Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Benghazi and Going ‘The Full Nixon’ -- PJ Media, Roger L. Simon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Benghazi and Going ‘The Full Nixon’ -- PJ Media, Roger L. Simon

    Benghazi and Going ‘The Full Nixon’

    PJ Media

    Roger L. Simon
    5/20/2013

    Excerpt:

    Choosing which is worse between the Benghazi and IRS scandals is probably as much a Rorschach test of the chooser as it is anything else. Both scandals are hugely serious and likely to be with us for a long time.

    For me, however, Benghazi is worse, in part because it is easier for some to dismiss and rationalize. Here’s an example of how that’s being done in a rundown of the scandals by John Avlon in the Telegraph. After tut-tutting about the seriousness of the IRS scandal (but careful not to go “The Full Nixon” — nothing could be as bad as that), Avlon writes:

    Finally, there is the continuing inquiry into the killing of four Americans in Benghazi. After damning congressional testimony from former deputy chief Libya diplomat Greg Hicks, the White House belatedly released a barrage of emails – which showed that the editing of the now-infamous “talking points” used by officials in television interviews was largely the product of a bureaucratic turf war between the CIA and the State Department.


    Largely? How about minutely? Even in the relatively small number of emails as yet released, the “limited hangout,” we see the whip hand of administration personnel Ben Rhodes and Tommy Vietor, and also references to the national security staff (NSS) reviewing the material, indicating even more people at the White House were involved.

    Whatever minor-league turf wars were being played out, with an ambassador murdered and three other Americans dead, the administration was undoubtedly worried about considerably more than intramural rivalries.

    The White House and the State Department were on the brink of serious humiliation before an election. They had screwed up royally. What were they going to say? They had to figure it out and at some point they decided to lie, downplaying the heavily armed terrorist attack and Ansar al Sharia and placing the blame on a video trailer almost no one saw. (For those who missed it, the only place the actual full-length film played was one screening at the Vista Theatre in L.A.’s Silver Lake district. According to an usher, the place was empty.)

    .............................................

    View the complete article at:

    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/...he-full-nixon/
    B. Steadman

  • #2
    What Hurts the Most about Benghazi

    American Thinker

    Karin McQuillan
    5/20/2013

    Excerpt:

    I can't look my old liberal friends in the eye after Benghazi. Most partisan disagreements are forgivable, and I try hard not to lose dear friends over politics. Benghazi is different. Benghazi isn't political for me. Benghazi is about Americans fighting jihadis for their lives and being abandoned to die by politicians. It is about Obama and Clinton calculating what the headlines would look like if they tried to save them or if they did nothing. They chose nothing, and they almost got away with it.

    David Gelernter points out on Powerlineblog.com that,

    It was the radically partisan Edward Kennedy who proposed that a senate select committee investigate Watergate-but in February 1973, the Senate voted unanimously to create that committee. Republican Senator Howard Baker was vice chairman, and asked the key question: "What did the president know and when did he know it?" Which Democratic senator will ask that question today...?


    So how do I look my friends in the eye?

    This is the question that haunts me. Do Democrats - not the party leaders, not mainstream journalists whose job depends on Democratic Party loyalty - would ordinary, real people, all those regular Democrat voters - would they care if they did pay attention? That is the heart of my curiosity. Because I care so viscerally about Americans serving our country being betrayed for political gain. There's something truly awful about Obama and Hillary sacrificing men's lives because attempting to protect them would be inconvenient to his election campaign, to her political ambition.

    Surely ordinary Democrats understand that underlings don't decide to withhold military or emergency assistance to 34 Americans under attack from jihadis on 9/11?

    I'd like to understand. Do Democrat voters truly think these actions by a President and Secretary of State are not important? I know we are different on many questions of war and peace and diplomacy. But this is a small, human story. A handful of men, attacked by Islamists, fighting for their lives, abandoned for election politics. We don't do that in America and pretend it's okay, do we?

    This isn't about differences of opinion on the war on terror. It's about pure, raw, election politics, and calculus about headlines, and counting votes, and the fear it will look bad if Osama bin Laden's death didn't solve very much at all.

    There is no politician in America who has the right to sacrifice another man's life to avoid a difficult headline.

    ..........................................

    View the complete article at:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/..._benghazi.html
    B. Steadman

    Comment

    Working...
    X