BENGHAZI

Perhaps we forget that the Benghazi attack on our diplomatic mission happened on September 11, 2012 four years ago Curiously the fourth anniversary, like the previous three, was peaceful.   Why was there no diplomatic mission attack?  Can it be because there was no inflammatory  happening concerning Mohammad, burning or desecration of Korans, or Islam?

Republicans still like to pretend that the trigger for the Benghazi attack wasn't the anti-Mohammad movie trailer.   Vice-Presidential candidate Mike Pense is the latest Republican to try to sustain this fallacy.  After this trailer appeared, there were uprising throughout the Muslim world.  For example an embassy attack happened in Egypt before Benghazi ,and there were even more severe attacks on following days in which quite a few protesters were killed:

On September 13, protests occurred at the U.S. embassy in Sana'a, Yemen, resulting in the deaths of four protesters and injuries to thirty-five protesters and guards. On September 14, the U.S. consulate in Chennai was attacked, resulting in injuries to twenty-five protesters.^[14] Protesters in Tunis, Tunisia, climbed the U.S. embassy walls and set trees on fire. At least four people were killed and forty-six injured during protests in Tunis on September 15.^[6] Further protests were held at U.S. diplomatic missions and other locations in the days following the initial attacks. Related protests and attacks resulted in numerous deaths and injuries across the Middle East, Africa, Pakistan and Afghanistan.*

The only things unusual about Benghazi was an Ambassador being killed  and the small total of those killed totaling only 4 when 31 people were rescued.

Mitt Romney opened a whole new avenue in American politics by politicizing the Benghazi attack, the first time this was done in spite of the attack being smaller than many previous ones.  It was a terrible mistake by Romney to do this as now everything is on the table, making U.S. diplomacy very difficult.**

I repeat here my Quick Summary of Attacks on American Diplomatic Missions:
A Quick Summary Of  Attacks On Diplomatic Missions***  Since the embassy burning in Tripoli in 1979, in 1983 our embassies in Beirut, Lebanon, (63 killed) and Kuwait City, Kuwait, (6 killed) were bombed when Reagan was president along with the Marine Barracks bombing (241 American deaths) plus attacks on U.S. Embassies in Jakarta (1986) and Rome (1987) by the "Red Army" and a failed attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv (1990).  In 1998, U.S. Embassy's in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed in which hundreds died when Clinton was president.  George W. Bush had seven attacks on U,.S. facilities including the 2002 attack on the U.S. Center in Kolkata, India, (5 killed) and the U.S. consulate in Karachi, Pakistan (12 dead), 2004 the embassy bombing in Tashkent, Uzbekistan (2 killed), Jeddah Consulate bombing (6 killed), 2006 embassy attack in Damascus,Syria (1 killed), 2007 attack on the embassy in Athens, Greece, (no deaths), 2008 attacks on the consulate in Ankara, Turkey, (3 deaths), and on the U.S. embassy in Yemen (16 dead).  Under President Obama, our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked (4 killed) along with 8 other facilities and our embassy in Ankara, Turkey, was bombed in 2013 (1 killed).**

Please note that Republicans have forgiven  Ronald Reagan for the two embassy attacks (both larger than Benghazi) plus the Marine Barracks bombing  in 1983 .  Also note that President George W. Bush had 7 diplomatic mission attacks.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims
** http://stopcontinentaldrift.blogspot.com/2013/09/it-was-movie-trailer-after-all.html
*** *** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions

BENGHAZI FOREVER?

It may come as a surprise to you, as it did for me, that Congress still has a Benghzi investigation going though it happened on 9/11 in 2012 in response to an anti-Islam movie trailer, and that in the two 9/11s since then there have been no attacks on diplomatic posts that I have seen news about.  Though Benghazi was probably not the State Departments finest hour, it was actually a rather small occurrence compared to many previous attacks on our diplomatic posts, only unusual in that an American Ambassador was killed.  Perhaps some corrective action has been taken to lessen the prospects of attacks.  I have heard of a "rapid response" force that can be rushed to trouble spots quickly, for one example.

Elijah Cummings (D-MD) says that there have only been three meetings of the Select Committee on Benghazi since May but that the committee has spent $2.3 million.*  Another report says that more than $14 million has been spent so far by the committee.**  This on an investigation of an event that is 2-1/2 years old.  I think the public is long since gone on to other issues.  The radical Islamists must be laughing themselves sick over all the Congressional the response the Americans have given to Benghanzi.

*http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gowdy-gop-benghazi-clinton/2015/04/22/id/639952/?ns_mail_uid=80800736&ns_mail_job=1617799_04222015&s=al&dkt_nbr=1yhlybmx
** http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/02/pay-back-house-republicans-owe-taxpayers-14-million-benghazi-investigations.html

BENGHAZI, THE IRS, & THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

ISSA's ISSUE Frankly, I can't get excited about the endless attacks about what the Benghazi disaster was called for several days or a week after it happened.  I think that calling it a terrorist attack or a violent demonstration is a fine point.  Attacks on U.S. Embassies and Consulates have gone on for a long time, including 7 during the presidency of George W. Bush with many deaths and injuries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack)  I suspect that terrorists are laughing themselves silly about how this small attack in a backwater of Libya is tying our government into knots.  What appears to be a good, almost blow by blow account of the Benghazi disaster, appears at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack for those interested.  It may even come as a surprise that 6 state department members were rescued and 30 other Americans evacuated.

Now, I would like to see an early assessment how the 29 State Department security improvement recommendations are coming along.  Granted it is early days being less than five months since the recommendations were made, but some recommendations were probably easy to implement but others take a long time.  "The Marine Corps, for example, has said it would take years to assign more  of its troops to embassy and consulate staffs." (http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/12/tp-gop-skeptical-about-diplomatic-security-efforts/)

THE IRS and 501.C4  ORGANIZATIONS This item concerns the IRS review of the qualifications of 501.C4 organizations with the words Tea Party of Liberty in their title.  Since the Supreme Court ruling that companies are people in the Citizens United case,  a plethora of organizations have applied for 501.C4 status.  This status is for Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees.  Perhaps the most famous 501.C4 organization is the American Civil Liberties Union or ACLU.  Though these organizations must be non-profit, donors cannot take a tax deduction for donations to them.  These organizations can participate in political actions (e.g. TV ads) and lobbying, as long as the main business of the organization is for social welfare, but any advocacy of a political candidate is taxable.  A main attraction of the new organizations for this status appears to be that the names of donors need not be revealed.  Apparently these organizations do not have to have pre-approval by the IRS  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization#501.28c.29.284.29)

It is easy to believe that the 501.C4 status is abused.  Recently it was admitted that the IRS was investigating "harassing" new organizations with Tea Party and Liberty in their titles though most applicants were eventually granted.  There is a claim that the investigations of conservative groups went much farther than these two titles (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/irs-scrutiny-went-beyond-tea-party-criteria-broader-than-thought/)  Although I feel that every administration does this sort of thing, I think it is not right, and it would be good if somehow something could be done to do away with targeting of political organizations for harassment.  Though I don't view this with the righteous indignation of many politicians, current thought is that this may be the most serious action of the three items considered here.

 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS (AP) PHONE RECORDS  Personally, I think that the case of the subpoenas of reporter's work and home phone records is the most serious item in view that it seems to violate the DOJ's own guidelines.  (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/05/ap-phone-record-scandal-justice-department-law.html).  Though this may not be as bad as wire tapping without a warrant (which is allowed in some cases by the Patriot Act.*), it is pretty close.  We will have to see how this plays out, but I'm not very sympathetic about such intimidation of news sources.  There have been cases of reporters going to jail to protect their sources.

Because of my contact with Soviet scientists in the early and mid 1970s, I assumed that my phone was being tapped for many years, and I don't know what else.  If so, I doubt they found anything of interest.  In fact I felt much better when detente was over, and we were no longer sort of friends again with the Soviet Union.

* http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act

YOU CAN RATIONALIZE ANYTHING

I sit in amazement at all the comments I am hearing from American news people that the anti-Muhammad trailer (The Innocence of Muslims) release has nothing to do with the riots in the Muslim world.  Few in this country except for some American Muslims understand the global Muslim mind.  There are comments about everyone knows about our free speech in the trailer about millions of people who have never had free speech.  Others comment that everyone knows that the anti-Muhammad trailer is not a U.S. government statement.  No, they don't because nothing was ever published in their country that wasn't the official government.

It well may be that there was an attack planned on the Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 because of the armaments in the attackers' hands, but surely the anti-Muhammad trailer added intensity to it.  Of course, the anti-Muhammad movie trailer was slow to spread and got its big boost by the Imams who fanned the flames in the Friday Muslim prayers (September 14th).  After that, the demonstrations spread quickly throughout the Muslim world and were peaceful by and large.  I feel that peaceful demonstrations were quite in order.  After all, what would we do in this country if there was an equivalent movie trailer denigrating Christ?  In this case, I can easily picture some Americans seeking out American Muslims to attack.

Has everyone forgotten Salman Rushdie who received fatwa (death sentence) from Ayatollah Khomeini for publication of his 1988 book Satanic Verses because of irreverent depictions of Muhammad?  At the time there were book burnings of his book.  I have heard that the bounty on his head has recently even been increased. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie)

Has everyone forgot the furor over the burning of Korans in Afghanistan by our military last February in which four Americans lost their lives in addition to about 40 others?(http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/afghans-protest-improper-disposal-of-koran-at-us-base/2012/02/21/gIQAjhBqQR_story.html; http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/13/world/asia/video-said-to-show-marines-urinating-on-taliban-corpses.html)

It is interesting to note that American Muslims have not demonstrated against insults to Islam by the movie trailer, so far as I know.  I suspect they are living in fear of reprisals as it is.  For one tape of Islamophobia, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NutFkykjmbM

Note added September 18, 2012: A very good discussion of the effect of insults to Islam is given by Stanley Fish (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/libya-violence-and-free-speech/?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120918).  A brief excerpt:
And since for them religion is not an internal, privatized matter safe from the world’s surfaces, but an overriding imperative that the world’s surfaces should reflect, a verbal or pictorial assault on their religion will not be received as an external and ephemeral annoyance, as a “mere” representation; it will be received as a wounding to the heart, as a blow, and as a blow that is properly met by blows in return. No “sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me” for them.

Note added September 25, 2012:  Libyans reacted to armed militia's on September 21st over their attack on the U.S. Consulate and demand their dissolution: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Libyans-protest-defiant-militias-3884916.php.  We should remember that the hot-heads are usually a small minority of a country even if they number in the thousands.