Benghazi
Presidential approval polls routinely fluctuate, seemingly tied to emotional moments or ideals. Patriotism, social support, times of crisis, even just spelling out an aggressive agenda (the fact that it may never be executed appears to be irrelevant) can improve our collective opinion of the president. Campaign promises, those sound bites which grab small and large segments of us, too, give us hope and reason to favor our executive branch.
What then, when those promises are not kept? Are we really to believe that one party blocked the other from accomplishing their objectives? Is it possible they were not attainable in the first place (this, of course, has other implications)? Or could it be as simple as the leadership just not being capable of navigating the challenges? The fact is, the polls do not necessarily drop in relation to broken promises or failed objectives. The "spin" which we hear on the heels of these events deflects the responsibility for failure to someone or something else. Since we, the general public, are relegated to the biased scraps of closed door meetings thrown out for our consumption, in a manner to support one position or another, I am not sure we could ever know the real reasons behind these failures.
“To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
But what about the promises of integrity? The promises which do not require new laws or even bipartisan agreement to implement. Not policy or ideology, but communicating openly and honestly with America. Like government transparency. Honesty.
It has been seven months since the attack on our consulate which resulted in the deaths of four Americans and injuries to many others. As of the date of this posting, we have not yet heard from those surviving the attack, that is, except, for some of them to say they have been told not to speak. Who would be harmed by their statements?
Thirty seven months - yes 37 - have passed since then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass the bill in order to know what was in it. We still don't! But we do know that while the administration has failed to manage the funds at the Department of Homeland Security, due to sequestration, which has resulted in flight disruptions worldwide, they were able to prevent any cuts from occurring at the office implementing Obama's healthcare law.
Sometime in the last year the use of the label 'enemy combatant' was changed to 'unpriveliged belligerent'. Really? What's behind the legal-ease changes our leadership is conducting behind our backs?
This week the surviving terrorist responsible for the bombing at the Boston Marathon, was Mirandized, giving him the right to remain silent. After just 16 hours of interrogation by the FBI resulting in several confessions, he immediately stopped talking when a magistrate judge and representative from the US Attorney's office read him his Miranda rights. As evidenced by the public debate over whether he should be processed through the criminal justice system or the military, as an enemy combatant, this choice did not have to be made so quickly. The FBI could still be working to gather additional critical information. Oops, I meant to say an unprivileged belligerent. Someone made the decision to do this, prematurely in my opinion, and the FBI's; in their words, they were stunned by the sudden development, stating they were not consulted on the decision nor had they given their consent.
So who made the call? If Benghazi is any indicator, it may be a while before we even have confirmation of who actually knew what was going on let alone who made the decision. But with 'standard procedure', we are able to backtrack the possibilities.
Usual suspects... follow the money.
We know that the prosecutor in charge, the Assistant US Attorney, is typically the one to make the call. Considering this is currently the most important case in the US, are we to believe the AUSA would make that decision on his own? Almost certainly he would council with his boss, the US Attorney in Boston who, again, knowing full well the magnitude of the situation as well as the raging public debate, would in all probability look to his boss for direction. We are now at the door of the Department of Justice, run, of course, by Eric Holder. Considering he labeled the Fort Hood massacre "workplace violence", things are starting to look suspicious. And we know Holder reports to President Obama, who, was quick to insinuate racism in the Trayvon Martin shooting but has yet to act on behalf of the 70,000+ Syrians killed in their civil war - despite recent evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons and Obama's, now invisible, "red line" on the use of those weapons.
Will we see transparency in these events? Time will tell. But if history is any indicator, this administration is banking on the next crisis and our short attention spans to distract from their inability to live up to the Obama campaign promise of being the most transparent administration. Hoping we will not recognize their actions for what they are - an unwillingness to provide the American public with even the simplest value, one we go to great lengths to instill in our children. Honesty.
Benghazi update - you decide...
ReplyDeleteUnder normal circumstances, authorities in Benghazi would have fallen under the chief of mission, one source said -- the person in charge of security in the country who in this case was Stevens. But once Stevens was cornered and members of his security detail pushed his distress button, that authority would have been transferred to his deputy. However, that deputy was out of the country.
That meant the authority then reverted directly to the U.S. State Department, and oversight of the response to the attack that night fell to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who were calling the shots.
Sources said that shortly after the attack began around 9:40 p.m., special forces put out the calls for assets to be moved into position.
"What that does is that enacts ... every asset, every element to respond and it becomes a global priority," one source said. "I would tell you that was given and the only reason it was given is because of special operations pack."
However, the source said, "Assets did not move."
The failure of the State Department or White House to give the military permission to go into Libya, according to the source, only accentuates the significant breakdown in communication among the State Department, military, CIA and White House.
"I can see the initial confusion in the beginning. I mean, you have a situation that's developing. The problem with the State Department is they don't have procedures in place. And if they do, they haven't practiced or exercised them. And now they are making up for all the mistakes they have made, with excuse. And there is no excuse," the source said, describing a "huge breakdown between State and military."
Last October, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta defended the response, saying the military was reluctant to put forces at risk.
"You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on, without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta said. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
The State Department Accountability Review Board, which investigated the attack and what led up to it, also claimed that "Washington-Tripoli-Benghazi communication, cooperation, and coordination on the night of the attacks were effective."