When you think about what President Obama has done – and will continue to do to our economy – you have to laugh. If you don’t laugh, you will cry really, really hard.
Here’s why. Heritage breaks it down in great detail.
BENGHAZI. Yesterday’s Benghazi whistleblower testimonies by Gregory Hicks, Eric Nordstrom, and Mark Thompson, were powerful and exposed both glaring inadequacies in Washington’s response as well as “heroic efforts of the embassy and CIA teams on the ground in Libya.” Heritage’s Helle Dale explains:
Most impressive were the glaring contrasts contained in the testimony. Hicks’s on-the-ground testimony shows both the glaring inadequacy of Washington’s response and the heroic efforts of the embassy and CIA teams on the ground in Libya. Both aspects of this case should be explored.
Standing out in the testimony was the fact that no one, from Ambassador Stephens on down, in any way interpreted the attack as part of a demonstration. Hicks described receiving two phone calls on his cell phone from Stephens. When the two of them made contact, Stephens told him, “Greg, we are under attack.” This was unambiguous.
Back in Washington, it took Clinton until 2:00 a.m. to call Tripoli to ask what was going on. Meanwhile, Thompson testified that the FEST team, created explicitly for such emergencies, was cut out of the action and the planning of the response.
But most of all, one got a sense of how alone the U.S. personnel in Libya were.
BENGHAZI. The White House’s disinformation campaign on Benghazi has continued for nine months, and we still do not know for sure what happened:
Dramatic hearings are expected today as Gregory Hicks, a State Department official who was on the ground in Libya during the 9/11 attack when four Americans died, talks to a House panel.
Hicks’s testimony follows a House Republican Conference report and a detailed article on the “Benghazi Talking Points” in The Weekly Standard that further call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration’s response.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that (1) the Administration bungled security before the incident; (2) the response to the assault was disjointed and inadequate; and (3) the Administration made a consistent and considerable effort to hide these facts.
The timeline still does not add up.
BUDGET. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is proposing two budget gimmicks to spend $85 billion more in 2013 than allowed under sequestration. Heritage outlines the gimmicks:
1. Phantom War Savings
Reid’s proposal (S. 788) suggests placing caps on war-related spending for Iraq and Afghanistan, referred to as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO), a category otherwise exempted from the Budget Control Act caps. The savings from the caps are phony because they appear to be based on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, which assumes that OCO spending will rise, even though it’s winding down.
2. Spend Now, Save Later
Even if Reid’s savings were real, his proposal would increase spending immediately by $85 billion while cutting it by that amount over the course of three years. If it takes Reid three years to offset five months of sequestration, how long would it take to replace all of sequestration with other cuts? Too darn long for them to possibly ever materialize.
Sen. Reid should stop playing games with the budget.