George Will is basically right. There’s only three pieces of this story. First, the CIA was buying and distributing weapons from Libya to Syria...on an active basis...using some Jihad characters that weren’t trustworthy. Two, the dead ambassador was part of the weapons program. Three, the President was fixated on his debate, and really didn’t need something screwing up the outcome. That’s it. Maybe a bunch of lies, but the lies all lead back to these three issues. Once you admit the three, it’s the end of the talk. Sadly, neither the President or his staff want to admit those three bits of info. So it lives on.
What if the president signed off on the CIA’s plan?
From Watergate: What did the president know, and when did he know it?
http://www.nbcuniversalarchives.com/nbcuni/clip/51A02223_002.do
So maybe he’ll go Regan on us with an “ In my heart” admition ?
O.K. Let's stipulate that you're correct. Three issues, three issues only. <
Then...why the lies?
Running guns to Syria without congressional approval was no big deal. After all, you'd already started and fought a war in Libya without congressional approval. And any accusation could've been met -- effectively -- with a two-word answer: Iran-Contra.
So, the Ambassador was involved. So, what?
The President was distracted by his debate prep. Welllllll, it wouldn't have been good form to admit that. But they've consistently alleged that nothing could've been done -- and isn't that a sufficient answer?
So far, I don't see a single rational reason for compounding an elaborate (yet tattered from the outset) cover-up then standing squarely behind it for, what?, 3-4 weeks...even unto today. Nor is there any reason whatsoever for sequestering every single person who was present, signing them to non-disclosure pledges and keeping even their identity secret from Congress.
No, there's something else. Something outside those three issues -- something so destructive -- that they're scared silly it might be discovered.
Watergate was nothing compared to this and we had 319 hours of hearings broadcast simultaneously on all networks repeated at night on PBS.
In Benghazi you have the gun running by our government (isn’t that in itself illegal?) while trying to take guns away from the American people. There was an Ambassador left hanging out there to die. (Are we sure that wasn’t intentional? If he had been rescued he would have had to answer a lot of questions that would probably have brought to light the gun running right before the election and who knows what else.) Were the other three people simply collateral damage to this administration? (What difference do they make as long as the truth doesn’t leak out of this transparent administration right before an election? (Sarc)) POTUS was practicing for a debate? Is that what they are saying the official reason was that he wasn’t in the situation room after they lied and said he was there watching in real time?
Concocting a BIG LIE TO SPEW REPEATEDLY over and over like Groundhog day while you look right in the camera by numerous people, including POTUS, AND LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE all seems a smidgen worse than Watergate to me.
Who decided on no added security when asked for by the Ambassador, not once but several times and why? Who decided on no military rescue and why? Where are the witnesses who were whisked off and have not been heard from? Were threats made to shut the witnesses up? Was the Ambassador set up for murder and why, did he know to much? Who picked out the native security forces that either allowed it to happen or were involved? What is so important that the cover up was started to begin with and continues to this day? Who gave the MSM their marching orders to enable the cover up and mislead the public? Would the truth have resulted in a failed reelection and didn’t that result in a stolen election? Do not all these actions rise to the level of treason not to mention murder? What if the IRS was used to make certain witnesses toe the line, both witnesses on the ground and in the MSM? Why was the FBI not allowed into the site of the attack for 3 weeks and who stopped them, could that lead to Holder? Who coordinated the talking heads by providing them with the questions they were allowed to ask and if they weren’t willingly agreeable were there threats made and by who? Who told Carney to lie, though he probably would have anyway, who told him what to lie about? Who else was Cummings coordinating with to slow or stop the Issa committee?
This isn’t just a little smoke and mirrors, this is a full fledged forest fire. I am just an ignorant hillbilly and even I can see this and more. Why can’t you?
No. He is not right. He is exhibiting typical weak-kneed DC insider "go-along-get-along" attitude and language of pusillanimity presented in the guise of reason. A condition that too many conservatives, let alone Republicans, seem to be overtaken by.
On a very basic level, there is no comparison between the two scandals. The argument that Benghazi is insignificant is incredibly idiotic.
Will also agreed with Rep. Adam Schiff that it would be a smart move on the part of Democrats to boycott any further investigation into the Benghazi incident, as it would make the Republicans look “obviously” as if they were just participating in partisan presidential election politics.
Translation: Shrink back, roll over, accept you can't oppose the evil, it's far too strong. Settle in the yoke of tyranny and find it in ourselves to capitulate and learn to be at ease with it.
George Will is a useless poltroon.
No one died in Watergate. No advanced weapons made it to terrorists in Watergate. No Secretaries of State lied to us all in Watergate.