.

.

Friday, April 26, 2013

SO, WHEN IS A SIGNATURE, 'NOT' REALLY A SIGNATURE?


Ok, let me see if I have this right. Apparently, a person, who many are now saying will most likely be a candidate for president the next time around, doesn't actually need to read what it is that she's apparently signing. What do we have here, the Henry Blake management style, or what? That seems to be the story that the White House is now sticking to at least when it comes to Benghazi and the performance of our stellar former Secretary of State, Hitlery Clinton. The White House dismissed the signature of Ms. Clinton on documents ignoring security concerns in Benghazi, calling it "protocol" for government official "signatures" to ‘appear’ on documents they did not sign. So they, what, just appear, like, by magic. I tell ya, these Democrats are something else!

According to Spokesmoron Jay Carney, "It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom," using his fingers for quote marks when he said "signature." He continued. "This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican." Look, I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. This is just so much bullshit! Have you ever noticed how it is that no one in this entire administration is ever willing to take any responsibility for anything. They never have. I guess we're just supposed to believe that it all runs on autopilot.

A report released on Tuesday, after an investigation into the matter conducted by five House committees, found that Senior State Department officials, including old Hitlery herself, had approved of reductions in security at the facilities in Benghazi, Libya. The report cites an April 19, 2012, cable bearing Clinton's signature acknowledging a March 28, 2012, request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security, yet allowing further reductions. On Sept. 11, 2012, terrorists killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, in Benghazi. And as you'll remember, administration officials first told the public that the attack was a spontaneous response to some 4 month old, anti-Muslim You Tube video, which was pure bullshit!.

So on this past Tuesday, one of the enterprising young reporters present asked the question, "I wanted to bring up the House report yesterday on Benghazi. They point to cables that reportedly had secretary -- technically then-Secretary Clinton’s signature on it that referenced a request for additional security and in which instead cuts were made and some members are saying that this shows administration culpability in the security problems there, and some have gone so far as to say signs of a cover-up. I just wanted to get your response on that." In responding, our brilliant Spokesmoron, Carney, started out in what has be now become very typical fashion, by pointing fingers and saying that the entire Benghazi matter has now been so politicized.

Well gee, Jay, that's only because everybody involved in the incident, from Barry on down, has been doing nothing more than to tell one lie after another about what it was lead up to the attack, what took place during the attack, and about everything that has taken place since the attack. This whole thing stinks of a cover-up. And yet all this boob, Carney, can do is to accuse the Republicans of playing politics, and whining about how it was that the Democrats on the respective panels weren't specifically asked to play. Well there's a reason for that, Jay, if you are genuinely interested in looking for the truth why would you invite those to participate whose only interest is in covering things up? That just don't make no sense.

And then in trying to explain Clinton's signature being on certain documents, our shifty little shit of a Spokesmoron, Carney, continued, "And on the issue of the signature, you have to be factual and acknowledge reality here. It is standard protocol that cables originating from the department in Washington go out under the authority of the current Secretary of State with their signature, i.e. their name, typed at the bottom. This practice has been in place throughout this administration and across prior administrations, both Democratic and Republican." He said, "Additionally, all cables originating from our overseas posts are similarly signed, i.e. have the name at the bottom, by the ambassador and are addressed to the secretary."

Early on Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the House Democrats complaint. "The committee chairmen involved in Benghazi came together in terms of this report," Boehner said at a press conference Wednesday. "I think they’ve done a very good job in outlining what we know thus far and also raising questions about what we don’t know. I hope that our chairmen would reach out to their ranking members because I happen to believe ranking Democrats on the committees are just as interested in the truth as we are." I think it fair to say that that little statement is nothing more than further proof that Boehner's nothing but a dope. I amazed he could say such a thing with a straight face.

I think everyone knows, even Boehner, that the last thing that Democrats on any of these committees are truly interested in is getting to the bottom of the administration's Benghazi blunder that resulted in the death of four Americans, one of whom was our Ambassador. All they are interested in doing is to try to drag this thing out until it finally surpasses the typical time span of recoverable memory of the average American. Uncovering the truth is of absolutely no interest to them. Terrorism, even when it results in the death of Americans, is of very little interest to Democrats. So they see no real need, to get to the bottom of what occurred in Benghazi, these people knew the job was dangerous when they took it and were therefore considered expendable.

No comments:

Post a Comment