Jodi-Arias.jpg

If Only Jodi Arias Had Yelled, “Allahu Akbar!”

I haven’t followed the case very closely, but I get the impression that, by inflicting 27 to 30 stab wounds (depending on the news source) in addition to slitting her lover’s throat and shooting him, Jodi Arias may have inflicted more wounds than even OJ Simpson was accused of dispensing. If only she had yelled, “Allahu Akbar,” or at least done things Kermit Gosnell-style, and said that she was merely performing a very-very-late-term-abortion, things may have worked out differently for her. Come to think of it, had she the foresight to kill as many potential opponents as possible, she could have been given a small country to run, along with the undying adulation of the New York Times editorial board. Castro is getting old after all, Hugo Chavez is dead, and Sean Penn needs someone new to admire. 

What-Difference-Does-it-Make.jpgImagine for a moment all of the heavy hitters, with their heavy gravitas, gravitating from one piece of chicanery to the next. Hillary Clinton could have testified, presumably having as much knowledge of the Arias case as she claims to have had of security problems at Benghazi, and thundered, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” before receiving the MSNBC Distinguished Award for Indignant Ignorance. For his part, Jay Carney could have employed his boyish charm and pugnacious dishonesty to simultaneously deride the murder as old news and call out the prosecution for politicizing the issue. They could have even jailed a film maker.  

For that matter, if Jodi Arias had murdered Travis Alexander as an act of jihad, she would have benefited from the Attorney General’s announcement that no backlash would be tolerated, and that the full weight of the US Justice Department would come crashing down like thunder on the head of anyone guilty of Anti-Ariasism. And if no such acts were forthcoming, the Council on American-Islamic Relations would have fabricated a few just to give the media something — anything — to talk about besides the murder.  

Major newspapers would have implored us to understand the rage and address the root causes. Maybe Jodi didn’t make the soccer team. Maybe it was George Bush’s fault. The US Army could have conducted social actions seminars for the troops, warning them of any extremists who might question Ms. Arias’ motives. For his part, Dana Milbank could have described the story as, “…a made-for-Hollywood plot with slow, theatrical delivery and genuine emotion,” but reluctantly conclude that the story would, “…not be much use…”

The preceding being rank nonsense of course, primarily because Jodi Arias didn’t claim Islamic motives for her butchery, it bears reminding that the same arguments, methodology, and pathologies described above have comprised the liberal response to Islamist attacks in general and the Benghazi attack in particular. How else to explain the yawning indifference that greeted the news that an event reported by those on-scene as an attack, was, for days and weeks thereafter, referred to as a ‘spontaneous demonstration’ whose roots lay in an obscure YouTube video?  And what, in retrospect, ought we to make of the Presidential statement that was made on the day of the attack? 

This attack on the American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it’s disgusting, it breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives for the cause of freedom, and justice, and honor.  

… America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We’ll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles in our Constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.

That statement had a lot going for it, encapsulating the horrific reality of the attack and, with one glaring problem, speaking to American resolve in the face of savagery. The glaring problem, incidentally, was the fact that President Obama never made that statement.  Governor Romney did, for which trouble he was vilified by people who’ve spent the intervening months either ignoring the facts of the Benghazi attack or actively covering them up. As for the President’s response, we turn to a video that you paid for, starring the President and then-Secretary of State Clinton. From the President’s remarks: 

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None.

And if that doesn’t put the fear of some deity or other into the radicals, Secretary Clinton delivered the following ultimatum: 

Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

From resolution of this magnitude, Islamic attacks will spring eternal. The crowning crime of it all is that, even as they spoke this pusillanimous pablum into the camera, they knew bloody good and well that a video had nothing to do with this; that it wasn’t a spontaneous uprising, but rather a coordinated and planned attack. They knew this from real-time reports from the battle. They knew this because they had been warned by the intelligence community and by the diplomatic staff in Benghazi that something was brewing. Secretary Clinton knew because she had rejected requests for increased security, and it was her State Department that was busy re-writing administration talking points, deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA’s earlier warnings.  

Benghazi-KIA.jpgThis is neither a botched burglary nor a trade of arms for hostages. Four Americans are dead due to inadequate security in the face of a known and growing threat, and a steadfast refusal to send reinforcements to the battle.  The response afterward was to obfuscate, lie, and denigrate anyone who sought the truth in order to get through the election. We now know that Special Forces personnel were ready to roll, but were told to stand down. We know that people within the State Department who wanted to tell the truth were instructed by State Department lawyers to remain silent and, in some cases, were subject to retribution.  

What we don’t know yet, but might still find out, is what exactly the President did during the attack. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the utterly regrettable Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, have both testified that, aside from a 15 minute discussion in the Oval Office, neither of them heard from the President through the remainder of the evening, even as our Ambassador and three others were being murdered.  

Where was he? Did he give the “stand down” orders to Special Forces personnel? He has promised a thorough review, and his administration has followed through on that promise by trying to muzzle people like Gregory Hicks. It’s time for the President to be truthful on his actions that fateful night. And it’s time for the House to convene a Special Committee on Benghazi with full subpoena power. It shouldn’t be that difficult, really. Just pretend it’s as important as Jodi Arias. 

  1. J. D. Fitzpatrick

    The opening paragraphs are the best American political satire that I have read in a very long time. Actually, so good, that at this moment I can’t remember having read better. 

  2. Mike LaRoche

    Great post, Dave, as always,

    Regarding Jodi Arias, Steve Stockman made a similar point via Twitter a few days ago: StockmanArias.jpg
  3. DocJay

    There is a massive war going on right now between the Clinton and the Obama camp as to

    1) Can we bribe and threaten our way out of this one too?

    2)Do we have to throw someone under the bus?

    3) Will it stick if we put a minor player there?

    4) If major players are going down, what the negotiations are as to whom.

    I promise you that this is an ongoing fight right now,  but meanwhile  the minions of the president and the Clintons are pressuring Boehner and everyone involved in Wednesday’s hearing.  Bribes are being offered and if the pork won’t cut it then the threats.   Plata  O Plomo,  Silver or Lead, are the choices for those who could give us the truth.

    This country should be bigger than some politicians selfish desires.  It should be bigger than focusing on some crazy slut with a knife instead of a Nazi child butcher with scissors.  

    Our president has been caught in a whopper of a lie.  They impeach people for that if circumstances are right.  That won’t happen but this is a moment of truth.  

    Boehner, I’m looking at you :-(.   Be a Man!

  4. kylez

    This was a really well-written piece.

    Perhaps if Arias had killed him at his job she could then claim it as “workplace violence.” 

  5. Dave Carter
    C
    kylez: This was a really well-written piece.

    Perhaps if Arias had killed him at his job she could then claim it as “workplace violence.”  · 57 minutes ago

    I knew I had left something out….

  6. Chris Campion

    I’m thinking that the truth of what happened has become so blatantly obvious that even the WH press corps can’t ignore it anymore, and they can’t be happy that a) they were lied to, but more b) that now, the WH press corps knows that everyone ELSE knows that they were lied to.

    I think it’s one thing to be “in” on things.  It’s another to be in on them, when it’s your job to report the truth, and now everyone else knows you’re not doing your job.  You can only ignore the elephant in the room for so long.

    I’ll throw my 2 cents in now:  I’m thinking Carney doesn’t have a job much longer.  He’s overdue to resign, anyway, they usually don’t last this long.  He’s a tenacious little tickboy, isn’t he?

  7. Dave Carter
    C
    Chris Campion: I’m thinking that the truth of what happened has become so blatantly obvious that even the WH press corps can’t ignore it anymore, and they can’t be happy that a) they were lied to, but more b) that now, the WH press corps knows that everyone ELSE knows that they were lied to.

    I think it’s one thing to be “in” on things.  It’s another to be in on them, when it’s your job to report the truth, and now everyone else knows you’re not doing your job.  You can only ignore the elephant in the room for so long.

    I’ll throw my 2 cents in now:  I’m thinking Carney doesn’t have a job much longer.  He’s overdue to resign, anyway, they usually don’t last this long.  He’s a tenacious little tickboy, isn’t he? · in 2 minutes

    Baghdad Bob was tenacious too.   I saw a portion of today’s WH press briefing, and the thing was quickly degrading into parody.  If he had a shred of integrity, he’d refer all questions to the President and then resign immediately.  

  8. Larry3435

    25 years later, and I still don’t understand what is wrong with trading arms for hostages, especially when the arms were going to be used to kill Saddam’s Republican Guard.

  9. Ajax von Kaiserpenguin

    Ms. Arias makes a great case for retroactive abortion.

  10. das_motorhead
    Dave Carter

    Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the utterly regrettable Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, have both testified that, aside from a 15 minute discussion in the Oval Office, neither of them heard from the President through the remainder of the evening [. . .]

    Oh, please, General Dempsey, take a number. Obama has been working for me for over four years and I still haven’t heard anything from him.

    Obama-Golf.jpg

    (image pulled from The Telegraph)

  11. das_motorhead

    Brilliant work as always, Dave. +1 on J.D.’s comment

  12. Robert E. Lee

    Jodi whatshername is the “pretty white girl in trouble du jour” of the main stream media.  It’s a shame a pretty white girl isn’t involve in the Benghazi story; if there were maybe there would be more media attention.

  13. DocJay

    Robert E Lee, you mean Hiliary and her cankles don’t do it for you?

  14. David Williamson

    Tell us what you really think, Dave.

  15. Robert E. Lee
    DocJay: Robert E Lee, you mean Hiliary and her cankles don’t do it for you? · 12 hours ago

    Nope nope nope!