"The Most Transparent Administration In History...." ?

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 11^th 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…