Benghazi, Bergdahl, and Bullshit

What does it tell you when she's more trustworthy than the GOP?

I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton, but she’s the next coming of Socrates on the wisdom scale compared to moron Republicans that want to castigate her for the Benghazi tragedy or President Obama for the prisoner exchange that returned Bowe Bergdhal to the United States. Republican behavior has officially slithered across the line separating sleaziness from insanity.

In her new book, Clinton recalls how Republicans attempted to grill her over Benghazi. It’s small wonder they’re out there slandering her from afar, because she made mincemeat of them in the Senate chamber in 2013. When asked to clarify why Ambassador Christopher Stevens was killed in Benghazi she testily replied, “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’ll go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” If you think she’s apologizing for such a terse remark, think again. In her book she states categorically, “I will not be part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans.”

Republicans, of course, charge Mrs. Clinton with trying to dodge the consequences of her mistakes. Just like they accuse President Obama of not doing his homework before exchanging five Taliban terrorists held at Guantanamo for Sgt. Bergdhal, who might (pretty significant qualification) have abandoned his unit. “Bad trade!” they cry. Do Republicans really want to pursue either line of reasoning? Let’s do just that.

Let’s look at the Great American Faux Hero: Ronald Reagan. Let’s hunt down everyone still alive from his administration. We want to know about Lebanon. We want them to explain how it was possible to attack a U.S. facility in April of 1983 and kill 63, yes 63, Americans. And after such a senseless tragedy, how is it conceivable the Old Cowboy could be so friggin’ dumb as to allow a suicide bomber to wipe out 241—that’s two hundred and forty-one—Marines in their own barracks. Let’s dig up Ronnie and throw his bones to the dogs of war.

But wait! It gets worse. The USA tucked its tail between its legs and left Lebanon, but not before the terrorist group Hezbollah seized 14 hostages. Shall we discuss bad deals? One of the hostages was William Buckley (not the journalist), the head of CIA operations for the entire region. We wanted this dude back very badly. So Trader Ron opened secret channels with none other than Iran—the same Iran that seized 53 U.S. hostages just four years earlier. Team Reagan sent several planeloads of weapons to Iran for some cash--which was filtered via third parties to the Nicaraguan Contras-- and Iran’s promise to exert influence with Hezbollah to secure release of the hostages. Iran helped release exactly two hostages, neither of whom was Buckley, who died under torture. While it was happening, three more hostages were taken. Old math: 14 take away 2 and add three = 15, eight of whom remained captive until 1992. Now that’s what I call a really bad trade! Oh, did I mention that all of this was illegal and that Reagan could/should have been impeached for it? He probably would have if Lyin’ Ollie North hadn’t taken the bullet. (Ollie later admitted that Reagan knew all the details.)

So how do we parse the Republican position on Benghazi and Bergdahl? Let’s try a nine-letter word that begins with “hypo” and ends in “crisy.” I’d give you the unassailable facts about Benghazi and Bergdahl except that there aren’t any. Here’s what we know for sure—if you send Americans into dangerous situations amongst people who hate their guts, bad things are likely to happen. At this point we’ve no idea if Bergdahl was a deserter or a CIA operative. Likewise, for all we know, the CIA turned one or more of the prisoners exchanged for him. Or maybe it planted tracker-bots in them during a medical exam. Sound farfetched? Compared to what? Thinking Iran would help secure the release of the CIA’s bureau chief?

Hillary’s right. Once an American is dead, the discussion is moot. She stated that “there will never be perfect clarity on everything that happened [in Benghazi].” She took the moral high ground and called the current posturing nothing more than a “political slugfest.” Here’s the debate we ought to be having: Should Americans even be in places such as Lebanon in 1983, or Afghanistan in 2014? If you answered yes, be prepared for Americans to die and/or be taken hostage. If you think they can all be secured, you’re a fool. I’ll take the low road and say that any other discussion is just bullshit.


Colleen Pidgeon said...


Anonymous said...

The republicans will continue to dig in the sand of Libya for any dirt they can until and after Billary is in office in 2016