2020 Ethics Launch, January 1: “The Anti-Benghazi”

Let’s get 2020 off to a great start…

1. Though this story doesn’t qualify: Taking his cue, apparently, from the November incident (which I wrote about here) where a Kiefer, Oklahoma police officer dropped by Starbucks on Thanksgiving Day to buy drinks for his department’s 911 dispatchers and every cup in the order was labeled with the word “PIG,” a police officer in Kansas resigned this week after admitting he had fabricated a story that a McDonald’s employee wrote”PIG” on  his coffee cup.

The fake hate speech (actually it’s not hate speech when someone denigrates a police officer, because, as Black Lives Matter has explained, they deserve it) claim unraveled when McDonald’s produced video footage that proved its employees had not written anything on the cup.  Then the he 23-year-old officer then admitted he had lied about the supposed incident “as a joke.”  Well, at least he has a future in comedy.

I find it refreshing that for once one of these hoaxes was not executed by a minority group or social justice activist. This isn’t going to do much for police-community relations across the country, however.

2. Good: Rejecting the models of Carter and Obama. News Item:

The Pentagon dispatched about 750 paratroopers from the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East in response to an attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad by Iranian-backed militia fighters, Defense Secretary Mark Esper announced on yesterday.

“This deployment is an appropriate and precautionary action taken in response to increased threat levels against U.S. personnel and facilities, such as we witnessed in Baghdad today,” Esper said in a statement, “The United States will protect our people and interests anywhere they are found around the world.”

About 100 Marines have already arrived at the embassy in Baghdad to reinforce security after Tuesday’s attack by Popular Mobilization Forces, which are Shiite militias that Iran has used as proxy forces inside Iraq and Syria.

Before the deployment was announced, President Donald Trump tweeted that Iran would be held “fully responsible” for the deaths of any U.S. personnel or damage to American facilities in Iraq. “They will pay a very BIG PRICE!” Trump tweeted. “This is not a Warning, it is a Threat. Happy New Year!” Tuesday’s embassy assault came just days after the U.S. military launched airstrikes on the Iranian-backed militia Kata’ib Hezbollah in retaliation for a rocket attack on a base in Kirkuk that killed an American contractor and wounded several U.S. service members.

it is just amazing the reflex Trump critics have the gall to openly compare this to Banghazi. For once, a Trump tweet is concise, accurate, and justified:

Observe which of your friends and relatives attempts to criticize this decision. Mark them as  so biased they can’t see straight, and if this American President receives anything but overwhelming public support for using our military to retaliate for a direct attack on our people and property, it will be the first time. Meanwhile, the Benghazi comparison is, as Rick says when Elsa mention’s Paris, “poor salesmanship.” A conservative wag on Twitter wrote, “We sent a hundred Marines to beef up security at the US embassy in Baghdad, and our ambassador didn’t even have to send 29 cables begging for them first.”

Exactly.

It is also amazing to me, though this confession reflects poorly on my learning curve, that the mainstream media appears to be deliberately misleading the public on this. It has generally not mentioned, for example, that Qais al-Khazali is among the Iranian proxies behind the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. Khazali, who was behind the kidnapping and murder of five US soldiers in Karbala in 2007, was released by the Obama administration in 2009 in a prisoner exchange.

The news media has also, so far, called the attackers “protesters,” though they are in fact Iranian militia personnel.

I can’t wait to see what the Democratic Presidential hopefuls say. Would it be unfair to opine that some of them are hoping for a U.S. disaster?

14 thoughts on “2020 Ethics Launch, January 1: “The Anti-Benghazi”

  1. Thought I had read one of the organizers of the attack had actually visited Obama in The White House. Hope I read that wrong.

    Any equating of this with Benghazi is patently ridiculous. The actions of the US government and apparent results could not be more different.

    The fact no one has accused Obama of abuse of power to benefit himself via lies and false imprisonment of a lowly film maker to protect his 2012 electsbility is beyond belief to me to this day.

  2. First of all, Happy 2020! May it be filled with good health and success.

    Now, for the cop hoax. I’ve said before that police officers should be held to a higher standard than civilians, and this is one example where I think it was managed properly. A resignation is the right course because it is the only way to maintain trust in the police force. It’s a tough balance these days though, because you do not want to appear to grovel to the masses for that one individual, so a sincere apology from the force and swift action is in my view the way to go.

    • Back in the day we were called pigs on a regular basis. The black panthers had a coloring book for the kids showing police officers with pig faces being shot by black warriors. What did we do? We assumed the moniker. I still have my belt buckle: “PIG- Patience-Integrity-Guts” and I wear it often. I don’t know what happened to my pig tie-tack, however. Adapt and carry on is the best approach. The Chief banned the buckles and tie tacks on uniforms and/or civilian work attire.

      I cannot think of why this kid thought this was a good idea… writing “pig” on his cup to differentiate from the others, maybe,, but claiming the coffee people wrote it there was stupid, and its a good thing that someone of his judgement is no longer wearing the badge.

      Happy New Year to all…..

      I explained to someone just today that some sand people are about to learn why 100 “leather-heads” (as we called them) is an ample number to demonstrate how that organization got its reputation. The 82nd, is the frosting on the Non-Bengazi” cake.

      • I always thought it was “leather necks” from the leather collar stiffeners they once wore. And I absolutely agree that 100 of them should solve any problem.

        • You are correct, It is “neck” officially. Inter-service rivalry does this. Almost none of my former colleagues in arms had faces like dogs, but nonetheless…

          • Too true. Looking in the mirror, I can’t really say I see any resemblance to a tread. Never-the-less, I am still called a “tread-head”.

  3. #1 is really easy. The action was unnecessary and a lie while in the discharge of one’s duties. What jury is ever going to believe a cop who lied to get a barista in trouble? He is compromised and can’t do his job.

    #2 The New York Times went “protesters” one better by referring to the attackers as “mourners.” It’s pretty obvious whose side they are on. I’m not sure if they’d have been called something else if this had happened on a Democratic watch. The response, a quick reinforcement of the embassy and a deployment of troops in a show of force, was a textbook example of what to do when an embassy is attacked, and obviously it’s a major contrast with Benghazi. I’m not sure it makes a difference in the eyes of the left, though. If a Democratic president did the same thing, he’d be praised for “taking decisive action.” If a Democratic president did nothing, he’d be praised for his “restraint” and for “allowing diplomacy time to work.” A Republican president, especially Trump, who makes a large show of force is deemed “reckless” and “heavy-handed,” while if he restrained himself he’d be criticized for putting our people in danger.

    To ask your last question is to answer it. No, you would not be unfair if you opined that some of the Democratic hopefuls are hoping for a US foreign policy or military disaster. All of them want a disaster to happen that they can pin on Trump to weaken his position. So much the better if some American servicemen lose their lives so they can say “Trump, their blood is on your hands!” Some of them, Bernie probably topping the list, are opposed to strong foreign policy and military action as a matter of principle. Honestly, I can’t even guess how a President Sanders would answer a 3 a.m. phone call reporting something like this. I can guess that a President Biden would tap John Kerry or some equivalent (probably not Jimmy Carter or George Mitchell, who are both way too old) to become “special envoy to the Middle East” to “put a peace process in place,” that would accomplish nothing, but make it look like we were doing something.

    • Every thing the progressives have been doing is designed to weaken Trump geopolitically. If Trump winds up using overwhelming force it will be because the anti-Trump forces have effectively eliminated his ability to negotiate from a position of strength. Seems like they are abusing their office for personal political gain.

      • Of course they are, because Democrat political gain = America’s gain, in their view, of course. This year is their big chance to save flyover America from itself.

  4. The cop hoax was perpetrated by a 23-year old who had been a police Officer for two months. The coffee was was delivered to him when he was off-duty, so presumably not in uniform. The thing that is not being mentioned is the police chief making this thing public by taking his outrage at that story to Facebook without verifying the facts, doubling down on dumb.

  5. Where are the 50 million climate refugees?

    https://ethicsalarms.com/2011/04/17/global-warming-advocates-flunk-ethics-and-credibility-again

    The evidence for global warming is pretty overwhelming, though still possessing some holes, and the likelihood is that much of the change is man-made. That’s about as far as the scientific evidence goes, however, without getting into serious controversy. The dire climate chance projections continue to be questionable at best, which poses problems for environmentalists who want to use climate change as a wedge to shut down industry, and alarmists who are frightened out of their wits by science they really don’t understand. Rather than demonstrate that the science is unbiased and credible by acknowledging the uncertainty, the global warming community, including elected officials with agendas, radical anti-industrialists, various research, political and advocacy groups and a depressing number of scientists who know better—and Al Gore…can’t forget Al!—have resorted to outrageous scare tactics and apocalyptic “projections.”

    Now that it should be clear that the chances of the United States crippling its economy and sinking billions of dollars into measures designed to forestall a climate change disaster that is highly speculative and might not be stoppable anyway are less than Donald Trump’s chances of moving into the White House, the strategy of making “The Day After Tomorrow”-style “scientific projections” is getting more shrill and absurd. This is not only unethical, but reckless and counterproductive, because it makes global warming science less credible with every exaggerated claim.

    In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme solemnly predicted that global warming would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. The UNEP projected that these displaced millions would be forced to flee climate-linked disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and catastrophic disruptions in food production. On its website, the UNEP posted a map showing where many of those refugees would come from, including low lying islands in the Pacific and Caribbean.

    Did you read about these horrible disasters? See the hoards of wandering refugees on CNN? You didn’t, because the projection, as climate-related projections are prone to be, was garbage. The UNEP didn’t mention it, and of course the global warming-hyping media didn’t mention it, and the web page content was quietly removed without comment. Embarrassingly enough, an intrepid reporter and climate change skeptic named Anthony Watts found the deleted pages on Google Cache.

    And guess what? The UNEP, having failed to erase the history of its bad prediction, neatly reissued the same projection, pushing it ahead to 2020! Then, the media dutifully publicized this frightening “scientific prediction,” never mentioning that the previous identical projection was a bust….because, you see, that would make us less likely to be properly alarmed.

    How dishonest, irresponsible, cynical, disrespectful and dumb. Assuming that global warming really is a long-term threat that demands reordering national policies and priorities (I’m not convinced, myself, of that second part), it is critical that scientists and international climate policy organizations maintain their credibility and integrity, and this they not only haven’t done, but in fact are doing the converse of it, eroding their credibility with biased and reckless pronouncements. It is essential that their research and projection methods be transparent, and they are not; vital that the experts be candid when they are wrong, and they are not; imperative that they be seen as objective, and they don’t even approach it. As for media coverage of the issue? It is so biased, so selective, so clearly uncritical and incompetent that it makes the arguments of the most hysterical global-warming conspiracy theorist—Sen. Inhofe, Mark Levin, Rush, take your pick—plausible.

    The climate change advocates might as well give it up. In the midst of a major fiscal crisis and 9% unemployment, do they really think the U.S public will allow its government to commit to massive new expenditures based on the flawed and hyped projections by these arrogant deceivers? Never. And if the worst projections turn out to be right, it is the hyping scientists and the fear-mongering advocates, not the so called “climate change deniers”, who will be at fault for the failure of their warnings to be heeded in time. If they have an important message, they have an accompanying obligation to be credible messengers. They have failed that obligation disgracefully, and I don’t see them getting another chance. They don’t deserve another chance.

    Check back with me in 2020.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.