Benghazi Won't Go Away

For John, BLUF:  The Benghazi Imbroglio may fade in history, but if it doesn't it will be seen as a time of confusion and partisan bickering.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

At The Huffington Post we have an article about Fox News interviewing "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Thomas Ricks". 

A Fox News interview ended rather abruptly on Monday after a guest took not one but two jabs at the network hosting him (see update below).

Co-anchor Jon Scott interviewed Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author Thomas Ricks, who has covered the military for decades, about his new book "The Generals." Scott asked Ricks weigh in on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and Sen. John McCain's criticisms of Amb. Susan Rice.

"I think Benghazi was generally hyped by this network especially," Ricks said.  He added that he thought McCain seemed to be "backing off" from criticizing Rice since "the campaign [was] over."

To challenge the views of a "Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author" may seem a little forward, but I feel I must.

I agree with Mr Ricks, the death of a US Ambassador notwithstanding, Benghazi was a small fire fight, but I believe the long term consequences of our responses are of importance.

Further, I have maintained that Amb Susan Rice was not lying, but the victim of what the Administration gave her as Talking Points.   (Check this blog for confirmation, if needed.)   That said, several people I respect, and with insight into the issue, have told me that they don't think Amb Rice is suited for SecState.

Yesterday Scott Helfstein (Director of Research at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point) published an article on the 11 September demonstrations across the MENA area that offered some good insights, but started with the meme that what happened in Libya was a riot, as a result of "the video".   This isn't true.   This isn't helpful.   It obscures the role of terrorist groups in North Africa.   It also obscures what the demonstrations across the MENA Area are about.

The use of "the video as cause" meme has resulted in us brushing aside First Amendment guarantees, almost like it was WWI.

And, the apparent confusion about Benghazi, which went on for weeks, suggests that the Administration was fumbling.

The inability of the MSM, with Candy Crowley in the forefront, to comprehend these contradictions is troubling, but not shocking.

Fox is not my ideal, but others are wanting as well.

Regards  —  Cliff

Good News/Bad News

For John, BLUF:  In Muslim Arab nations there are elements that want to go back to the old days, when it was the woman's fault.  Nothing to see; just move along.

In Tunisia a woman was sentenced to six months in jail for public indency after she was raped by two policemen, at least according to al Jazeera.  The good news is that it was only a six month jail sentence.  The bad news is that this is a setback for women's rights in a nation that is fairly democratic in its outlook.

I found this report in an EMail from our Federal Government's Overseas Security Advisory Council, "Global Security and News Reports" (Bureau of Diplomatic Security), with a link to the al Jazeera article.

Regards  —  Cliff

Free Speech v Offending God

For John, BLUF:  The Third Commandment is back, with a vengeance.♠  Nothing to see; just move along.

It is Breitbart, but still, this does seem timely and interesting.  "Islamic Leaders in Dearborn Michigan Plan Rally to Support Speech Prohibition".  They are, of course, concerned about blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed.  From the article:

In other words, it appears one of the goals of the rally will be the eventual creation of blasphemy laws:  laws that would reflect an international movement toward banning speech that is critical of Islam or Mohammed.

So, does that mean the use of terms like "Jesus F------ Christ!" will be banned outside of private settings, or banned in all settings.

It seemed like only a few decades ago that we got rid of Blasphemy laws.  Now they are coming back?  I would propose for our Commonwealth here in Massachusetts something like:

Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously♥ reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

I would put it in our General Laws.  Part IV, Crimes, Punishments, and Proceedings in Criminal Cases, TITLE I, Crimes and Punishments, CHAPTER 272, Crimes Against Chastity, Morality, Decency and Good Order, Section 36, and call it Blasphemy.♦

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."
♥  1. Rudeness or contempt arising from arrogance; insolence.  2. An insolent or arrogant remark or act.  Not a Twenty-first Century word.  On the other hand, Blasphemy is not a Twenty-first Century crime.
♦  Maybe we should just go with our last such law.  But then that is what is quoted.  But then you figured that out, n'est pas?

-2 T2 T2 ½