Monday, May 6, 2013

Monday, May 6, 2013

Benghazi's Back To Bite "O" 

The Benghazi scandal is back! Sunday CBS News used the word "cover-up" for the first time in its reporting on the scandal. 

The Weekly Standard published an exchange of emails detailing the "heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA's talking points," stripping out all references to Al Qaeda, jihadists, Islamic extremists and terrorism. As more of this information is released, it is becoming virtually impossible to deny the obvious. 

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) blasted the House GOP investigation, but conceded that the Obama Administration's talking points "weren't accurate." After further questioning by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Rep. Lynch admitted that the talking points were "scrubbed" and were "totally inaccurate." Lynch added, "There's no excuse for that."

By the way, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said this morning on Fox & Friends, "No Democrat decided or elected to go" to Libya as part of the House investigation. Ignorance is bliss to House liberals who don't want to cross the White House. 

One of the Benghazi whistle-blowers who will testify this week is Gregory Hicks, the number two official at the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. CBS News reports that Hicks "took the frantic call" from Ambassador Christopher Stevens on the night of September 11, 2012, saying, "Greg, we are under attack." Hicks reportedly told House investigators, "everyone in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning." 

You may recall that the preliminary House GOP report on Benghazi accused the Obama Administration of a cover-up, stated that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Congress and that the White House misled the American people. This week, the American people will have the opportunity to hear from individuals who know what happened on the night when four Americans died and Obama did nothing. 

The Benghazi scandal must be exposed for what it is. Be certain to check out the ad American Values is running right now. 

What Did Hillary Do? 

Fox News is reporting the explosive charge that Hillary Clinton shut out "the department's own counterterrorism bureau" during the critical hours following the attack. This allegation comes from two top counterterrorism officials at the State Department, one of whom (Mark Thompson) will also testify this week.

Why would Clinton do that? No doubt she was running defense for Obama, but she was likely worried about her place in history too.

On the stump, Obama had said repeatedly -- before and even after the Benghazi attacks -- that Al Qaeda had been "decimated" or "defeated." Benghazi proved otherwise. Worse, it proved the administration's incompetence. 

Hillary and those close to her knew all of this and understood just how damaging the truth could have been. As The Weekly Standard article makes clear, it was the State Department's spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, who demanded that the CIA's talking points be watered down, warning that initial changes failed to "resolve all my issues or those of my building [the State Department] leadership." 

Meanwhile In Syria… 

Israeli forces launched massive airstrikes yesterday near Damascus, Syria. The bombings struck several military facilities, including one believed to be Syria's "main chemical weapons facility." But the real targets are believed to have been Iranian weapons bound for Hezbollah. There is some speculation that Israel may have been demonstrating its own ability to launch strikes against Iran's nuclear sites. 

Regardless, Israel is doing exactly the right thing. The only stake we have in all of this is not to allow chemical weapons to start pouring out of Syria. I believe that it is too late now to remove the Assad regime without it being replaced by something far worse. 

In fact, U.N. observers are warning that they have "strong, concrete suspicions" that chemical weapons may have been used by the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow Assad's government! 

Does Obama Understand America? 

President Obama delivered the commencement address at Ohio State University yesterday. During his remarks, Obama offered a predictable defense of big government. But he also mocked those who favor smaller government, saying: 

"Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. …They'll warn that tyranny is always lurking around the corner. You should reject these voices."

Who are these "voices" warning us about big government? One undoubtedly was Ronald Reagan, who said in his 1981 inaugural address, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." 

But Reagan was not the only "voice" Obama has a problem with. America's Founders were deeply suspicious of big government and warned about slipping back into tyranny and oppression. 

James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions" against government control. And Thomas Jefferson warned that as liberty yields, government gains ground. 

The Founders and Reagan were right, but Obama despises Reaganism and does not seem to like the Founders either. After all, they were part of the 1% of their time!

My hope is that the students at Ohio State University will ignore Obama's advice and retain a healthy American skepticism about trusting government to safeguard our liberty.