AM: Contrary to Democrat claims and even the New
York Times Editorial Board position of “nothing new here,” yesterday’s
Benghazi hearing revealed a lot.
IM: I agree. It demonstrated what I call street light
truth, where the one who controls the streetlight, controls what is illuminated
(even by the very objective, by their standards, New York Times). Yesterday,
there was a tug-of-war for control of the street light. Republicans tried to shine light on how the
Benghazi narrative was developed and Democrats tried to move the light to
trivial or unrelated matters; but, worse, Democrats accused Republicans of
political smear.
Old Gadfly: What made the greatest impression
on you?
AM: Evidence of deception and
obfuscation. In the run up to the
Presidential election, many of us suspected the “video claim” was a deliberate
deception.
IM: At the time, I thought American
leadership was being somewhat duplicitous by impugning freedom of speech if
there really was such a video. And our
government even “tracked down” the video creator, arrested him, and sent him to prison. The
word, “fraud,” seems to have been the central reason for the conviction.
Old Gadfly: Ironic isn’t it? Fraud means deceit or trickery for profit or
to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
I watched the hearing and what Republicans revealed was a clear case of
fraud for political gain.
AM: Remember, this attack occurred not
only on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center, but within weeks of a
Presidential election. Obama’s
campaign slogan was: “GM alive, bin
Laden dead, al Qaeda on the run.”
IM: Within 72 hours of Obama’s
second-term inauguration, Hillary testified before a Senate Committee. During
this testimony, she still defended the video narrative. When she said, “What difference will it
make,” I got a chill up my spine (no, not down my leg) that Hillary was
actually being transparent—Obama won the election, after all, so let’s press
forward.
Even Harry
Reid was finally
transparent in admitting he lied on the Senate floor to defeat Romney.
AM: This was further evidence, in my
mind, that the current cohort of Democrats truly believe in a win-lose
strategy. They subscribe to any means to
achieve this end. And if they can’t win,
then both must lose.
Old Gadfly: This dynamic explains to a certain
extent the circumstances in Iraq—Bush had bipartisan support before going into
Iraq; yet when it was reported that Bush had nearly 90% approval ratings for
doing this, I anticipated Democrats would recognize the balance of political
capital would favor Republicans. Sure
enough, Democrats and a complicit media forced Bush into a two-front war
against foreign-born insurgents in Iraq and an opposing political party in
America. By the way, the Democrat victory in this case is still providing
fraudulent ammunition for today’s political contest. But we’ll save this for a future discussion.
AM: Wow, the street light is
illuminating some serious corruption in American politics. This brings me to the second impression the
hearing made on me: obfuscation. Congressman Cummings was the lead pit bull in
this effort. He worked very hard to
defend Hillary while viciously attacking committee Republicans. Cummings and
other Democrats kept complaining that the seven previous hearings found
nothing, had consumed 18 months and nearly $5 million in taxpayer funding; Chairman
Gowdy asked where were the Democrat complaints when it was revealed the
Administration had invested $50 million to train four or five Syrian
rebels. Chairman Gowdy’s point was right
on target, except the amount was $500 million, not $50 million. The obfuscation by Democrats was to shift the
light on Hillary strengths and successes.
But, if you were to listen to a progressive news analyst like Rachel
Maddow of MSNBC News, you see more evidence of street light truth by
criticizing the waste of $500 million and then linking that criticism not
to Obama but by suggesting none of the current Republican Presidential candidates should
be taken seriously. See the pathetic
analysis here.
IM: You would think Congressman Cummings
would keep a lower profile.
Old Gadfly: Why?
IM: While mainstream media is
reluctant to shine a light on it, Cummings has fingerprints on the IRS scandal
(for example, see here, here, and here). Cummings and his staff were involved
in clear attempts (and an unconstitutional abuse of power) to silence political
opposition.
AM: Aren’t we missing the 800 pound
gorilla in this discussion?
Old Gadfly: Shine a light on it.
AM: Think “cover up.”
Old Gadfly: You’re teasing us.
AM: How many Americans died during the
Watergate incident?
IM: None.
AM: At Benghazi?
IM: Four.
AM: That’s correct. What was the motivation for the Watergate
break-in (the Democratic Committee National Headquarters)?
IM: It involved breaking and entering
in an attempt to discover democrat strategy.
AM: Correct. But it was the “cover up” that generated the
greatest interest and outrage.
IM: So who is the gorilla?
AM: Hillary Rodham as a recent Yale
law school graduate and staff member of the House Judiciary Committee doing
legal groundwork to impeach Nixon. While
there are conflicting recollections (for example, see here and here) between
some key members of the staff, two facts are undisputed: Hillary wrote a memorandum that declared
Nixon had no legal right to counsel during an impeachment process, and she
collaborated in concealing evidence (in other words, made arrangements to
prevent public access to relevant legal documents). The concealed evidence in this case established a
precedent in terms of the right to counsel in a previous impeachment proceeding
involving US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Let me repeat, Hillary and others
concealed it.
IM: Of course, Hillary was also intimately
aware of the legal maneuvering involved an impeachment attempt against her own
husband when he was President.
AM: And look how they trashed those
who brought scrutiny to Bill Clinton—not just Monica Lewinsky, but Paula Jones,
and others who were sexual assault victims. My good friend and former professional
colleague, Buzz Patterson, a former military aid to President Bill Clinton, had
the courage to present first-hand testimony about the Clinton’s abuse of power
and varied corrupt behaviors in his book, Dereliction
of Duty. Buzz made a special point
that there was a plastic box of files that never left Hillary’s presence. Hmmmmmm . . . do you think they might have
included files of evidence in the Whitewater case? After all, a constant refrain from the
Clintons when asked about wrongdoing in Whitewater was not that they were
innocent of any wrongdoing; the response was “there is no evidence.” So, is there any surprise that Hillary made
sure there was no evidence of any wrongdoing while she was Secretary of State?
Old Gadfly: Notice, none of the Benghazi
hearings inquired about what the American presence at Benghazi was all
about. We, however, have discussed this
in previous discussions (see here, here, and here) about CIA gun running for Syrian rebels.
Was this legal? Now we know the
Syrian rebel force consists of a formidable force of four to five men. But where have all the arms gone? How did the Jordanian fighter pilot get shot
down? Where did that missile come from? But I digress.
AM: Wouldn’t honesty be refreshing?
Old Gadfly: The progressives sadly believe, as
did Jack Nicholson in the movie, “A Few Good Men,” “you can’t handle the truth.” Even after this latest Benghazi hearing,
Hillary still has 53% of the vote in Iowa.
That is a large segment of our population that is truly drunk, looking
for truth under the street light controlled by progressives.
