A funny thing happened to me yesterday when I went to upload my blog "Watergate or Benghazi... What's the Difference?"... it was GONE!!! Where did it go, I wondered. Why did it happen?
I called my brother, who thinks he is a whiz at this, and guess what? He had no idea how to fix it. I was stunned and appalled, that I actually believed he knew ANYTHING about this. And finally, FINALLY, he admitted that it must have been someone in the Obama Administration who must have done this to my blog.
Could you imagine that? The IRS goes after the Tea Party, the Justice Department obtains the AP's phone records, and someone in the White House hacks me. Who knew I was an irritant on the president's political nerves.
We researched it every possible way from Sunday and couldn't retrieve it. We called the highest levels of Google, and no one could answer this puzzling question. I even thought about calling Anthony Weiner, because as I remembered it, he claimed he was hacked, before he said he wasn't. And of course, since my brother is such a guiding light, he recommended that we didn't.
Now what?!?
Well, for now, FrankMcHalesViews is gone, but rejoice, because McHalesViews is up and running. As you can see, "Watergate and Benghazi..." is my first post to the new blog.
So, enjoy these and future commentaries as you have done in the past. I will continue to comment on serious issues and also, from time to time, provide light-hearted reprieves from the usual, depressing, dreary nonsense bloggers, as well as, real journalists, report.
And, as always, your feedback is welcomed.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Watergate or Benghazi... What's the Difference?
It came to me as, I am sure, to many other people early on. The similarities between the Watergate break in and its aftermath, and the disaster of Benghazi and ITS aftermath, are surreal and startling at the same time.
Both happened during election cycles that had the country divided on key issues. In 1972, it was Nixon's handling of the Vietnam War, the bombing of "neutral" countries like Cambodia and Laos, and his secretive demeanor. Also, the populace in general had a certain distrust of Nixon and his key advisors. In 2012, it was Obama's handling of the economy, his aloof style of leadership and his insistence that everything after four years in office was still "Bush's fault". And the people were not too fond of Obama's advisors either.
Both presidents had an "enemies list"; Nixon with the left, Obama with the right. But in each presidency, one event happened that changed everything. And the manner in which each man responded turned out to be his downfall.
In Nixon's case, the tapes revealed that on June 20, he had an opportunity to admit that people in his government committed a crime, and instead, he decided that the best way to deal with it was to stonewall the investigation of the FBI in this third-rate burglary. This resulted ultimately in a charge of "Abuse Of Power" by the House of Representatives as part of its impeachment charges. As a lawyer, he knew he was wrong, and admitted as much when he said it's not the deed, it's the lie that gets you in trouble.
For Obama, emails reveal that he knew on September 12 it was a terrorist attack and not some unknown video that was the cause of the deaths of an American ambassador and three of his colleagues. Yet, for two weeks, Obama, Clinton and Rice perpetrated this lie exclusive of any other explanation. He obviously thought that he had the left-leaning mainstream media on his side. And so the lie grew legs and helped him through these last eight months.
Just as Nixon learned to his presidency's demise, Obama is learning that eventually the press does not like being played the fool. Until this month, it was talk radio, Fox and conservative media, which kept this story going and was treated like a right wing conspiracy; like Nixon, it was the Washington Post and the New York Times which kept drumming the Watergate story until the story became overwhelming with the right, as well; and now, the MSM is doggedly pursuing the Benghazi story as relentlessly as it should have in September.
Jay Carney has lost the trust of the White House press corps, similar to what happened to Ron Zeigler 40 years ago. When it was Fox's Ed Henry asking the questions about Benghazi, it was the right chasing a non-story. But when ABC's Jonathan Karl started asking some of the same questions, well, now the administration's narrative concerning this event is being treated like the press treated the Watergate fiasco.
What about David Petreaus? Might he be Obama's John Dean, the one person who knew it all and has nothing to lose by telling the Congress what he knows about the events that led up to and followed after September 11, 2012? And who will Speaker Boehner appoint to be the House's Sam Ervin to chair a "Select Benghazi Committee" to investigate this tragic affair? Certainly, Harry Reid won't want to investigate Obama, for fear of what he might find out about a damaged President and his presidency.
Who will be Howard Baker, asking what did the president know and when did he know it? Not Nancy Pelosi. And finally, what happens to Hillary Clinton in all of this? Will she be Spiro Agnew, caught up in the web of lies, caused by her devotion to protect President Obama, like Agnew protected Nixon, only to drown in a sea of emails like Agnew was tangled in the tapes?
The similarities between Watergate and Benghazi are striking. It appears that like Nixon, Obama's second term is over before it really got started. He will be forced to face this story again and again until the truth finally is told. It will dominate all other events and stories until the end of his presidency.
America is already frozen with a poor recovery, a bad housing market, a terrible end to a long war and an inept foreign policy. If Benghazi follows the same road as Watergate and ties the branches of government into a state of paralysis, what will become of us? Will we be able to recover from this like we did from Watergate? Or will we be so numb that it will be years before the corner is turned.
President Obama needs to come clean now or history will repeat itself. And he, too, just might end up on the top of a disgraced presidency. Does he want that as his legacy? Only he can make this right. Or he will end up like Richard Nixon.
Both happened during election cycles that had the country divided on key issues. In 1972, it was Nixon's handling of the Vietnam War, the bombing of "neutral" countries like Cambodia and Laos, and his secretive demeanor. Also, the populace in general had a certain distrust of Nixon and his key advisors. In 2012, it was Obama's handling of the economy, his aloof style of leadership and his insistence that everything after four years in office was still "Bush's fault". And the people were not too fond of Obama's advisors either.
Both presidents had an "enemies list"; Nixon with the left, Obama with the right. But in each presidency, one event happened that changed everything. And the manner in which each man responded turned out to be his downfall.
In Nixon's case, the tapes revealed that on June 20, he had an opportunity to admit that people in his government committed a crime, and instead, he decided that the best way to deal with it was to stonewall the investigation of the FBI in this third-rate burglary. This resulted ultimately in a charge of "Abuse Of Power" by the House of Representatives as part of its impeachment charges. As a lawyer, he knew he was wrong, and admitted as much when he said it's not the deed, it's the lie that gets you in trouble.
For Obama, emails reveal that he knew on September 12 it was a terrorist attack and not some unknown video that was the cause of the deaths of an American ambassador and three of his colleagues. Yet, for two weeks, Obama, Clinton and Rice perpetrated this lie exclusive of any other explanation. He obviously thought that he had the left-leaning mainstream media on his side. And so the lie grew legs and helped him through these last eight months.
Just as Nixon learned to his presidency's demise, Obama is learning that eventually the press does not like being played the fool. Until this month, it was talk radio, Fox and conservative media, which kept this story going and was treated like a right wing conspiracy; like Nixon, it was the Washington Post and the New York Times which kept drumming the Watergate story until the story became overwhelming with the right, as well; and now, the MSM is doggedly pursuing the Benghazi story as relentlessly as it should have in September.
Jay Carney has lost the trust of the White House press corps, similar to what happened to Ron Zeigler 40 years ago. When it was Fox's Ed Henry asking the questions about Benghazi, it was the right chasing a non-story. But when ABC's Jonathan Karl started asking some of the same questions, well, now the administration's narrative concerning this event is being treated like the press treated the Watergate fiasco.
What about David Petreaus? Might he be Obama's John Dean, the one person who knew it all and has nothing to lose by telling the Congress what he knows about the events that led up to and followed after September 11, 2012? And who will Speaker Boehner appoint to be the House's Sam Ervin to chair a "Select Benghazi Committee" to investigate this tragic affair? Certainly, Harry Reid won't want to investigate Obama, for fear of what he might find out about a damaged President and his presidency.
Who will be Howard Baker, asking what did the president know and when did he know it? Not Nancy Pelosi. And finally, what happens to Hillary Clinton in all of this? Will she be Spiro Agnew, caught up in the web of lies, caused by her devotion to protect President Obama, like Agnew protected Nixon, only to drown in a sea of emails like Agnew was tangled in the tapes?
The similarities between Watergate and Benghazi are striking. It appears that like Nixon, Obama's second term is over before it really got started. He will be forced to face this story again and again until the truth finally is told. It will dominate all other events and stories until the end of his presidency.
America is already frozen with a poor recovery, a bad housing market, a terrible end to a long war and an inept foreign policy. If Benghazi follows the same road as Watergate and ties the branches of government into a state of paralysis, what will become of us? Will we be able to recover from this like we did from Watergate? Or will we be so numb that it will be years before the corner is turned.
President Obama needs to come clean now or history will repeat itself. And he, too, just might end up on the top of a disgraced presidency. Does he want that as his legacy? Only he can make this right. Or he will end up like Richard Nixon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)