On Sept. 23, 2012, CBS News was giving President Barack Hussein Obama the premier opportunity to perform some damage control ahead of the upcoming election by allowing him time on their “60 Minutes” program. This was necessary because there had been a dramatic upswell in anti-U.S. violence in the Middle East. Most notably, an attack on the US compound in Benghazi, Libya, had left four Americans dead, including Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya.
In his appearance, Obama told CBS’ Steve Kroft that with regard to this concern, he had been “pretty certain” that there would be “bumps in the road” due to the political dynamic of the nations in the region.
At that time, very little was known about the Benghazi attack, but considering what had occurred, some observers went ballistic at Obama’s use of the term “bumps in the road” to reference Americans who had perished rather gruesomely at the hands of desert death-cult monkeys.
With the Islamic State’s capture of the Iraqi city of Ramadi in recent days, America was again treated to the White House’s mischaracterizing understatement. “No denying it is a setback,” said spokesman Eric Schultz. Obama throws away 10 years’ worth of U.S. military gains – and one of the rather predictable outcomes is a mere “setback.”
The back story that’s never told is the fact that such mischaracterizations were perpetrated deliberately, in order to advance the Islamist agenda in the region.
The outright criminality of those at the highest levels of government, whether materially or politically motivated, has become positively brazen; it is so ingrained and its practitioners so smugly self-assured that they scarcely bother to guard their actions against scrutiny anymore – at least not with regard to the American people.
The scandal in which Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is currently embroiled is a great example. Ms. Clinton set up a private email server for her email when she was Secretary of State. This was most likely to shield her communications from the White House, rather than Republicans, the press, or the public.
Then, the existence of the server was revealed. Clinton obfuscated, evaded, eventually releasing some emails, while describing others as horribly mundane. Then she abruptly scrubbed the server of 50,000 some-odd remaining emails, irradiated the hard drive, boiled it in ammonia and sunk it in the Marianas Trench.
This week, we learned that Hillary is really mad, and really wants those emails released. Unfortunately, the State Department – which, if I am not mistaken, is still run by her old boss – has such an arduous task ahead in determining which of the innumerable emails are fit for public consumption that they decided they couldn’t get it done before, say – what’s good for you, Hill – January 2016?
You see, while Obama’s White House is only going to provide so much cover for Hillary, they’re not eager to have her emails, or the nuts and bolts of the Bill and Hill Selling America Out Foundation, to come to light, either.
Speaking of: I was reading a rather silly Howard Kurtz analysis of the furor attendant to ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos and his donations to the Clinton Foundation. George apparently “didn’t realize” that there was a monumental conflict of interest and ethics issues involved with his being ABC News’ chief anchor and donating to the foundation of his former employer while reporting on the pandemonium over its sketchy finances, and while the former employer’s wife is running for president.
Stephanopoulos didn’t realize this would be problematic?
Far more important here is that Stephanopoulos’ actions over the last 15 years are emblematic of what has occurred across the establishment press, with political operatives moving into press jobs. The issue is not so much that Stephanopoulos “neglected” to disclose his large donations to the Clinton Foundation, but that he has essentially been working as an operative for a criminal enterprise (possibly prosecutable under RICO statutes) while posing as a journalist.
It is no different than if a member of an organized crime family did likewise in order to disseminate disinformation pertaining to his superiors’ activities.
While Stephanopoulos’ detractors are demanding that he and his family be barred from television journalism for seven generations, chances are he’ll take a little vacation, and his indiscretion will get swept under the carpet with the IRS nonprofit targeting probe and Charlie Rangel’s ethics violations.
“Why do the Clintons think there’s a different set of rules for them than there is for the rest of us?”– Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, May 19, 2015
These things transcend political party of course; there are Republican politicians over the last few decades who fall along every point of the scumminess continuum. Quite a few are running around Washington calling themselves “conservatives” right now. It’s just that the radical leftists are more inherently disreputable and repellent. The idea that there’s “a different set of rules for us” is quite prevalent throughout the Beltway; in fact, varying degrees of it permeate the federal government, from the shiftless, belligerent, union-protected clerk, to the heads of federal agencies – and there is no accountability.
Yes, the revelations surrounding Hillary Clinton’s email server and foundation donations are controversial. Yet, it is unlikely that the ongoing and potentially catastrophic security risks posed by her having used a private email server or that some Clinton Foundation foreign donors are essentially enemies of this nation will ever be discussed, let alone investigated.
Only the institutional propriety of Hillary Clinton’s actions will be bandied about in the press and by Congress; perhaps another smoke-and-mirrors inquiry featuring duly indignant GOP committee members will take place. Then, when this all comes up again during the 2016 campaign, she will be fully within her rights to remind us all that “those issues were addressed back in 2015.”
Or better yet: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”