La La How The Life Goes On

Stand Down

Posted on: October 26, 2015

Time for a political post. My inbox awaits the hate mail, because today’s topic is none other than your favorite “villain” and mine: Hillary Clinton. With a special side of Benghazi.

A few words in preamble. I will be voting for the Democratic nominee for president, whomever it may be. And you all can squawk all you want but then I’ll just tell you to take a good, long look at your GOP candidates and honestly–honestly–ask you to point to a single one of them you’d feel good about having the nuclear codes. Every single one is either insane, unreasonable or unwilling to call out the insane and unreasonable. All I needed to see was the GOP debate when a questioner asked if God had spoken to any of them before the debate and NOT ONE candidate flinched. Every single candidate answered that question like it was an actual, credible question. You don’t need to see anything more than that to know what kind of lunatics are running for the GOP nomination. So, yes. I will be voting for HRC if she is the Democratic nominee.

Which brings us to Benghazi. And to HRC’s 11-hours of testimony on Capitol Hill last week. Whatever you think about Hillary Clinton, it is unclear to me how anyone can observe the antics of Trey Gowdy’s committee and not see a partisan witch hunt. Let’s remember that SEVEN previous investigations–run by Republicans I remind you–have found plenty wrong but no criminal wrongdoing. And there is a difference, even if you personally hate Hillary Clinton.

Were our nation’s intelligence services negligent in the run-up to 9/11? There is no question. Did Condi Rice’s seeming disregard for a memo entitled, “Osama Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” negligent?Totally. But was it criminal? No. Was she hauled before a committee and investigated into oblivion as a result? No. When the marine barracks were hit, killing 244 Americans, in Lebanon during Reagan’s term, how many Congressional panels were he and his cabinet hauled before? That’s right: ZERO.

So let’s all get over ourselves acting as if this committee really had any interest in arriving at “the truth” of what happened in Benghazi. The facts of that day have already been established by the previous seven committees, run by avowed Clinton-haters like Darrell Issa, or conducted by decorated military men like Admirals Mullen and Pickering. None of these individuals are on record as loving Hillary Clinton. And yet, according to Trey Gowdy, his committee was going to get the job done that those other losers could not.

So what was “truth” that Gowdy was vowing to find? That Clinton never took responsibility for what happened that ended the lives of four Americans? But she already had. That she was unfeeling and apathetic to the deaths of four Americans because she worked from home the night of the attack rather than staying at the office? Because this is 1986 and the only means of communicating is in person or on a landline phone? Please. Because she did not immediately know who or what caused the attack? The assessment by Admiral Mullen clearly noted that in his report. Nope. What was really happening was that Trey Gowdy was fishing for any nugget of anything with which he could taint Clinton’s campaign. Why else would he not ask her relevant questions about her Libya policy as a whole and her oversight of that, by all accounts, failed policy? Why not grill her on why the diplomats were there in the first place? These were questions that could have elicited actual, relevant, informative answers, leading to a very necessary discussion of our foreign policy failure in that country.

Instead he fell back on that old chestnut: the evil Jewish henchman pulling the strings of our national policy. Why else would a committee convened to discuss Benghazi mention the name Sidney Blumenthal SIXTY-SIX times? People attuned to “dog whistle” politics recognized it immediately. Like when politicians say “urban” to mean “black and criminal” or “culture of permissiveness” to mean “gay.” So when the Democratic candidate for President of the United States takes calls and emails from her friend–not Jimmy Johnson or Brandon Rivers or some such “American” name–but SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL–well, what does it all mean, America? What in the world could it mean for this woman to be available at all hours to hear the ponderings and meanderings and advisories of one Sidney Blumenthal but to not have emailed Chris Stevens at all? We’ll leave it to the good people of middle America to decide, but boy it sure sounds unsavory to these patriotic ears.

In addition to the veiled anti-Semitism there were the basic, bold-faced lies that proved the old adage that a lie can go half way around the world while the truth is still putting on its pants.

  1. Mitt Romney said it took President Barack Obama “14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”  Obama described it in those terms the day after the attack.
  2. There was a chance to save the diplomats that the White House did not utilize, leaving them to die.  Rep. Jason Chaffetz, famous from the recent Planned Parenthood hearings, said:

“The administration including Secretary Panetta were very crystal clear, there were no military assets, but I got to tell you, we had proximity, we had capability, we had four individuals in Libya armed, ready to go, dressed about to get into the car to go in the airport to go help their fellow countrymen who were dying and being killed and under attack in Benghazi and they were told to stand down.”

This doesn’t match the timeline of what happened in Benghazi. The four people in Benghazi were already dead when the decision was made to keep the special forces team in Tripoli. The mortar attack was already over. Others have said that the White House was watching live video of the attack and did nothing. Many, many fact checkers, including Politifact, have debunked this claim entirely.

3. Chris Stevens’ body was sexually abused and run through the streets. FALSE. Every investigation and independent press accounts reflect that Stevens died from smoke inhalation and Libyans brought him to a hospital where efforts to revive him failed.

4. Hillary Clinton sent classified emails through her personal server, which somehow relates to Benghazi, I suppose. In these emails, which are heavily redacted in the copies provided by Trey Gowdy, Clinton apparently outs a CIA operative. When Elijah Cummings, also a member of the committee, contacted the CIA to request that the emails be declassified entirely, the CIA replied that the emails were not classified to begin with; that nothing in them is or was classified, including the operative’s name. But wait! How did all those big black boxes and hidden text markings get on those copies?! Making it look like Clinton was acting recklessly with her emails? None other than Trey Gowdy himself went through them and did the redacting. Every single redaction was a result of Trey Gowdy’s staff. Not the CIA. But the visual damage is done, right? Look at all these blacked out words on these emails sent by Hillary Clinton! She’s negligent! She’s untrustworthy!

5. Hillary Clinton knew more security was needed and she refused. Rand Paul said, “I think it’s pretty important that she accept blame for not providing security. She was asked repeatedly to provide security in Benghazi on several occasions including direct cables, and she says she never read the cables on security. I find that inexcusable and a dereliction of duty.”  The State Department was indeed asked repeatedly for additional U.S. security staff in Libya, but there is no evidence that Clinton was made aware of those requests. There is no such thing as a “direct cable” that automatically goes to the secretary of state. All are addressed to her but staff below her would have selected which ones reached her. There is zero evidence that Hillary Clinton received cables requesting assistance and that she then ignored them. This does not absolve her of bottom-line accountability for the lapse but it does debunk any accusations that she saw the cables and ignored them.

And that’s what I think I’m getting at here. The belief–all evidence to the contrary–that Hillary Clinton apathetically allowed four Americans to die, perhaps even watched it happen on video. Then went home and drank tea and kibbitzed with her sneaky Jewish friend Sidney. Think about what that scenario asks of you as a human being, even one who despises Hillary Clinton. You have to believe that she willfully, wantonly,and perhaps gleefully allowed four human beings to die for whatever random reasons that are not discernible in 66,000 emails and transcripts and through millions of dollars worth of investigations. That she–and hundreds of employees at the Department of State—and a decorated admiral–and every single person involved in the events of that night here in the US and the subsequent investigations–are engaging in a vast conspiracy to cover up the reason for the deaths of 4 people, which is…..?

There is no question that the embassy in Libya needed and should have received more and better security. There is no question that the State Department Security staff failed, and by extension, so did their boss.  That fact, that truth, has been established time and time again since these investigations began. So what “truth” is it that the Republicans want to reveal? The same party that allowed the President, Vice President and Secretary of State during 9/11 to testify privately and for a maximum of ONE HOUR over the deaths of 4,000 people after having received a memo entitled “Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US” one month previous–needed 11 hours to talk to Clinton about her Jew friend and her habit of working from home. The same committee that instituted Wine Wednesdays, drinking on the taxpayer dime out of glasses engraved with the words “glacial pace” to make light of the charge that they were taking too long to reach a disposition. The same committee that could not hide their contempt for Mrs. Clinton, even going so far as to ask her in all seriousness if she “spent the entire night alone” in her home.

These are not serious people. This is not a serious committee. This is an echo of McCarthyism. One that all of us–Democrat, Republican and Independent-should reject.

Even if you hate Hillary Clinton.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 422 other followers

%d bloggers like this: