What Difference at this point Does It Make?

At a hearing on the Benghazi attack and assassination of Ambassador Stevens, Secretary of State Clinton asked, "at this point, what difference at this point does it make?" The various scandals of President Obama's White House continue to unravel, the various lies and deceptions exposed. Speaker Boehner has announced a special select committee to investigate the events leading to the Benghazi assault, lack of military response, and subsequent White House deception; an investigation that nearly all Democrats are treating as purely political. Will investigations into the Obama scandals ever amount to anything? Is this what Mrs. Clinton meant by "what difference"?

During the 2008 primary, the Clinton campaign ran a commercial featuring an important 3:00 A.M. phone call going unanswered. The implication was that Barack Obama would drop the ball at a critical time, too busy with his sleep. The commercial was almost prophetic; its only mistakes being that the phone call came at 3:45 P.M., and President Obama was too busy doing… 20 months later, we still have no definitive answer on that, but it likely had nothing to do with the attack. Tommy Vietor told Fox News that Obama was absent from the situation room, while other staff watched live satellite feed of the attack. That is the same room from which Obama watched the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. Based on White House visitor logs, the current speculation is that Obama was busy preparing for a debate with Mitt Romney, or maybe a trip to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey both testified that they had a single, 30 minute long, prescheduled meeting with Obama at 5:00 P.M., of which the Benghazi attack was only a portion.

Let us grab the bull by the horns with an ansatz: Obama was told about the attack, he confused it with the protests in Egypt, told his military commanders that they were wrong and it was just a rowdy protest over a video, demanded that no military action be taken, and ordered that he was not to be disturbed about it further. This would explain why the military began to act and then stopped, why Obama received no further updates regarding the attack, and why Secretary Clinton was left to rally civilian security from Tripoli. It explains the origin of the web video obfuscation, the resistance to investigation, and it meets well with Obama's overly rosy view of the Islamic world. Although other explanations might exist, this simple ansatz perfectly explains the events surrounding the attack and subsequent coverup, far better than the other hypotheses explored.

So what if, after all the investigations, the above ansatz is proved?  It will become apparent that Obama screwed up, once again, and it will be one more embarrassing mark on his presidency. Certainly, covering it up, apologizing for our free speech, and throwing an innocent man in jail as part of the coverup are far beneath the Office of President, and do constitute high misdemeanors, but among his various scandals, Benghazi sits the least.

Sale of a Senate seat; hostile takeover of two automobile companies and gifting them to political donors; circumvention of department review to issue energy grants to political donors; violation of export restrictions and Mexican sovereignty to fabricate a straw purchase and gun running crisis; strong-arming banks to borrow TARP funds; using the IRS to harass political opposition; the use of executive orders to undermine or undo existing statutes and act as a dictator: these are just a few of Obama's high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Except for the dictates, about which Obama proudly boasts, all of these have been traced back to the White House and various cabinet members.

The only, and Constitution prescribed, option for such high crimes and misdemeanors is impeachment and removal from office, but this option seems far off the radar. Even should the House of Representatives Impeach Obama, it is highly unlikely that enough Senate Democrats would agree that these are crimes or actions serious enough to remove Obama.

So we come back to what Clinton said; moreover, what she was being asked when she said it. Secretary Clinton was berated with demands to explain her failures. Why the request for increased security at Libyan installations was rejected, despite a history of attacks.  Why a rescue mission was undertaken only after it was far too late. The committee was rubbing her nose in her and Obama's failings, and it was embarrassing.  Not only that, she was the outgoing secretary, and Obama was sworn in for his second term just a few days before. Unless Congress intended to Impeach and remove Obama, the line of questioning served no purpose but to embarrass.

This may explain the general disdain that Democrats have for the various Congressional investigations. Without the possibility of impeaching and removing Obama, it all amounts to nothing but airing dirty laundry. According to Democrats, we should stop investigating Benghazi, because it will only embarrass Obama. We should stop investigating the IRS, because it will only embarrass Democrats. We should stop investigating Fast and Furious, because it will only embarrass Obama and Attorney General Holder. Exposing Obama's lies only makes him look like a liar. Exposing Democrats' crimes only make them appear criminal.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Crime, Corruption, Incompetence and Embarrassment, and Republicans should at least stop embarrassing them.  Democrats will always place themselves before policy, and policy before country. There is no embarrassment great enough to cause them to remove Obama or resign themselves from office. The only thing Republicans can hope to accomplish is that the news media might become tired of carrying so much water, and tell the American People about the scandals.  Hillary Clinton was right.  Without the willingness to appoint special prosecutors, see heads roll, and Impeach (even without hope of removal), what difference does it make?  Short of impeachment, the American People will likely never know.

At a hearing on the Benghazi attack and assassination of Ambassador Stevens, Secretary of State Clinton asked, "at this point, what difference at this point does it make?" The various scandals of President Obama's White House continue to unravel, the various lies and deceptions exposed. Speaker Boehner has announced a special select committee to investigate the events leading to the Benghazi assault, lack of military response, and subsequent White House deception; an investigation that nearly all Democrats are treating as purely political. Will investigations into the Obama scandals ever amount to anything? Is this what Mrs. Clinton meant by "what difference"?

During the 2008 primary, the Clinton campaign ran a commercial featuring an important 3:00 A.M. phone call going unanswered. The implication was that Barack Obama would drop the ball at a critical time, too busy with his sleep. The commercial was almost prophetic; its only mistakes being that the phone call came at 3:45 P.M., and President Obama was too busy doing… 20 months later, we still have no definitive answer on that, but it likely had nothing to do with the attack. Tommy Vietor told Fox News that Obama was absent from the situation room, while other staff watched live satellite feed of the attack. That is the same room from which Obama watched the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden. Based on White House visitor logs, the current speculation is that Obama was busy preparing for a debate with Mitt Romney, or maybe a trip to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey both testified that they had a single, 30 minute long, prescheduled meeting with Obama at 5:00 P.M., of which the Benghazi attack was only a portion.

Let us grab the bull by the horns with an ansatz: Obama was told about the attack, he confused it with the protests in Egypt, told his military commanders that they were wrong and it was just a rowdy protest over a video, demanded that no military action be taken, and ordered that he was not to be disturbed about it further. This would explain why the military began to act and then stopped, why Obama received no further updates regarding the attack, and why Secretary Clinton was left to rally civilian security from Tripoli. It explains the origin of the web video obfuscation, the resistance to investigation, and it meets well with Obama's overly rosy view of the Islamic world. Although other explanations might exist, this simple ansatz perfectly explains the events surrounding the attack and subsequent coverup, far better than the other hypotheses explored.

So what if, after all the investigations, the above ansatz is proved?  It will become apparent that Obama screwed up, once again, and it will be one more embarrassing mark on his presidency. Certainly, covering it up, apologizing for our free speech, and throwing an innocent man in jail as part of the coverup are far beneath the Office of President, and do constitute high misdemeanors, but among his various scandals, Benghazi sits the least.

Sale of a Senate seat; hostile takeover of two automobile companies and gifting them to political donors; circumvention of department review to issue energy grants to political donors; violation of export restrictions and Mexican sovereignty to fabricate a straw purchase and gun running crisis; strong-arming banks to borrow TARP funds; using the IRS to harass political opposition; the use of executive orders to undermine or undo existing statutes and act as a dictator: these are just a few of Obama's high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Except for the dictates, about which Obama proudly boasts, all of these have been traced back to the White House and various cabinet members.

The only, and Constitution prescribed, option for such high crimes and misdemeanors is impeachment and removal from office, but this option seems far off the radar. Even should the House of Representatives Impeach Obama, it is highly unlikely that enough Senate Democrats would agree that these are crimes or actions serious enough to remove Obama.

So we come back to what Clinton said; moreover, what she was being asked when she said it. Secretary Clinton was berated with demands to explain her failures. Why the request for increased security at Libyan installations was rejected, despite a history of attacks.  Why a rescue mission was undertaken only after it was far too late. The committee was rubbing her nose in her and Obama's failings, and it was embarrassing.  Not only that, she was the outgoing secretary, and Obama was sworn in for his second term just a few days before. Unless Congress intended to Impeach and remove Obama, the line of questioning served no purpose but to embarrass.

This may explain the general disdain that Democrats have for the various Congressional investigations. Without the possibility of impeaching and removing Obama, it all amounts to nothing but airing dirty laundry. According to Democrats, we should stop investigating Benghazi, because it will only embarrass Obama. We should stop investigating the IRS, because it will only embarrass Democrats. We should stop investigating Fast and Furious, because it will only embarrass Obama and Attorney General Holder. Exposing Obama's lies only makes him look like a liar. Exposing Democrats' crimes only make them appear criminal.

The Democratic Party is the Party of Crime, Corruption, Incompetence and Embarrassment, and Republicans should at least stop embarrassing them.  Democrats will always place themselves before policy, and policy before country. There is no embarrassment great enough to cause them to remove Obama or resign themselves from office. The only thing Republicans can hope to accomplish is that the news media might become tired of carrying so much water, and tell the American People about the scandals.  Hillary Clinton was right.  Without the willingness to appoint special prosecutors, see heads roll, and Impeach (even without hope of removal), what difference does it make?  Short of impeachment, the American People will likely never know.