by Andy Weddington
Tuesday, 27 November 2012
"hourglass - n: a glass vessel for measuring time in which sand runs from an upper compartment to a lower compartment in an hour." The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Last week commentary dealt with a couple of murders - a recent one in our family, and one from long ago in our Marine Corps family. Interestingly enough, police detectives who also happen to be Marines are involved in both ongoing investigations.
For today, more about murder - the four murders that happened two and a half months ago in Benghazi, Libya. They, too, are being investigated by the law - whether Marines involved or not, I don't know but probably. These murders, unlike the two written about last week, are being investigated more to determine why they happened and who is culpable than who actually did the killing. And to make matters more challenging, public servants, some believed to be culpable, are being less than cooperative. The investigation(s) ongoing.
So, to continue developing today's opening quote - definition.
There is a difference between an hourglass, as defined, and an hoursglass.
Last week I happened to catch a short interview with Congressman Trey Gowdy (R, SC), 4th District representative. The topic was Benghazi, Libya - and getting to the truth of what happened on Tuesday, September 11th (2012). That is, why Americans, on duty in service to country, were abandoned during a seven or so hours long terrorist attack that ended badly with four murders.
Congressman Gowdy, a no nonsense sort of southern gentleman and lawyer who sits on the Judiciary subcommittee of Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, was asked about President Obama's hasty and testy defense of Susan Rice during his recent press conference. As quick refresher, Ms Rice is the U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations who, following White House marching orders (while seniors in the administration ducked, dodged, took cover, and made themselves otherwise unavailable) and five days after the Benghazi terrorist attack, made rounds on five Sunday political oriented TV programs to promote what was known as a big lie - the White House talking points that the attack was a spontaneous mob riot sparked by an offensive YouTube video.
As to what Ms Rice repeated, that was false, five times, the Secretary of State knew it was not true; Director, CIA knew it was not true; Director, National Intelligence knew it was not true; Secretary of Defense knew it was not true; the President knew it was not true; and others, too.
Ms Rice either knew what she said was false or she did not (then why not?), so why did she say it?
There rests a big question amongst bigger questions. And the answer is an important one. Obviously. Otherwise, President Obama would not have stepped forward, during his press conference, to defend her and challenge Senators to come after him instead (of Ms Rice).
Ms Rice (mentioned as possible successor to Ms Clinton as Secretary of State) will face, under oath, some congressional committees and subcommittees. Congressman Gowdy will be part of those proceedings. Ms Rice has some explaining to do. And the Congressman, during interview, said if the President wants to defend Ms Rice then he's more than welcome to and he can appear to answer questions - under oath. Be sure to include these questions for the president, Congressman: 1) Where were you when the attack started?; 2) What were you doing?; 3) When, exactly, after the attack began were you notified, and by whom? (That is, how much time elapsed between commencement of the attack and your situational awareness?); 4) What, exactly, did you order as action, and to whom did you so order?
Congressman Gowdy is on a mission is to solve the murders of those four Americans. From his demeanor of restrained anger and strong responses to questions during the interview, he intends to do exactly that. And he's not alone in the House. And from the Senate, Senators McCain (R, AZ); Graham (R, SC); and Ayotte (R, NH) lead the way for truth and justice.
Think back a handful of years. Remember, it was the National Inquirer that broke the story of an extramarital affair and love child ending the political career of presidential candidate John Edwards. His facade hid a creep. His lies to protect the creep within crumbled - like a facade. I don't know, good or bad, is that poetry?
Now the hanky panky and deceit by a presidential candidate, who had little chance of being elected, is serious. Absolutely it is. But it pales in comparison to what happened in Benghazi. And it pales in comparison to the president's involvement to whatever degree - to shelf truth for a knowingly false narrative of the attack and the four murders.
With Mr. Edwards, a sleazy politician - extramarital sex and a baby - people were hurt but no one died (sadly, his wife, Elizabeth, but from breast cancer, and likely a broken heart) and the story was not of national security. It was just juicy scandal ripe for people to turn into voyeurs and gossipers because media, once the story broke, plastered it everywhere.
With Mr. Obama, a sitting President - terrorism and murders and ongoing deceit - people died and the story is most certainly of national security, and chief executive malfeasance or incompetency. It's serious scandal and most people have no clue what's going on because the media is not only ignoring the story they're trying to bury it to protect the president - more akin to beaming grandparents pulling out their photo album at every opportunity than reporting.
Why?
The National Inquirer, once regarded as a 'for entertainment purposes only grocery store checkout lane time-passer that garnered an occasional impulse buy,' gained credibility from their work on the Edwards story. But it took time for the story to take hold because of their tabloid history.
The Inquirer did not take the lead on the Benghazi story.
A serious news outlet, with longstanding credibility, did take the lead - Fox News. And Fox News is on it, with tenacity. As they should be. For something is seriously wrong. And the President of the United States is more than just party to.
So why should Fox News, for that matter - America, blindly accept the word of the President of the United States when this man has taken extraordinary measures to secret pieces of his life from public scrutiny? And contrary to his promises to deliver the most transparent administration in history has done quite the opposite?
The president is responsible for the safety of Americans wherever they may be. He failed. Period. His public statements, hardly interesting, are inadequate and sloppy fiction. Atop the payroll of the American citizenry, our employee, he must answer questions, under oath, as to where he was and what he did or did not do when America was under siege in Benghazi. And, explain why the knowingly false narrative. Pretty simple.
Fact and truth are fact and truth. One's political persuasion is irrelevant. Integrity and morality pertain and cross all lines.
As to Senators and Representatives forming the pathetic skirmish line behind the president regarding Benghazi, Ms Rice, etc., a question with two-part query following context: Considering heads of all key intelligence and national security agencies and the president knew, at time of happening, Benghazi was a preplanned, coordinated terrorist attack, and Ms Rice had to have known, America is asking - When, exactly, did you roll over and how do you sleep at night? The queries are not rhetorical. America is standing by for answers.
Why "hoursglass" in the title? Because the glass is spilling sand - but no one knows how big the glass.
The President and all his men and women have their eyes cast upon a small glass - as in egg timer. They are scheming and lying, with media abetting, to run out the sand.
Those in Congress (and many in the American public) seeking truth and justice have their eyes cast upon a big glass - a giant hoursglass - that's as big as it needs to be.
Fact is there's sand aplenty and no statute of limitations on murder. And everyone, even the President of the United States, is subject to the law.
So, there's no hurry. No hurry at all.
What an awful disappointing and damn disturbing mess.
Or as you might hear a fed up deep southerner - whether holding a PhD, GED, neither, or a skin in between - say in casual disgust, "Plum looks like the president's a bad apple - to the core. And that's the pits. Ain't right. He's gots to go. He's gots to go, now!" And then spit - seed, seed husk, tobacco juice, or something else offensive to a refined northerner; a politician could care less, all they see is a voter and sometimes cash dispenser.
Finally, as goes the story about the fate of a certain young English cherry-tree - told by Mason Locke Weems, more commonly known as Parson Weems - at the hands of a hatchet-wielding six-year old named George: When questioned by his father, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie." "Run to my arms, you dearest boy, run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of gold."
There's a lesson for all who will be compelled to give sworn testimony. So after oaths taken, how about committee chairs offer as reminder - as goes lore, George Washington, 1st President of the United States, whatever his strengths whatever his weaknesses, was not a liar. So wild tales spun by gold-digging silver-tongued devils be damned, let's have the truth - by George. Chop - Chop.
Oh yes, there's some confusion as to who coined the term, though I'm sure 'Eat a peach' (was) meant.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment