RUTHFULLY YOURS

One of the Obama administration mantras, repeated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is that a military rescue of our trapped Benghazi mission could not have been mounted in time to make a difference, a bizarre claim since at the beginning of the first of two attacks no one could have known when the terrorist attack would end or how long the survivors could hold on.

Now an email unearthed by the relentless watchdog group Judicial Watch and detailed in a December 8 press release exposes that claim to be as much a lie as the one Hilary Clinton told the parents of the dead in front of their sons’ caskets as they arrived at Joint Base Andrews. The Benghazi terrorist attack was not caused by a video offensive to Islam and, yes, a Benghazi rescue not only could have been attempted but in fact was ready to go:

Judicial Watch today released a new Benghazi email from then-Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on the U.S. Special Mission Compound in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information.

The country’s newest cult of personality is driven by deep dissatisfaction, frustration, and anger at the sitting commander in chief, with the promise of an omnicompetent hero to fix. Haven’t we seen this story before?
It’s impossible to get through a day without hearing the name Donald Trump…over and over again. His name is plastered across the pages of newspapers and magazines. His speeches and interviews are continuously replayed on television, radio and the Internet. Friends, family, and colleagues bring him up at every opportunity as if the most important topic in the world today is whether Trump will win the nomination. And perhaps it is.

Barack Obama has almost single-handedly destroyed America’s standing in the world and certainly our relationship with our allies. He has aided and abetted the rise of ISIS and other terrorist organizations as well as enemies such as Iran, Russia, and China. And he has fomented division and unrest here at home.

I say “almost single-handedly” not just because his administration has been filled with accomplices to his destructive policies. I’m referring to the American people who elected him — twice. Americans enabled Obama to accomplish his promised transformation of the country — and the world — as they bought into his false promises and messiah-like personality cult. They are blameworthy for our situation today because they were blindly ignorant and ideological then.

As tribune of the base Donald Trump is successful and inadequate. You see it in the Muslim question. His strength is that he responds to and appears to share the concerns of those who are legitimately worried about whom we allow into the United States—our visa protocols, our vetting, our standards. This is a national-security issue. We have entered the age of ISIS-inspired and ISIS-directed attacks on the West. The latter (Paris) have tended to be bloodier than the former (San Bernardino), because they involve more operatives, more simultaneous targets, more weapons. Whether inspired or directed, the idea of future hits in the U.S.—and everyone, from the most sophisticated desk-jockey intel analyst in Washington to the receptionist at your dentist’s office, will tell you they believe more are coming—is very much on the public mind.

A Paris here would change everything, transposing a detached debate about strategy into a hot and immediate political exigency. There is the real danger events will outstrip sober decision making. The smartest thing I’ve heard the past few weeks was the suggestion that America figure out the most effective and constructive things it could do after a Paris-style attack, and start doing them now. I hope everyone who runs the country is thinking about this. They’d better have a plan.

Twenty-two years ago, my esteemed colleague Dan Henninger wrote a blockbuster Journal editorial titled “No Guardrails.” Its subject was people “who don’t think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them,” as well as the elites who excuse this lack of self-control and the birth of a less-civilized culture.

We are today witnessing the political version of this phenomenon. That’s how to make sense of a presidential race that grows more disconnected from normality by the day.

Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law. If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway. “As to limits, you set your own,” observed Dan in that editorial. This is our president’s motto.

Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.