In a sane world, Barack Obama would already be facing the prospect of impeachment over his mishandling and subsequent cover-up of the Benghazi fiasco. But in a sane world, an inconsequential Illinois State Senator who overwhelmingly voted "present" in order to duck hard issues and who then served only a matter of months in the United States Senate would never have been elevated to the nation’s highest office, even if his rival for that office was as hapless as John McCain.
Unfortunately, a significant portion of America’s populace was willing to take a chance on the Obama platitudes of collectivism and wealth redistribution. Worse yet, despite the glaring disaster that ensued as a direct result of his policies, at reelection time in 2012, America tacitly chose to accept another four years of the same.
In many ways, it seemed that he had become immune to any consequences for his words and actions. His two nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, sailed through the confirmation process with relative ease despite their liberal agenda-driven "credentials," buoyed only by the contemptible forces of ethnic and gender politics. He has never been held accountable for squandering the nation’s finances in a misbegotten and fraud laden pursuit of a green energy socialist utopia, leaving a trail of billion dollar abuses such as the failed Solyndra enterprise. And the list goes on.
Given these circumstances, it is entirely understandable that conservatives and patriots might be anticipating an Obama day of reckoning from the recent convergence of three major recent scandals, Benghazi, Internal Revenue Service abuses, and Obama Justice Department wiretaps of Associated Press reporters. However, it is far too soon to presume that the game has changed and conditions are now right for justice to prevail over an administration that has flaunted its lawlessness during the past four years with total impunity.
Admittedly, the Benghazi episode vastly eclipses every aspect of Watergate. This is a scandal in which the "cover up" actually began before the main event, and in many ways directly contributed to it. Fears by White House political strategists that the deteriorating situation in Libya might redound negatively to Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, a decision was made to deny the necessary security reinforcements fervently and repeatedly requested by Ambassador Chris Stevens. At the risk of Stevens’ safety, Obama sought to maintain a facade of diplomatic success in the Middle East.
Ever since the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attacks, and continuing to this day, the entire focus of Obama and his underlings, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has been to deceive the American people and evade culpability for what actually happened and what might have been done to prevent it. Hillary’s now infamous "What difference does it make?" response in last January’s Senate hearing was the most flagrant attempt to make the case that a thorough review of the Administration’s misdeeds is both unnecessary and unproductive.
Yet the reality is quite the opposite. With each passing day, new evidence is uncovered which reveals an abhorrent Administration negligence and indifference to the imminent peril faced by Stevens. With total disregard for him, the White House and State Department were willing to gamble that nothing major would happen which might undercut Obama’s assertions of diplomatic prowess in the Arab world. Even after the Al Qaeda attacks blew that fabrication apart, the sole focus of the Administration has remained on "damage control."
Each new inquiry results in strangely disconnected stories of what happened on that night and why critically flawed decisions were made. In the most telling contradiction the Administration was ostensibly befuddled for weeks as to actual motivation for the attacks, steadfastly blaming an anti-Muslim video on YouTube as the catalyst of Muslim hostilities until that absurd story fell completely apart. In stark contrast however, those same officials instantly knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that a vigorous United States military response would be futile and therefore ordered American security forces to "stand down" (refuse assistance) despite pleas from the doomed Consulate.
At what seemed the most inopportune moment for Obama, another scandal suddenly erupted. Reports have surfaced from Ohio that various conservative organizations were targeted for harassment and prejudicial treatment by the Internal Revenue Service. Shortly after this news broke, IRS officials made a ridiculous effort to diffuse the controversy by offering an "apology." Aside from being a tantamount admission of guilt, as a remedy for criminal wrongdoing this effort was obscene. One need only imagine private citizens offering the IRS "apologies" in lieu of tax payments to properly gauge the absurdity of this ploy.
Once again, all official responses have sought to deflect attention from the upper levels of government. And once again, with each new bit of evidence the situation becomes more incriminating to high office holders. Though early accounts described the abuses as occurring at "low levels" of the organization, further investigation has already connected the dots back to Washington. Predictably, those ultimately responsible are in full "cover up" mode.
To the amazement of many, a third scandal has since erupted. It seems that the Justice Department has been spying on members of the Associated Press. As a grotesque violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of "unreasonable search and seizure," this revelation of wrongdoing might seem to thoroughly eclipse all of the others. After all, media complicity is crucial to Obama’s ruse of avoiding accountability for previous assertions, while making new promises that he has no intention of keeping. Without a thoroughly compliant and supportive press, his house of cards would quickly collapse in on itself.
So is this latest disclosure the final straw for his media allies? Or is it something even more sinister. When the Benghazi attack occurred, all media efforts were in complete concert with the White House strategy, which was to suppress any news of the event. Eventually, that effort failed, and in this week’s turbulent congressional hearings, the lid blew off of the Benghazi cover-up. Immediately, attention has been deflected to the IRS scandal, but even before any responsible party could be identified, the entire focus again shifted to the AP. Americans should remember how successfully Hillary Clinton was able to generate a "scandal overload" and by constantly changing the subject, managed to protect the thoroughly compromised administration of her husband, Bill Clinton, from any repercussions for his malfeasance and innumerable violations of the law.
It is not likely that the recent inexplicable chain of events has been completely orchestrated by the Obama White House in order to navigate the gauntlet it currently faces. But neither is it even remotely plausible that media minions and former accomplices in governing agencies are honestly and sincerely "coming clean" at Obama’s expense. In any case, it is dangerously naive to presume that these entities will diligently pursue truth and demand justice. The responsibility to stay on target in the face of Democrat scandal and media bias remains as it has always been, with grassroots organizations and conservatives in the alternative media.
Copyright ©2013 Christopher G. Adamo