![]() ![]() Very oddly, the ATF encouraged arms sales to criminals in the hope that the guns would reach Mexico in order to essentially strengthen cases against Mexican drug cartels. For readers who aren’t familiar with Fast and Furious, its origins very strangely begin with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) working to encourage gun shops near the border of Mexico to sell guns to shady characters. So yes, it’s scandalous how Hillary Clinton and the feckless Obama administration acted in the aftermath of the Benghazi murders, but it says here the greater scandal is that Americans representing our government were in Benghazi at all.Īll of which brings us to the still bubbling “Fast and Furious” scandal. national security is enhanced by having troops in dangerous places like the Middle East at all. Gadhafi was a horrible man on his best day, but can anyone honestly say with certainty that future Libyan leaders will be a big improvement? After that, it would be nice to know in what ways U.S. Not asked enough is how our national security was enhanced by having State and Defense officials in Benghazi, and for that matter, in Libya at all. This writer had never heard of Benghazi before the murderous rioting there, yet the week that Christopher Stevens and three others were tragically killed I remember well a news scroll saying that over $200 million of taxpayer money had been spent on Libya-related activities ever since President Obama's decision to commit troops (all without any declaration of war) meant to force Moammar Gadhafi’s ouster. ![]() Though it should be said up front that the Obama administration handled what happened in Libya horribly, that its YouTube video excuse for the murders was embarrassing, and that Clinton has shamefully avoided addressing the tough questions that the murders have generated, isn’t the real scandal the fact that taxpayers were footing the bill for State Department officials, military support, and a “compound” in Benghazi to begin with? USC?Īll of this came to mind when reading about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s testimony on Benghazi before Congress. Taking nothing away from the correct belief in peace through strength, it would be nice to hear a defender of the military status quo explain how we’re made safer through our implicit defense of some of the richest nations on earth.Īfter that, if a strong economy is necessary for maintaining peace through strength, how is our economy strengthened by all the money spent, not to mention human capital expended, on protecting South Korea and Japan? Conservatives properly view government spending as an economic retardant, and since it is, can they honestly say there’s not substantial waste in military expenditures? Can they with a straight face defend the reality that troops in 175 countries watched Notre Dame vs. Though conservatives are often loath to admit it, small and limited government is not remotely consistent with U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |