Benghazi, the Death of the Republic?

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 The other day someone posted a commentary, originally made by Jon Stewart, in which he alluded to a study in that said during the Bush administration, there were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets that killed 13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:

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. Troops in Tripoli were ready to deploy to Benghazi, who told them to stand down? On his authority?
5. 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.

One administration person said “help would not have arrived in time.” My question is “how do you know?”

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