The Watergate Scandal forced an American President - only months removed from a landslide re-election victory - to resign in disgrace. Between the date of the break-in (June 10, 1972) and Richard M. Nixon's resignation on August 8, 1974, interest in the scandal waxed and waned. Every time it seemed that the scandal would slip completely off of the national radar, some new witness would emerge with a new and unexpected revelation. With Benghazi, that process seems to be repeating itself. Initially it was portrayed as an unexpected reaction to an anti-Muslim film made by an American. A mob formed, we were told, then spun out of control and before we could act to save the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, he was dead. We were also told by obama that Stevens died despite heroic efforts of Libyan citizens who took Stevens and carried him to a hospital. It wasn't long before much of the initial story - told to us by ernest obama functionaries - proved completely false and, in fact, quite misleading. It turns out that Ambassador Stevens knew of the growing threat from Al Quaida militia swarming to Benghazi after the overthrow of the Libyan Strongman, Mo Qadaffi, and the withdrawl of Western Military Assets which had taken part in the overthrow. Stevens pleaded with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and, through her, obama, to provide more security for the United States' Consulate in Benghazi. He was rebuffed by Clinton, and, in fact, some of the sparse detail of American soldiers in Benghazi were withdrawn. It seems that obama, locked in a frantic re-election bid with Gov. Mit Romney of Massachusetts, was campaigning on the fact that when he personally killed osama bin laden, he ended the Al Quaida threat. On the night of September 11, 2012 (the anniversary of Al Quaida's jetliner attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and on the Pentagon), the emboldened Al Quaida militia in Benghazi launched a well-planned assault on the United States Consulate in Benghazi. The few American soldiers and embassy personnel fought with bravery and extreme valor, but pleas for help from the Consulate were ignored and expressly rebuffed by Washington. When the second-in-command in Libya, in Tripoli at the time but in contact with Stevens in Benghazi, directed a special military unit into the battle, he was over-ruled by Washington. Other military assets, alerted to be ready to reaact to Benghazi, were never given a command to fight. Two former Navy Seals in Benghazi heard the story of the battle on the radio and asked to intervene. They were expressly ordered to "stand down." by Washington. They bravely ignored the order and became two of the four killed. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Were this a normal time with a rational electorate, the corruption of Benghazi, with its fatal end game, would now be spinning inexorably toward impeachment. Impeachment is certainly warranted. But it will never be suggested by anyone in Washington with the power to begin the process. And how shameful is it that no one representing the people has the courage and fortitude to stand up for the people? The lies that make up the coverup are so ridiculous and poorly thought out that it seems almost as if those telling them - obama, hilary clinton and susan rice - seem almost not to care if they were caught because they think they are beyond the heavy penalties that normal times would compel for such heinous behavior. The far left that controls the Democrats these days has already launched an assault on the Benghazi hearings taking place in the House this week. If you need analogies to help you realize how profoundly evil the people mouthing those charges are, think of this: Watergate, said to be the poster-child of government corruption, left absolutely no one dead. The Patriot's Day bombings in Boston killed three. In Benghazi four died at the hands of our most public enemy while obama, hilary clinton and their ilk in Washington stood by and did nothing, not because they couldn't, because they had the military assets at their beck and call that could have prevented all four deaths, but because they thought if they deployed those assets it would undermine obama's campaign point that he'd forever neutered Al Quaida by killing osama. So, to spare the campaign a bit of embarassment, four died. It makes the Watergate break-in pale in comparison.
Many thought - back in the early 1970's - that once Richard Nixon was re-elected in a landslide over George McGovern, any chance that the minor league-style break-in at the Watergate Hotel had of gaining national prominence went down the tubes. There were similar thoughts at the end of 2012 when obama swept back into office on the strength of millions of dumbed-down voters who thought the young marxist was cool and a huge asset to American standing in the world. They were wrong in the 1970's, history tells us, because some intrepid reporters just wouldn't let the story die. Now, a very brave young reporter at CBS is playing a similar role in keeping the awful reality of Benghazi from being swept under the carpet. That reporter is Sharyl Attkinsson.
She is, next to Rush Limbaugh, obama's worst nightmare. First, she doggedly pursued the Fast and Furious Scandal that badly sullied obama's first term. Now she is on Benghazi like a hungry dog that won't let go of its prey. A brief, if sensationalized recap of her battles with obama can be found here: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sharyl-attkisson-cbs-reporter-who-broke-details-of-benghazi-fast-furious-scandals-in-talks-to-leave-network/. And if you think CBS is doing the right journalistic thing, for once, and just sitting back and letting their reporter do her job, you would be 100% wrong. She is said to be in talks to leave CBS and in the meantime network evening news division president Patricia Shevlin is using all of her corporate power to reign in the seemingly unstoppable Attkinsson. Like most Leftists, Shevlin wants Attkinsson to back off of obama. Like a good reporter, who sniffs the corruption swirling in the obama pond, Attkinsson has no intention of backing off. There does not appear to be common ground. Attkinsson is not a conservative; but she is a very good reporter. There are so few of them left. Attkinsson and her pursuit of these stories reminds me of Michael Isikoff during the Monica Lewinsky scandal of the Clinton administration. Not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination, Isikoff nevertheless pursued the Lewinsky story doggedly. At the time he was a reporter for Newsweek. When he had the story cold; that is, when he had multiple credible sources he wrote the story and did everything in his power to get Newsweek to publish it. But the far-left-leaning editors wouldn't go with it and the next morning Matt Drudge had it spread all over his web site. Even so, Isikoff's book, Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story was named the best non-fiction book of the year by Book of the Month Club.
Over the weekend several key witnesses stepped forward, and now even dyed-in-th-wool leftists like Bob Schieffer at CBS are backtracking. On Sunday he called Susan Rice, the US ambssador to the UN, who went on TV to defend the "Video" line that obama and his functionaries were pushing, a liar. Of course, Bob made it sound like it was breaking news when, in fact, he and the rest of the media had this story before the November elections, but they wouldn't go with it because it might/would have cost obama the election.
Lest you forget, obama and his functionaries were campaigning in the fall under the premise that when he and only he killed osama, he virtually ended the terrorist threat. A coordinated and successful military operation in the weeks before the election would have proved that obama hadn't done anything important, and, in fact, had made the situation worse by (1) bragging about it, which enraged Al Quaida; and (2) easing up on the anti-terrorist campaign and shifting resources to domestic entitlements (the so-called peace dividend). When that exact thing happened in Benghazzi, obama, hilary and the rest of them panicked. They were afraid that if they ordered in the Marines they would look like fools. I'm sure they didn't think anyone would die in the attack, but that, too, is the saddest of commentaries on their leadership abilities. They didn't realize that when they pulled military and intelligence resources out of Libya after Qadaffi fell, they created a virtual vacuum of power there that Al Quaida raced in to fill. When the seige of the embassy occurred, Al Quaida was armed to the teeth and had enough terrorists in place to overwhelm the few military folk on the ground there. Really, if the same situation happened with Bush and Cheney in the White House, do you think even for a second that every military asset available wouldn't have been brought to bare on the Al Quaida fighters who were attacking the US compound. The US ambassador and his aides had discovered the power vacuum around Benghazi before the attack on the US embassy. They tried to convince Washington to beef up security there. Hilary and obama ignored them because obama wanted to believe that Al Quaida was neutered in the wake of his killing of osama. This incompetent thinking cost four Americans their lives.
No, obama and hilary would not have willingly let these people perish in the desert if they knew that the attack would lead to this. But the fact that they didn't know, coupled with their incompetent reaction to the crises when it broke, would lead to their resignations and, if not, impeachment, were these rational times. Thank God for Sharyl Attkinsson, just about the only link to reality left in Washington.
a
No comments:
Post a Comment