Benghazi-gate, Occam's Razor and Napoleon

They all come together here!

  

Occam's razor? Napoleon? What do they have to do with Benghazi-gate? In a few minutes, you will know. First a few preliminaries. In case you missed it, the much-ballyhooed demonstration, riot, or other disturbance outside our Benghazi Consulate on 9/11/2012 never happened; and the President knew it that very day. In reality, a group of terrorists launched a well-planned, well-executed military assault; they were equipped with heavy weapons, including a mortar. Earlier on the same day, a mob in Cairo had stormed our embassy in reaction to a video insulting Muhammad.

  

The Obama Administration tried to cover up what really happened in Benghazi with a blatant lie--the demonstration cover story--the idea presumably spawned by the Cairo riots. The Administration repeated and compounded the demonstration cover story for many days--until, and even after, the "inconvenient truth" gradually began leaking out. Those leaks have now burst forth and have ignited a cascade of controversy.

  

Pundits ranging from Rush Limbaugh to the relatively obscure have suggested myriad answers to the question, "What was the administration covering up and why?" Most hypotheses seem esoteric or the very complex. Some would require intricate conspiracies. Today, October 29, 2012, yours truly read an assertion that administration involvement in some kind of gunrunning scheme was "the only explanation" for Benghazi-gate. That signaled this observer that Occam's Razor had to enter the fray.

 

 
Occam's Razor:
 

 

". . . often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle which generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects . . . .” (From Wikipedia; retrieved 10/29/2012):

  

Rather than reaching hither and yon for elaborate explanations of a presumed Benghazi Cover-up, consider a relatively simple hypothesis, simple in the sense of Occam, and a few related facts.

  

Hypothesis: While watching live video of the Benghazi attack over a six-hour period, President Obama simply waffled; that is, he could not decide whether or not to send help.

  

This rather simple hypothesis seems to fit into the constraints set down by Occam's razor better than other explanations your faithful correspondent has heard to date.

• It requires only one new hypothesis: President Obama waffled.
• Fact: the President is in the midst of a close reelection campaign. Nothing new there.
• Fact: Foreign Policy has given President Obama his one consistent advantage over Governor Romney. Nothing new there.
• Fact: the Obama Campaign has repeatedly trumpeted the courage and decisiveness exhibited by ordering the bin Laden killing as evidence of the President's foreign-policy superiority. Nothing new there.
• Fact: evidence to date strongly suggests a Benghazi cover-up. Not universally accepted; not as widely known as one might expect.  

If the voters suddenly learned, before election day, that the President had waffled on Benghazi--if indeed he did--it would bring the President's basic qualifications to serve as Commander-in-Chief into question and largely sink the President's reelection bid. If anything could trigger a cover-up--if there is a cover-up--a waffling story surely could.

 

Speculating about the unknown, and speculating about motives in particular, almost always lands one on rather thin ice. Still, if the Obama administration launched a cover-up, the "waffling hypothesis" would seem to fit the circumstances as well as, if not better than, most notions offered to date. The suggestion, for example, that Benghazi was a false kidnapping to enable "trading" Ambassador Stevens for the now imprisoned "Blind Sheik" seems, by comparison, a bit deep.

  

Many would argue against any intimation of a Benghazi cover-up. They might ask, "Would a rational group of people really attempt a cover-up in light of the Watergate experience?" They probably would conclude that the idea is, at best, fanciful speculation. (One would presume then that the "well documented" complicity of the Bush Administration in the original 9/11 attacks simply proves the irrationality--not too mention the craftiness-- of the Bush Cabal.)

Enter the Emperor Napoleon

 

Napoleon receives credit for many insightful and memorable quotations. Few come up very often in the day-to-day lives of most people. While, "An army travels on its stomach," I get to work in a car. A relatively lesser-known quotation attributed to Napoleon does seem to fit the circumstances of Benghazi and provide an answer to the objections of any who might strongly doubt a cover-up:

 

"Never assume malice when incompetence is a possibility."

 

One might add that, despite the lessons of Watergate, incompetence plus arrogance could easily lead one to devise a "perfect and undetectable" cover-up.

Alternate Hypotheses:

 

Two similar ideas could fit the facts outlined above and still account simply, in Occam's sense, for a cover-up. Perhaps the President:

 

• For whatever reason, decided to let those people die
• Bungled the operation; by, for example:

            o Failing to make sure any help that he ordered sent arrived in time.

 

            o Having one or more subordinates who felt at liberty to blithely overrule a presidential                decision.

 

As with the hypothesis that the President "waffled", each of the alternates requires only one new hypothesis; either: President Obama didn't care; or, President Obama was incompetent.

  

Your thoughts and comments are welcome.

  

DJ

Who Built That? Who Built America?

To date, your faithful correspondent has not yet heard of anyone making the most obvious response to President Obama's controversial "You didn't build that" speech. Here then, is that seemingly obvious response.

Mr. President, everyone had everything you cited in your outrageous remarks.

Everyone had access to the courts and could purchase eyeglasses; only one person invented bifocals.

Everyone knew about lightning; only one person invented the lighting rod.

Everyone had access to boats, roads and waterways; only one person invented the first commercially viable steam boat.

Everyone had patent protection; only one person invented interchangeable parts.

Everyone had access to roads, rivers, sickles and scythes; only one person invented the reaper and revolutionized grain production.

Everyone knew about electricity; only one person perfected the electric light, founded the General Electric Company, electrified the world, and almost single-handedly launched the modern era.

Everyone had access to roads, courts, and public schools; only one person invented the Model-T and instituted the first moving assembly line.

Everyone had music and "teachers who helped them along the way;" only one person invented the phonograph. Come to think of it, at age seven, three months after that person entered school, his teachers called him "addled" (or, depending on the source, "retarded"). He didn't have teachers "helping him along!" His mother home schooled him. Think about that Barbara Streisand; a home schooled capitalist made your success possible.

Everyone had access to all that went before them; only two people launched Apple Computer.

Mr. President, America has flourished and led the world in inventions and commerce for over two centuries by celebrating, fostering, and rewarding success. America did not get here by demonizing the successful.

The peers of these American inventors had everything they had, including everything President Obama cited in his controversial "You didn't build that" speech. Yet, only these few created what they did. For the most part their success flowed from hard work--often with a touch of genius tossed in. The same is true of the vast majority of successful entrepreneurs.

Perhaps if President Obama understood what built America, he would recognize that businesses principally spring forth and succeed through the motivated efforts of entrepreneurs, not through underhanded scheming, and "exploiting downtrodden workers." Perhaps if the President understood free market economics, he would have come up with a recovery plan that worked.

 

Some thoughts for “Values Voters”

Will anti-abortion zeal reelect President Obama?

No president can, much less will, materially reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States. Nor will any president's Supreme Court appointees. If you think otherwise, check out Table One. A mere 13 states accounted for just a touch under 75% of all abortions performed in United States during 2008. Those statistics hold the key to important realities that "values voters” would do well to consider while casting their ballots in 2012 Republican Presidential primaries and caucuses.

Table 1
2008
Total US	1,211,500
State	Number	Percent	CumPct
California	214,190	17.68%	17.68%
New York	153,110	12.64%	30.32%
Florida	94,360	7.79%	38.11%
Texas	84,610	6.98%	45.09%
New Jersey	54,160	4.47%	49.56%
Illinois	54,920	4.53%	54.09%
Michigan	36,790	3.04%	57.13%
Maryland	34,290	2.83%	59.96%
Ohio	33,550	2.77%	62.73%
North Carolina	33,140	2.74%	65.47%
Pennsylvania	41,000	3.38%	68.85%
Georgia	39,820	3.29%	72.14%
Virginia	28,520	2.35%	74.49%
[Number of abortions by state of occurrence from surveys of hospitals, clinics, and physicians identified as providers of abortion services conducted by the Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute  reallocates abortions to the woman's state of residence for survey years. Abortion rates are computed per 1,000 women 15 to 44 years of age on July 1 of specified year]
For more information:
http://www.guttmacher.org/
Internet release date: 09/30/2011
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/

For 38 years, anti-abortion advocates have spent millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours failing to “overturn Roe vs. Wade.” None of those efforts has reduced the number of abortions one scintilla. Moreover, had they managed to overturn Roe vs. Wade, Table One demonstrates that they would not have accomplished much more than the nothing they have accomplished so far.

A little background. If the Supreme Court reversed itself tomorrow and overturned Roe vs. Wade, abortions would not suddenly become illegal anywhere, much less nationwide. A reversal would simply enable individual states to pass new laws restricting or banning abortions; just as when the Supreme Court partially reversed its nationwide ban on the death penalty. That reversal did not reinstate the death penalty; it allowed states to reinstate the death penalty—albeit, under specific guidelines. Reversing Roe vs. Wade would doubtless operate in much the same way.

Possible exception: According to Wikipedia, some states, including Illinois, have passed “trigger laws” that would reinstate abortion bans if the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade. This might reduce some abortions if bright blue Illinois does not repeal the trigger. Thus, the impact of trigger laws remains to be seen. For now, your author will stand by his premises.

Cold hard facts. Without considering the oft debated moral, theological and freedom issues swirling about the abortion debate, consider some facts that clearly demonstrate the ruthless bottom line on abortion. Seven of the 13 states in Table One are “bright blue”; that is, they virtually always vote overwhelmingly Democrat in national elections. Three of the states are “purple”; that is, they sometimes vote Democrat; they sometimes vote Republican. Second, remember that Roe vs. Wade originally applied only to the first trimester of a pregnancy; although that has crept up to around seven months today.

In 2003, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which the Supreme Court upheld, outlawed some late-term abortions; thereby stripping away the arguably most powerful anti-abortion argument. A reversal of Roe vs. Wade might lead to state laws outlawing other late-term abortions; but, those are generally few in number. Thus, while Table One's three red states, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina, might restrict some abortions, they probably have gone about as far as is feasible already.

One must recognise that, as in the case of "values voters", pro-abortion voters tend to passionately hold their positions. Those passions, the large numbers of abortions in those 13 states, and the existing latitude states already have make it unlikely, arguably remotely likely, that any states in Table One will materially restrict abortions further.

What about a constitutional amendment? Some have glibly suggested passing a constitutional amendment, in the unlikely event Congress fails to outlaw all abortions nationwide after a hypothetical reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Remembering that 39 states must ratify a constitutional amendment, take a second look at Table One. The reader will not see the eight blue states of Oregon, Washington, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, Delaware, Connecticut, or Rhode Island. That makes 15 bright blue states that almost surely will not ratify such a hypothetical and fanciful constitutional amendment—at least not much before hell freezes over. Given the math, the idea, when emanating from a leader, seems either delusional or demagogic. It will never happen—and this from someone who “never says never.”

What have Anti-abortion advocates accomplished? Instead of reducing the number of abortions, antiabortion advocates have elected myriad pro-abortion fanatics, most of them leftist democrats. Some would argue that antiabortion advocates gave Bill Clinton just the edge he needed to beat George H. W. Bush. Moreover, President Clinton paid no political price when he vetoed a bill banning virtual infanticide! One can further argue that, in league with the tea party, “values voters” let the democrats hold the Senate in 2010. How! By nominating an airhead to run against the supposedly “doomed” Harry Reid; an airhead who had publicly acknowledged at least dabbling with witchcraft. Anti-abortion and Tea Party fanaticism gave the Democrats their 51st vote—a clear, if thin majority in the Senate. Congratulations, “values voters”.

For almost 38 years, “values voters” have done little more than “tilt at windmills!” Along the way, they have weakened their own Cause, enabled democrats to weaken and damage the military readiness and economy of the United States; and they have given people of faith a bad name. The Nation has sustained far too high a cost to justify a 38‑year‑long "feel‑good statement." “Values voters” would do well to leave such things to the "Losertarians".

Implications.” Insisting on candidates with impeccable “right to life” credentials has only elected people with whom "values voters" intensely disagree! “Values voters” need to recognize that they have lost the battle among the electorate. Through the ballot box, "values voters" have accomplished almost nothing; they have not materially reduced, and almost surely will not materially reduce, the number of abortions. They need to find other, non-violent, means to reach their goal. Perhaps more importantly, “values voters” need to recognize that “one trick pony” Rick Santorum will begin any General Election campaign with a huge number of women deeply, and intansingently committed to his defeat. He has no more chance of winning in November than does yours truly. For myriad reasons, it seems almost equally likely that Mitt Romney would lose in November as well—polls and pundits notwithstanding.

Today, America needs a conservative and practical visionary to win the Whitehouse and start pulling the nation out of the morass into which it has sunk. From this observer’s perspective, only Newt Gingrich satisfies those criteria.

“Values voters” need not concede their deeply held moral and theological concerns about abortion. They do need to recognize the practical implications of their dogged insistence on solid anti-abortion credentials in every Republican candidate and consider their next steps!

ADDENDUM: Since this post went up on February 10, 2012, Senator Santorum has unleashed a torrent of inflammatory comments on topics ranging from the evils of birth control to the nauseating nature of the separation of church and state. One might think that the Senator wanted to make sure he never won another election in his life, much less the Presidency in 2012. Perhaps Senator Santorum is a mole for the Obama campaign.

DJ