John Robson - May 13th, 2013
Although many media outlets buried the Benghazi story last fall lest it interfere with the reelection prospects of the awesome Barack Obama, they’ve noticed now that the administration was clearly lying about the root cause of the attack and serious journalists would have been on the story right away. What happened wasn’t a demonstration over that silly video that got out of hand, it was determined Islamist militants targeting a U.S. facility with heavy weapons, and senior executive branch people knew it all along. So are we done?
Not remotely. What has yet to be dealt with in any serious way is what the president knew and when he knew it. During the election, on Oct. 26, Obama told an interviewer “ the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to.” Yet we now know that there was no effort to deploy forces to stop the attack on the consulate and, indeed, Special Forces were ordered to stand down.
So the questions are: What order, exactly, did the President give and when and to whom? What did they then do or not do to implement the order? and What did the President do after giving that order?
As far as we can tell, the answer to question three is that he went to sleep, wasn’t kept informed and the next day flew off to a fundraiser. Which is a shocking response indeed, if true, and a scandalous lie if false. It hasn’t yet become a major issue because the question hasn’t yet been forcefully asked. But it will be.
And then, of course, we’re going to work back to questions two and one. It’s not over. Not by a long shot.
John Robson - May 9th, 2013
A strange exchange between an unidentified reporter and federal Minister of Public Safety Vic Toews at a press conference yesterday. The minister jeered “Certainly you’re not surprised that there are members of the Communist Party or ex-members of the Communist Party inside the New Democratic Party?” When asked by an apparently naïve journalist “Is that a bad thing to you?” Toews said ”No, I’m just saying why would you be surprised? They’re New Democrats”.
Now it’s a bit troubling that a reporter would seem puzzled why communism might be regarded as bad; possibly she never heard of Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. But what’s amazing is that Toews would say “No” and then accuse his opponents of it anyway, almost as though he buys the hard left view that communism is harmless but pinning the label on people is an effective partisan smear by right-wing hacks.
Both of you, smarten up. Of course communism is bad. It claimed far more victims than Naziism and launched far more wars.
John Robson - May 7th, 2013
So apparently now there’s this big issue with the corpse of Boston Marathon alleged bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Have we gone nuts?
John Robson - April 29th, 2013
More harbingers for Canada from the British scene: the Ministry of Defence is trying to pry money out of the “ring-fenced” budgets for health and education to avoid disastrous cuts to their collapsing armed forces. In short, they’re busted financially and intellectually.
British ministries have jeopardized national security by gutting their army, navy and air force to protect social spending vital to winning elections (“ring-fenced” meaning voters get free money no matter what else collapses in the public sector) which they can’t afford no matter how irresponsibly they cut elsewhere. They’re still borrowing over £100 billion a year, or over $150 billion, and so of course interest payments are rising ominously. The whole structure of their government is unsound but voters don’t want to hear it and politicians don’t dare say it.
Oh, and here in Canada they’re cutting at least 10% from an already inadequate defence budget and promising to stop running deficits somewheeeeere over the rainbow…
John Robson - April 24th, 2013
New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who it is safe to say comes from the paternalistic wing of the Republican party, just told a press conference Americans’ interpretation of their Constitution will “have to change” because of the threat of terrorism.
The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry. But we live in a complex world where you’re going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change.
He could not be more wrong. Starting with his belief that his suggestion is itself up-to-date.