In President Obama’s own words, his is “the most transparent
administration in history.” My first
thought is “Really? So you’re more
honest, open and morally upstanding than say…
George Washington?” But I guess
being the narcissist that you are – you probably believe that.
Last week was an extremely revealing week concerning the
transparency of the Obama Administration.
From Benghazi to the Internal Revenue Service, admissions and witness
testimonies revealed the administration is about as far from transparency as it’s
possible to get.
Three different witnesses testified before Congress
concerning the September 11th terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate
in Benghazi which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen A. Doherty
and Tyrone S. Woods. Billed as a “partisan witch hunt” by the
Democrats and the mainstream media, one of the most effective witnesses was
Gregory Hicks, second in command under Ambassador Stevens and a career public
servant. Interestingly, it has been made
public that Hicks is also a registered Democrat who voted for President Obama
twice. It’s difficult for me to
understand how Hicks’ testimony is “partisan” given those facts but some Congressional
Democrats and the media continue to call the hearings “right-wing story telling.”
Mr. Hicks testified that he was on the phone with then
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the very night of the attacks and told her
what was going on. Hicks said he was
shocked and embarrassed when the President, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador
Rice began telling the world the attack was the result of a protest against an
anti-Islamic video and when they continued to say it even after the truth
became public. He further testified he
was criticized by the Undersecretary of State concerning his “management style”
and “effectively demoted” because of his disagreement with the administration.
According to testimony given by former Tripoli Regional
Officer Eric Nordstrom, Secretary of State Clinton waived security requirements
for the U.S. consulate in Benghazi despite extremely high risk levels. Security standards for diplomatic facilities
are established by the Overseas Security Policy Board [OSPB] and the Secure
Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 [SECCA]. According to Nordstrom and others, the
Secretary of State is the only person authorized to waive security standards
for areas of high risk. This authority
cannot be delegated.
Secretary Clinton says she did not waive the security
requirements for the Benghazi consulate.
So if she didn’t do it, and that authority cannot be delegated – who
did?
The third witness, Mark Thompson, a former Marine and now
the deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s
counterterrorism bureau, testified that during the attack his department was “pushed
out of the loop” and was not involved in strategies and or coordination of any
type of response.
Despite what administration officials (both civilian and
military) say, there is evidence that military response and assistance was
readily available but commanders were told to “stand down” rather than respond
to Benghazi. Then Secretary of Defense,
Leon Panetta, said he did not send rapid response teams into Benghazi because
he ‘didn’t know the extent of the danger and did not want to send people into
harm’s way without knowing what we were facing.” Huh?
He didn’t way no teams were available.
He said he chose not to send them.
My questions to Panetta are: “Why
have the rapid response teams if you’re not going to use them? Isn’t that what they train for?”
In the first two weeks after the incident the President,
Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Jay Carney, along with the mainstream media,
all maintained that the assault was caused by the video – knowing full well it
was a lie. Transparency? Yup.
It was easy to see right through their lies.
In other big news this week, the Internal Revenue Service
has publicly apologized to Tea Party members and others for targeting them for
increased scrutiny during the 2012 Presidential campaign. American political groups that had “Tea Party”
and/or “Patriot” as part of their name were flagged by the IRS so the IRS could
“take a closer look at their tax status.”
Of course, the higher-ups at the IRS said it was done by the
lower level staff and they knew nothing about it. However, as the story unfolds it seems there
were plans at the IRS to do this as far back as 2011.
Tea Party affiliates are understandably angry – first because
it happened and second, because when they reported it last year they were
mocked by the mainstream media and ignored by the government. And now we discover that they were
correct. Calling it a textbook example
of the very kind of government tyranny that tea party groups have been warning
about, Republican lawmakers are demanding investigations into what Rep. Darrell
Issa, (R) of California, called “unconscionable” behavior. And Tea Party members want those responsible
to be fired from the IRS.
White House Press Secretary, Jay Carney, asserted that the
IRS Commissioner at the time was a Bush appointee, indicating that no one in
the IRS administration knew anything about the targeting. How far up it goes still remains to be seen
but since the only groups targeted were Republican super PACs, it’s not
difficult to figure out that the entire scheme was political.
Now, I’m not saying I think President Obama personally had
anything to do with this. What’s important
now is what happens from here. Just as I
said after the Boston Marathon bombings, what matters now is what the President
says and does about it. Regardless of
who was at the helm at the time – it happened on his watch and during his
re-election campaign. And those two
things put him inside the circle of responsibility.
A typical response to either of these things from the left
is “Well, George Bush lied. Richard
Nixon lied.” I’m not sure why pointing
out that a predecessor lied somehow gets President Obama off the hook but let’s
look at those two comparisons. Certainly
Nixon lied. His men broke into the
Democratic campaign headquarters trying to get information that would help him
get re-elected. But nobody died because
of it. And while lies were told
afterward, when it became evident that the crime had indeed been committed,
Nixon had the decency to resign and those responsible for the crime and its
cover-up went to prison. I’m thinking
were at the stage now where Obama should channel Nixon…
As for Bush – I guess it comes down to what you
believe. I believe Bush went with the
intelligence he had – whether or not it was accurate. I believe he believed that Iraq had weapons
of mass destruction, including chemical weapons, and that the region and the
Iraqi people were in danger. What’s
more, when Congress heard the evidence they had, the majority of both parties
voted in favor of the attack. Now given
that the left is famous for saying that George Bush is an idiot, what’s easier
to believe – that the intelligence provided was believed to be real and
accurate or that the majority of Democrats in the House were duped by an
idiot? Hard to answer that one, huh?
I guess when President Obama says his is the most
transparent administration in history it is true to some extent. While I don’t believe he and I think alike on
this subject – I think he’s very transparent.
It’s pretty easy for most conservatives to see right through him and his
lies.
Mr. President – I’ll say this to you. The families of the four dead in Benghazi, as
well as those wounded and scarred for life, deserve you to do the right thing
and be honest and straightforward about what really happened and who dropped
the ball and decided our response to the incident would be nil. I don’t really expect you to take
responsibility but I’m sure there’s someone out there you can throw under the
bus. Personally, I’m hoping it’s Hillary
but I doubt that will be the case – because if it is I’m thinking she’ll pull
you along with her. After all – you’re
living in the house she believes should be hers…
No comments:
Post a Comment