Explain to me how this makes sense:
Last night, the U.S. mission in Benghazi was the target of an improvised explosive device. The bomb was literally rolled from the open door of a passing vehicle to the entrance of our consulate. The explosion didn’t do much damage — apparently — it merely knocked the gate off its hinges. However, educated analysts and media types are guessing that the attack came in retaliation for the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi — the Libyan born cleric and senior al Qaeda operative who was introduced to the business end of a U.S. drone strike, last night.
So where did we catch up with him? In his home country of Libya, where our diplomatic mission was the target of a terror strike? Nope. Well, did we find him in Afghanistan where American ground troops are still conducting a ground war against the Taliban, and where al-Libi once escaped an Afghani prison? No…not there, but that’s getting warmer. Well, perhaps we tracked him down in Yemen, where it’s been rumored al-Libi was coordinating outreach to the AQAP affiliate? Not there, either!?
Well, of course not. He was in Pakistan. Where else?
In case you missed it, this is the same country that allowed some kangaroo court to sentence Dr. Shakil Afridi — the Pakistani doctor who helped us track down Bin Laden — to 33 years in prison on trumped up charges, thinly framed by an obscure British law that dates back to the time of the Raj.
It’s also the same country we continue to fund to the tune of $1 billion a year of taxpayer money. Time to drag out the tired cliché about “friends like these…”
To quickly recap — a bomb explodes outside a U.S. consulate in “liberated” Libya, because al Qaeda’s top lieutenant was killed in Pakistan, a country that punishes those who are willing to help us prosecute the war on terror, and we continue to award them a $1 billion/year of your money.
See anything wrong with this picture?
For the record, Sen. Rand Paul — who’s emerged as critical voice of reason in the U.S. Senate — suggested we reconsider our billion dollar commitment to the Pakistanis.
Speaking before his fellow senators, this afternoon, Sen. Paul made plain his concerns with status quo support for a state that allowed (perhaps “endorsed” would be more apt) the imprisonment of a man who helped eliminate evil personified:
What I find particularly troubling is that the U.S. continues to fund — we continue to give money to Pakistan, over $1 billion of taxpayer money is sent to Pakistan. It troubles me that we’re sending $1 billion to a country that imprisons the gentleman, the physician, who was brave enough to help us get bin Laden. It makes no sense […] It has to come to an end. It’s going to come to an end one way or another. What I ask is that the U.S. Senate step up and support ending this money being sent to Pakistan, at the very least not sending any more until Dr. Afridi is freed.
Given the immediacy of the situation — the man who handed us Bin Laden is rotting in prison — Sen. Paul has introduced a two-pronged amendment to the farm bill that would simultaneously suspend aid to Pakistan until Dr. Afridi is released, and grant him and his family emergency U.S. citizenship.
I’d say that’s the least we can do.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?