Benghazi/Watergate - What difference does it make?

Over 40 years ago the country came to a standstill as revelations of lying and a cover-up by the President of the United States were exposed. Watergate became a name synonymous with a scandal of proportions that could topple a president.  

 

Days of televised Congressional hearings with the often repeated phrase: “what did the President know and when did he know it?”--- held the nation spellbound as politicians from both parties asked tough questions of the presidents staff.

 

The media coverage was unrivaled as details of a bungled petty burglary turned into a major scandal and efforts to hide the president’s involvement came to light.

 

But no one died as a result of Watergate. 

 

Today’s congressional hearing on the events leading up, during and after the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, are revealing disturbing differences between what the Obama administration told the American public and what actual witnesses to the events are testifying to.

 

 

It is becoming clear; a purposeful decision was made to reduce the security presence in Libya which could have protected our personnel from attack. If normal security procedures would have been followed in Benghazi,  our ambassador and three other Americans would not have been killed on September 11-12.

 

During the attack on our consulate and annex, contrary to what President Obama has claimed, not all measures were taken to send help to our besieged Americans. They were left outgunned and outnumbered to be killed, mutilated and wounded.

 

For weeks after the attack, a deliberate false narrative was put out by the Whitehouse and the State Department to cover up the real instigators in the attack: violent Islamic extremists who were closely allied with Al Qaeda.

 

At the critical moment in the presidential campaign, President Obama and Vice President Biden’s main theme had been they killed Osama Bin Laden and had defeated Al Qaeda.  To admit that an Al Qaeda element had attacked our consulate and killed our ambassador would have been an admission of failure of one of the few successes the administration could lay claim to.  

 

This knowledge would have made a huge difference in the election and could have been the difference between having a President Obama or a President Romney….It also would have been devastating for President Obama to defend in the debates with Romney….But it was an opportunity denied to Romney.

 

But today’s Benghazi hearing, no matter how riveting, and the news coverage leading up to it, is dramatically showing how our country has  changed since the Watergate scandal. 

 

Perhaps Americans have become hardened to scandal and no longer expect honesty from their President.

 

Perhaps if this was a Republican administration, there would be dozens of reporters assigned to get to the bottom of this story and 24/7 coverage would continue until all of the facts were exposed.

 

Unlike Watergate, where Democrats and Republicans joined together to find the truth, the Benghazi scandal has magnified the meanness of partisan politics.  Any attempt to get to the truth by congress is labeled partisan politics by democrats.  There is little if any cooperation by house democrats in this investigation.

 

The truth, if it is ever to be known by the American public will have to be uncovered by patriotic Americans, who put their country first.