Hillary Defenders' Very Poor Case on Benghazi

The Congressional Benghazi Investigation made news this week because committee chairman Trey Goudy released a report saying that while the committee is making progress, it is still facing “obstacles” from the Obama administration.  This brought the usual chorus of defenders for Hillary the Inevitable to the forefront. The defenders claim the terrorist attacks in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, have nothing to do with Ms. Clinton’s qualifications for the presidency.  I strongly disagree.

I'm sure everyone would want to serve under a commander who reacts to your requests for beefed up security by cutting security. You also would like a commander who sleeps through your call for support while the enemy is not only on the wire, but inside the compound. I'm sure you really want a commander who instead of taking responsibility for her bad decisions, lies about it in order to win an election. But as Hillary the Inevitable said about the 4 dead Americans and her contribution of negligence and malfeasance in office, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" That attitude says it all when it comes to how much she values their sacrifice and how much she will value our military if she wins election.

The Secretary of State is in charge of the State Department. Hillary the Inevitable had the responsibility to know about the security situation in Libya, since it was arguably the most dangerous US diplomatic post in the world. When the Secretary of State uses the excuse that she did not personally know about the security cuts in Libya, she admits dereliction of duty.

Politifact's posting that she’s blameless because she didn’t personally know what was going on in Libya fails the Bush test. If someone named Bush stated that he was not responsible for some disaster, like lack of aid to the New Orleans victims of Hurricane Katrina, because he didn't know about it, how would Liberals feel about his excuse? Would Politifact or any other outlet of the Pravda Press rate charges that Bush was responsible as Mostly False? I really don't think so. Politifact and liberals in general are both giving Hillary the Inevitable a pass because she's destined to be the Democrat's standard bearer in 2016. Liberals are setting a higher burden of proof than they would for any Republican. 

The other argument is that Republicans cut the State Department security budget and the budget cuts made Benghazi vulnerable to attack.  The budget cuts are irrelevant. The allocation of State Department security personnel did not reflect the relative risk of the posts. I will believe that the budget cuts in the Diplomatic Security Service had an effect on the Benghazi attack when you prove to me that the State Department had more security agents in Benghazi, Libya, than they did in Paris, France. There were 5 agents in Benghazi. If I remember the 2012 coverage correctly, there were over 100 in Paris at the time. Unless you are going to argue that Paris was more at risk than Tripoli or Benghazi, this was criminal negligence.

The 16 member Army Special Forces team assigned to protect State Department personnel in Libya plus a six-member State Department elite force called a Mobile Security Deployment team left Libya in August, 2012. This was about a month before the attack. The embassy in Tripoli, Libya, asked repeatedly to retain them, but their requests were denied. Here's the link:

Libya Security Cuts:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390444799904578048344154761294

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/middle-east/article24738427.html
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/may/19/ron-johnson/hillary-clintons-state-department-reduced-security/

Politifact on Clinton’s direct knowledge of Libya:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/16/fact-checking-benghazi-our-most-recent-round-/

Original article:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trey-gowdy-obama-administration-obstructing-benghazi-probe/article/2564329bama-administration-obstructing-benghazi-probe/article/2564329

Wasting Money Buying Over Engineered Aircraft

The article linked below is about how over engineered aircraft are wasting money when it comes to combat effectiveness. The whole concept of one aircraft, the F-35, for the Air Force, Navy and Marines guaranteed engineering delays and huge cost overruns. The Marines' requirement for short takeoff vertical landing required a much bulkier and heavier airframe that makes other services' models much less maneuverable. I remember that the F-111 was originally supposed to be a fighter both the Navy and the Air Force would use for both interception and tactical bombing. It ended up as a costly fiasco, which ultimately saw action only with the Air Force and only as a bomber. We should have remembered Robert McNamara's F-111 project was not the panacea that he promised. Instead, we repeated the mistake with the F-35 project.

The author mentions that for the price of one F-35, we could buy a small single purpose air to air fighter, and a single purpose ground attack bomber like the A-10 Warthog. The maintenance and flying costs of the combination would also be far lower that the F-35 and the mission readiness rate would be far higher. The Pentagon believes, almost religiously, that every airplane they buy has to be multipurpose. That's why the Air Force is trying to retire the A-10, because it only does ground attack. The fact that it does ground attack better than any other airplane we have in the inventory or plan to purchase is not enough to save the A-10, since it only does one thing. My solution is to give the A-10 in particular and the close air support mission in general to the US Army. They really appreciate the capabilities of the A-10.

I know this would require a change in the law. The Army lost almost all of its aircraft in a deal in 1948 that gave the newly established Air Force almost all current and future fixed wing aircraft. Currently, the Army can only operate helicopters as attack aircraft. But helicopters are a lot less capable and a lot more expensive to operate than "Warthogs." Congress should revoke the 1948 deal and give all the A-10 aircraft to the US Army. The Army should also be allowed to buy other fixed wing ground attack aircraft as needed in the future.

The author argues that while some stealth is worth it, super stealth is wasted on fighters because most air to air engagements are dogfights within visual range. Stealth only fools radar, not optics. Less stealth would be both cheaper to buy and cheaper to maintain.

The author's historical reference at the beginning of the article really backs up his point about overly sophisticated US aircraft. He mentions that the last air to ground casualties inflicted on US ground forces were inflicted by a PO-2 biplane. The PO-2 was a Soviet training, ground attack and crop dusting airplane made of wood and fabric. It had so little metal and flew so low and slow that US night fighters could not find it with radar.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418430/what-if-worlds-most-expensive-fighter-planes-cant-defeat-our-enemies-mike-fredenburg