A word that won’t go away

One word keeps ticking in the back of my mind when I encounter editorial huffing and political puffing over what is known as “the Benghazi Affair.”

A mob attacked a U S Consular outpost; four Americans were killed. (Details of dubious veracity available at your nearest media outlet.)

That ticking word
is “Iraq.”

Spend a few minutes contemplating the relative costs of that calamity, and “the Benghazi affair.” People killed, exiled, tortured; expenditure of money, energy, national image. There have been, and there never be, Congressional outrage over the lies, the killing, the trillions of dollars which characterize that debacle.

How can a sane person take seriously the hypocritical politicizing of this Benghazi affair? Blame Obama? Let’s talk about that after the World Court gets Bush and Cheney, et all, into the dock on war crimes charges.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “A word that won’t go away

  1. Either you urge the push for transparency and honesty from the Presidency or you do not.

    If you pick and choose via moral relativity then you are no more than a useful idiot for a political agenda

    1. An amusing point of view, one however with little relevance to my argument. To expect or push for “transparency and honesty from the Presidency” is vain and wasteful folly. Presidents and their appointees are political animals; candor is inimical to their nature.

      It is among journalists and jurists, where one might logically seek candor, that I set my point.

      As to “moral relativity,” if you cannot differentiate between the death of four foreigners who accepted work in a dangerous place, and the death of thousands of the innocent and uninvolved killed in their own homes, then it’s likely you an I will never find common ground for discussion.

      1. If you think expecting transparency and honesty from the Presidency is in vain and wasteful folly, then you are getting what you deserve – at the hands of Bush and Obama.

        Disposed to whine ‘but their guy was worse’ to minimize evils by your guy sets the price for the sale of your rational mind in exchange for “you’re the good guys and they are the bad guys’ at extremely cheap.

      2. Again — perhaps inadvertently — you misread my argument. I do not whine about attacks on Obama; I complain of media and juridical malfeasance.

        If you expect transparency and honesty from any government — particularly with respect to quasi-military action — you either are unfamiliar with human history, or live in a realm altogether unknown to me.

        We are saddled with the choice of a putative majority, the effect of which system is only marginally better than whichever one was operative three hundred or three thousand years ago.

        As to what that choice may be, it is not between “good guys” and “bad guys,” it’s between “bad guys” and “worse guys.” At one time, I believed Obama would not be one of the “worse guys;” the jury, on that point, still is out.

        You ignore completely my core question about “moral relativity,” and as I noted, unless you are willing to address that, it’s likely you an I will never find common ground for discussion.

        And finally, my rational mind is not for sale, not to Bush, not to Obama, not to you. None of the three of you, from information so far available, is the person I want for President. Or for Governor or Mayor.

        Or for Historian.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s