Clinton at one point during a different hearing from the latest asked in something of a snit what difference does it make whether those who were killed in Benghazi was the result of a reaction to a video or a terrorist attack?
Now that may be the narrative she and the current administration would like to promote but I think the difference is not only obvious but a major one.
It’s one thing if those who lost their lives did so due to a lack of providing the security they felt was necessary and repeatedly asked for or it was an unforeseeable spontaneous event.
I suppose an equally inane suggestion could be made of what difference does it make if Hillary came under fire in Kosovo as she claimed or if she didn’t as later admitted?
Or what difference does it make if the Clinton Foundation accepts money from the misogynistic Saudis acting as brokers for Saudi interests?
Obviously the hope is that people will say there is no difference, dead is dead, money is money, and a lie doesn’t really matter.
Unfortunately though that isn’t the way either the law or should the public perceive such things – case in point a traffic accident involving fatalities – could be an unavoidable accident in which no charges would be filed, add a driver under the influence and it becomes an entirely different matter.
At the very least the deaths at Benghazi demonstrate a contributory negligence – that too should be considered worthy of either bringing charges or a few heads rolling.
Factor in the attack was sustained over a period of several hours and a response team was two hours in flight time away from a base in Italy that wasn’t activated then by the definition of contributory negligence that is exactly what occurred.
Some might attempt to take issue with using a drunk diver as an analogy, and maybe they could, yet many politicians can rightfully be said to be drunk with power and self importance – but being drunk with power and a sense of self importance is also an act of negligence and lack of due diligence.
Theories abound as to why the current administration along with Clinton went all out to create the perception that the events in Benghazi were spontaneous and unforeseeable – they in fact did so for two or three weeks.
One theory is that if the particulars were to become known it would have a negative impact on Obama’s re election effort.
I can’t say if that’s true or not but it does have the ring of pure party politics to me – anybody doubting whether a sitting president would engage in lying or a cover up to gain re election is naive at best, and I seriously doubt could provide an opposing example related to any president.
But as I’ve previously said this so called bipartisan committee amounts to little more than a circus, a neighborhood block party or internet meme if you like, and should be replaced with an independent commission if anything resembling an investigation is to continue.
Will that happen? No, and for obvious reasons, because the deaths of those at Benghazi has moved beyond fact finding into the arena of a politicized bipartisan sham of a committee – in other words, business as usual.
Do I believe Clinton has and is lying? Absolutely, but she’s far from being the lone example and to what degree isn’t presently known though a few examples do exist.
Among any who did nobody has clean underwear, the only “difference” being some should be wearing Depends in lieu of thongs or boxers due to the “load” they’re carrying.
That won’t resonate with partisans as one thing that characterizes partisanship is the lack of willingness to assign blame or even a hint of suspicion to anyone other than the opposition.
I suspect if this continues and for viable reasons the heat is cranked up a scapegoat or two will be offered – if so odds are it won’t be Clinton but someone significantly lower on the totem pole – that too part of the theater of politics and business as usual.
As I’ve said if Clinton is clean well and good it should be made abundantly clear, if she isn’t then the opposite should be the way of it – the “investigation” in it’s current form has shown itself to be inept and incapable of arriving at a reasoned determination inspite of Trey Gowdy’s best efforts to assure one and all it is. Nor should it be intended to be a love fest.
On a personal note I would be pleased if Clinton were clean, as I still like to hope that on some level public servants serve the best interests of the public.
I think Clinton finds herself in the eye of the storm now, a brief respite but yet to face the back end which may well turn out to be a category five.
Her problem isn’t so much the Benghazi committee but the FBI headed by James Comey, which is something of an irony as he was appointed to head the fbi by Obama while being lauded for possessing integrity and independence.
Anyone doing even a cursory search can only come to the conclusion that Comey isn’t an Administration team player, and if that’s the case doubtful he’ll back off if pressured.
From the Clinton viewpoint if it comes to that it doesn’t bode well and few options remain – Comey could be fired much the same as Archibald Cox was during the Nixon Watergate investigation.
Alternately the DOJ could ignore or attempt to downplay the specifics and opt not to issue an indictment.
Either way though the reasons would be so transparent the Clinton ship would sink and the Obama administration would likely never recover from the fallout – he’d be viewed as the new Nixon.
If viable reasons exist for the feds to seek an indictment and that is understood by the current administration the same delaying tactics exhibited thus far by the State Department will continue to be the way of it at least long enough for Obama to end his term.
Even though Biden has bowed out who can the DNC turn to if it all goes south for Hillary?
Sanders? I don’t think that’s probable as Sanders is seen to be as much of a threat to the status quo by the DNC as he is by the RNC.
How about Elizabeth Warren? Again I suspect not high on their list as she is perceived to be a threat in her own right and that brings us full circle back to Biden who could become the draft candidate of choice.
A possible advantage in going with Sanders or Warren in such a scenario, or a Sanders/Warren ticket might be a public clamoring for a candidate who isn’t seen as a party toady, someone willing to buck the establishment.
Of course this is speculation but the fact remains this investigation is far from over and the second shoe may not have dropped yet.
In the interim the Clinton camp will put on smiley faces, strut about and say see we told you so while huddling behind closed doors anxiously biting their finger nails.
The implications are huge if wrong doing exists, equally so if as some proclaim it is much ado about nothing and a witch hunt.
So I’m moving on from Benghazi blog wise pending either new revelations or an announcement by the feds. Though I’m working on a blog related to the Clinton Foundation.
As it stands I believe only a very few know the truth in it’s entirety whether it exonerates or incriminates – John Lennon recorded a song about giving peace a chance, how about giving truth a chance regardless of where it may lead us or the vested interests of partisanship?
If transparency is to be the way of things this president declared his administration would be the most transparent in history then no further delays and foot dragging serve that end, release anything and everything pertinent and allow the process and country to move on.