Libya Pt. 67: Benghazi Never Happens if Obama Doesn’t Attack Gaddafi

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Audio and Transcript – Our intervention is a realm of the world, a territory of the world that is 7,000 miles away, for, seems to me anyway, the purpose of guaranteeing that large oil companies can continue doing business there in some manner safely, continue the harvesting and transportation of petroleum products from the Arabian Peninsula to places like Europe where they can’t produce what they need, to the United States who voluntarily shut our own production down so that we could partake of what was coming to us from the Middle East.  Ladies and gentlemen, much of this is and was and remains avoidable.  The point that Governor Romney had the president on, although he had him for all the wrong reasons, in that last debate was about “How many permits did you shut down?”  “I’m perfectly happy to answer the question.”  No, you’re not.  You’re not going to answer the question.  He had him on the right point. Check out the rest in today’s audio and transcript….

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Mary Ann is in Connecticut.  Hello, Mary Ann.

Caller Mary Ann:  Hi, how are you?

Mike:  I am well, thank you.

Caller Mary Ann:  I like the way you say Connecticut because people in Connecticut drop their T’s.  They just don’t say them.  Thank you for saying the T’s.  It shows you I live here but I don’t feel like I belong here.  That being said, on the Benghazi issue with Libya, this is not about being hawkish or in terms of being an isolationist.  This is a prime example of incompetency and a lack of leadership from Obama.  What we needed was a president with the foresight to understand how to protect his Americans, his diplomats.  He couldn’t do that, even though he says he was meeting every Thursday morning with his Secretary of State, the only cabinet official he says he has regular meetings with, despite his missing 62 percent of all his daily presidential briefings for national security.  Then he couldn’t think ahead on this one?  What question what he putting forward?  A real leader is the one that comes with the questions to his cabinet member and says, “What plans in place do we have?  What are you seeing on the ground?  What’s your chatter?  We’ve got September 11th coming forward.”

In the absence of any of that, it points to a horrible competency level for this president and this administration.  This is not about being hawkish or wanting to go to war.  Remember what he said when he was campaigning against McCain?  “I know how to multitask.”  This president doesn’t know how or doesn’t want to multitask.  His number one job is to keep our Americans safe.  He has failed at that, he’s failed at the economy, and now this.  This whole thing about leading from behind, I guess that was his terminology.  There is no leading from behind.  He is no leader at all.  With all these things coming forward, it’s almost feeling like Benghazi was Fast and Furious but on an international level.

Mike:  Was the bungling of the Stevens mission — I’m not so convinced that Stevens and the CIA that were there and the Seal team there, that they were there for the purposes that the official storyline is.  [mocking] “They were there to assist the democracy.”  The more I hear about this, the less likely I think that scenario is.  Again, Mary Ann, did they bungle it?  Yeah.  Is any administration that is in charge of labyrinth and a set of bureaucrats and agents that large going to bungle things?  You better believe it.  There’s going to be bungling because of the sheer scale of it.  That doesn’t excuse what the president did.

What is inexcusable is the original sin.  If he does not violate his sacred oath of office, if he takes seriously that he may not commit war-like actions against another country without congressional authorization — he has no right to lead from behind or lead in any event of war, unless he is authorized to by the Congress.  The Congress refused to authorize such action.  If that is never taken, then Gaddafi may still be the leader, whether we like it or not — and all indications were that in the last ten years, Colonel Gaddafi was actually an ally and not an enemy — so if Gaddafi is still president, there is no al-Qaeda roaming the streets of Libya because Gaddafi would have them shot.  It couldn’t happen, just like when Saddam Hussein, another ally of ours that we assisted in the death of.  It’s like when Saddam Hussein was in charge.  There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq.  Why?  Because Saddam would not allow it.

When Michael Scheuer was on this program I asked him a question about Iraq and he lit up.  When I say lit up, I mean he got passionate about it.  Remember, this was the man that tracked bin Laden around the Middle East for a decade before 9/11.  Scheuer was like this was the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of the United States, maybe in the world.  Saddam Hussein, Michael Scheuer said, was our ally.  He was the biggest ally that we had and we treated him as that.  It wasn’t until the rabblerousing decepticons, you people call them neocons, began to gain power inside the first Bush administration that the bloom off the Saddam as ally rose began to appear here.

Our intervention is a realm of the world, a territory of the world that is 7,000 miles away, for, seems to me anyway, the purpose of guaranteeing that large oil companies can continue doing business there in some manner safely, continue the harvesting and transportation of petroleum products from the Arabian Peninsula to places like Europe where they can’t produce what they need, to the United States who voluntarily shut our own production down so that we could partake of what was coming to us from the Middle East.  Ladies and gentlemen, much of this is and was and remains avoidable.  The point that Governor Romney had the president on, although he had him for all the wrong reasons, in that last debate was about “How many permits did you shut down?”  [mocking Obama] “I’m perfectly happy to answer the question.”  No, you’re not.  You’re not going to answer the question.  He had him on the right point.

This would go all the way back to the Carter administration when the scheme was hatched that hey, we can enrich our buddies in the military manufacturing sector and our international conglomerate corporate buddies that want to explore for all this Arabian oil.  We can do all this at the same time.  Talk about a great scheme, and it’ll work, too.  All we have to do is get a bunch of Joe six-packs to believe that these people who have posed little threat unless we have traded or have sent trading vessels to their neck of the woods, that these people over there want to kill all of us.  So the groundwork was laid.

I don’t believe you’re going to hear from either one of the two tonight that a complete drawdown of efforts, military deployments and efforts in the Middle East is warranted.  You can bring all the troops home from Germany, Italy, all the places they are stationed around the globe.  At the least, they would at least be spending the money we borrowed from China to have them over there, at least they’d have to spend it here.

End Mike Church Show Transcript