Having worked in the press corps and associated with so many fellow reporters it gives me no pleasure at all to tell you that many of them are not the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.
I start my blog with this, somewhat obvious, statement because for all the hullabaloo surrounding the White House lately and their evident abuse of power the one question I’m waiting to have answered has not even been asked yet. And that fact alone should convince any reasonable person to be concerned for the intelligence of our fourth estate. Who originated the idea of blaming an anti-Islamic YouTube video for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya last September 11? To me the fact that eight months have passed without that question being asked, let alone answered points to a complicity at the highest levels of the Obama Administration.
Here’s what we know now about Benghazi.
1) The President, Secretary of State Clinton, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney,
and UN Ambassador Susan Rice lied, repeatedly, about the nature of the attack for up to two weeks after its occurrence.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.
2) We know the President, Carney and Hillary lied about the reason for the lie. Blaming talking points they said were crafted by officials of the intelligence community. We now know that State Department and White House “leadership” were instrumental in shaping the ultimate talking-points that proved to be a lie.
3) We know the State Department, headed by Clinton, ignored repeated requests for better security at the Benghazi consulate.
4) We know four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the pre-planned attack which had nothing to do with any video.
5) We know President Obama was involved in a tight re-election bid and that his campaigns over-riding theme was that Bin Laden was dead and Al Qaeda was on the run (only they weren’t). And we know Mitt Romney’s failure to press Obama on the Benghazi issue made him look weak and allowed Obama the high ground; especially after CNN’s Candy Crowley’s
CNN Sr Political Correspondent Candy Crowley at Obama Rally in Houston, Texas
unprecedented intrusion into their Presidential debate in favor of Obama in a statement that ultimately proved untrue.
6) And we know that State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland wrote in a private email that “building leadership” (State Department building) was not satisfied with the talking points on Benghazi. Who was the building’s “leadership”? That would be Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State. Who was Nuland’s immediate boss? Uh..huh…
What we don’t know is who originally fabricated the lie that in large part rescued Obama’s campaign and went a long way toward assuring his re-election. But connecting the dots doesn’t make it difficult to draw a line straight to Hillary Clinton, and then from her straight to Obama himself. Perhaps someone will connect the dots now that increased scrutiny is being focused on the apparent abuse of power by the Obama Administration.
The revelation last week that the powerful IRS focused much tougher scrutiny on Conservative or Tea Party groups seeking non-profit status only confirms what individuals in this group have been saying for more than two years. According to an article in USA Today yesterday a Tea Party group had its application approved 90 days from submission in February 2010 and that no other Tea Party group would get their tax-exempt status approved for 27 months.
Early reports of this story following IRS Director of Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner said the abuse of the Conservative groups was limited to 2012 and was limited to lower level employees in a IRS field office in Cincinnati, Ohio (Yes…THAT Ohio. The state that singlehandedly decided the 2004 Presidential election and the state that was expected to again be a deciding swing state in the 2012 campaign). Only what Lerner and media reports didn’t tell us was that the blocking of Conservative groups tax-exempt status began in 2010 and that the Cincinnati IRS office was the sole location where such applications were directed from all across the country. In other words, there was a nationwide abuse of power over right-leaning organizations that seriously hampered their fund-raising capabilities through two elections. Or do you not believe that individuals and corporations are more likely to give money to an organization if it’s a registered non-profit and such donation is tax deductible? The answer is obvious. And money wins elections. And through this conspiracy money-raising efforts by those who would oppose Obama and Democratic ideals were seriously hampered.
But the abuse of power doesn’t stop there. In another unprecedented act of power, or abuse thereof, the Obama Justice Department subpoenaed the phone records from 20 different phone lines used by Associated Press reporters in April and May of 2012. AP President and CEO Gary Pruit said, ”There can be no possible justification for such an over broad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,”. Democrats please note: this is not some right-wing GOP operative slamming the Obama DOJ. THIS IS THE ASSOCIATED PRESS!
Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that he had recused himself from the subpoena process in the AP case. He then revealed in testimony Wednesday before a House committee that no such recusal exists, at least, not in writing. This is the head law-enforcement officer in the country admitting he didn’t keep a written record of his involvement in a leak investigation that he called the worst he’d been witness to in his career. Really? So it’s a big case with big unprecedented decisions being made and our Attorney General felt no need to have record of his recusal. Am I alone in finding no credibility in this statement?
We’ve seen this all before. Forty years ago a second-rate burglary, initially ignored by all the national press, grew into a story of abuse of power by a President and his Administration that was wide-spread and involved many different angles, stories, and victims. When the White House finally released about 100 pages of emails over the Benghazi matter yesterday it was only a small gesture. Because there are more, a lot more. Anyway…it reminded me of Nixon releasing SOME of the tapes.
Thanks for visiting. Comments are welcome.