CBS reports
that a source says that the Benghazi talking points were changed by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, without the knowledge
of the White House.
Let me stipulate a few things. The first is that I have come to
believe we’ll never learn the truth about Benghazi; the combination of
this administration and the completely complicit MSM is almost
overwhelming. The second is that even if we were to learn the truth,
the majority of Americans either would not be paying attention, or
wouldn’t much care about it even if they were. The third is that, even
if this CBS report is the truth, it would indicate a remarkable
degree of incompetence on the part of the Obama administration—for not
being more involved in the information that was given the public; and/or
for not correcting the story much, much earlier rather than doubling
down on the stupid and transparently incorrect “it’s the video”
narrative.
And that’s not just hindsight about the video versus terrorists. The terrorist link was clear from the start, as I wrote here.
What’s more, who bears the responsibility for misinforming the
American public on Benghazi is just one small part of the big picture of
the Benghazi debacle, which also features incredibly poor security
preparation prior to the attack, ignoring staff requests for more
security, and an inadequate response during the attack, as well as the subsequent coverup that has been the more recent focus.
Many of us on the right think that Benghazi is a scandal with issues
that make it at least potentially far more important than Clinton and
Lewinsky and even than Watergate. I agree. But I’ve already said I
don’t think it will ever get much traction with the public because of
the audacity of the Obama administration and the cooperation of the
press.
So, what was so different with Monicagate and Watergate? Note that
one featured a Republican (Nixon) and one a Democrat (Clinton), the
first a man who was hated by the MSM and the second a man who was loved.
Both scandals had long introductory periods of moderately successful
coverup (despite the intrinsic interest generated by the sexual nature
of the Clinton scandal), but then both exploded and the public became
convinced they were serious controversies. The difference between then
and now is that both featured smoking guns that forced people to pay
attention: for Nixon it was the existence of the tapes themselves, and
then the so-called “smoking gun” tape
that seemed to implicate the president directly in the coverup and
obstruction of justice, and for Clinton the famous semen-stained blue
dress that proved once and for all that he had had some sort of sexual relations with “that woman.”
I submit that, but for each of those things, those scandals might
never have reached critical mass. Clinton’s denials would have held—and
Nixon’s probably would have as well, despite the fact that he lacked
press support. Remember also that what did Nixon in and convinced him to resign was the fact that his fellow Republicans
deserted him, informing him that they would probably impeach and vote
to convict. For Clinton, what ever could be more of a smoking gun
(smoking hot) than the dress Linda Tripp had convinced Lewinsky to save,
which was finally turned over to investigators, providing proof positive of his affair?
Nixon resigned because Republicans deserted him, but the Democrats
never deserted Clinton. Therein lies the difference between the two outcomes, and the reason Clinton was able to weather the storm of his impeachment.
So, back to Benghanzi. What smoking gun could ever be uncovered? A
memo with Obama’s name on it saying “Hey, let’s do a coverup and lie to
the American people to protect ourselves?” He’s nowhere near that
stupid. Obama will let subordinates take the fall; it almost doesn’t
matter which ones, but he has plenty who would look good under that bus.
And I doubt there are any smoking gun tapes, or any tapes at all.
By the way: are there any White House tapes? No one’s ever asked,
although it would be an interesting question. I doubt the answer would
be “yes.”
What’s more, Democrats would never turn on Obama, even if there was a literal
smoking gun and it was discovered that Obama murdered the ambassador
himself. Yes, I know he didn’t (that’s for the trolls among you), but
just try to imagine what sort of offense would be enough to get the
Senate to vote to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Difficult, isn’t it?
No comments:
Post a Comment