More
than the human period of gestation has elapsed since the Benghazi travesty in
which four Americans were butchered, having been abandoned by the government
they served.
Despite
all the investigative hearings, we still don’t know who made the decision to
withhold any military rescue effort. And
the whoremaster’s spouse who was their boss scoffed at the inquiry, exiting
after screeching WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
That
breech of faith by the government with those who serve it does make a profound
and significant difference, as is pointed out in this insightful essay.
Nonetheless,
it is clear that despite the orchestrated investigative hearing charade, nobody
is going to be held responsible for, or even identified as having made the
decision not to try to aid the besieged Americans in Benghazi. And we’re probably never going to even learn
where the nation’s poseur president was or what he was doing while the attack
was in progress.
So
much for that congressional inquiry.
Then
too we have the ongoing investigative farce about the IRS and many other
governmental authorities targeting of individuals and groups that have had the
temerity to openly express disagreement with the administration and its
policies. Clearly, somebody somewhere in
the government made a decision to do what was done.
On one
hand, any elected official or appointee of such an official should be held to
account for using the powers of government for political purposes.
On the
other hand, if the targeting was the result of administrative decisions and
actions by low level bureaucrats, that would indicate that the government is
running out of control without any effective oversight by, or accountability to
anyone.
In
either case, American citizens deserve to know. But it is almost certain that no clear and definitive answer will come
from the congressional hearings stage show.
One involved bureaucrat (who now is on leave from her IRS position but
still drawing her full salary) was allowed to depart from the hearing after
proclaiming herself innocent of any wrongdoing but refusing to undergo cross examination
about her self righteous and self serving statement or to answer any questions.
The
outgoing director of the FBI put the unimportance of the inquiry into
perspective when he initially appeared before the committee without having
bothered to learn who in his agency was heading the investigation into the
matter, how many agents were assigned to it, or whether any of the targeted
individuals or entities had been interviewed.
In the
case of the government having seized and pawed through the phone records of
journalists, the attorney general has demonstrated the toothless nature of the
congressional inquiry into the matter by repeatedly changing his story, again
openly committing perjury, as is his wont.
Shades of Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart who didn’t enjoy the immunity
that unequal justice under the law confers on the politically favored in high
offices.
No comments:
Post a Comment