by Tom Kando
As I have been saying for three years (See my The Benghazi Pseudo-Issue; Benghazi Ad Nauseam), the so-called “Benghazi affair/scandal” is nothing. It is a puff of hot air aimed to undermine Hillary Clinton and her quest for the White House.
I watched parts of the October 22 congressional hearings of the Select Committee on Benghazi chaired by Republican Congressman Trey Gowdy. This is the umpteenth committee created by the enemies of President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to “investigate Benghazi.”
I feel obligated to educate the public about Benghazi once again. Hopefully this will be a POST-MORTEM of this stupid and useless three-year-long scandal-mongering campaign aimed purely at undermining the Obama-Clinton administration, not to uncover any nefarious lies by them.
If you read the remainder of this short article, you will NOT see a repetition of what the media - at least the non-reactionary media - have already been saying for the past few days - namely that “Hillary Clinton did very well,” that she “won the exchange between her and her accusers,” that “the Benghazi hearings are useless,” etc.)
While these truisms are all true, let me point out a couple of additional and somewhat overlooked aspects:
1. The Republican accusations have totally changed over the past three years: As everyone should know by now, on or about 9/11/12, four Americans were murdered in Benghazi, including our ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. The GOP and their henchmen at Fox News then began to accuse the Obama administration of using fraudulent ‘talking points” to explain the murders. They accused the Obama administration of falsely attributing the attack to a spontaneous riot in response to a blasphemous Islamophobic video, instead of acknowledging that it was a well-planned terrorist attack. Big f...ing deal. Hillary Clinton, being the secretary of state, had to testify extensively about this. As she said at that time a couple of years ago, angrily pummeling her desk, in what I still consider one of her finest moments (paraphrased): “what difference does it make, whether Americans are murdered by a terrorist cell or by a rampaging terrorist mob? The tragedy is that they were all murdered!”
By the way, some people on Fox News had the audacity to use a truncated part of Clinton’s statement (the words “what difference does it make?”) as proof of her cruelty, insinuating that she didn’t care about the murder of the four Americans.
After a while, the country came to its senses and agreed with Clinton that quibbling about the “talking points” was meaningless. So this accusation fizzled out.
But the “investigation” did not go away, because, as Republican congressman McCarthy finally confessed recently, it was an instrument to undermine Clinton, nothing more. So now the Republicans are trying another tack:
Today, three years later, the accusation is that Clinton, the State Department and the Obama government failed to adequately PROTECT ambassador Stevens and the other three victims of the Libyan rampage. That is what most of the grueling 11-hour inquisition on Oct. 22 was basically about.
2. The proper label for this “investigation” - now entering its fourth year - is WITCH HUNT. Shame on the GOP for politicizing this tragedy. In 1983, during Ronald Reagan’s watch, almost 250 US Marines were killed in the Beirut barracks bombing. In 2000, 17 American sailors were murdered in the USS Cole bombing. Back then, instead of shamelessly exploiting these tragedies for political gain, Americans rallied together (as George W. Bush urged them to do). In fact, if Benghazi justifies such a congressional inquest, would the September 11 attacks not justify one a thousand-fold? Thank God, that didn’t happen. The country closed ranks.
3. I see here a clear similarity with Senator Joe McCarthy’s 1953 investigation of communist subversion in all branches of government, even allegedly in the Army. That ill-fated expedition came to an ignominious end, because the American people, the media, President Eisenhower and all other relevant parties realized that Joe McCarthy’s charges were bogus.
4. However, there is also a disturbing difference between these two investigations: Today, the media have become more cautious (cowardly?), and the American people are more disoriented. The media are hedging their bets, and many people don’t know what to think about Benghazi. As a matter of fact, a majority of Americans don’t know what Benghazi is about. On October 22, the Sacramento Bee urged in an editorial to “Disband the Benghazi Committee, Now.” Right on. Nearly five million dollars of taxpayer’s money have been wasted on this witch hunt. That’s more than enough. The farce has lasted long enough. By 1954, it had become clear that Joe McCarthy was a lying buffoon, and the country put a stop to his circus show. The Benghazi saga has been a similar scenario. Why, then, is the country unable to come to its senses?
P.S. And one more thing:
I already told you that the October 22 inquisition of Hillary Clinton reminded me of Joe McCarthy’s witch hunt in the 1950s.
Today, I had another déja vu (I often get good insights while I am on a long bike ride and an endorphin high):
It took a woman to save France in the fifteenth century. Her name was Joan of Arc. Most of us can remember this from history class and from Hollywood. Oh how I loved Ingrid Bergman in that role, and how my heart ached when I saw her burned at the stake - her reward for saving her country! And how I laughed when I heard that the evil bishop who led Joan’s inquisition was named Cauchon
(means “pig,” differently spelled). And how happy I was when I learned that Joan was later canonized and became Saint Joan.
Seeing Hillary Clinton being battered and vilified for eleven hours by a committee of mostly middle-aged men and republicans, I was reminded of the inquisition of Ingrid Bergman by the Church and bishop Pig. Clinton’s valiant and righteous answers were similarly worthy of historical analogy.
The difference: Hillary Clinton will neither be burned at the stake, nor will she be sanctified by the Pope posthumously.
The similarity: It took a woman to save France during the Hundred Years War. It may take a woman to save America from the clutches of what the Republican Party has become.
leave comment here
8 comments:
She did a super job of keeping her cool under such intense pressure for eleven hours. She got eleven free air time hours for next year's election.
good point!
In this case, there are some unfortunate differences between the McCarthy era and today. My reply could be very long if I listed them all, but I believe the biggest difference is the media. There is media for every imaginable constituency including those that are fanatical in their right wing extremist views. Obviously, there is Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but it is much larger and more mainstream than that. The alleged mainstream media profits from this kind of fake scandal. It fuels outrage and outrage sells. The same phenomena seems to be driving the Trump and Carson campaigns where there seems to be an endless appetite for ever more outrageous comments and characterizations. Enough of the media wants this to go on to keep fueling it.
I believe this will continue until another more attractive "scandal" takes its place. Already there is talk of a Planned Parenthood "investigation" which will take the focus off Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!
Thank you for your excellent comments. I agree with you totally.
Sometimes I wonder about my own judgment - as to what constitutes a "legitimate" scandal and what doesn't. It feels as if the age of "politics-by-scandal" started with Watergate. I still believe that THAT scandal was NOT contrived (by the media, or Nixon's enemies, or whoever) and that there was some real wrongdoing by Nixon and his henchmen. I hope that I am not so biased as to only dismiss Republican-generated scandals as phony ones, while accepting those raised by the Democrats as justified...
I want to (continue to) judge every affair on its own merit...
For me the issue is less the controversy about Benghazi than was the Obama administration's approach to Libya and Syria--arming "moderate rebels"--a responsible foreign policy strategy. It seems that this view may have assumed that tribal peoples would be able to run their own state democracy if we helped topple a dictator. I'm not sure democracy would have been possible without a military occupation for a long period of time that could police a democratic process. Iraq and Afghanistan are examples of either Russia's or the U.S. ability to stay in long enough for the cultural consciousness to accept people of other tribes or religions as equals. By arming rebel groups and destabilizing the dictatorial regime, the end result was anarchy, or what Hobbes called "the state of nature." The result was the parade of refugees now flooding Europe. I think U.S. foreign policy is responsible for creating those refugees. Now Russia and Iran want to prop up the Syrian dictator, then humanize the regime from within later. I think I agree with their approach. Tunisia was an example of humanization from within, as its regime changed without outside intervention to overthrow it. The Tunisian quartet probably deserves the Nobel Prize, while U.S. foreign policy earned the booby prize.
Tell Hilary not to worry. In her own words the Benghazi tragedy was just a "speed bump" for American diplomacy. She and her gutless Commander-In-Chief are responsible for the unnecessary deaths of the Marines and staff who were pleading for military support.
Perhaps Hilary can name Jane Fonda as her running mate. That could be a pairing that would bring down our military dominance and world respect twice as fast!
Hilary's "speed bump" is made from the bodies of the brave soldiers who were abandoned for political selfishness.
Shame on her!
Tom,
I understand your sentiments, about the death of brave soldiers doing their duty. I'm not sure about your assessment of Hillary Clinton's role.
Also, I am wondering how you feel about the ABSENCE of congressional inquisitions after previous, far bloodier, attacks on Americans such as Beirut in 1983, the USS Cole in 2000 and of course the 9/11 attacks. These happened under Republican watch, and there would be plenty to investigate.
There is ALWAYS plenty to investigate, plenty of mistakes in hindsight, “the fog of war,” as Clinton keeps saying.
The difference between her detractors and her supporters is that we each cherry pick some facts and some details, whichever we are provided with by the media sources which we rely on - Fox News, MSNBC, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times...
As to Gordon, his points are excellent. Even Tony Blair, one of the architects of the Iraq war, has now admitted that it was that intervention and destabilization which resulted in the rise of ISIS. It's amazing that Gordon (and I) have come to agree with what Putin - otherwise a lawless thug - is doing!
I agree with Gordon's analysis. It is sad that America's international role has switched from peace keeper to moralizer. Nothing is gained by it, least of all for America. The Pax Americana is a thing of the past, thanks to both the left and the right's 'isolationist' tendency. The Benghazi incidence is another one of those pseudo-problems and misses the point entirely.
I am a product of America's benevolent influence after the Second World War, when it saw that it had to admit that it was the only world power that could prevent other countries from causing serious mischief. Now, it is no longer willing to play that role. Who knows what the rest of the twenty first century will bring without America's global involvement. Be careful with what you wish for, all you isolationists out there. Your wish might become your nightmare.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!