The New, And Worse, Watergate

Monty Pelerin / EconomicNoise.com

American citizens died. The story behind the Benghazi tragedy needs to be revealed. Mainstream news, to get their candidate Barack Obama re-elected, largely ignored the tragedy of Benghazi and continue to do so.

Each day we learn more disturbing facts about what happened in Benghazi as emails and cables are slowly uncovered. Now we have the possibility of blackmail of the CIA director. The picture is not complete but it has concrete form and it sure looks ugly.

There are many things we don’t know because there has been an effort to cover up the details. What happened in the White House and the chain of command does not require an investigation. President Obama knows what he did, said and ordered or did not order. That we haven’t heard anything from him for two months is disgraceful. Early responses were obvious and deliberate attempts to mislead.

Stephen F. Hayes discussed Benghazi:

The Journal argues that the Obama administration has sought to avoid accountability by offering “evasive, inconsistent and conflicting accounts about one of the most serious American overseas defeats in recent years.” The editorial continues: “Unresolved questions about Benghazi loom over this election because the White House has failed to resolve them.”

Among those unanswered questions: “Why did the U.S. not heed warnings about a growing Islamist presence in Benghazi and better protect the diplomatic mission and CIA annex?” And: “What exactly happened on the day of 9/11? During the over six hours that the compounds in Benghazi were under siege, could the U.S. have done more to save lives?” And: “What was President Obama doing and ordering his subordinates to do in those fateful hours? Why has the Administration’s story about what took place in Benghazi been so haphazard and unclear?”

These questions, and many others, need answers. The administration has managed to avoid providing them for nearly eight weeks, with a much needed assist from a suddenly lack of curiosity among the truth-seeking journalists at many of America’s most influential news outlets. Perhaps after the election that curiosity will return.

There can be no excuse for this cover-up, regardless of how incompetent the reaction of the President and those under him might have been. Indeed, the country has grown used to their incompetence and would not be surprised to see another example of it. Incompetence has ruled domestic policy and now appears to be the driver in foreign policy as well.

If the cover-up of Watergate was an impeachable offense, then just what does the cover-up of Benghazi warrant? In comparison, impeachment would seem to be an easy decision solely based on the attempt to cover up. But that is where the comparison ends. Watergate was a “third-rate burglary” that took place in an attempt to gain political advantage. We don’t know what or if there was a crime in Benghazi, but the country deserves to know the details. Errors of omission and possibly commission were committed, necessitating a cover-up. These errors are not criminal per se. If incompetence were a criminal offense, few presidents would have survived one term.

The entire incident, it seems, could have been politically defused early on with a simple explanation that could have gone something like the following: “We deemed the risk too great to commit additional American troops in a rescue attempt.” Obviously that would not suffice as a full explanation, but it would have ended much speculation until all the facts came out. Perhaps that was not thought prudent in advance of the impending election. Or perhaps there was more going on than would make even such a benign statement unwise.

The cover-up itself invites impeachment on the same grounds that it prompted the Watergate proceedings. When a president is seen as a liar, his effectiveness and political viability is questionable. It is likely that Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, saw through Obama regarding his integrity early on. Neither party seemed willing to work with him or perhaps never were given the chance. His imperial presidency saw no need for Congress.

Now we get this summary accounting from Doug Ross:

WE KEEP ALL OF THE SCANDALS STRAIGHT SO YOU DON’T HAVE TO: Today’s U.S. Foreign Policy Update

Facts:

• • The Ambassador to Libya was assassinated on September 11th, along with three other Americans, during a 7-hour running gun-battle
• • Iranian fighter jets attempted to shoot down a U.S. aircraft over international waters
• • The President’s most trusted adviser was sent to Iran to secretly beg the Iranians to come to some kind of an accommodation regarding their nuclear program
• • The CIA director provided false testimony under oath to Congress about the nature of the attacks that killed the U.S. Ambassador
• • The CIA director was schtupping his biographer and could have been blackmailed by the White House to lie under oath
• • For the first time in decades, a Russian nuclear attack submarine skirted the East Coast of the U.S.
• • And the White House appears to have been operating a secret rendition prison in Benghazi, in direct violation of the President’s own orders

Oh. And one other facet to consider: the background or existence of each of these incidents was carefully and purposefully hidden from the public until after the election.

If the Watergate break-in and the subsequent cover-up by the Nixon administration merited impeachment, these crimes against the American people deserve something far more draconian.

What else is this administration hiding?

Oh, and about the press coverage! Can you imagine if this event had happened in September before an election with George Bush in the White House? But that is a story for another day.

http://www.economicnoise.com/2012/11/13/the-new-and-worse-watergate/