,700 mosques that promote jihad, the vast majority of Muslims attending such mosques, and millions upon millions of dollars flowing in from Saudi Arabia building this dangerous empire. Put it all together and one realizes that mosques serve as jihadist recruitment and training centers.

Welcome to the intersection of religion and politics. In the case of Islam, welcome to hell. Because at its core, Islam is a totalitarian ideology that demands submission. In fact, the word Islam literally means submission: as in convert, pay the jizya tax and live as a second-class citizen, or die.

Anyone who wants to argue otherwise (1) has not read the Koran, (2) does not understand the implications of Chapter 2, Verse 106: Abrogation, whereby more recent violent verses supersede earlier more peaceful verses, (3) is uneducated about world history as it pertains to the rise and fall of Islam, (4) is not paying attention to the Islamic savagery unfolding before our eyes in the Middle East and elsewhere, (5) is in deep denial, and/or (6) is lying.

To fully appreciate the danger of mosques, once should also heed the words of Turkish poet Ziya Gokalp (quoted by Turkey’s PM Erdogan in a 1997 speech):

The minarets are our bayonets, the domes our helmets, the mosques our barracks and the faithful our army.

These words are a chilling reminder of the role mosques serve when the time arrives for violent conquest. Although Gokalp wrote the words in 1912, the idea dates back centuries, as the Investigative Project on Terrorism reports. (If you have difficulty with the link, the same report can be found at here.)

…The prophet Muhammad’s first project was to construct a mosque in his city, Medina, which served as his residence and a government headquarters of sorts. Muhammad turned the mosque into a center of preaching where…the Muslim army was prepared for wars and raids on the enemies of Islam. A commonly held view by Muslim religious scholars is that a mosque is more than just a place of worship and can have military and political uses….

The view that mosques can serve as military bases is upheld today by influential Muslim clerics who preach that mosques be used as places from which to launch jihad attacks. And, indeed, in modern times we have seen mosques used for military operations in countries around the world. Here is a snapshot of places and situations where mosques have been used as military outposts per an analysis posted at the Investigative Project on Terrorism:

• Lebanon, Afghanistan, and areas where the Palestinian Authority has control; Hamas and Hezb’allah routinely use mosques for military operations.
• In Iraq, US military forces frequently discovered munitions stored in mosques and had intense battles against terrorists using mosques for military purposes.
• Mosques are also routinely used for military operations in places where Islamic terror organizations wield political and/or military might against the government. This occurs in many Arab countries (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria) and has also been seen in Pakistan.
• In addition, mosques have been used for military purposes in Great Britain, Italy, Germany, and Spain.

Do you see a pattern here? It’s the same pattern we see with all aspects of the growing Caliphate as Islam spreads outward from the Middle East to engulf more and more nations. And toward that end there is the ever-present mosque – a place where jihad is preached and in some cases, a place from which the jihadist attack is launched. (If the idea of having jihad attacks launched from mosques across America does not seem plausible, in addition to pondering what I just wrote, look into the 3 stages of jihad.)

When considering this intolerable situation be aware that increasing numbers of mosques in the United States are enormous mega mosques. Some are in cities. Some are in small (once quiet) residential communities. And some are in rural areas where the size of the building/compound is drastically out of proportion to the Muslim population of the region. CBN reports:

“It does seem to be part of a larger strategy to build mosques in rural areas and create Islamic communities — large Islamic communities — in rural areas for some larger purpose,” said Bynum, a columnist for the New English Review.

“For some larger purpose.” Hmm. And what might that purpose be?

(To read more about mega mosques, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. To watch videos on the subject, see here, here, here, here, and here, among a litany of examples.)

And if all this weren’t bad enough, we the people are battling our own government facing off against these dangerous mosques. As has become the norm with the Obama administration, the enemy Department of Justice under Eric Holder has aligned with mosques against the people. Here are just two examples from last year, among an ever-growing list:

In Bridgewater, New Jersey, a mega mosque was rejected by the city council due to a local ordinance that limits houses of worship to major roads. The DOJ and CAIR teamed up and forced the town to pay nearly eight million dollars to the mosque, which will be built elsewhere.

In St. Anthony Village, Minnesota, after the city council voted down a mosque citing zoning laws, once again the DOJ stepped in, sided with CAIR, and paved the way for the mosque to be built. A few years prior when a Christian group was denied use of the same space for the same reason, Holder did nothing. Apparently he can’t resist an opportunity to help Islam plant the flag of conquest on American soil.

Holder’s on a reckless roll and he’s only warming up. As recently reported at American Thinker:

Holder is confidently moving ahead with investigations into twenty-eight cases nationwide involving local denials of mosques, many of which have seated radical imams and officials tied to terrorist groups.

The mosque nightmare is riddled with one disastrous layer after another. In this case, Holder, Muslim Brotherhood front groups, and the ACLU form a triad of evil-doers who are using the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to force mosques on communities that reject them.

RLUIPA is about places of worship, zoning, and discrimination (real or imagined). The law gives authority to the federal government to step in and steam roll over local control regarding religious venues. Per the DOJ web site:

The land use provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000cc, et seq., protect individuals, houses of worship, and other religious institutions from discrimination in zoning and landmarking laws…. (snip)

…RLUIPA prohibits zoning and landmarking laws that:

(1) treat churches or other religious assemblies or institutions on less than equal terms with nonreligious institutions;
(2)  discriminate against any assemblies or institutions on the basis of religion or religious denomination;
(3)  totally exclude religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or
(4) unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction.

The Department of Justice can investigate alleged RLUIPA violations and bring a lawsuit to enforce the statute….

(For an excellent overview of the law including some historical perspective, see here and here. Pamela Geller offers additional insight, here.)

Holder’s actions fall within the larger context of Obama’s persistent and intentional alignment with America’s enemies against the nation he has sworn to protect. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the mosque menace occurred in 2011 when Obama shut down all FBI monitoring of mosques in the United States. Investor’s Business Daily reports:

Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string (sic) operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.

Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.

We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims….

Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland.

So here we are with at least 1,700 mosques that promote jihad, the vast majority of Muslims attending such mosques, millions upon millions of dollars flowing in from Saudi Arabia, increasing numbers of mega mosques, a history of mosques being used as military outposts, an antagonistic DOJ forcing mosques on communities, a neutered FBI, and a president who sympathizes with Islam – the greatest national security threat this nation has ever faced.

It is that simple, that stark, and that horrifying. Regrettably, the masses (including most elected officials irrespective of political party) do not appear to grasp this shocking and dangerous truth.

The situation, as noted at the outset of this article, is incomprehensible.

Speak out. Take action. Get involved. Join an organization to help focus your efforts. Let your elected officials know where you stand and what you expect. Educate them. Many are woefully uninformed.

We cannot tolerate mosques spread across America preaching jihad. Treason must not be allowed to stand.

Hat tips: While I used numerous sources for my research, a special expression of gratitude is extended to Atlas Shrugs and Creeping Sharia for their meticulous work documenting and cataloguing information on issues related to Islam which helped expedite access to certain information.

– From Carol Brown’s Mosques on the front lines in the war against America

Obama’s Foreign Policy: One Big Coverup

From Benghazi to Ukraine to Iran.

by Daniel Greenfield

 

Obama will eventually adopt the Russian line on Ukraine if for no other reason than to avoid exposing his own impotence. It’s why Obama has adopted the Iranian position on its nuclear weapons program, accepted Russia’s Syrian WMD deal and why Kerry and his cronies are busy blaming Israel for the collapse of peace negotiations that were actually sabotaged by the PLO leader.

If you can’t beat them, join them. And Obama can’t beat them. Joining them is his only option.

The culture wars and media firing squads, the SEIU members who shepherd the elderly and infirm to voting booths, the illegal aliens who vote three times because voter ID is racist, are excellent tools for defeating Republicans; but they don’t impress Vladimir Putin or the Islamic militias of Benghazi.

Whatever else went down there, Benghazi had to be covered up because it was easier to join the Muslim mobs burning American flags by throwing a Coptic Christian into jail and filming an apology. It was easier than sending in the Marines or even the drones. It was easier to do nothing, prep for a debate with the real enemy, Mitt Romney, before flying off to party in Vegas.

Obama has preemptively surrendered to anyone and everyone. Even countries he opposes on an ideological basis have discovered that if they slap him around long enough, he will come around.

It just takes a little longer.

Egypt held the line, despite the threats from the State Department and the White House, until Obama decided that it was easier to give in to General Al-Sisi. The condemnations still come, but the Apaches are also on their way.

Despite Obama’s commitment to the Muslim Brotherhood, he blinked.

Obama declared a red line on Syria. Assad is still in power and the red line is crumpled up in an Oval Office desk along with a dozen candy bar wrappers and a dented Nobel Peace Prize.

It’s easier for Obama to surrender and pretend that was his policy all along than to put up a fight. It’s easier for him to side with Israel’s enemies than with the Jewish State. It was easier for him to appease Putin before the invasion of Ukraine, now it’s easier for him to throw out a few hashtags and stay well away from the fighting and then at an opportune moment, pressure Ukraine into accepting whatever deal the Russians put forward.

Putin knows it and that’s why his people are humiliating Hagel and Kerry to up the ante for the final concessions. Ukraine, like Israel, like so many other allies, will be forced to pay a high price to cover up the ego and incompetence of Barack Obama.

Obama’s foreign policy is one big cover up. From Europe to Asia to the Middle East, allies are sacrificed, positions are abandoned and credibility is set on fire to convince Americans that their leader knows what he’s doing. To avoid ever losing a fight and being seen as a loser, he preemptively surrenders.

The media’s story is that Obama meant to do these things. He meant to reverse himself on military aid to Egypt. He meant to set a worthless red line on Syria. He meant to protect Ukraine with hashtags. He meant to do nothing about Benghazi.

Some presidents cultivated a policy of strategic ambiguity to keep the country’s enemies off balance. Obama does it to keep Americans off balance about what he really did and what he really meant.

Obama makes sure to take at least two positions on every foreign policy issue. He evolves and then devolves and evolves again. He was for calling Benghazi a terrorist attack after he was against it. He was against dealing with Assad, before he was for it. He was against containing Iran before he was for it, before he jettisoned containment and skipped straight to embracing a nuclear Iran.

He issues statements that sound bold and decisive, but with just enough wriggle room to allow for a sellout. There’s enough equivocation to cover the ass of the naked emperor no matter what happens. Even while his people were pushing the lie that the Benghazi attack happened because of a YouTube protest, not terrorism, a general aside about “Acts of Terror” was inserted into the Rose Garden speech to cover him against the day when the truth could no longer be denied.

Obama’s speeches are full of double meanings and ambiguities. He came out in favor of a united Jerusalem, only to then explain that he didn’t mean it would be united by Israel. His “Red Line” comments on Syria were so ridiculously ambiguous with the outcome being, “That would change my calculus,” that they meant absolutely nothing at all.

It was the media that took the comments seriously and ended up with egg on its fedora.

Benghazi wasn’t an aberration. It was typical of his foreign policy. It was the policy of Hillary Clinton who liked to talk tough, saying of Gaddafi, “We came, we saw, he died”, while her spokesman called Assad a “dead man walking”, but when push came to shove, she abandoned her people to die without asking for military aid.

She polished her resume, they went, they died.

Democrats complain when Republicans talk about Benghazi. But why don’t we talk about Obama’s foreign policy? Why don’t we talk about the botched war in Afghanistan, his failure to stand up for the Green Movement in Iran, his push for the Islamist Arab Spring, his fumbling in Syria and his poor relations with traditional US allies in the Middle East?

Why can’t we talk about his many lies about Al Qaeda, beginning with selling the disastrous Afghan surge as a platform for defeating Al Qaeda in a place that it had mostly abandoned, only to then declare victory over an Al Qaeda that had hardly been there?

Did Obama sacrifice 1,600 Americans in Afghanistan in a phony campaign for an election talking point?

Is there any part of Obama’s universally disastrous foreign policy that we can talk about? Or is it all one big cover up?

Obama’s problem isn’t just that he sympathizes with terrorists and has a distaste for national power and the military, but that everything he does falls apart.

There is no national conversation about foreign policy or even domestic policy the way that there was during the days of Bush and Clinton. Instead we talk about Obama. Media coverage focuses on his celebrity, his political enemies and his plans for the future in purely personal terms.

The past is a foreign country. And the media doesn’t travel there. The results of his policies at home and abroad are a mystery. The media won’t tell us what happened two years ago or three years ago, so it pivots to the latest racial outrage or hashtag.

Benghazi is one of the many disasters left in his wake and his defenders insist that it go unexamined and the process of covering it up, which began while the bodies were still warm, go unnoticed.

The Obama illusion falls apart if you look at it from any angle other than the front. If you look behind it, there are flames, burning buildings, screams and political hacks who call each other “dude” making up lies about why it happened before moving on to pushing a news story about his wife’s latest hairstyle, their latest vacation or the latest celebrity they were photographed with.

Benghazi is an important part of the conversation that we need to have. But it doesn’t end there.