Mayer is Less

Have you ever heard of Jane Mayer?  Probably not.  Mayer is a self-styled "investigative journalist" who is actually a leftist opinion writer for the New Yorker.  Her latest effort a investigative journalism is a report yesterday discussing what she calls "Ronald Reagan's Benghazi".  The article is about the attack by terrorists on the marine barracks in Beirut in 1983 that killed almost 300 people and the investigation by Congress that followed that tragedy.  Mayer points out quite correctly that the Beirut attack was much worse in its consequences than the Benghazi terror attack of 2012.  She then compares the quick investigation by Congress of Beirut which focused on how to correct what went wrong and the current round of investigations of the Benghazi attack.  Mayer's conclusion is that the big problem today is an irrational response from Congress.  I cannot tell if Mayer is sincere in her opinions expressed in this article.  I do know, however, that Mayer is either irrational or dishonest.  There are no other options.

Let's look at the differences and similarities between the attacks in Beirut and Benghazi.

1.  Both attacks were by terror groups.  Hezbollah carried out the Beirut attack and al Qaeda did the Benghazi attack through its local branch Ansar al Sharia.

2.  The presidential response to both attacks was swift.  Ronald Reagan addressed the nation about the tragedy and was heavily involved in the response.  Barack Obama did not bother to monitor the eight hour attack or the American attempts at a response.  He did, however, issue a statement when the attack ended right before he flew off to a series of fund raisers in Las Vegas. 

3.  Reagan explained to the American people what we knew about the attack.  He did not try to sugar coat the situation.  He denounced the terrorists.  Obama pretended that the attack was the result of a youtube video and hid the real facts from the American people.  Obama tried to protect his political position by telling lies about the tragedy.  Even today, the American people still do not have the answer to simple questions like (1) who came up with the youtube video phony story and (2) why have the perpetrators of the attack not been dealt with even though we know who they were and where they are.

4.  Reagan fully cooperated with the Congressional investigation.  Documents were not hidden by the White House.  Witnesses either testified openly, honestly and fully to the committee or, if there were security issues, testified to the committee in executive session.  There were no claims that the White House was engaged in a cover up.  Obama has done the opposite.  He did announce full cooperation with the investigation, but that was another lie.  Documents were hidden or else they were declared "classified" and not turned over to Congress.  Just this past week key documents were uncovered that should have been turned over to Congress 15 months ago.  They had been intentionally hidden.

The difference in the two attacks was not in the response by Congress.  The difference was in the response by the president.  Reagan did his job and tried to do what was needed to protect the American people.  Obama ignored his job and tried to do what was needed to protect himself.  Reagan put duty and honor first.  I wonder if Obama even knows what those two words mean.

One last point needs to be made.  Reagan knew that there is a difference between good and evil and that both exist in the world.  He made sure that America was on the side of good.  Obama looks at all positions as relative.  There is no true evil, on things that some folks do not like.  That is why Obama sees no harm in joining Richard Nixon as another president who will go down in history as a pathological liar.