Foreign Policy

A top military intelligence official at the time of the Benghazi attack says military should have tried to help the people under attack.

"He later said the military "could have made a response of some sort." Lovell, who was stationed in Germany during the attack, made clear repeatedly that the military was waiting for clearance from the State Department to intervene in Benghazi.
Lovell also sharply countered claims that the intelligence community and military initially thought this was a protest over an anti-Islam video gone awry. He said U.S. officials knew this was a "hostile action" from the outset, even though they didn't know how long the attack would last.
"This was no demonstration gone terribly awry," Lovell said. "The facts led to the conclusion of a terrorist attack." "

Between this and the systematic removal and denial of security personnel requested by Stevens, I wonder if Clinton and Obama set Stevens up to be killed.

"Despite Lovell's testimony Thursday, other investigations and other officials have disputed the notion that the military could have done more. The House Armed Services Committee concluded in one report that the military response was lacking because of the positioning of U.S. forces at the time."

Knowing Stevens was meeting his Turkish contact for weapons smuggling in Benghazi on 9/11 and Benghazi was at risk of an attack, it only makes sense military forces weren't in place if US rulers set Stevens up to be killed. Also, somebody in the US funded that video to provide a cover story.

Pat Buchanan exposes Obama's Asian pivot.

"If a single word could sum up the goal of Barack Obama’s Asia tour, it would be “reassurance.”"

But...

"Yet, as Clyde Prestowitz writes in the Financial Times, while we are committed to go to war to defend all three countries if attacked, none of them is obligated to go to war if we are attacked.
What Tokyo, Seoul and Manila get out of their alliances with the United States is easy to see – the security of a superpower’s pledge to come and fight their wars for them.
But what do we get out of these commitments, other than an obligation to go to war with a nuclear-armed China or North Korea over shoals, rocks and borders on the other side of the world that have nothing to do with the peace or security of the United States?"

It can't last. The US will not go to war with a great power to defend any of these countries, and they have to know it.

"Historically, great powers and empires exact tribute, exploit colonies, and demand conscripts of their protectorates.
America is something new in the way of world powers. We not only provide the legions to protect “allies,” but provide the tribute in the form of foreign aid, IMF and World Bank loans, and bailout billions."

This why I've always claimed the US is dumber than an empire. We suffer all the costs of empire with none of the advantages.

"Moreover, America has thrown open her home market, largest in the world at $17 trillion, to Europe, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and even China, and invited them to come and capture it from our manufacturers.
In a quarter century, these trade partners have run up $10 trillion in trade surpluses at our expense, eviscerating our industrial base to where Detroit looks like Dresden in 1945."

Detroits problems are not caused by free trade. They're caused by socialism.