Benghazi: It Matters Dude by Mike Broemmel

WASHINGTON - June 6, 2015 - PRLog -- President Barack Obama, members of his White House and State Department teams, together with his zombie-like minions (who refuse to criticize him no matter what he does or does not do in office) continue to deride and even joke about the need to investigate the aftermath of the attack on the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Perhaps the cavalier attitude of Obama and his crew towards the truth reached new heights when a former White House staffer called Tommy Vietor responded to an inquiry about the Benghazi matter with a flippant: “Dude, it was like two years ago.”

In the interest of full disclosure, I described Vietor as qualified as a box boy dancer at a Ft. Lauderdale men’s nightclub but not suitable for any position associated with national security. I also must note that I eched the sentiments of the Washington Post, which editorialized about Vietor and Obama: “The staff reflects the boss. If the staff is rude, immature and callous, the boss almost invariably is.” But, I digress – somewhat.

I also need to disclose that I left the Republican Party and became a Democrat in 2008 largely because of profound disagreements with the manner in which the George W. Bush administration conducted foreign policy. Of particular concern to me was the war in Iraq. In addition, I opposed the Patriot Act (finding the name of the legislation to be very “Soviet” in its conception).

In recent days, a chorus of Obama backers are pointing to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on the Terrorist Attack at Benghazi as evidence that the President and his team were cleared of any wrongdoing in regard to the incident and its aftermath. These Obama supporters contend that this “new report exonerates the President.”

In fact, the report is not new. It was issued in 2013. The report recently was declassified and made available for public consumption.

The key fact, completely and intentionally overlooked by Obama and his crew, is that the report was issued before emails from senior White House and State Department sources were produced that indicate the Administration in fact engaged in machinations (some would say shenanigans, others crimes) following the attack on the U.S. Consulate at Benghazi in September 11, 2012. During the Senate Intelligence Committee’s review of Benghazi, these truly “smoking gun” admissions were not provided to the Senators.

Obama and his minions are now arguing that there is nothing for the recently appointed House Select Committee on Benghazi to investigate. Such a statement is an example of what I have come to call “Obamaspeak.” In fact, with the revelation of the emails describing an orchestrated effort on the part of the White House and State Department to deceive the public about what happened at Benghazi, the need for a full and thorough investigation by the Select Committee is ever more important.

The Benghazi incident and its aftermath is only one of many examples of a lack of appropriate Presidential leadership in the foreign policy arena. Of course, in the end, the foreign “policy” of Barack Obama is anything but. Foreign policy is defined as a “course of action” adopted by a government in regard to relations with other nations. In the case of the Obama administration, the foreign affairs of the United States are utterly rudderless, lacking in any defined course.

Obama further aggravates his lack of a cohesive foreign policy with egregious abuses of civil liberties. For example, despite his explicit promise to reign in the Patriot Act, he has expanded its application to the point that the principal architect of the law has called for its repeal because of Obama’s abuses. In addition, the illegal and unconstitutional conduct of the CIA, NSA, IRS, DEA, VA and the White House outpace anything seen since the Second World War (perhaps ever in American history). But, I digress, again – somewhat.

Perhaps more than anything else, Barack Obama is distinguishing himself as the most dishonest President since World War II – if not the most disingenuous President in American history. The lies emitting from the White House and State Department after the Benghazi attack really are nothing more than standard operating procedure for a White House that actually seems to enshrine what we were all warned about in George Orwell’s 1984. Perhaps on many levels, calling the Obama Administration “Orwellian” is a gross understatement.

As of this writing, approximately 70% of the American public (including Independents, Democrats and Republicans) rate Barack Obama as dishonest to completely untruthful when it comes to major issues. Indeed, this block of individuals continues to increase in number.

Peggy Noonan is one of the first people to calmly and regularly address the inherent dishonesty of Barack Obama, and did so during the 2012 election campaign. She initially wrote that the American people seemed to think that the president oftentimes fibbed or fudged.. Her position evolved, while watching Obama in action during and after the campaign. She ultimately (and correctly) concluded that a majority of the American people believe that Barack Obama is a fairly constant liar. He is. And, on this point, I do not digress.

Ultimately, with the reputation President Obama and those around him developed for dishonesty, the House Select Committee on Benghazi has important work to undertake. The Select Committee must answer the question of whether or not the President (and others in his service) lied after the attack on the Benghazi Consulate to protect his reelection campaign. In addition, the Select Committee must answer the question that hearkens back to that asked during Watergate hearings over 40 years ago by recently deceased Senator Howard Baker: What did the president know and when did he know it.