It's A Matter Of Trust

Some love is just a lie of the heart
The cold remains of what began with a passionate start
And they may not want it to end
But it will it's just a question of when

Some love is just a lie of the soul
A constant battle for the ultimate state of control
After you've heard lie upon lie
There can hardly be a question of why 

("A Matter of Trust" by Billy Joel)

I'm not sure of Mr. Joel's politics, or whether he'd approve of my use of his words in this fashion, but his 1986 song began to stick in my head last night as the reports of HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius' performance before a Congressional Committee and the President made a Boston road trip and attempted to dig himself out of the hole he's recently discovered surrounding the place where the Affordable Healthcare Act used to sit as 'settled law'.

There are those with far more established credentials than yours truly regarding the Washington and Boston events.  My interest ... actually my disappointment, is more far-reaching than with one law and far deeper than with one Administration (though the current occupant of the White House seems determined to double down on distortion at every opportunity).  

My disenchantment could go back as far as Bush '41.  "Read my lips. No new taxes." cost the elder Bush an entire term's worth of credibility, and inevitably an election.  It should have.  What he said was disingenuous and ultimately to be a lie.  Maybe you can excuse the elder Bush as trying to go along to get along with a difficult to get along with Congress (All in the spirit of compromise, right?); but ultimately, it was his broken promise. 

His successor parsed the truth so finely that it all but disappeared for a time in this country.  Clinton wasn't the first to have an affair in office, nor was he even the most creative where his Oval Office peccadilloes were concerned.  His on-camera denials during interviews and the feeble defense of trying to redefine "is" during a deposition however, did neither the man nor the office any credit for truth or authenticity.

As for 'Bush the Younger', while I can't necessarily fault him for the misinterpreted data on 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' that were universally accepted at the time, I can however register my discontent over the breach of the public trust that was the "Patriot Act", and his beginning the eras of 'Too Big To Fail' and the 'Corporate Bailout'.

The current resident however, appears to have cornered the market on mistrust, bringing a level of deception back to the White House not seen since Richard Nixon. 

It was bad enough when we were handed a flimsy story about a YouTube video after the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi.  No one seemed to care about another troubled tale from the Mideast and the prevarication of the video allowed most an excuse to ignore it.  Unfortunately, the unnecessary and off-repeated fiction of the UN Ambassador, the Secretary of State, and the President eventually changed the narrative from one of error and strategic misjudgment to one of shameless fabrication and cover up.

The handling of Top Secret material by the NSA and its subsequent release by Wiki-leaks and the British Press had the nation wondering whether the government could hold on to the truth (when occasionally it stumbled over it), let alone keep it secret.  Attacking members of the AP and Fox News instead of the perpetrators didn't help their credibility.  Lying to FISA courts to go after these reporters however, once again changed the tone of the story and made it not about security, but instead about trust.

If it wasn't the NSA it was the IRS, not that anyone actually trusts them to tell the truth; but the confirmed reports now appear to show the government using this nefarious bureaucracy to attack political opponents in the days running up to the last Presidential election.  The stories on whether such activity was going on, how widespread it was, and at what level it was being controlled continue to change on a daily basis.  While we still don't know the whole story yet, we do know that both the Press and Congress were being given the facts that should have earned their presenters a Pulitzer, if not an Academy Award. 

But this tale started today with the ACA; a subject for which the list of falsehoods is becoming too long to accurately keep track of.  Misstatements about how ready the website was for roll out, its actual (and final) cost, even when it will finally be fixed, vary wildly.  Heath plans that we were told were 'grandfathered in' apparently weren't, but union 'Cadillac Plans' that were supposed to rate a penalty now appear to have been given status that individual plans weren't.  A law that we were told would apply equally to those in the White House and Congress now has special subsidies and now no longer does.  The employer mandate of this 'settled law' is rewritten by a stroke of the President's pen, but the individual mandate (and its 'tax') remains whether you can obtain the product you are legally obligated to within the allotted time or not. 

Well then, who's responsible for these prevarications and misrepresentations, the falsehoods and fabrications that have become increasingly associated with the ACA.  Apparently the Republicans are, in spite of having failed to cast a single vote for its passage in either house.  Not wanting it implemented is evidently the same thing as lying about it.  The website contractors are to blame for lying about the system's lousy roll out.  Private insurance companies appear to be liars because they're obeying ACA regulatory statutes written by the HHS that force them to cancel your policy.  Finally, you're to blame for apparently lying about the problems you've experienced with the website, fibbing about the amount of time you're wasting to gather information, and telling falsehoods about the promises that were made to you and now appear to have been broken. (For shame on you!) 

Future Oval Office residents and their press secretaries will curse this Administration in the years ahead, not for what they've done, but for sowing the seeds of mistrust amongst the Press Corps and the American people.  As for the rest of our lying masters in Washington DC, they may not have invented the concepts of deception, but they're trying to patent it while attempting to turn it into an art subsidized form.  To paraphrase a former Toledo Mayor (who cannot be named):  "This law is full of half-truths, mistruths, and outright lies".

If there's a bright side to the deceit, distortion, and disinformation being generated in Washington DC these days however, it's that the growing stench of mistrust that the Obama Administration has created may have done what neither the abuses of previous White House residents (Republican and Democrat alike) nor the rise of the Tea Party could have.  The paucity of truth coming from Washington may finally have become so egregious that the electorate may finally be pissed off enough to do something about the lying bastards (and bitches) to whom we grant the reins of government. 

This taint has reached the point where it's no longer about the fictitious narrative delivered by Barack Obama and his minions.  Now it's just a matter of trust; and based on the latest polls, no one outside of Washington trusts anyone inside of it ... no matter what they say.

 

Move Over Karl Rove

During the years of the George W Bush Administration and even in the years since his resignation in 2007, one of those considered to be a political mastermind in this country was Senior Adviser and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove.  Having gained the title courtesy of a 2004 Bush victory speech, Mr Rove still retains the nickname of "The Architect" for his work inside 'The Beltway', for his eight year protection of his boss, and in getting his candidate re-elected to a second term.  

Of course during those years, Rove's behind the scene machinations were well served by some rather able representatives to the press.  While Scott McClellan may not have been the best or most loyal of those press secretaries, he deserves at least a little credit for lasting as long as he did.  Ari Fleischer, Tony Snow, and Dana Perino however; served the Administration (and the Rove strategies) exceptionally well.  George Bush was, after all, far from the best of public speakers.  Though not limited by a teleprompter and normally very sincere, he often need help in carrying the water of his message to those in the pressroom (or at least someone who could explain it coherently).  With all due respect to Mr. Rove and those efforts of the past carried out by able representatives, there's someone far different behind the throne these days.

I'm speaking of course, of Valerie Jarrett, with her partner in crime David Axelrod.  Never have two senior advisers been so mis-served by those in the inner circle and still been so successful.  Oh I'm not talking about press secretaries Robert Gibbs and Jay Carney, who often seem to serve as little more than misplaced bobble head dolls too often used as punching bags by the press by comparison with their Republican predecessors.  I'm talking about what have become either by accident or intent (and I believe the latter) a behind-the-scenes brain trust that's come up with some of the greatest political strategy misdirections of the 21st Century.

The unemployment rate remains unacceptably high, for unacceptably long and few notice.  The pace of economic growth is being exceeded by that of stalactites in Mammoth Caverns and few seem to care.  The Administration's signature legislation has had the opposite effect intended on the price of health care insurance and it goes largely unreported.  The national debt reaches unprecedented heights and our foreign policy (and along with it, our national reputation) new depths, and both remain largely invisible to the electorate.  In a remarkable bit or strategic thinking however, instead of attempting to feed the public a string of small but meaningless gains as were done in the previous Administration; the current President's minions have not only survived, but thrived on behalf of their leader by feeding the public a diet of disasters, scandals, and misdirection.   

There's little doubt that the murder of the Libyan Ambassador and members of his staff are due to a serious failure in intelligence, a worse one in internal communication between the Defense and State Departments within the White House, and a pretty blatant attempt to sweep these egregious sins under the rug of a largely failing foreign policy.  Those behind the scenes however are able to take these flawed raw materials and manufacture an inept 'Keystone Kops' investigation out of it all that fails to talk to eyewitnesses, interminably drags out Congressional investigations, and fails to lead to a single arrest.  So successful are they in dragging the process of falsehood and failure that it moves from an attempted cover up to old news without ever being resolved.  Brilliantly done!

The IRS moves from tax collector to liberal political activism just in time for a mid-term and national election.  The powers that be deny the story until caught red-handed, then attempt to introduce it as a throw-away at an obscure press conference.  When finally (and many would say belatedly) called to task by Congress that seems more intent on posturing than investigating, they blame it on low level workers until supervisor intervention is discovered.  Ignoring this fact, their leader then calls it 'bad customer service' until this poor service begins to point to White House appointees in Washington.  Meanwhile in that same White House, no one seems to know anything about it; but still they're able to issue statements that it can't be serious.  In spite of apparently using the most powerful bureaucracy in the nation for political ends, they call for an end to the witch hunt unless or until the President's blood fingerprints can be found on a weapon.   Those supposed to be in charge demand that the IRS investigate (audit) itself, but apparently don't instruct them that they should actually talk to anyone in the office involved.  The Justice Department and FBI step in and repeats the process; but likewise seems to miss questioning anyone in the know.  After months of the worst bit of misdirection since Abbott and Costello did "Who's on first?" (and probably the most successful), this too largely becomes old news to the general public.   Oh well played!

Let's face it.  Karl Rove may have been "The Architect", but his once magnificent efforts have been outclassed.  Those in power behind the throne today are more like "The Demolitionist", and not only succeed in their tasks, but their scorched earth policies appear to leave little evidence in their wake.  They've proved far more successful and effective in their destruction than Karl ever was in building behind the scenes, tossing out scandals and disasters on an almost weekly basis to obliterate their bosses tracks. (Or should I say, missteps?)  And when they can't manufacture enough of either to maintain the proper level of diversion for the national attention, they successfully wade into existing ones having little to do with governance so as to make a bad situation worse for that purpose.  

No offense Karl, you were good enough in your day, but even you have to recognize that there's some new sheriffs in town, and they've done so much more with so much less that we've all but forgotten you while we watch them 'MacGyver' each setback that comes their way.  Make not mistake.  You were good Karl, but they're just better.  Sorry my friend, but it's time to move over, tip the cap,  and pass the mantle Karl, you've been out-played by the new guys ...

Much Ado?

As the continuing coverage of the Obama Administration's troika of tribulation goes on, I can't help but wonder about what any of it will mean for the nation in the long term.  Each of course, has become an amusing little bit of living hell for Press Secretary Jay Carney.  After all, it's hard enough to stand in front an appreciative audience and read your lines with a straight face when the writers have done such a horrible job with the narrative.  When the audience becomes of clique of carping critics, ready to find fault with every miscue and fumbled line; what should be a walk in the park becomes an effort to tip toe through a minefield.  But after this elite assemblage with their press credentials plays its verbal game with an equally elite assemblage of politicians and bureaucrats, is it likely that anything will actually come of it, or will all of it become much ado about nothing?

Benghazi
While in many ways this should be the most grievous of the mishandled situations, it's probably the least likely to amount to much in the long run.  There's little doubt that a political narrative intruded on real national security issues, that insult was added to injury in a poor attempt to turn 'chicken shit into chicken salad' that ended up costing American lives, and that the bureaucrats whose job it is to do CYA work for the President are slowly revealing their dirty fingerprints on the paperwork required wipe the national leader's backside.

On the other hand, those involved have largely managed to drag the inquisitional process out long enough that it's exceeded the attention span of the average American voter.  Oh sure, Congressional hearings will continue to be held by the opposition party who will take political advantage of the situation until much closer to their re-election (and maybe even find a little truth along the way).  It's unlikely though, that smoking guns will be discovered after all this time or if they are, that anyone will care much.  You see, in spite of the fact that many members of Congress are lawyers, most of those in committee meetings seem far more interested using their time in testifying than in questioning witnesses.

As a result, what's more likely is that those involved in the Defense and State Departments will have their costly mistakes written off as mere errors in judgement; while the White House will once more be seen as disconnected and 'leading from behind'.  It's likely that the largest impact of an incident which cost four men their lives will be to cause Mrs. Clinton to write an end to her political legacy with the titles of Senator and Secretary of State.

AP / James Rosen
Considering Benghazi, this is little more than a storm in a tea cup, though you would hardly know it.  Administrations have always had leaks, some of which are purposefully dropped breadcrumbs used to advance or reinforce their agendas; and others are inadvertent and the unintended consequences of bureaucrats and political sycophants trying to prove to those in the media that they are more in the know than they actually are.  Some (very few) are actually nefarious attempts to reveal vital national secrets.  Some of these leaks are politically necessary, some are little more than inconvenient nonsense, and some end up being positively perilous (though usually not for either the bureaucrats or reporters).

These nuggets of fact, fiction, and foolishness are parceled to the public by representatives of the various news agencies; who like their government sources, present a mixed assortment of talents and biases.  Since governments only want approved messages passed out, this causes them to create 'naughty and nice' lists where the media is concerned; and to use the coercive power at their disposal cater to friends and frustrate enemies.  Some Administrations are more sensitive where their friends and enemies are concerned and some far better and more subtle at coercion than others, but all of them do it.

Occasionally one or the other crosses the line, gets smacked around for it, and retreats in embarrassed or vindictive silence afterward.  These incidents are two such occasions when the government took its lumps.  Oh sure, there are some questionable Constitutional behaviors involved with the actions of the DOJ in handling them, and (like Benghazi) some poorly done cover up efforts; but fortunately for the government, citizens these days like the press only marginally more than politicians, and don't mind much if they occasionally get smacked around.  

Have no fear however, the DOJ has promised to investigate itself, and I'm sure that we can count on the AG to get to the bottom of his own and his department's misdeeds.  While the mainstream media would like this to be a far bigger deal for their own future protection (and for continued headlines), and Congress will be continuing to hold hearings of its own on this subject as well (more headlines for fund raising and re-election efforts); its unlikely that anything will happen beyond the resignation of the Attorney General Eric Holder (who should have fallen on his sword after "Fast and Furious") as being either completely incompetent or mildly crooked.

IRS Targeting
This scandal is quickly growing into the largest of the three, but mostly because hating the IRS is a truly bi-partisan practice.  Decades of heavy-handed mistreatment of citizens by it combined with an over-riding fear of this 20th century Frankenstein monster of an agency has all the townspeople looking for the nearest windmill to trap and burn it in.  The mainstream media has properly taken this scandal up, in spite of the fact that like the government, they don't much like the groups targeted because ... well it sells newspapers and commercial time and their vulture-like nature prevents them passing up a likely corpse.  Even savvy politicians on both sides of the aisle, knowing that such things have always gone on at some level, are voicing concern with this latest effort; lest the next party in power further escalate the use of this double-edged weapon in order to insure their continued right to rule.  

Some sacrificial villains (scapegoats) will at some point be discovered for this scandal during what's likely to be year-long hearings, but any perpetrators are likely to be able to resign and keep their pensions.  Menial IRS workers caught in the crossfire are protected by union contracts that will delay or prevent any punishment for their labors until such time as the whole thing is long forgotten.  Promises of reform will be suggested by both sides of the aisle (perhaps even honestly), but there's a momentum of power abuse in this bureaucracy far too great to overcome.  Additional increases in power the IRS gains under the implementation of Obamacare will not only add to its numbers and its penchant for abuse, but is likely to do little more than feed its appetite for evil.   

Fortunately or unfortunately for the party in the White House, the one controlling Congress is likely to drag out hearings through the mid-term elections on this subject as well to expose career bureaucrats who were doing no more than attempting to climb the food chain by pleasing those who controlled their promotions.  Based on past performance, Congress will over time completely inoculate us to the horror of these abuses by fumbling the opportunity given them right to a wrong in order to instead create self-serving fund raising efforts and campaign sound bites.  Far worse, legislators will overlook this uniquely bi-partisan opportunity to simplify tax law in this country, and eliminate the very power being exercised and abused by these blameworthy bureaucrats. 

  

The 'Know Nothings' Are Back

For those of you who didn't pay attention during history class (or were educated recently in public education), this title probably means nothing.  Don't feel bad.  It's probably because you knew nothing of the first incarnation of the 'Know Nothing' Party as it came to some prominence in the United States during the 1850's; when xenophobic Americans were concerned over the swarms of Irish and German immigrants who chose to try and start a new life in a new land rather than starve in their own.  Others whose parents had made much the same choice 200 years earlier were terrified by these newcomers and convinced that the nation was in danger of being taken over by hoards of Irish Catholics and Germans (and perhaps eventually the Pope).  Their party eventually settled as the American Nativist Party, but is far better known for the instructions that members were given in the event that they were asked about their semi-secret movement, answering "I know nothing" to their interrogators.  Though the party had mostly disappeared only a few years later, it seems that some part of it may have survived and has, without fanfare and without much bother,  taken over the the current leadership of the Federal Government.  This latest incarnation of twisted political leadership is being fully demonstrated in the troika of crises facing the current Administration.

While many believe that the this latest incarnation 'Know Nothings' may have reared its ugly head as early as October of 2009 by taking control of the DEA's and ATF's disastrous efforts more commonly known as "Fast and Furious", most believe that this peccadillo was little more than a practice run to determine if a multi-year campaign of dissimulation, obfuscation, and prorogation could succeed with the Mainstream Media (MSM), Congress, and the American people.  Having thus proven the success of their tactics, their dedicated membership now seems ready to hunker down in the trench warfare of endless Congressional hearings in which information is dribbled out in leaks slower than maple syrup in winter, while placing tourniquets on information of events viewed under a media philosophy of 'if it bleeds, it leads', and counting on a general population with the attention span of a 3 year-old that still believes that 'Reality Shows' and wrestling are unscripted.

Eight months after Benghazi, a hundred pages of emails tell us that the talking points for UN Ambassador Susan Rice were rewritten more times than the last episode of "Duck Dynasty".  While the CIA had the facts of story straight to begin with, behind the scenes movers and shakers felt the need during the run up to election to 'correct' them.  In a bizarre game of 'Telephone', these departmental power brokers throughout the Executive branch managed to edit out the truth and substitute a rather unconvincing plot that four people were murdered as a bad review on a YouTube movie.  What we still don't know however, is who initiated the plot change and who approved it.  

More importantly however, as the government and media argued over this script approval, is that we don't know who staged the scene at the Benghazi compound.  The British and the Red Cross abandoned the area as too dangerous; but after the US compound had been attacked months before, it not only remained, but reduced rather than beefed up its security force.  When the inevitable attack occurred, defense forces in the region that might have assisted were told to stand down, in spite of (or because of) their lack of information on the ground according to one story, or because of knowledge that they couldn't reach the battle in time according to another.  

When asked after the attack what the hell happened, Press Secretary Jay Carney initially told us to wait for the completion of the investigation.  Having completed it, he now tells us it's 'old news' and he can't or won't speak to it.  As for the Defense Department, the State Department, and the White House; they don't know or can't tell us who is responsible for the horrible decisions made before, during, or after the attack that caused the death of four Americans on Embassy Grounds.

Cut to the IRS targeting of Conservative and and religious groups that were seeking 501c4 tax status.  We were originally told in March of 2012 by then acting IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman that the IRS was not in fact targeting these groups.  When an Inspector General report this month was about to reveal otherwise, the IRS's Lois Lerner (whose division was responsible for this targeting)  planted a question with Celia Roady so that she could do a soft-release of the reversal.  Soon to be ex-Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller now tells Congress that it did happen, that it was real wrong, and that their 'investigating' to insure that it never happens again.  (Can you hear the Benghazi script writers scribbling away?)

Apparently, we are supposed to believe that this was the effort of a couple of rogue employees in Cincinnati.  (Does Oliver North work at the IRS?)  Despite the fact that some of the documents already released on this breaking story came out of Washington and the cast of characters in this charade is becoming as long as the one in Benghazi, no one again seem to know anything about what happened, how it happened, and who sanctioned it.  In spite of the fact that an Inspector General was appointed to look into it, no one at the IRS, in the Treasury Department, or the White House knew anything either.  It seems in fact, that of all these career bureaucrats (and the nation's Chief Executive) no one anywhere knew that anything bad, illegal, or in violation of the Constitution might be going on.  They told us in fact that they had to read about it in the newspapers to discover this ongoing skulduggery. (And who says newspapers are dead?)  The fact that this began in the run up to an election and is being released only after it's over is suspicious to no one, and at the pace of White House document releases and Congressional hearings, we may manage to get partial answers about a year after everyone has lost interest.

Cut to scene three, in which the Department of Justice, without subpoena, obtained the phone records of a number of Associated Press employees.  Ostensibly this is about going after a serious national security leak (you know, like releasing the info on who killed Bin Laden), but the Keystone Kops at the DOJ decided to go after the records of reporters who might have been involved in releasing the story instead of the limited members of the government employees who had access to the information in the first place.  This was not, according to our government, an attempt to intimidate the press in any way, or to impede the rights of a free press to do its job. (Sure, I buy that.)  The fact however that AP has traditionally been a friend to this Administration and the fact that it was they who were attacked certainly sends a clear message to those in the press who might choose to oppose it however.

As for who made the decision to pursue this particularly egregious effort in this misguided way; Attorney General 'Eric the WithHolder' said "I don't know" so many times in his recent Congressional appearance that he made "Hogan's Heroes" Sergeant Schultz look like a college professor.  (Can you say plausible deniability?)  Nobody at the Congressional Hearing however seemed to know enough to ask who was in charge of the program so that they could subpoena them to testify, and nobody else in the Executive branch seems to have any knowledge (at least that they're admitting) about how and why it happened.   (The President did however, suggest that Congress pass a law to defend the Press against an abuse of power committed by his DOJ.  Really?)

I thought at first that the White House was attempting to debut a new Reality Show with its name ripped off from the 1995 Alicia Silverstone movie "Clueless" (you know how Hollywood likes bad remakes.); but I have since come to believe that this is an unexpected resurgence to power of the 'Know Nothing' Party.  (There are many who believe that both major political parties could pass for 'Know Nothings', but that's a tale for another day.)  They were after all a secret society (and you know how we like to blame those), are lost far enough in our past to have become forgotten or misunderstood in intervening years, and could merely have transferred their rabid xenophobia from Irish-Catholics to the current target du jour of Conservatives.  It may not be great theory, but at the very least has unique quality of fitting a number of the facts that we possess.  

There be no lanterns hung in the steeple of the Old North Church this day, nor will Longfellow pen an epic poem as the news is spread.  Make no mistake about it however, you heard it here first that the 'Know Nothings' are back. 

Six Months From Benghazi

Well we've past the six month anniversary since the terrorist attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, Libya in which four Americans were killed, including the Ambassador; and we apparently know little more than we knew as it was going on.  

Of course there aren't the media implications and political victories to be won from this tragedy that there are from many others that remain the focus of a great deal of attention.   This is no Sandy Hook or Columbine where the lives of innocent children were cut short by the mentally unbalanced behavior of other misguided children.  There can be no lingering discussion of 2nd Amendment rights and the on again, off again attempts of the national legislature to treat it as something they can interpret without bringing the issue to the people themselves in the form of a Constitutional Amendment.  Neither is this an attack on a politician like Gabby Giffords where we can add the misguided assumptions of impassioned political rhetoric censure to double dip in the Bill of Rights by adding attacks to the 1st Amendment to that of the 2nd.

No, this was a cold-blooded attack on the lives and property of the United States by what turned out to be a well-organized group of terrorists with a well thought out plan.  There is no argument in this para-military assault as to what weapons were used, even though this went beyond whether they were semi or fully automatic; since those involved brought mortars to insure that the compounds walls were not an issue, and its building little or no protection.

In the former cases we have certainly identified the culprits involved, analyzed their life stories in minute detail, and experts have done their best to divine the motivations of their mentally unstable behavior.  In the latter, we've had two potential suspects detained; one of which was subsequently released and another only recently brought in to custody, but not questioned by US law enforcement directly.  The only guy sitting in US custody is the poor bastard who made a YouTube trailer that was at first erroneously blamed for the attack.

In the former we've come to conclusions that perhaps teachers should be trained and armed or that local law enforcement should be placed at schools in the future to prevent the recurrance of such dastardly acts.  In the latter, we have yet to hear from the government that we've beefed up security, if only in troubled areas, to do the same.  (Hell, we haven't even heard that the State Department would have like to beef up security, but can't because of Sequestration ... an error on the part of the Administration if I do say so.)

In the former we've been given the tragic 'life cut short stories' of victims, heard the emotional testimony of some families before Congress while others have had their opinions and feelings detailed in high profile media interviews.  In the latter, the only witnesses have been held incommunicato (heaven forbid that they should be questioned while events are still fresh); and it appears that only a Congressional subpeona will see any first hand information given, even in closed hearings.

As for the things we don't know and will never know on the latter, the list is prpobably far too long to go into; but let me try and hit some of the highlights:

• We don't know whether the Consulate was trying to do weapons swaps as has been rumored, and which might provide some reason for its designation as a target.
• We don't know why a security detail deployed in Libya for the protectio nof the Embassy and its personnel was withdrawn a month before the attack, especially in light of events that occurred at the Red Cross and British Embassy.
• We don't know who was in direct command and control of the situation after Defense Secretary Leon Panetta met with the President for a regular briefing soon after the attack had begun.
• We don't know why there were subsequent briefings to the President as it continued, or apparently to Secretary of State Clinton, whose people were being fired upon.
• We don't know why an unarmed drone was sent to assess the situation when the Administration is so ready to deploy armed ones that might have been able to chase the attackers off in so many other situations. 
• We don't know why none of the military assets that were available to the US government (if only to buzz the site) were not deployed; or why Libyan defense forces were not called up to defend Diplomatic territory that they are obligated to do as specified in international treaty.
• We don't know why the YouTube video was erroneously trotted out as the and stuck with for weeks in spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary.
• We don't know why US officials and spokesmen attempted to play 'bait and switch' with this causation when it fell apart; or why the President himself claimed alternately that both sides were the truth (with tapdance music playing playing) during and after the fact.
• We don't know why the media mostly ignored this story at the time, and continues to see this particular loss of life as either inconsequential or non-newsworthy.
• We don't know if we'll ever get answers to the murder of a US Ambassador and three other staff members.

TFP Column: Hilary Hearing

I exchanged a few words with TFP Editor-in-Chief Michael Miller this week about some things that I was working on, specifically about an effort that was coming together on cheap political theater of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's testimony before the House and Senate committees.  Michael gave me just enough incentive to follow through on the effort that I was working on (he didn't refuse to use it).

While I was willing to take on what should be considered to be "the most disappointing debut since Star Wars Episode I" in a couple of different ways in a misguided attempt to make it marginally more informative than the weekly farm report, the effort left me with so little creative energy left that I could even come up with a clever title to go with it.  As a result, what you will get on the TFP website this week remained the "Hilary Hearing".   (Sorry about that....)

Fortunately, those of you who take the time to follow a few of the other efforts in this weekend's edition will find not only more interesting titles and stories, you will also find out what's going on in the Glass City these days.  There's cold and snow forecast for those of you in Northwest Ohio anyway, so why not curl up in front of a fire with Toledo's largest Sunday circulation (and Ohio's best weekly) newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

                

Unresolved

It remains rather quiet here at the 'Just Blowing Smoke' headquarters with most of the staff still out on holiday; and being the end of the year, that would seem to make it an ideal time to pause for reflection on the year past and create some of the time-honored resolutions for the year ahead.  While there's certainly been time enough for proper pondering, such continued contemplation has in fact left me more unresolved than ever.

As it is for many around the nation, my attention instead continues to be drawn to so many things left unresolved in 2012.  Based on the quantity of press coverage if nothing else, the twin dooms of the Fiscal Cliff and the second coming of the Debt Ceiling probably top this list, though quite frankly I've long since grown tired of hearing about them.  For despite the protestations of some of our political leaders, this stopped being about 'regular Americans' some time back and has become (like far too many other decisions turned over to government) little more than a pissing contest between the members of two political parties who seem ill-equipped to compete in such an event. The current two-party system in our national legislature has become a warning sign that perhaps term limits once again deserves serious consideration. (Though I'm still more in favor of abolishing the Congressional Pension System, which would not only force legislators back into the public sector fairly quickly, but has the added benefit of putting them into Social Security.)

How Harry Reid can stand in the well of the Senate and complain about the obstinacy of anyone, when the legislative house that he's in charge of hasn't passed a budget in over three years is quite beyond me.  Despite his protestations to the contrary, partisanship in the Senate was not created in 2008.  Other Majority Leaders have faced it as well, and managed to find common ground and do their jobs.  If you can't Harry, man up and step down.   Instead of displaying the wisdom and experience that the longer six-year terms were supposed to grant them, they're instead used to put on 'secret holds' and find ways to dodge existing responsibilities on 'advise and consent' (when the President isn't using every bathroom break to shove in recess appointments). 

As for John Boehner,  his fawning and whining approaches at leadership are probably what should be expected after his teary-eyed acceptance of the leadership position.  I don't question his heart or even his courage, but a leader praised for his experience must ultimately be judged by the success of his strategies.  Boehner's strategies have produced a level of consistent strategic failure that hasn't been seen in this country since the War of 1812. (US troops lost almost every battle in this war and Washington DC was sacked and burned ... not that I'm trying to give anyone ideas.)  Having won the House in 2010, Republicans gave two years of lip service to those who carried them into the majority, but failed to make substantive gains, which undoubtedly played some part in their lack of progress to reach a majority in the Senate or win the White House two years later.  While they retained that majority in the House this year, they have yet to demonstrate the fiscal responsibility that actually know what to do with it or how to sell their efforts to an increasingly angry voter.s

Like the Majority Leader, it seems strange too that the additional 'experience' of the President should once again prove him to be a poor winner.  Apparently our commander-in-chief has not only the innocent nature of a child, but the selective memory of one as well.  In fact, it might be said that he holds the vindictiveness of a petulant child whose only willing to point out that he won re-election in 2012 and that his party kept control of the Senate when discussing his bargaining position (my ball, my game).   All of the talk of compromise is merely paying lip service to the concept however.  He he seems incapable of remembering that the election of 2010 turned control of the House over to his opponents (though he did when it first happened), and left it in their hands after this most recent on.  His current 'campaign style negotiating' is done in public speeches, and in fact seems to ignore the opposition party unless he's looking for someone to blame his own lack of negotiating skill on.  How can anyone call what President Obama offers compromise when his proposals are unanimously voted down by his own party in the Senate.  

And so we look at the last days before going off the Fiscal Cliff; most seem to have forgotten that this 'Thelma and Louise' ski jump was created by the very people who ignored it for months while campaigning, and now see it as a Doomsday Clock ticking while saying that they're dead set on avoiding it.  Citizens in this country likewise seem perfectly willing to trust that the same leaders who created this no-win game of financial chicken are capable of solving it for longer than the next congressional election cycle (which none of them has actually proved in the last four years).   

Haven't the past so-called victories of these three leaders in fact turned out to be Pyrrhic ones, cutting a path or devastation that we're still dealing with.  Isn't anyone else tired of the 'Three Card Monties' and proposals where immediate tax increases (and I don't care who they're on) are to be followed someday by budget cuts or savings that never actually come about (or that appear insignificant unless added together for ten years)?  Does no one else understand promises agreed to by either house of the current Congress doesn't even obligate the one that takes its seats in a couple of weeks to follow through on? 

If taxes need to be raised however (as many are convinced of on the left), then so be it!  Let's not pretend however that raising what slick politicians now like to call 'Revenue' (rather than taxes) that don't even keep the government from running deficit spending are anything more than a symbolic gesture however.   (Hell, they're barely enough to run the govt. for eight days.)  While we're at it, let's recognize that increasing taxes on those who pay most of them is little more than punishment for success.  Let's also agree on the simple logic that spreading any these revenue increases over a greatest number of people makes them less of a burden for each to carry in a struggling economy.  The "E Pluribus Unum" printed on our currency doesn't translate to 'Let Government Pick'.  The burdens and benefits that are our lot were meant to be shared by all; and spreading the tax burden over the whole leaves everyone with some skin in the game.  I find it interesting, for example, that the tax cuts we're arguing about continuing were created to expire in the first place (Why is that by the way?), but the increases we're considering are to become permanent.  Why couldn't any of those finally agreed upon also have a built-in expiration date, forcing legislators to re-evaluate them again in the future based on what happens with the economy.

Of course the bone of contention for many is that while tax increases are being discussed for implementation immediately, spending cuts are only being hinted at eventually and are to be taken up later.  Plans that included both taxes and cuts that Republicans recently proposed, are being rejected out of hand now by the same Democrats who proposed the same thing eighteen months ago. Is this an honest effort to keep us from a fiscal cliff, or a political gamesmanship more interested in punishing an opponent than serving an electorate.  Apparently for the President and Majority Leader, contentment means tax increases (and apparently spending increases to go with them) now and any form of fiscal responsibility 'manana'.  Many of us are tired of the continued 'Wimpy Economics', long scorned by anyone not part of the Paul Krugman school of economics, and most recently perpetrated by government.  We're tired of the fact that this nations needs to borrows forty-six cents of every dollar it spends; a process which only continues to work as long as the Fed cranks out fiat currency 24 hours-a-day, in the hopes of inflating some part of that debt away.  Inflated or not however, this debt takes us right into the next of the unresolved issue, the Debt Ceiling.   

Yes, from the same leaders that brought you the Debt Ceiling of 2011, we now have the Debt Ceiling of 2012-13.  Making no attempt at living with their means and having kicked the can down the road some 17 months ago during a previous deadlocked budget debate (and for no better reason than the cowardly reason that they didn't want to deal with it while running for re-election), the financial geniuses of both parties in Washington tried to rig their last agreement so that the issue wouldn't come up again until the new Congress was seated in 2013.  Of course our government is about as good as understanding how fast they spend money as they are about what they spend it on, so the government credit limit is about to be exceeded a little early.  Not to fear however, as our Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner (who has some experience with not paying bills .... tax bills) decided he could get us into 2013 by using some accounting tricks that he'd probably have you put in jail for using.

Of course 2013, like 2011, will kick off another in never-ending re-election cycle in the House of Representatives and widen the yellow streak of our elected representatives (especially those most vulnerable for re-election).  Already faced with a Fiscal Cliff negotiations that will not make any of them look good and that points rather dramatically to the fact that we spend more than we take in, you would think that sufficient imperative would finally exist to seriously address the root problem.  Such thinking would not get you elected however, and would therefore make you wrong.  Congress is quite content to ignore Social Security running out of money, as long as it doesn't do so before the election of 2014.  Consideration of Medicare and Medicaid budget reform pretty much falls under the same category, which means that as long as the 'Social Safety Net' remains intact for now, nothing substantive will be done to reform their bloated nature or prevent their impending doom.  Besides, members of Congress rely on none of these plans themselves, and their cushy pensions and medical plans (also funded by taxpayer dollars) will not be affected; so there's certainly no rush to interfere with seeking re-election contributions.  But these are just the entitlement programs.

Corporations who get money to drill for oil or mine coal might see some reductions in their subsidies (after all, what do we need with energy products) as the budget negotiations ramp up.  Corporations that get their money not to plant crops or that use those they do plant to produce bio-fuel to replace the coal and oil (creating even greater pollution in the process) will retain theirs however.  So too will wind and solar panel farms that can never pay their investments back, and research on things so obscure that even the people doing the research aren't sure they care about.  Congress will at least consider reductions in military spending, but not very seriously, and certainly not in ways that will affect influential Congressional districts.  We may cut back some equipment orders that are important only if we continue to believe we must poke our nose into the internal disputes of every nation on the planet, but that won't stop us from poking anyway.  We will not consider however, whether to remove or even reduce funding to countless military bases that we have around the world.  (Can anyone tell me who else has so many worldwide bases?  Buehler .... Buehler ...)  But of course such bases are vital to the protection of our interests, property, and citizens around the world; unless of course, you're one of the citizens working for the State Department on our property in Benghazi.  

Which takes us to yet another unresolved situation.  Over three months have passed since the 9/11 attack on the Consulate in Benghazi and the State Department's report has recently been issued, but we still know little more than we did the day after it happened.  Why the US outpost remained manned in Benghazi long after everyone else considered it too dangerous (like the British and Red Cross) and pulled out has been made clear.  Neither have we a clue of why, if we were going to remain, upgrades to the defensive levels of the facility and to the size of it's protection staff were not made; especially after the Ambassador (one of those killed in the attack) sent multiple requests for such improvement after attacks had occurred only months before.  We don't even know who made the decision for a security contingent already in-country to be pulled out a month before the attack.  Sure, a couple of people resigned after the report was issued (no one of importance and no doubt all of them managing to keep their pensions), but no one in real authority has yet to speak officially before Congress or the media.  When there's a oil spill, we demand that the president of that company appear before Congress; and they had better be properly remorseful, penitent, and contrite when they speak.  In this case however, we've not heard from the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, or the President; all of whom evidently had some real-time knowledge of events (or should have), about what decisions were made and why, while four other government employees died in a hours-long gun battle. 

So forgive me if I find that I have no desire to make self-serving attempts at self-improvement (no matter how badly they might be required) for 2013.  While I could certainly win a bit of approbation for listing a few New Year's Resolutions that I'm probably as likely to fulfill as our elected national representatives are their elected obligations, I choose instead to remain silent at a time when so many are seeking just such praise while leaving so much unresolved.

What Comes Out ......

Back in the Dark Ages of Education when I was attending Mt Carmel High School in Chicago, we had a sports opponent in the Catholic League in a school by the name of Brother Rice.  (Don't ask me who Brother Rice was, as I had and have no idea.)  Along with our standard repertoire of cheers during such sporting events, we had a special special one for this particular opponent which went: "What comes out of China man's ass?  Rice!  Rice!  Rice!"  (Yes I know that such a cheer is politically incorrect, then and now, but we were high school kids living in an age 40 years ago when being PC was far less important.  I use it now only to illustrate a point, which I could get to if I wasn't so busy explaining my prior offensive behavior to you here.)

Of course it was stupid and politically incorrect, but it served its purpose of infuriating the other team and distracting them from more important issues going on around them.  You know, like the game ....

Today we have our own 'Rice' issue going on surrounding UN Ambassador Susan Rice and the talking points she used on five Sunday talk shows soon after the attack on our Consulate in Benghazi.  For myself, I must continue to say,  "Who cares who gave Ambassador Rice her talking points, who changed them, and why she repeated them on each successive show?"  Maybe she was just being a team player?  Maybe she's a self-serving bureaucrat trying to claw her way up the ladder in the State Department?  Maybe she's a simple-minded fool or drank so much of the Kool-Aid that she would believe anything handed to her from the right source?  

Speaking of who cares, who cares if Republican Senators believe her?  Who cares if they're more confused after questioning her than before?  (Though I would have to say that if this is actually the case, these guys might better spend some of their time watching "NCIS", "CSI", or "Law and Order" as a way of improving their interrogation skills.)  What I can't help but ask myself is why they and we are distracting ourselves with 'Rice Cheers' questions about what she said; as if it mattered then or now in the greater scheme of the game?

The real question in fact is why, in an area of obvious unrest, the Libyan US Embassy in Tripoli wasn't well-staffed enough to be able to send a large protection team of its own down to support the AMBASSADOR (its most important functionary) at the consulate in Benghazi?  Why did we not add staff or beef up the defences of the compound after two prior attacks on it?  Why did we stay after both the British Embassy and the Red Cross had left the area, considering it too dangerous?  Why did they pull a military protection team deployed to Libya specifically for the embassy's protection out a month before the attack?  Why were there apparently no backup teams (military or private security) deployed in an area crawling with US bases and ships, to assist during a running seven hour battle?  Even if things had settled down after the initial assault and fire (and during which the Ambassador was evidently killed), why wasn't significant fire support team immediately sent to the area for no other reason than to secure the Consulate and Embassy (which are by international treaty, US territory); and to discover where and in what condition the Ambassador was?

For some reason however, we have become distracted by the meaningless to care more about who was in the circle and what rules were used for the government official game of 'Telephone' being played in Washington DC, who the head of the CIA was sleeping with that he shouldn't have, why some military base social climber is getting nasty emails from that CIA head's mistress, and of course the in and outs of the gross misstatements of Ambassador Rice.  Four people (including an ambassador) were killed! 

With all of the other things that we don't know, we should at least recognize that the events surrounding Susan Rice are less than a side-show unless and until the actual attempt is made by the President to nominate her for higher office.  The entire Rice episode, like that of my high school days, is a distraction to larger events unfolding, and to a rather nasty foreign policy failure on the part of the current Administration on which no one seems to be able to keep their eye on the ball.  So if you'll pardon my language, I know what comes out of a China man's ass ... rice.  I also know what comes out of the nonsense of Ambassador Rice where the real story of Benghazi lies ... NOTHING.

  

Empty Words and Empty Suits

It's six weeks since the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, perhaps long enough to gain some perspective on the situation.  Perspective however, is exactly what seems to be lacking where Benghazi is concerned.  Instead we have firebrands on the left insisting that patience is required to get to the truth on something that's only a story because of politics, and firebrands on the right demanding answers from the White House as to what actually happened before voters go to the polls.  Apparently lost in all of the potential political hype of course is that four Americans are dead, including an Ambassador.

But I guess we've become rather blase about the murder of a mere four people.  After all, soldiers get killed in the two wars we are still fighting overseas and they barely rate a footnote at the end of the Sunday news talk shows.  Perhaps even worse, soldiers are also killed in training accidents while in the process of maintaining readiness to serve their country and that often doesn't rate the news at all.  But it's not just soldiers that die, people are killed in this country every day: on work-sites, in shopping malls, and on city streets.  Some are innocent, some are guilty, and some just find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.  Unless the media can find a way to make these senseless killings part of an pre-disposed personal agenda that they have on gun control, societal violence caused by movies and video games, or left vs right partisanship however, these senseless deaths are soon relegated to a back page line or two so that we can talk about Lindsay Lohan's most recent court appearance.

So what is it about Benghazi?

Well perhaps because the killing of diplomatic personnel is an issue of a national prestige that seems to be suffering rather badly these days from everything from a loss of international primacy to having to go cap in hand to borrow money from those we only recently considered one of our bitterest enemies.  Americans after all do like to feel exceptional and don't much care for being part of the pack, let alone at the mercy of it.  Part of it might be from seeing this as an apparent failure to control and utilize the technologies that we have pioneered.  Satellite telephones, emails on the Internet, and real-time pictures taken by aerial drones did nothing to prevent, let alone stop what was happening to our people. 

Most of it I think however, may be from the sorry realization that we have once again become victims of the 'empty suits and empty words' that plague our bureaucratically driven government.  For it appears that once again lives have been needlessly placed in jeopardy (and ultimately lost) due to political agendas, CYA rhetoric, and bureaucratic morass that seeks not calm deliberation, but over-cautious lassitude in its dealings with the rest of the world. "The bureaucratic mentality is the one constant in the universe," according to Dr. Leonard McCoy (yeah, the one from Star Trek).  And while taking wisdom from a sci-fi movie seem ridiculous, anyone exposed to government quickly recognized that it's nevertheless true.  In fact this is common and non-partisan malady of bureaucracy, where the recurrence and severity of advanced manifestations can and will be influenced by whoever the current tenant of the White House is. Those symptoms decrease significantly with a powerful personality in the Executive Mansion, but are equally susceptible to Analysis Paralysis setting in with a timid resident who would prefer to 'lead from behind'.   

While there's a lot of rumor and misinformation out there, what we do know about Benghazi however is that (as with many of the other senseless terrorist acts that have been committed against this country), there were plenty of warning signs that it was going to happen.  Not surprisingly, there were empty suits with their empty words on the scene; evaluating information and undoubtedly cautioning against appearing too provocative in protecting our people by making our diplomatic compounds more safe.  There were other empty suits as well, busy recommending strategic errors in not only failing to increase the protection of a diplomatic mission in what was and is clearly an unstable country, but in fact reducing it significantly instead in the days leading up to the anniversary of a terrorist success story of 9/11.  

If such agenda-driven inertia from the gutted garments in charge was not enough of a recipe for disaster, this situation was also burdened with the apparent silent somnolence of other career bureaucrats.  Bureaucratic drones, whose greatest danger has been from paper cuts, gave themselves and their fellows a seven hour Reality TV show from aerial drones and consulate cameras instead of responding.  In spite of the horror I'm sure they felt during this high tech marathon of mayhem, I suspect that there was little more dialogue in the room than those four empty and infamous word, "Let's wait and see".  Unless there are strategic moves that have yet to come to light (something hardly likely) what we saw as their response was: no planes were sent to fly air cover or close ground support for those in danger, no rescue teams were dispatched to those in need, no ships currently deployed in the Med were move closer in case their Marines were needed, and in fact no effort was made even to reinforce an embassy in Tripoli that was being warned it might also be facing imminent attack.  The empty words of empty suits apparently ruled the day once more and four who honorably served this nation were little more than served up for martyrdom by them.

I don't much care whether this helps or hurts the incumbent or his opponent.  I don't really care about what the theories for Ambassador Steven's visit to the Consulate in the first place might or might not be.  What I do care about however, is the pencil pushers in Washington are supposed to be defending the people who defend this nation, regardless of how it looks or whose agenda it inconveniences, did next to nothing.  Every bit of information that continues to leak out to the public about this attack on our diplomatic mission in Libya in fact points out how many empty words from empty suits that we've already gotten, not only as it was going on, but in the days that followed.

I'm sure that the days ahead will be full of additional information coming out in bits and pieces; along with the inevitable rumor, innuendo, and conspiracy theories as to the 'facts' of the situation.  I'm sure as well, that those same empty suits are working harder now to get their stories straight than they did then to help those in real danger.  I'm absolutely certain however, that when we look back after all the intelligence agency investigations and Congressional hearings are completed and the reports have long since been filed away, all that will remain is a dirty little secret that will remain unwritten and unrecognized.  That secret, unfortunately, is that American lives have once again been needlessly lost.  They were put at ultimate risk by the mouthings of empty words coming these empty suits, and few of those who will put in their twenty years and retire from the safety of Washington DC will even remember their names in the end, having never similarly risked their empty little lives.  

Please note that nowhere in this effort have I accused anyone of lying, though quite frankly the effort has blood running from my mouth.  I am however, getting rather tired of the continued parsing of previous statements.  Sure it's easier to 'Monday Morning Quarterback' and make these decisions now; but the only thing worse that the so-called professionals backpedaling on the strategies that they've executed (or in this case, failed to) is them playing the "that depends on the definition of is" games about the statements previously made with regard to these failures.  It not only doesn't rise to the level of responsibility that's goes with the authority granted their positions, but it dishonors the memory of those who gave their lives as a result of them.