The Benghazi attack represented A Clear And Present Danger

… to President Obama’s Nobel laureate legacy.

Sadly, as I have been watching events and information unfold this week, that is the only conclusion I can draw.

How dangerous was it to give a Nobel Peace Prize to a man who had, at the time of acceptance (itself an act of supreme arrogance and hubris) done absolutely nothing to establish or promote world peace?

Mobs ran wild throughout the Middle East, replacing stable, known government leaders (though admittedly leaders with blood on their hands) with enigmatic governments that have direct ties to radical Islam.  Our “smart” diplomats called it “Arab Spring” and celebrated the arrival of “peace” and “democracy” it its wake.

Our establishment media chose to ignore Bashar Assad’s murder of 30,000 Syrian civilians and instead focused on his glamour-puss wife Asma, “A Rose In The Desert,” in a puffy piece of yellow journalism so odious it was given top honors in this year’s Walter Duranty Prize competition.

The White House is still running its victory lap over the killing of Osama bin Laden, and pushing an official meme declaring that Al Qaeda died along with him.  Meanwhile, Afghanistan deteriorates as coordinated attacks by well-armed militants destroy key military outposts, “friendly” police and security forces turn against US troops, and civilians are dying by the hundreds because of escalated and continuing drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And now, four Americans are dead because our Administration made the deliberate choice not to officially authorize the use of deadly force to stop the September 11 terrorist attack on our embassy in Benghazi.

The facts are abundantly clear.  Top military, intelligence, and White House officials were watching events unfold at the embassy in real time, via live video feeds from drone aircraft and from the embassy compound.  American personnel in the compound repeatedly requested assistance and military backup.  CIA security operatives on the roof of the embassy were in constant radio contact with superiors throughout the attack and were “painting” targets with lasers, a clear indication that air support was available.  Before the attack, Ambassador Stevens was aware of increased al Qaeda activity and feared for his own safety.  And now, reports are circulating that claim the White House denied requests for additional security forces in Benghazi before the September 11 attack.

Obviously the White House gambled that the mob outside the embassy was neither armed, organized, or violently persistent enough to actually over-run and destroy the compound.  Maybe this is what their “intelligence” was telling them – and doesn’t it make you feel good knowing that Vice President Biden is probably relying on the same quality of intelligence as he mockingly dismisses Iran’s nascent nuclear weapons program?  Whatever the reasons, their gamble failed and their strategy to preserve “peace” in Libya ended in the worst way possible.

Mark Steyn cuts to the chase:

[T]o launch a military operation against an al-Qaida affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11 would have exposed the hollowness of their boast through convention week and the days thereafter – that Osama was dead, and al-Qaida was finished. And so Ty Woods, Glen Doherty, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens were left to die, and a decision taken to blame an entirely irrelevant video and, as Secretary Clinton threatened, “have that person arrested.” And, in the weeks that followed, the government of the United States lied to its own citizens as thoroughly and energetically as any totalitarian state, complete with the midnight knock-on-the-door from not-so-secret policemen sent to haul the designated fall guy into custody.

The equation is pretty simple: Libya = Arab Spring = “democracy” = “al Qaeda is dead” = “peace” in the Middle East = Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize is justified.  For Barack Obama, image is everything.  It’s how he went from being an amateurish, mediocre Chicago politician, to the savior of civilization, to President of the United States.  And apparently it’s the most important aspect in defining the legacy of his presidency.

As I’ve mulled over the events surrounding the Benghazi attack, the 1994 film “Clear and Present Danger” comes to mind.  In the film, a close personal friend of the President of the United States is murdered by a Columbian drug cartel.  Acting emotionally, the President declares the cartels to be “a clear and present danger” to the security of the United States and secretly orders a black ops mission to attack and kill cartel leaders.  When the mission goes wrong (some cartel leaders survive the attack, women and children are killed, and US officials are murdered in retaliation) the Administration decides to cut its losses and disavows the black ops team, abandoning them and leaving them at the mercy of the drug cartel.

Although the motivations were obviously different, pretty much the same thing happened to our embassy personnel in Benghazi.  They were sacrificed in order to maintain the image of peace.  The poorly reasoned, agenda-driven decisions that led to their death were then covered up with phony, stereotypical fiction about mob violence, the Arab Street, and a pathetic YouTube video that had been available online months before the attack.

It is often said that the cover-up, not the crime, is what brings down public officials.  I can only hope that someone will have the guts to have this kind of confrontation with the Obama Administration, specifically its Commander in Chief:

Then again, maybe that will be our responsibility on November 6.

County's Democrat Of The Year Convicted Of Felony Theft
No 'Gutsy Call' For American Lives