Benghazi: The Democratic Party Will Be Lucky if Obama Loses
Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made an unwise choice the last few days, throwing in with his new-best-friend Barack Obama. The president's future does not look great, even if he is reelected, and especially if he is reelected while losing the popular vote, as well could happen.
As a president who was "selected but not elected," he we will face a whirlwind more vast and even more enduring than Sandy and that whirlwind's name is Benghazi. He lied to the American people (and to the world) big time about the cause of the deaths of four courageous Americans whose lives were at risk there and, as the French say, mentir est honteux, lying is shameful.
One way or the other, Obama will pay. And as he pays, through the relentless accusations of an impeachment, inevitable or otherwise, his party will be constantly on the defensive, the reputations of their leadership incalculably besmirched. Though they do not realize or choose to ignore it now, the Democrats will be lucky if Obama loses on November 6.
If he wins, not even the mainstream media will save him. Although a few will try, the walls are already crumbling, first, tentatively, from David Ignatius in the Washington Post, now more strongly and courageously from ABC's Jake Tapper. More will follow. They will be forced to as the revelations pile up and the justifiably angry whistleblowers, which are sure to come, emerge. And we in the new media will be here to make sure attention is paid. We have the power to do that now.
Nevertheless, it is that fundamental dishonesty, that lying to the public, that is the missing ingredient from Tapper's otherwise well wrought summation of the situation so far -- The Benghazi Drip-Drip-Drip. Yes, there are myriad questions to answer about why the tragedy was allowed to happen in the first place (questions that should make Hillary Clinton cringe) and many questions about the timeline to be resolved and whether a rescue was possible. But no matter how that ultimately plays out, Obama clearly lied (let's use that word instead of the more polite misled). High road and low, in front of the United Nations and on The View and on Spanish-language television, he told despicable untruths about what happened in Benghazi with the conscienceless calm of a Middle Eastern potentate at on OPEC meeting.
Even to someone like me who never much liked Barack Obama, it's hard to believe he would do such a thing. But he did. And, pathetic as they are, some of the reasons for the prevarication are painfully obvious, like trying to convince the public that al-Qaeda was on the run when, if anything, the reverse was true. Al-Qaeda and its myriad clones were making inroads across the region. AQ, after all, was an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood, which now controls Egypt and, soon enough, possibly Syria.
But it all came down to election-year politics over the graves of dead Americans. This will come back to haunt Obama in a manner no one can fully foresee but cannot be good. In an election he cannot win except by a narrow margin, Obama will have no real mandate to govern or to push a program. (He doesn't have one anyway, even if he had a mandate.) He will be president again by default. There will be a vacuum and, as we all know, nature abhors a vacuum. It will soon be filled. In fact, it's being filled now.