Presidential Lies and their Consequences!

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

The relentless drum beats of the media were as relentless and strong as the waves beating the shores in Galveston. The year was 1974.  The subject was Richard Nixon.

Two years earlier that president had lied.  He tried to cover up his knowledge of a burglary in which no one was hurt physically and no property was damaged.

According to the democrats who controlled Congress in 1974, a President who lies to the public cannot stand.  Notwithstanding that the lying began two years earlier, Nixon went down with a resignation under an impeachment resolution. 

That was then.  This is now, 40 years later.  Now a president is expected to lie.

Remember President Bill Clinton?  Remember his statement on public TV emphasized with a bit of podium pounding, “I did not have sex with that woman.”?

When Monica Lewinsky’s semen stained dress proved that claim of innocence to be a lie, the press’ reaction was basically, “Well, boys will be boys,” and, after all, he is a democrat and the incident he is lying about happened sometime ago.

Today, there are again questions about lying in the White House. Now, however, any attempt to determine if President Obama and his administration covered up, i.e.,lied, about the cause of the death of four Americans in Benghazi. Libya, is denigrated by the press and democrats in Congress.  That story is almost two years old.

What’s the concern with that old news?  In the words of Hillary Clinton, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” (Emphasis added)

Well, it did make a difference. The difference was made in the Presidential election that was underway at the time of the attack and of the lying.  President Obama had recently announced how “he,” not the Navy Seals, had dared to take Osama bin Laden down and decimated al-Qaida.  The official line was that al-Qaida, without its head, was now on the run.

If the country were told that U.S. facilities and officials in Benghazi were under a well planned, coordinated attack with sophisticated weapons, some voters might think that al-Qaeda was alive and well. Why were special forces not dispatched to aid the Americans? How could that be, if the President had said it was not so?

So someone somewhere in the President’s inner circle came up with the line that the attacks were spontaneous uprisings over a U.S. made video critical of the Prophet Mohammed. Although no one knew how long the “spontaneous” riots might last, military forces were not dispatched to help the Americans because “there was not enough time.”

As usual, the party line is, “We do not know who in the Administration came up with this knowingly false misinformation.   That’s our story, and we are sticking to it.”

There was, however, a bombshell exploding last week.  A memo that was not released to a Congressional request for all material relating to Benghazi was released under a court order.  The memo indicates that the White House was aware within 48 hours that the attacks in Benghazi were not spontaneous uprisings.

Nonetheless, Susan Rice, the appointed spokesperson for the White House, was instructed to go on all the TV networks and perpetuate the lie that the slaughter in Benghazi was the result of that evil American made video.

As the facts of Benghazi continue to trickle out, a new question is raised.  As many responsible people within the Presidents chain of civilian and military forces knew the mayhem in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, where was the President and what was he doing at the time?  It was early morning.  Who was answering the phone in the White House?

This has finally jolted Speaker of the House Boehner to appoint a special committee to investigate the matter.

There is no surprise at the reaction of the press and democrats.  Hey, this is old news.  It happened two years ago.  In the words of Hillary, “What difference at this point does it make?”

Forty years ago, investigating a two year old burglary that did not result in damage, injury, or death made a difference as far as the democrats and press were concerned.  It resulted in the impeachment and resignation of a president who lied.

Presidential lies are nothing new.  In recent history, Eisenhower lied about Gary Powers and the U-2 flights over Russia.  LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin attacks. Nixon lied about the Watergate burglary.  Clinton lied about Lewinsky.  Obama lied and is lying about Benghazi and the Affordable Care Act.

Of those, only Nixon paid a price for his coverup.  If the press and democrats have their way, Obama will escape Nixon’s fate, even though he covered up the decision to not even try to save the lives of four Americans.

So here’s the perspective.

Hillary Clinton wants to know what difference it makes now, almost two years after the attack?

The difference it makes may be answered in another utterance during her earlier bid for the Oval Office.  It may determine who answers the phone from the president’s bed at 3:00 a.m.