Unless you've been living in a cave, you know about the sorry story of Benghazi. I first posted about it when it occurred in Sept, 2012. You can read it here. And there were subsequent posts. The story has been going on for a long time. It fades from the news and returns. The idiots in the White House would like us to believe there is nothing to it. But now there's some evidence of a coverup. And the Republicans think they may finally be able to get to the truth. Peggy Noonan had a good article in the WSJ today about it and she hits the nail on the head. You can read her views here. She has a pretty good explanation of the issue in this succinct paragraph.
"The reasons Benghazi is important do not have to be rehearsed here. An American outpost, virtually undefended, was attacked by armed and organized al Qaeda-associated militants on the anniversary of 9/11 and four were left dead, including the U.S. ambassador. It happened eight weeks before the 2012 presidential election. From day one White House management and leadership focused on spin and an apparent fiction. Did they deliberately mislead and misdirect? Why was there no military response? Who is responsible?"She also addresses the comparison with Iran-Contra far better than I could.
I don't know where this whole thing is going. But from my perspective one thing is certain. When this happened the first motivation was political spin. Not 4 dead Americans and a State Department that didn't give a shit. Not holding people accountable. Not doing the right thing. And that's not what we expect from our President.Iran-Contra was a real scandal and an embarrassment to the U.S. government. In the early 1980s the Reagan White House was worried about the fate of a handful of American hostages being held by Hezbollah, which had snatched each off the streets of Beirut. The president was especially worried about CIA station chief William Buckley, who was being tortured.Suddenly in 1985 word reached the administration of a possible opening, a group of so-called Iranian moderates who might be willing to pressure Hezbollah for the hostages' release. Meetings were authorized. It turned out the Iranian group wanted something in return: the U.S. to permit Israel to sell them antitank missiles to use against Iraq. The U.S. would replenish the Israeli stock.Reagan unwisely agreed. His secretary of state, George Shultz, heard about the scheme, opposed it, and told Reagan that while it might not technically amount to an arms-for-hostages deal, it would look like one and open the president to charges he broke the law.Reagan should have pulled the plug, but some hostages were slowly released, and he allowed the scheme to continue.The story broke in a Mideast newspaper. The administration denied it—all of it. Reporters began to dig.It was a big enough scandal on its own, but then came word that profits from the arms sales had been illegally funneled to the Nicaraguan Contras, who were fighting the communist Sandinista government.The attorney general, Ed Meese, launched a review of the affair. It was a real investigation, and he went public with his findings. The national security adviser who oversaw the operation had left, but his replacement resigned and his deputy was fired.The president delivered a national address. Two congressional committees launched investigations. Networks covered the hearings live. Ben Bradlee of the Washington Post said it was the most fun he'd had since Watergate.Reagan waived executive privilege so his aides would testify. He announced a special commission to investigate everything. There was a full housecleaning. Colin Powell was brought in to run the National Security Council, and Mr. Shultz given full authority for all dealings with Iran. Ultimately Reagan dumped his chief of staff.The Iran-Contra affair did not spring from low motives. There was no hope of partisan gain, it wasn't a political play.All involved were trying—sometimes stupidly, almost childishly—to save lives, and perhaps establish a new opening with Iran. They had good reasons, but the actions were bad, and everyone involved paid a price.Compare that with how the Obama White House has handled Benghazi. It's all been spin, close ranks, point fingers, obfuscate, withhold documents, accuse your accusers of base motives. Nobody in the administration has paid a price.
And then there is the tragic saga of the Lost Girls of Nigeria. This story has been splashed on the headlines the last few days. A group called Boko Harem, who are a bunch of thugs and terrorists in Nigeria, kidnapped 300 girls from a boarding school and are selling them into slavery. Of course this is a despicable and shameful act. And the world is outraged. There are protests, outcries, marches, even attempts to help. We have sent a team of hostage negotiators and experts to assist the Nigerians. But here's the thing...we sent 10 people. 10! Boko Harem is hiding in a forest in Nigeria. It is about 750 miles x 500 miles. That's 375,000 square miles. And we send 10 people. We have the most sophisticated and capable military in the world. And we send 10 people. We have forest penetrating radars, unmanned aerial vehicles, Special Operations who are expert in this kind of thing. And we send 10 people. Michelle Obama goes on national TV and rightly claims it's an outrage and says she and Barrack will do everything possible to fix this situation. And we send 10 people. If there is anything consistent with this crowd, it's that they say one thing and do another. They have great rhetoric about what they are going to do...and then they do nothing...or send 10 people. It is disgusting and shameful. By their lies, their disengagement, their blunders, they have taken the USA to the lowest position in the world in a century. But elections have consequences. We have been told that. Well, an election is coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment