Benghazi ought to be Obama’s  “Operation Eagle Claw”  but given the investment that the media has in him, I do not expect the friendly questioners in the debates to bring it up. I guess it would be asking too much to expect that Hillary Clinton’s disastrous tenure at the State Department would lower the enthusiasm for her running for the presidency in 2016.

Editorial – Wall Street Journal

In his United Nations speech on Tuesday, President Obama talked about the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and declared that “there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice.” What he didn’t say is how relentless he’ll be in tracking down the security lapses and intelligence failures that contributed to the murders. Let’s say there’s some doubt about that.

None of the initial explanations offered by the White House and State Department since the assault on the Benghazi consulate has held up. First the Administration blamed protests provoked by an amateurish anti-Islam clip posted on YouTube. Cue Susan Rice, the U.N. Ambassador and leading candidate for Secretary of State in a second Obama term: “What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction . . . as a consequence of the video, that people gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent.”

[……..]

Cell phone video footage and witness testimony from Benghazi soon undercut the Administration trope of an angry march “hijacked” by a few bad people. As it turned out, the assault was well-coordinated, with fighters armed with guns, RPGs and diesel canisters, which were used to set the buildings on fire. Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation. Briefing Congress, the Administration changed its story and said the attacks were pre-planned and linked to al Qaeda.

You’d think this admission would focus attention on why the compound was so vulnerable to begin with. But the Administration wants to avoid this conversation. The removal of all staff from Benghazi, including a large component of intelligence officers, would also seem to hinder their ability to investigate the attacks and bring the killers to justice.

Journalists have stayed on the case, however, and their reporting is filling in the Administration’s holes. On Friday, our WSJ colleagues showed that starting in spring, U.S. intelligence had been worried about radical militias in eastern Libya. These armed groups helped topple Moammar Ghadhafi last year but weren’t demobilized as a new government has slowly found its legs. As we’ve noted since last winter, the waning of American and European interest in Libya could have dangerous consequences.

[…….]

Despite all this, U.S. diplomatic missions had minimal security. Officials told the Journal that the Administration put too much faith in weak Libyan police and military forces. The night of the Benghazi attack, four lightly armed Libyans and five American security offices were on duty. The complex lacked smoke-protection masks and fire extinguishers. Neither the consulate in Benghazi nor the embassy in Tripoli were guarded by U.S. Marines, whose deployment to Libya wasn’t a priority.

Rummaging through the Benghazi compound, a CNN reporter found a seven-page notebook belonging to Ambassador Stevens. According to the network, the diary said he was concerned about the “never-ending” security threats in Benghazi and wrote that he was on an al Qaeda hit list. In deference to the family’s wishes, CNN didn’t quote directly from the diary and didn’t divulge any private information in it.

His worries are newsworthy, however, and can inform America’s response. But Mrs. Clinton’s long-time and closest media adviser chose to attack CNN. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines called the network’s conduct “disgusting.” He then deployed words not fit for a family newspaper in an exchange with a reporter for the Web site BuzzFeed. Mr. Reines may wish to protect his boss’s legacy for her 2016 Presidential run, but that won’t be enhanced by the appearance of a cover-up.

Imagine the uproar if, barely a month before Election Day, the Bush Administration had responded to a terrorist strike—on Sept. 11 no less—in this fashion. Obfuscating about what happened. Refusing to acknowledge that clear security warnings were apparently ignored. Then trying to shoot the messengers who bring these inconvenient truths to light in order to talk about anything but a stunning and deadly attack on U.S. sovereign territory.

Four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi in a terrorist attack that evidence suggests should have been anticipated and might have been stopped. Rather than accept responsibility, the Administration has tried to stonewall and blame others. Congress should call hearings to hold someone accountable for this debacle.

Read the rest – The Libya debacle

Israel’s closest ally is not Barack Obama – that should be obvious to all – but Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada.

by Lorrie Goldstein

Back in 2006, Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B’nai Brith, caused a considerable stir when he described Canada’s then-new prime minister, Stephen Harper, as the answer to the Jewish community’s prayers.

[……..]

Or, more accurately, Harper is more comfortable with the hardline policies of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on everything from confronting a nuclear Iran to maintaining Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.

But even with those qualifiers, Dimant’s remarks in praise of Harper at a B’nai Brith dinner in Toronto almost six years ago — where Harper was treated by the audience like a rock star — ring even truer today .

To many Canadian Jews, Harper is widely admired as the most unequivocally pro-Israel prime minister Canada has ever had, abandoning what his political, media and diplomatic critics describe as Canada’s historically more “nuanced” position in the Mideast as “an honest broker,” working primarily through the United Nations.

On Wednesday, which was Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, the Harper government again bolstered its standing among many Canadian Jews, when Canada’s delegation to the UN walked out of a speech at the General Assembly by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who described Israelis as “uncivilized Zionists.”

That’s just the latest in a long line of moves by the Harper government praised by mainstream Canadian Jewish organizations, as well as the Israeli government, which today appears to consider Canada its strongest international ally and closest friend.

Early in his first term as PM, for example, Harper became the first international leader to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas was elected to power.

Harper supported Israel’s controversial military campaign in its 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon, despite heavy civilian casualties and widespread international criticism of Israel.

Under Harper, Canada boycotted the UN’s 2009 Durban II anti-racism conference because of its history of anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing, and, more recently, cut off diplomatic ties with Iran, Israel’s primary antagonist in the Mideast.

In New York this week to pick up a “world statesman” of the year award from the Appeal of Conscience Foundation, Harper will meet with Netanyahu, unlike U.S. President Barack Obama who declined a face-to-face meeting with the Israeli prime minister. Despite opposition criticism in Canada, Harper won’t address the fall assembly of the United Nations, which in 2010 denied Canada a seat on the UN Security Council.

Instead, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, who has described Canada as Israel’s staunchest ally in the world, will address the UN in Harper’s place.

[……..]

By contrast, many Canadian Jews see Harper as a principled leader in an increasingly unprincipled world.

And, indeed, the answer to their prayers.

Read the rest – Israel’s staunchest ally: Stephen  Harper has transformed Canada’s Mideast policy