politic (pol-i-tik) adj. showing good judgment, prudent.
political (po-lit-i-kal) adj. 1. of or engaged in politics. 2. of the way a country is governed.*
*Definitions courtesy of the Oxford American Dictionary.
Hilary Clinton displayed supreme poise and emotional restraint under a prolonged period of intense scrutiny and duress. In short, she acted presidential; however, acting presidential and being presidential are as different as Robert Downey Jr. giving a convincing performance as Iron Man versus actually being Iron Man.
Yesterday’s Benghazi hearing was the ultimate in political theatre; actors performing for the cameras, while she-who-would-be-president flawlessly recited well-rehearsed testimony upon which the life or death of her political campaign would be decided.
The Republicans were there to clear the air of smoking guns and refresh it with hard evidence of a negligent and corrupt Secretary of State exploiting her way to the Presidency.
The Democrats were there for three reasons: One, protect their party’s “only” candidate under all costs; two, disrupt and discredit the Republican’s agenda at every opportunity; and three, recite prepared statements solely for the purpose of providing a launching-pad for Hilary to deliver preplanned, pre-rehearsed monologues intended to manipulate the emotions and hobble the judgment of the viewing audience. The Democrats indeed succeeded in impeding the pursuit of truth and justice in much the same way that Black Lives Matter retards the evolution of healthy race relations in our country. The effect on the Republicans was the incitement of overly aggressive questioning as a counter-offensive to the Democrats’ stonewalling, ultimately characterizing the Republicans as brutal interrogators.
So what truth was uncovered? I walked away with the following conclusions.
Hilary was present and engaged during the attacks on the compound and CIA Annex and appears to have made the right phone calls and gotten the right people involved. From a leadership perspective, she went home before the assault was over, while her team remained in the situation room throughout the entire event, although I don’t believe this affected the outcome.
Hilary was negligent in not proportionately reacting to hundreds of communications from Chris Stevens and others regarding their dire need for increased security at the compound.
On the other hand, there is a stench of impropriety in Hilary’s constant communications with her old friend Sidney Blumenthal concerning the situation in Benghazi; Sidney, a man who had business interests in Benghazi. That suspicious smell surrounds similar unrelated allegations that Hilary performed State Department favors and made decisions to benefit those who contributed generously to the Clinton Foundation.
Hilary was complicit in the fabrication of a cover-up to the American people that the attack was the result of a random flare-up of hostility incited by a Mohammad-mocking video. This is beyond repute. The hearing proved that on the following day of Sept 12, Hilary was communicating to others that it was a planned terrorist attack and NOT the video. The video cover-story continued for a week or so after the event. She, Obama, and others LIED to us to preserve Obama’s statements about thwarting terrorism, to lessen any negative impact on his upcoming presidential race, and to protect her own reputation as she prepared to exit the Secretary of State position. Was it also intended to hide something else?
Lastly and on a more general note, this circus has proven once again that our two-party system has outlived its effectiveness. I suggest we deep-six the concepts of Republican and Democratic parties, and instead have ONE TEAM with all of our civil servants working together for the good of the people. This is a wheel that needs reinventing, because it keeps spinning but goes nowhere. Peace, love, dove homies.