Friday, May 9, 2014

We have nothing to hide! But seriously, call off the investigation . . .

Benghazi and the NSA: If something doesn't smell rotten when it comes to these two hot-button issues, then you might have a neurological disorder that prevents your brain from detecting the unmistakable scent of shit.

Yesterday, the House voted to create a select committee to investigate the Benghazi incident.  I think I speak for a large number of Americans when I say: finally!  Yes, there have already been several investigations, and according to this article, those investigations actually led to punishment.  Even so, many Americans still can't help but wonder whether or not the blame goes a lot higher up the food chain.

Democrats allover have expressed their protestations against this investigation.  Unsurprisingly, Nancy Pelosi has decried this as political theater--a publicity stunt, perpetrated by the GOP, to smear as many Democrats as possible before the mid-term elections.  It's true that we can't deny the fact that this investigation certainly will create a positive political advantage for the GOP, but that is merely a side-effect, a result of what may come to light.

The truth remains that there is a number of White House communications regarding Benghazi that have been redacted.  Given the little information that has been released and/or exposed, there still remains enough evidence to cast a large shadow of doubt on whether the White House was not somehow complicit in the Benghazi tragedy.

To the Democrats, I have only one question: if there was truly no malfeasance on the part of any member of the Obama administration, then why are you acting as though you have something to hide?  Although the GOP is often guilty of this, many times dealing with the Democrats is like dealing with children.  It's like when you ask your kid to clean his room.  After a couple hours, you ask him if he cleaned his room just as he was told.  He says "yes," but when you go to check to make sure he actually did it, he stops you and says "it's okay, you don't need to check!  I told you I did it!"

Does that not seem awfully suspicious?  Would you not then be further compelled to check whether or not he complied with your instructions?  The Obama administration tries to tout "transparency," as though we're supposed to simply trust them.  But then we're faced with oddities like heavily redacted emails and an increasingly evasive administration, it's hard to trust that there is no cover-up afoot.

And why shouldn't we be suspicious?  Look at all that has been revealed about the NSA's illegal surveillance programs.  It's interesting that the very concerns that Ed Snowden expressed, and the illegal activity that he exposed, have all come to light and have been proven to be true.  Yes: Snowden violated his NDA, but he did so to expose the illegal programs of a government agency long bereft of any true civilian oversight.

When the Snowden documents first revealed the "metadata," fiasco surrounding American cell phone communications, the NSA vehemently denied that they record phone calls.  A few months later, we find out about the MYSTIC program, it's purpose being none other than to hold 1 month's worth of American citizens' phone call recordings.  The Obama administration claims to have known nothing about this.  So what is it?  Is Obama still woefully unaware of what is going on in the US government, or is the White House lying about the extent of their knowledge/involvement with the NSA's illegal surveillance?

What's more: why are folks on Capitol Hill still calling for Snowden's arrest?  As far as I can tell, Snowden has not damaged America's intelligence efforts against our enemies--unless, of course, the average, free-thinking American citizen is considered the enemy these days.

The past year has seen some serious questions raised about what our government is up to.  Fortunately, we have patriots like Ed Snowden who are not afraid to sacrifice everything in order to protect the American people from would-be Big Brothers.  What is worrisome is that, although we have brave men and women who are unafraid to ask the hard questions, we seem to have a shortage of brave men and women in positions of power who are afraid to actually find the answers and bring them into the light of day.

One last thought before the Democrats rush to the defense of their King: you want us to let go of Benghazi--an incident that cost American lives--but you didn't want to let go of Chris Christie and "Bridgegate."

Interesting.

23 comments:

Jersey McJones said...

What exactly is it about "Benghazi" that you want to know?

JMJ

FreeThinke said...

Good article, Jack! Best thing you’ve shared in quite a while.

You made your point eloquently merely by asking these questions:

... if there was truly no malfeasance on the part of any member of the Obama administration, then why are you acting as though you have something to hide?”

” ... why shouldn't we be suspicious?  Look at all that has been revealed about the NSA's illegal surveillance programs.  It's interesting that the very concerns that Ed Snowden expressed, and the illegal activity that he exposed, have all come to light and have been proven to be true.”  

”... you want us to let go of Benghazi--an incident that cost American lives--but you didn't want to let go of Chris Christie and "Bridgegate."

Can’t think why you didn’t add Lois Lerner and the all-too-successful attempt of the IRS to stifle free speech through the virtual persecution of conservative advocacy groups, but you’ve asked all the right questions, and made what-should-be-regarded-as stunning, highly disturbing implications.

I’ve made my own attempts to define and describe leftist tactics till I’ve become blue in the face. It’s extremely tiring to know the truth and articulate very clearly only to have it ignored or rudely challenged by those who love to argue for arguments’ sake time and time again.

To answer Jersey’s question. “What is it you want to now about Benghazi?” I would ask, “If there was nothing lacking or plainly wrong and immoral in the behavior of Madame Clinton, the State Department, the White House “Situation Room Staff,” and President Obama, why do the Democrats want to do anything BUT answer questions about it?

A Jack has said, they ACT guilty while proclaiming their innocence. How could that possibly be described as making sense of any kind?

The persistent attempts by Democrats to deflect criticism by referring to the sins real and imagined of President Obama’s predecessors are childish, irrelevant, spiteful and frankly stupid.

Jack Camwell said...

Well, Jersey, I want to know what they redacted. I want to know what they DON'T want us to know.

Typically, the only times the government doesn't want us to know something about their operations is when the revelation of that knowledge could be damaging to American security OR incredibly damaging to political careers.

Jack Camwell said...

And thanks, FT! Glad to know you still read my stuff =)

KP said...

STRONG, Jack!

Jersey McJones said...

I don't get it. You want to know what was redacted about communications between the White House and the State Department after the attacks? You want to know who knew what when Susan Rice went on TV and said it had to do with that stupid sleazy video? You want to know that even though the President, the next day, said it was a terror attack, and a couple days later so did the State Department? THAT'S what's bothering you????

Lunacy. Who the hell cares?

What's important is how it happened in the first place, but the sleazy Republicans want to go on and on and on over some God damned motherfucking talking points, like little fucking girls on a playground.

JMJ

FreeThinke said...

Jersey, old boy, you're so bad, you're good, and so ridiculous you're downright entertaining.

I know damned well, that if those in charge had happened to be Republicans when this terrible event occurred, they would have been chained to the Catherine Wheel, had all four limbs smashed with hammers, then drawn and quartered, and then hanged by their thumbs till their last screams died away, and the last drop of blood left their mutilated bodies.

After that their names would be ritually vilified on the media and dragged through the mud in every future political campaign.

FreeThinke said...

Hey, KP! Whatever happend to YOU? Haven't seen you anywhere in ages. Hope you're doing well.

Shoot me an email, and let me know sometime, will ya?

I hope you haven't disowned me?

FT

Jersey McJones said...

FT, attacks like this happened THIRTEEN TIMES during the Bush years. 13 friggin' times. The GOP is a party of people who have no idea what a mirror is.

JMJ

Always On Watch said...

Jack,
Well said!

To all appearances, the Obama administration is indeed hiding something about Benghazi. If not, wouldn't it be better for the Obama administration to lay all the many speculations to rest?

Always On Watch said...

FT's comment is spot on:

I know damned well, that if those in charge had happened to be Republicans when this terrible event occurred, they would have been chained to the Catherine Wheel, had all four limbs smashed with hammers, then drawn and quartered, and then hanged by their thumbs till their last screams died away, and the last drop of blood left their mutilated bodies.

And the media would have been leading the pack of hounds!

Jersey McJones said...

Again, it happened 13 TIMES during the Bush administration. Phonies.

JMJ

Jack Camwell said...

Jersey,

Considering GBW LAUNCHED the War on Terror, it's sort of difficult to compare the response of the Bush administration to that of the Obama administration.

The question is not whether or not Benghazi could have been prevented. The question is whether or not the Obama administration lied about the origins of the attack--i.e. whether it was planned or some spontaneous event sparked by a random YouTube video--and how much the Obama administration knew about the impending attack before it happened.

Seriously, some random asshats in Jersey close down the George Washington Bridge, and every Democrat in the world immediately calls for Governor Christie's head. What's more, they don't fucking stop looking for evidence against him until every last possible lead is exhausted.

But we see some intriguing, heavily redacted emails involving the Benghazi situation and what? We're supposed to just assume that the Obama administration is super-saintly and incapable of intrigue?

MYSTIC. That's all I have to say about that.

Jack Camwell said...

And thanks for visiting AOW =)

Jersey McJones said...

Jack, it's a steaming pile of bullshit.

JMJ

Always On Watch said...

The topic of Benghazi has zero to do with the Bush Administration. Invading Libya was the action of the Obama Administration.

Jersey McJones said...

We invaded Libya?

The point about the Bush administration is that this happened 13 times on their watch and there was no ridiculous reaction to some friggin' talking points about it. This is puerile partisan sleaziness.

JMJ

Joe Markowitz said...

When more than 200 Marines were murdered in their barracks in Lebanon, we blamed the terrorists. We didn't start massive and multiple investigations of the Reagan administration. And when 3000 Americans were murdered in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, we also blamed the terrorists. It was considered almost un-American to suggest that the Bush administration was at fault. This is true despite the fact that in both cases there was plenty of negligence in both administrations to find.

But when four Americans are killed in Libya, we hardly hear anyone blaming the terrorists or standing up for our government. Instead it must be Obama's fault somehow. And if after launching investigation after investigation, we still haven't found much to fault, well that must be because they are still hiding something so we better launch another investigation, and if that one doesn't succeed, it must be because they are still hiding something, we don't know what, but something. And how dare anyone question the need for another investigation. Since none of the previous ones found any wrongdoing, that in and of itself justifies the need to launch another one.

Always On Watch said...

See this timeline about the civil war in Libya. Also note this statement:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for Gaddafi to be killed or captured.

That's a form of invasion, IMO.

I'm not sure that Libya has been stable ever since.

Jersey McJones said...

AoW, I bet if a Republican did exactly what Obama did in Libya, you guys wouldn't be whining about it.

JMJ

Always On Watch said...

JMJ,
I can't speak for others. But I am not one of those people beating a war drum. At the time of the Iraq invasion, I favored it -- as did Colin Powell. However, I've never agreed with America's being an occupying force in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

PS: I am not a member of the GOP.

Jersey McJones said...

That doesn't surprise me. There were a lot of conservatives who were not for those wars, or at least not for full-on invasions. The war, as we know it, was a Neocon idea. The political impetus was 9/11. The political support was from the Religious Right. Everyone else spoke out, or punked out, or sold out.

JMJ

BB-Idaho said...

5 US ambassadors have been killed by foreign mobs-Guatemala 1968, Sudan 1973, Cyprus 1974, Lebanon
1976, Afghanistan 1979: diplomatic immunity only goes so far. The death of ambassador Stevens is the latest. He was not at the secure embassy, but at an outlying consulate. I doubt Mr.
Stevens would be impressed with the GOP witch hunt: of Chinook
Indian heritage, he saw the Bush
Administration overturn that tribe's request for status as a recognized tribe (yeah, they saved Lewis & Clark, but that was a long time ago): he saw congressman Darrel Issa lead the GOP move to cut $500 million from
the State Department embassy security budget and he was a professional statesman, aware of
the dangers in places like Libya.
I would investigate congressman
Issa (again, he has a criminal past, you know) for culpability
in the affair.