Street Light Truth

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.