data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/58682/586826cd531ae1bc9d8502dddfd1027e40141c0c" alt=""
I’ve turned my television off again. I simply can’t stand to
watch it. I’m fairly close to doing the same with my computer.
The other morning my phone beeped at an ungodly hour, it was
a game request from a childhood friend of mine on Facebook. I’m really not the
Lucky Slots or Candy whatever type of person. Maybe I should be. Maybe that is
my problem, while I sit here popping Tums and blood pressure medication like
they were friggen skittles and screaming at my television as I hear another
politician lie to me I wonder, maybe the whole social media crowd has the right
outlook. Play games, don't stress about the real world.
Let’s face it, social media played a large part in getting
us here. The president worked that little honey hole like he was Niccolo
Paganini playing the violin.
So where exactly did it get us?
To be honest, a very bad place. But the sad thing to me is
that we have become polarized politically, that we cannot, or will not, admit
that the representatives from our party are a disgrace. Notice I didn’t say
which party. They are both at fault.
What has gotten me to this point however is the attack on
our diplomatic post in Benghazi on 9/11/12 and the political aftermath.
The other day someone posted a commentary, originally made by Jon Stewart, in
which he alluded to a study in that said during the Bush administration, there
were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that killed 13 Americans. He added that
it resulted in only three hearings on embassy security total and then went on
to poke fun at Fox News for not decrying it.
The problem is the study itself was flawed.
Which brings me to my problem. We, as individuals, are so
caught up in our “parties” that we no longer actually invest any time educating
ourselves.
How detached are we as a society? The other day I made a
comment to someone I know about the kidnapping case in Cleveland,
they had no clue what had happened. Most people are like this, and yet when it
comes time to vote they do so without knowing who or what their candidates
stand for.
Why are we torn apart on the issue of Benghazi?
We lost four American citizens and had countless others injured, one of whom is
apparently still recovering. And yet we are divided, why?
Please, for the love of God, put politics aside. The victims
and their families demand, and are owed, nothing less.
This is not a political issue, this is a moral one.
Let me pose this question to you: A home is attacked, two
people are killed and a number injured. The police show up, but only a handful.
A couple of them are killed, more are injured. The police call for backup, but
no one shows up. The investigation, conducted by the police, determines that
nothing could have saved the people so the fact they didn’t respond is moot.
Would you be okay with that?
If you wouldn’t, why are you accepting it from Washington?
I was an NYPD Detective from 1992-1997 and then a Sergeant in
an investigative unit from 1998-2005. I can tell you, unequivocally, that you
are all being lied to. That is not a political opinion, that is a professional
one.
Things do happen for political expediency. We want to
believe that it doesn’t, but I beg you not to be naïve. Is it okay to let
people die, and others to get away with it, for another persons political
career.
If you don’t think it happens, I ask you to find either of
these books:
Murder
at the Harlem Mosque (Grosso, 1977) or
Circle
of Six (Jurgensen, 2006). To the political animal, nothing matters except
for their careers.
The truth is Benghazi
was a political disaster for the current administration. They wanted to further
the narrative that terrorism was on the decline, and everything in Benghazi
pointed in the opposite direction. They rolled the dice and they came up with a
losing roll, so they cheated. It doesn’t get any more black and white than
that.
Don’t believe me? Think that the administration has been
honest? OK, answer the following questions:
- Who
was the person who denied increased security in Benghazi?
When an Ambassador himself makes this request, it is not denied by a low
level functionary.
- Benghazi
was not a normal location, they had a number
of incidents leading up to the attack that made it very clear that
things were becoming highly unstable. Why was the request for the security
teams to stay in place denied? And by whom?
- The
President met with Sec. Def. Leon Panetta on 9/11, while the attack was
going on, did he give Cross
Border Authority? If he didn’t, then troops were NEVER going to
Banghazi.
- Troops
in Tripoli were ready to
deploy to Benghazi, who told
them to stand down? On his authority?
- The WH
says it was the CIA who changed the talking points and that the WH only
made one change. The real question is, did the WH ever direct the CIA to change them.
I hate to tell you, but listening to the WH press secretary,
and more importantly his choice of words, I could drive a truck through his statements.
It’s not what he is saying, it is what he isn’t saying. Jay Carney is lying to
you by omission, and he is doing it by choosing his words VERY carefully.
It seems that the left is circling the wagons to protect the
administration.
It’s a slight of hand. On 9/12, after the dust settled, they
knew how long the battle had lasted. That’s not the question. The question is,
on 9/11, when the battle was raging, why didn’t you send help?
You as an American have to ask yourself, are you willing to
accept what you are being told? And if you are not willing, then ask yourself
what is being hidden?
Follow me on twitter @huntzmanblog