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.