John draws attention to the video brought to us by Michelle Fields of Next Generation TV. Fields didn’t have to go far to find what appear to be low information Obama voters on the Mall in Washington, D.C. to play the scandal game. The video is below.
One of the questions evokes Benghazi and posits Obama as the right answer: “Under which administration was a diplomatic post attacked resulting in the death of an America ambassador and that presiding [?] administration tried to cover up the motivation behind the attack?”
The video declares “Obama” the correct answer, and it is of course a correct answer. But so is “Nixon,” although I am sure Michelle’s interlocutors don’t have a clue why. (I’d love to hear the interlocutors responding to a follow-up question on this point. The recitation of “Nixon” is talismanic.) I would argue that those who offered “Nixon” deserve at least partial credit. Why?
Let us recall. On March 1, 1973, the embassy of Saudi Arabia in Khartoum, Sudan held a going-away party for U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission George Curtis Moore. A gang of eight who identified themselves as members of the Black September Organization stormed the party. The terrorists seized the embassy and held Moore and two others hostage–U.S. ambassador to Sudan Cleo Noel Jr. and Guy Eid, chargé d’affaires at the Belgian embassy. All three were brutally murdered by the terrorists in the basement of the embassy on the direct order of Yasser Arafat transmitted by radio from his headquarters in Lebanon.
Although word leaked out over the years, Arafat’s order to the terrorists was a deep secret of the Nixon administration and its successors. This is the story I tried to tell in the Weekly Standard article “How Arafat got away with murder.”
History must be told, in the words of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, but this matter is not of historical interest only. Arafat’s right hand man is the current chairman of the PLO and now serving out the ninth year of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority.
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.