Yes, it DOES make a difference!

Photo: ABC News

Photo: ABC News

I already know right now that most of my readers won’t be even remotely interested in this subject, but it’s my blog and I’ll rant if I want to.  My stomach is turning over two opinion pieces published in the Miami Herald today and I am going to write about it whether anyone cares or not.

As I was reading the first column, Why the new Benghazi emails aren’t a ‘smoking gun,’ I felt the bile start creeping up into my throat as I gritted my teeth.  I don’t think I’ve ever read such bullshit spin in my life until this morning.  And that’s saying a lot!

On the one hand, author John Dickerson (Slate’s chief political correspondent) writes:

“The Obama administration’s story has never been straight on the Benghazi attack. Press Secretary Jay Carney once said the White House and State Department had only been involved in changing one word in crafting the first public response about the attack — the infamous Susan Rice talking points. Emails released in May showed that wasn’t the case. This new batch underscores the White House’s involvement in shaping the story. The Obama administration left the impression that everything related to the Benghazi attack had been released to the investigating committees months ago. That is also clearly false. There have been other instances where the White House line on Benghazi has also earned it Pinocchios.”

But not before he softened that blow with:

“Were White House officials desperate enough to make up a story? Or were they just embracing and pushing the most politically beneficial version? That is the heart of the matter, but it also raises a larger question about what we call a lie when we look at administration spin: What is willful deceit, what is willful blindness, and what is merely the tunnel vision that comes from constant partisan warfare?”

So when is a lie not a lie?  Well, I guess that all depends on what your definition of the word “lie” is, doesn’t it?  Obviously, White House Press Secretary Jim Carney’s definition is quite broad.  The columnist smacks Carney by writing, “On Wednesday, Carney said that the Rhodes email had not been released because “this document was not about Benghazi.” I suppose it depends on what your definition of the word Benghazi is.”  Then smooths over his criticism with, “But how far off was Rice to talk about the video when compared with the information being put together at the time by the CIA, presumably the administration’s best intelligence source?”

Dickerson then continues to carry water for the President by shifting the entire blame for the cover-up on the CIA by claiming, “It may now be laughable for anyone to suggest that the Libyan attack was spontaneous, but that’s a question for the CIA, which made spontaneity its first and most durable claim that weekend,” and on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  About her he wrote, “Previous reporting shows the revisions didn’t come from the White House, which had signed off on the first CIA version, but from the State Department, where staffers were trying to do damage control for other reasons — reasons that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will have to explain if she runs for president in 2016.”

Interestingly, when George W. Bush went to war in Iraq under “presumably the administration’s best intelligence source,” he was accused of telling a “lie.”  Apparently it was the same “lie” on which Congress also relied when approving the Iraq War Resolution.  That would be the same Resolution that then Senator Hillary “What Difference Does it Make?” Clinton voted for.  She justified her affirmative vote in 2004 by claiming, “The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.”

I guess the definition of the words “best intelligence source” all depends on what side of the aisle one sits.

The second Herald editorial I read, Release the CIA’s torture report, finally made me reach for the bottle of Nexium from its opening statement, “How much should the American public be allowed to know about the use of torture and other forms of cruelty practiced by U.S. interrogators against captives of the war on terror? Everything.”

The editorial then claims that a “6,200-page classified report produced by the Senate Intelligence Committee” about the use of torture was heavily redacted by “the White House — with the aid of the CIA and the Pentagon,” leaving out information that the public has a right to know.

I agree.  The public does have a right to know exactly what’s in that report.

By the same token, the public has a right to know exactly what happened in Benghazi.

Without the spin and outright lies.

If I have to be honest (and I always am), I care less about the torture of “captives of the war on terror” than I do about FOUR DEAD AMERICANS, whose deaths could, and should, have been prevented.

Yes, I do realize that most of my readers are only interested in what goes on in North Miami and North Miami Beach.  Knowing that, I usually limit my opinions to local matters.

But every once in a while I am forced to venture outside my comfort zone when something bigger than our little corner of the county hits me in the gut, as these two columns did this morning.

I do not apologize for my rant no matter how few of you will bother to read it.  I care even less about how few will agree with me.  Your opinion of me is none of my business.

The horrific deaths of four American patriots – J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods is my business.

It may not make a difference to Hillary Clinton, but matters to me.

Stephanie Kienzle
“Spreading the Wealth”

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
0

9 Comments

  1. bill - RP says:

    Some light reading:

    13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

    Here’s another page from the Republican Military Strategy Handbook

    When Islamic fundamentalist militants attacked the US Marine barracks in Beirut with a truck bomb on October 23, 1983, they killed 241 American servicemen—the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility—they are now seen as a precursor to Hezbollah.

    Ronald Reagan could have sent 130,000 US troops to invade Lebanon. But he didn’t. Instead, he did something completely different: two days after the Beirut barracks bombing, Reagan sent 7,000 troops to invade Grenada, the smallest independent country in the Western Hemisphere.

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/158344/reagans-lesson-obama-invade-grenada#

    But here’s the grand daddy of them all…an American president joking about sending American troops to their deaths.

    Now, tell me more about Benghazi.

    0

    1. Stephanie Kienzle says:

      Thanks for sharing, but I’m not in the market for red herrings today.

      0

      1. Guest says:

        Benghazi? Oh look, a puppy!
        signed,
        Random Pixels

        0

        1. Stephanie Kienzle says:

          ROFLMAO!

          Literally.

          Thanks, I needed that.

          0

  2. bill - RP says:

    Here’s another:

    0

    1. Guest says:

      His remarks are on point. Terrorism isn’t about one person. Bin Laden is dead and the hits just keep on comin’.

      0

    2. Stephanie Kienzle says:

      Bin Laden was on the run. Bush was correct not to focus on just one man. Bush was also gracious enough to give credit where it was due when Bin Laden was finally found and killed. Not sure what the point was to post this particular video, but I sure do appreciate what a gentleman Bush is. He has never said an unkind word about his successor despite being blamed by Obama for everything from terrorism to global warming and beyond. Thanks for posting.

      0

  3. Thoroughly Disgusted says:

    So let me get this straight. Bush lied so that more than justifies Obama’s lies? I’ve got news for you, it’s not ok to mislead the American people no matter who’s doing the misleading, no matter what the reason, period. First of all, presidents lie and cover things up. Nixon wasn’t a crook and Clinton did not have sex with that woman. Anyone that thinks the Obama administration is immune to cover up is living in partisan denial land. 20 months have passed and not one person has yet to be held accountable for denying the security that Stevens literally begged for in the days, weeks and months prior to 9/11. Are we to believe that the State Department was naive as to the dangers that lurked in Libya, a known terrorist refuge on the anniversary of 9/11? Why hasn’t anyone been fired over this? The president promised accountability, yet there has been none. Zip, Nada, Zilch. WHY??? Could it be that the administration is counting on the sands of time to erase all memory of this horrific attack? The actions of our government in the aftermath of Benghazi are not going to be forgotten and will never go away, ever. The American people deserve the truth from their government. Hell, we demand the truth! And what the hell does FOX News have to do with anything? Are you saying MSNBC isn’t partisan? Obviously they both are, but the fact remains that this isn’t about a news network, it’s about getting to the bottom of why we were told anything other than the truth in an election year. It’s about true accountability for the families of the victims and the American people. The administration needs to be forthcoming and deliver all documents and emails that Congress requested without waiting for a judges order compelling them to do so. Anything less is unacceptable and blatant obstruction of the truth.

    0

    1. Stephanie Kienzle says:

      Thank you for your comment. I couldn’t agree more! There are people who will do anything to stop the truth from being told, especially if it involves this president. Anyone who criticizes him is either automatically called a “racist” or told that Bush was worse. This is done specifically to deflect attention away from Obama’s faults and, in turn, try to discredit the critic. That’s what I meant by not buying the red herrings. I will keep the focus on the problem and not be misled by straw men and other false arguments.

      What happened in Benghazi was a tragedy of epic proportions. It has nothing to do with any of the incidents that allegedly happened under any other administration. Let’s talk about THIS one.

      Four Americans did not have to die and no one has been held accountable. Questions must be answered, and there must be consequences for those who are responsible.

      I guarantee that if this happened under Bush’s watch, the media would have been all over it. Heck, they’re STILL blaming Bush for everything that Obama “inherited.” How laughable!

      President Reagan inherited a bigger mess, never once blamed his predecessor and simply went to work to fix the problems. Will Obama ever take responsibility for anything he’s done? He’s had six years to take care of business, yet we’re still hearing how bad Bush was.

      Bush is not the president. Obama is. Enough of the nonsense already! It’s tiring and annoying.

      0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *