http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/sen-graham-challenges-joint-chiefs-chairman-on-benghazi-testimony/
-An old joke among cops was, when brought before an Internal Affairs detective, to follow these simple steps:
Admit nothing, deny everything, demand proof, and make counter-accusations.
Firstly, a few brief updates:
House Speaker Boenher has upped the ante by pushing the administration to release emails, sent after the White House indisputably aware that the attack was the work of terrorists, that were written so that Susan Rice would be tasked with continuing with the lie that the attack was preceded by the movie protest that never occurred. At this point, I think that the administration was parceling out the lies so that it would be harder to nail down just exactly who was responsible for their illusory story, and that if caught, Rice would be ultimately removed from her post and given a new job as payment for her loyalty.
Senator Lindsey Graham has taken the bold step to challenge what we were originally told by General Martin Dempsey. What needs to come out is not if, but who were aware of and passed along any "stand down" orders to commanders who were preparing to respond to assist, evacuate, or provide relief to the besieged staff at the consulate.
Libyan President Magariaf, who had made it clear that there was no question about whether or not the attack was an act of terrorism, was reportedly so insulted by the "go pound salt" attitude of the White House as they went on with their movie lie that he subsequently was less than helpful in the ensuing investigation.
-From the top link:
Now for the counter-accusations:
"Hicks argued that Rice's comments so insulted the Libyan president -- since they contradicted his Sept. 16 claims that the attack was premeditated -- that it slowed the FBI's investigation.
"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently "still steamed" two weeks later.
This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17-18 days.
"I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," he said, adding that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time. ......"
"President Magariaf was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced," Hicks said, adding that the president was apparently "still steamed" two weeks later.
This bad blood, he claimed, contributed to the FBI team being stuck in Tripoli for about 17-18 days.
"I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," he said, adding that the U.S. could not even get the Libyans to secure the crime scene during that time. ......"
The media is running hither and yon, giving air time to Democrat politicians and commentators who, concerned far more with their multi-pronged program of economic and societal stagnation and decay, are ignoring that something ugly occurred and doing their best to make all involved with exposing the facts look bad.
As noted the above linked article, the response to accusations of this being, even entirely, politically motivated should be a collective "So what?".
Let's not pretend that every major showdown in our history did not have an element of political motive. None of that, though, matters in any way. If a wrong has been committed, the relationship between the accuser/investigator and the accused simply is not a factor. If I have broken the law or an administrative or regulatory code, the fact that my worst enemy or someone who hates me due to my political/religious affiliation or my race made the initial report or filed the charges against me does not mean that the investigation should be dropped. I may later try to prove that my due process rights were violated, but that is for a separate hearing or my trial - I don't just get off because that guy doesn't like me. An employee cannot show up for late for work repeatedly and feel secure that his boss cannot discipline or fire him because they don't get along.
In recent decades, we had Watergate, Iran-Contra hearings, and more that of course featured individuals who had an ax to grind against the respective administrations that were involved . Not only did that fact not a stop the investigations from continuing, the Media conspicuously and enthusiastically reported on every report and testimony that they could. We must also note that the same Media poured their own available resources into their own acts of investigative journalism to get the facts - something that is certainly not happening with Benghazi.
The pathetically weak attempts to confuse the issue or frighten people away by accusations of racism or political agendas reminds me of a child support payment case that I once had the pleasure of witnessing. Due to a severe personnel shortage, I had to provide security one morning in a courtroom. A nice young woman, intelligent and articulate, had apparently gotten mixed up with a seedy bum of a guy, who fathered her child and had until that day done very little to help. Having ignored all instructions on his summons except the part that ordered him to appear, he sat before the hearing officer with no proof of income or any other required paperwork. Clearly trying, mostly by avoiding properly answering questions in a vain attempt to walk away without an order of payment by the court, he made the hearing officer more and more visibly angry. It came to a head when, interrupting the hearing officer, the bum pointed to the child's mother and said-
"She's only doing this because I'm not interested in her anymore."
While the hearing officer did all that she could to avoid exploding in anger, I for one was more confused as to why she was interested him in the first place.
All accusations need to be quickly shelved by the accused. There is work to do. One only helps the opposition by defending oneself. "That is clearly not true. I will not comment further. I call on my accuser to join in to assist with the investigation if he or she wished to do so." should be more than sufficient.
The following link below also treats this issue:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/political-motives-dont-change-facts-in-benghazi-probe/
As noted the above linked article, the response to accusations of this being, even entirely, politically motivated should be a collective "So what?".
Let's not pretend that every major showdown in our history did not have an element of political motive. None of that, though, matters in any way. If a wrong has been committed, the relationship between the accuser/investigator and the accused simply is not a factor. If I have broken the law or an administrative or regulatory code, the fact that my worst enemy or someone who hates me due to my political/religious affiliation or my race made the initial report or filed the charges against me does not mean that the investigation should be dropped. I may later try to prove that my due process rights were violated, but that is for a separate hearing or my trial - I don't just get off because that guy doesn't like me. An employee cannot show up for late for work repeatedly and feel secure that his boss cannot discipline or fire him because they don't get along.
In recent decades, we had Watergate, Iran-Contra hearings, and more that of course featured individuals who had an ax to grind against the respective administrations that were involved . Not only did that fact not a stop the investigations from continuing, the Media conspicuously and enthusiastically reported on every report and testimony that they could. We must also note that the same Media poured their own available resources into their own acts of investigative journalism to get the facts - something that is certainly not happening with Benghazi.
The pathetically weak attempts to confuse the issue or frighten people away by accusations of racism or political agendas reminds me of a child support payment case that I once had the pleasure of witnessing. Due to a severe personnel shortage, I had to provide security one morning in a courtroom. A nice young woman, intelligent and articulate, had apparently gotten mixed up with a seedy bum of a guy, who fathered her child and had until that day done very little to help. Having ignored all instructions on his summons except the part that ordered him to appear, he sat before the hearing officer with no proof of income or any other required paperwork. Clearly trying, mostly by avoiding properly answering questions in a vain attempt to walk away without an order of payment by the court, he made the hearing officer more and more visibly angry. It came to a head when, interrupting the hearing officer, the bum pointed to the child's mother and said-
"She's only doing this because I'm not interested in her anymore."
While the hearing officer did all that she could to avoid exploding in anger, I for one was more confused as to why she was interested him in the first place.
All accusations need to be quickly shelved by the accused. There is work to do. One only helps the opposition by defending oneself. "That is clearly not true. I will not comment further. I call on my accuser to join in to assist with the investigation if he or she wished to do so." should be more than sufficient.
The following link below also treats this issue:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/09/political-motives-dont-change-facts-in-benghazi-probe/
0 comments:
Post a Comment