↓
 
Home » “Trump’s Benghazi”

“Trump’s Benghazi”

The New Neo Posted on by

The left wants us to think of the recent Iranian-sponsored and orchestrated attacks on the US embassy in Baghdad as “Trump’s Benghazi.” This approach seems to me to be another ill-thought-out move by the anti-Trump forces.

After all, it reminds people of the actual Benghazi debacle, as well as implicitly indicating that it was a debacle on the part of the Obama administration.

It also invites contrast:

In addition, there’s this inconvenient fact.

But the MSM is pushing the idea that this reflects poorly on Trump, and they’re lying in the process:

And why shouldn’t they do this and say this? After all, it works to a certain degree, as it did with the original Benghazi. It doesn’t work as well as it used to, but the MSM still is able to construct and shape the narrative for a vast number of people, and they will not stop because the truth is dangerous to them at this point.

Comments

“Trump’s Benghazi” — 23 Comments

  1. Really, their anti-Trump bias has shut down their minds entirely. There wasn’t “peace” with Iranians under the misguided Obama policies, and the Clinton/Obama debacle in Libya unleashed horrors well beyond the murders of our people at Benghazi. In this case, our people are safe, and an effort to create a hostage or mass murder situation in our Embassy failed. The militia have withdrawn, at least for the time being.

  3. I may be overly optimistic, but I don’t think that the MSM will be able to shape the narrative on this one at all- the contrast is just too stark. Trump’s quick, forceful and successful response vs. Obama’s bumbling and ultimately disastrous non-response, followed by a series of lies to the American people. Also, it makes the MSM seem to be actually rooting for the militants in order to make Trump look bad- not a good look. Their bringing up Benghazi is actually a gift to Trump.

  4. I can not believe the MSM & dems would ever want to resurrect Benghazi in any way shape manner or form. They handled it so badly, that ghastly performance can never be duplicated . And obama went to his fundraiser. Another win for Trump.

  5. The Democrats have been vacillating between making own goals and broadcasting the Streisand effect since Trump won the election.
    We would know very little, if anything about the CIA-DOJ-FBI coup cabal if they had just accepted his win, looked after their legacy constituencies, and admitted Hillary was a terrible candidate.
    But noooooo, they had to start throwing the rocks at Trump that their slugs were hiding under.
    I think the trophy for “Party of Stupid” changed hands in 2017.

  6. Conservative Treehouse was all over the Iraq debacle yesterday; this tweet thread covered a lot of important territory. (And I HATE Twitter, but this one was at least coherent.)

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Doranimated/status/1212000469813465089

    Same stuff unrolled at Threadreader.

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1212000469813465089.html

    Bottom line:
    “What is this anti-American protest in Baghdad about? This picture tells it all. Protesters, presumably from Kata’ib Hizballah, scrawl, “Qassem Soleimani is our leader” on the US embassy wall. Soleimani is the leader of Iran’s Qods Force. He built the Iraqi militias.”

  7. https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/12/31/757769/

    It is worth noting, yet again, how the Obama administration’s slavish obeisance to Iran destroyed American credibility and influence in the region. When the history of this is written we’ll see that Obama was following a foreign policy of gifting the region to Iran and setting Iran up to be a counterweight to, one has to believe, Israel. Iraq was given over to Iran by Obama, Iranian thugs were feted by the Obama administration, the Iran nuclear agreement was signed to curry their favor, when they pirated two US Navy vessels and ten sailors there were no consequences, and on the eve of leaving the White House, we had the unsightly spectacle of US Air Force aircraft delivering pallets of currency to the Iranians.

  8. Good news, and how the NYT just can’t deal with it.
    https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/01/01/the-new-york-times-continues-to-gaslight-about-the-iraqi-embassy-attack/

    The siege of the U.S. Iraqi Embassy has ended, with the Iranian militias finally dispersing in the face of 100 Marines and Apache helicopters loitering overhead. No one was hurt and the embassy was secured without being breached. Despite ridiculous comparisons by some, this was nothing like Benghazi and actually showed how effective an immediate show of force can be. That was something Americans were denied by the Obama administration as they were left to die in 2012.

    Despite the relatively positive outcome to this latest ordeal, the media still has to do their thing. Most have spent the last 24 hours describing the attackers as “protestors” despite the fact that they are clearly organized, Iranian led militias.
    …
    Why is this particularly egregious? Because the Times is attempting to conflate these violent militias with peaceful Iraqi protestors. Worse, those same militias were actually responsible for massacring those same peaceful protestors just a month prior. Why? Because most Iraqis want Iran’s influence out of their country and the Iranian proxies didn’t take too kindly to that notion. It’s been those backing the Mullahs who have actually murdered people for protesting Iran’s actions.
    …
    The Times also pushed the false narrative that this embassy attack was in response to actions by Trump, namely him ordering a retaliatory airstrike. In reality, the attack had been building for months, with numerous calls from Iran to attack the facility.
    …
    At this point, is it really outrageous to accuse these outlets of being enemies of the people? I know that language from Trump leads to gnashing of teeth among a certain sect, but when it reaches the level of shilling for a violent terrorist regime, perhaps the label is warranted?

  10. After some useful information about the timeline and events:
    https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2020/01/01/president-trumps-benghazi-has-ended-much-better-than-hillary-clintons-did/

    This is how things are done and it is a clear sign that professionals, not the Ben Rhodes story hour crew in the Obama National Security Council, are in charge. A major incident was prevented through prior planning, the US demonstrated that it will not hesitate to kill Iranian-hired militias when they kill Americans, the deployment of additional US forces to the US embassy was timely and the measured response told the militias that it was time to wind their street theater down, and we avoided the public affairs disasters of either a US embassy being sacked and Americans killed and taken hostage or US troops stacking up dead, unarmed demonstrators inside the embassy compound.

    It is obvious that the Left & Democrats preferred the first “either” to the second “or”.

  11. Is anyone still wondering how the “protestors” were able to so quickly enter what was supposedly the most secure area in the Middle East?

    https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2020/01/01/report-head-of-green-zone-is-buddy-of-man-behind-iran-backed-militias/

    In looking at what happened during the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on Tuesday, the U.S. did pretty much everything right, responding quickly and coming to the defense of its personnel.

    But the question was how did all those militiamen get into the Green Zone, the heavily fortified area around the embassy, to begin with? That area is supposed to be protected and prevent such things from happening. Iraqi security is also supposed to help defend the embassy, as local security does for all our embassies, but especially in Baghdad, a more dangerous area.

    Michael Doran is an American expert on the international politics of the Middle East.
    …
    today he’s pointing to a big problem, not just for the future safety of the embassy but for our position in Iraq against Iran.

    In a very edifying series of tweets, Doran talks about a report by Alhurra identifying the new head of security for the Green Zone.
    …
    How did that security move work out? Well, here’s what happened yesterday when the militia members showed up at the door to the zone.
    …
    They basically offered no real defense and threw the doors open.

    Followed by lots of information on Al-Aboudi, who is “a trusted subordinate of Qassem Soleimani, the head of the Qods Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).”

    Iranian terrorists are to Iraqi protestors as Antifa is to American Civil Rights marchers.

  13. The MSM is digging its own grave and demonstrating that “those whom the gods would destroy… they first make mad”

  14. I have two competing scenarios in my head about the leftist response to this event.

    One, they know all about what happened in Benghazi but were lying to deceive the public back then to deflect blame from their precious Obama and his gloriously creased pants. Thus, their sudden use of “Benghazi” as an attack-slur against the demon Trump now is an admission that the event was in fact a scandal and the critics of Barry’s response were right. Aesop Fan has already made note of this possibility.

    Two, they don’t know anything at all about what actually happened or why non-leftists consider “Benghazi” the name of a shameful scandal. But they assume it was simply because an embassy was attacked, somehow. Thus, now this is Trump’s Benghazi, because it is. Don’t ask them to explain any details about actual events, because they have no idea what you could be talking about.

    But since I’m talking about leftists, I figure both are true. The left is a shameless collection of liars and an appallingly ignorant set of fools.

    I’m not a fan.

  15. In 2012, Trump tweeted: “Obama will go down as the worst President in history on many topics but especially foreign policy.” Short and to the point.

    The contrast between similar incidents is too stark to ignore or propagandize away. A lot of complicated topics remain obscure to the public at large. Americans in mortal danger in an embassy, however, is not complicated. In one case, they ended up dead because of Obama and Clinton. In the other case, Trump nipped things in the bud before it could go south.

    I’m beginning to think there is a chance we will see Obama et. al. get the comeuppance they so richly deserve.

  16. Xennady on January 1, 2020 at 6:54 pm said:
    I have two competing scenarios in my head about the leftist response to this event
    * * *
    Your comment brought to mind the cluelessness of the Left about Kerry and the Swift Boat Veterans. To this day, they use the term “swift boated” to mean “viciously attacked by lying conservatives” as opposed to the more accurate “outed as a shameless liar by people who know the truth.”

  18. https://libertyunyielding.com/2020/01/01/from-iran-and-iraq-to-the-politics-of-leadership-old-problems-new-conditions-and-perhaps-a-constant-america-usher-in-the-2020s/

    …
    We can’t predict how the current crisis in Iraq will go, because the American president isn’t like his immediate predecessors – or indeed, like most of our post-World War I presidents (and yes, I mean World War I). Trump doesn’t rub bromides on political crises like a topical ointment. He doesn’t like using military operations as policy tokens; he prefers to use military operations for their most straightforward purpose: changing situations on the ground, in order to decisively affect the will of the opponent.

    We saw that with the response to the rocket attack on Kirkuk, in which an American contractor was killed. On Sunday, Trump could have attacked the headquarters and weapons stores of the Iran-backed militias in response. <b But instead he attacked Iran’s highest-value assets in the Syria-Iraq theater: the proxy forces that occupy the border crossing points at Al Qaim, Iraq, and Al Bukamal, Syria. These are the key-terrain guardians of Iran’s tenuously-held land bridge across Mesopotamia.
    Iran’s whole vision of regional dominance and apocalyptic fulfillment depends on the land bridge. This time, the U.S. strikes were not devastating. But they went for the jugular – on a stretched tether for Iran, they achieved a meaningful effect – and demonstrated that they could be devastating, in a way that striking only the PMF logistics inside Iraq would not have been. The PMF base locations can always be added to any campaign to disrupt the land bridge, since the PMFs’ power in Iraq is a key component of holding the land bridge. But the point this time was to show that it’s Iran’s whole endgame that’s at risk. America won’t be suckered into fighting on Iran’s schedule; we’re already executing a longer-visioned strategy, which starts with unbearable pressure on the regime in the economic and political realms, and is currently relying on containment in the military realm. Crush the regime itself, and the land bridge will revert to some real estate fled by ghosts.
    The U.S. strikes were a true “reprisal” against the attack in Kirkuk, and not just a retaliation. A reprisal seizes back the initiative, on the terms of the party executing the reprisal. Done well, a reprisal is extremely informative for the attacker – which is why Iran is now testing the Trump administration for its level of will and intent at the embassy in Baghdad. The world is not actually betting against Trump, however much Ben Rhodes may be.

    Dyer also posts one of Neo’s favorite poems, and two others for the New Year:
    The Second Coming

    William Butler Yeats, 1919

    Turning and turning in the widening gyre
    The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  19. “…digging…”

    As the latest reporting spinning wildly out of Baghdad demonstrates (not that it needs demonstrating at this stage of the game), for the MSM, BS has become the standard.

    (Ergo, the BSM?)

    As a result, anything—and everything—is TRUTH (as long as it aligns with “The Narrative”). Anything—and everything—is possible.

    It helps, of course, if you spew this crap non-step—if you just cram it down their throats (as one very observant National Socialist in charge of “information” was fond of saying…).

  22. You’d think that the MSM and Democrats would very quietly tiptoe away from bringing up any references to “Benghazi,” but they can’t resist.

    You’d think that they wouldn’t do things re Trump’s Impeachment that would shine the light on Biden, his son Hunter, and on their shady and spectacularly lucrative dealings in the Ukraine and China, and the subject of “quid-pro-quos,” but they couldn’t resist.

    Benghazi is an unfinished case that certainly should be revisited, and be subjected to an honest and thorough investigation but, with so much other shady crap having come after, its hard not to focus on today’s shady piece of crap, at the expense of delving into those of yesterday.

    P.S.–I’m hoping that–short of war–there are still more things that the U.S. can do to Iran to make them “feel the pain” for their inspiring/directing the attack against our Embassy.

  23. Above I quoted J. E. Dyer: “Trump doesn’t rub bromides on political crises like a topical ointment. He doesn’t like using military operations as policy tokens; he prefers to use military operations for their most straightforward purpose: changing situations on the ground, in order to decisively affect the will of the opponent.”

    That didn’t take long.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/pentagon-declares-us-killed-qassim-soleimani-on-trumps-orders

    Only one of the about 20 posts I’ve read tonight.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑