Lies and Lying Liars

It's those damn emails again.  If it wasn't the emails, it would be Benghazi.

Let me take a moment to be politically incorrect.  Just because you had a son who was killed serving his country does not mean you have a handle on the truth.  It turns out that Patricia Smith, who was one of the premier speakers at the republican hate-fest in July, had help from the republican party in composing her barn-burner of a speech, that accused Hillary Clinton of killing her son -- in those words -- and lying to the families about the attack.  Also turns out that the speech writer, Richard Cross, has come around to realizing that he cannot in good conscience vote for Donald Trump, and may end up voting for Hillary.

So Cross is able to walk away from a speech wherein he called the Democratic nominee for president a liar and a "killer."  Nice that he was able to at least make the public statement I guess.  How many republicans are going to make that switch, knowing just what damage a Donald Trump presidency would do to our democracy, and yet keep it a secret so as not to jeopardize their place in the party?  Isn't that a lie, a most egregious lie?

That brings me to Colin Powell, who has just covered his ass by denying that he advised Clinton to use a private server for her emails.  You may recall Colin Powell.  He is the much respected republican in whom Americans placed their trust by bringing out charts and graphs to justify our war in Iraq.

It was a dramatic presentation, that included an actual vial of something that we believed could wipe us all out, and leaving us quaking and convinced.

  

What we knew about Powell was that he was a smart man, and a moral man.  He could not possible lie to us.  But his very belief in his own goodness has made him vulnerable.  He may not have consciously lied about WMD, but he sure as hell convinced himself of things that were not facts.

Colin Powell, whose testimony may have been the most persuasive argument for the war in Iraq, ten years later, apologized for getting it wrong.  And despite the agony the nation has endured because of his goof, we all said, "How about that honesty?  What a good guy."  And he was off the hook. 

So when he steps up to deny that he had advised Hillary to use a personal email server, I would like us all to take this with a grain of salt.  Because although he has made comments indicating that he is opposed to Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric, he continues to protest that he is still a republican.  He is a man who is tormented by his own belief that he must always do the right and moral thing.  Meaning that if he does something, it must be right and moral.  You see, I can get tangled up just trying to explain poor Colin Powell's moral pretzel.

If we were to wander into the dark, dark days of the Bush administration, we would find lies buried under lies, lies of omission, lies of self-deceit, outright lies.  All committed in the name of patriotism and keeping the homeland safe.  And there is Colin Powell, trying to keep up with the evil Cheney and his minions, and the gullible and persistent Bush.  How does a moral person live in these twisted corridors of power?  Apparently, he convinced himself that because they were so certain, they were right.  And the proof of how powerful was that self-deception is in the power of the false presentation Powell made to the United Nations, and the world.

So as far as emails go, I would wonder about something like this:    

while former Secretary Powell used a personal email account during his tenure as Secretary of State, he did not retain those emails or make printed copies.”

I would imagine that there is a great deal that Powell is not telling us about his email practices, and much that we have not been privy to regarding those actual emails.  A lot has been buried about the Bush/Cheney administration.  Based on what we do know, a lot was covered up under the smoke and destruction of two towers.

Unlike a Congress that did not want to make waves and a subsequent administration that wanted to put a very bad eight years behind us, republicans realize that they gain power by making war.  The symbols, the chants, the repeated accusations, they have all made for a very successful republican party.  Trump appears to be planning his next enterprise from the ruins of his presidential race, just as each failure in his life has led to greater profit.  But the republicans have their sights set on keeping Congress and controlling the states, and they can only do that by minimizing the very powerful Clinton candidacy.

So while whatever oversights Colin Powell may have made, whatever lies he may have told, or truths he may have omitted, will never be questioned, Hillary Clinton continues to be stuck under a magnifying glass turned up so high that flaws become facts.  Meanwhile, Trump courts Vladimir Putin, his lies about every business dealing he has ever had are glossed over, and he polishes a debate style that amounts to, "No, YOU are!"  And the dirtbags on the right continue to raise questions that have already been answered, and that have never been asked of a person holding public office before.

Bush and Cheney's neglect led to the loss of 3,000 lives, and 6,000 injured.  Their bad judgment led to 4,500 American deaths in Iraq (as of 2014).  Trump mocks Obama for saying "ISIL" instead of "ISIS."  Rudy Giuliani, whose neglect of recommended safety implementations after the Twin Tower bombing in 1993 left the towers more vulnerable and harder to evacuate, and police and firefighters with inadequate communication networks -- yes, THAT Rudy Giuliani -- incredibly, unbelievably, is now saying that in the eight years prior to Obama's presidency, we "didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States."  Well, except for the one.

And even though Donald Trump, under new management, is only just learning how to say hateful things without having to own them, the republican party continues their drumbeat of lies and attacks.  And Colin Powell, not having had the experience of being under that magnifying glass, treated with respect after making the case for the costliest mistake in American history, is standing with his party, denying any wrongdoing, and denying any part in Hillary's email fiasco.  Did he do what she said?  I'm going to guess that between the two accounts, there is the truth, and that in the end it is no more important than any of this email nonsense.  Powell could help by saying he doesn't recall, but there is the need to cover his ass, and to justify his own behavior.

Let us not give credence to someone who was part of the most deceitful and destructive administration since Richard Nixon.  And let us demand that attention is paid to the lies and the liars that would see Donald Trump be president in order to maintain their own grip on power at the risk of the country. 

The Benghazi Plot

Things have gotten pretty grim around here.  Unemployment is down, the federal budget deficit is shrinking, and Obamacare is working.  Oh, and Hillary may be running for president in 2016.

What's to be done?

The answer:  Benghazi.

While even Kentucky has failed to buy into the evils of the Affordable Care Act, here in South Carolina you can't hardly say a friendly hello before someone tells you about that bad old Obamacare.  That's the result of the never-ending republican election strategy.  Years of repeating the same lies about the ACA, the "death panels," the threats of losing your favorite docs, socialism and government control, long lines and higher prices.  All that repetition actually works, especially when you have an uninformed middle class that has been hit hard in the economy.  It has gotten my fellow South Carolinians as fired up and ready to go as any Obama oratory.

And while they were hyping the evils of health care for all for the hurting middle class, they got the religious right cranked up with regularly scheduled anti-abortion votes in the House of Representatives.  In 2011, they introduced 44 anti-abortion bills.  Of course, there was no chance of getting them passed, but if the GOP understands anything it is how to get their base riled up -- and by the way, distracting us all from unemployment and corporate (and Wall Street) crime.

After the horrific shooting of twenty children and six adults in Newtown, Connecticut, in December of 2012, to our amazement, the republican party turned its attention to increasing the freedom of gun owners to bear weapons.  This became the cause that fired up the paranoid redneck population which has resulted in state laws permitting guns in bars and restaurants here in SC, to Georgia, which now has a "guns everywhere" law that "guards against tyranny."  Except, of course, for the tyranny of those nuts with deadly weapons.

So is it any surprise that those far thinking right wingnuts should be setting their sights (as in cross-hairs) on Hillary, who was in charge during the Benghazi attack?  If they can get their uninformed but flammable constituents to parrot the word "Benghazi" the way they have for "Obamacare" they will be well on their way to a strategy for 2016.

It would do us well to recall, however, that this strategy has not worked so well against Barack Obama.  They tried it when he was candidate Obama, and for a couple of years thereafter, with the Kenya birth certificate nonsense.

And since then, regardless what new conspiracy the right wing is pushing, Obama has moved forward.  In fact, in the Senate in 2012 the Democrats picked up two seats.  Had it not been for the nefarious redistricting done after the last census, Democrats would have won House seats, having won a nation-wide plurality in all House elections.

I don't think Hillary is quaking in her boots over Benghazi.  The shame is that one of South Carolina's own is proudly chairing the committee to perpetuate the question of whether Benghazi can lead to republican victories in 2014 and 2016.  Has the country not laughed at us enough?  I admit, I will miss the bizarre rages of Darrell Issa but I am confident that he will have plenty more conspiracy theories with which to waste time.

The further shame is that people who don't know or care where Benghazi is, people who waved the American flag in support of the Bush administration lies that led to the war that resulted in so many deaths, are pretending to really care about the four American fatalities in the Benghazi attack.

Since the only alternative to conspiracy theories, however, is to talk about issues like the economy, corporate greed, and the environment, you can rest assured that in these parts you won't be able to swing a dead cat without hitting someone muttering about Benghazi, at least through the next couple of elections.

Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott: It's Complicated

Back in November, it seemed that Tim Scott wasn't too happy with Lindsey Graham.  Was it the Tea Party whispering nasties into his ear?  Back then Tim was best buds with Nikki Haley, and why not -- she was the one who gave him the golden ticket to the U.S. Senate.

from FitsNews.com

In fact, just about a year ago, her campaign site, nikkihaley.com, featured the pair smiling enticingly at we the voters.  Today she's resorting to the more traditional family photo.

So imagine my surprise last night when, as I fast-forwarded through commercials to get back to Letterman, I saw this unlikely image:

Curiosity got the better of me, and I rewound back to the beginning of the ad.  Incredibly, it's sponsored by a group called the American Chemistry Council, which makes it the number one contestant in the game called:  "what's wrong with this picture?"  It would be unfair for me to try to describe it, so here it is:

 You know how much I love to delve into the mysteries of who's funding the right wingnuts.  And this bunch didn't even have the words "Freedom" or "Liberty" in their name, so it was guaranteed to grab my attention.  And the implication of science paired with those good old evangelical freaks was making my day.

The American Chemistry Council was once called the Chemical Manufacturers' Association.  They have a warm and fuzzy website that, to sum it up, says, "Trust us."

Their purpose is (hold on to your seat) deregulation, calling it the "Responsible Care Program."  In 2005 they developed a public relations program they called "essential2" -- apparently having skipped over essential1 -- which purpose was to convince us that plastics is good.  To that end, they have been heavily involved in preventing plastic bag regulation.  Yes, when the public has supported initiatives restricting the use of plastic bags, The American Chemistry Council has been there with its "plastic bag lobby" to sway the voters, and when that fails, sue the local government.

On April 21, the American Chemistry Council rolled out its support for our two great senators, for their positive outlook in a negative political atmosphere, and for their work to tackle the two biggest problems we face:  economic growth and job creation.

After we all do a double take, let's get down to checking out our heroes' actual hard work in the Senate.

I believe it was just the day before I saw this ad that I turned on CSPAN to find Lindsey Graham regaling an almost definitely empty Senate chamber with posters proving his paranoid theory about Benghazi, apparently having at one point called White House officials "scumbags."

Meanwhile, as Lindsey Graham gives us Benghazi all day every day, his new buddy Tim Scott continues to fight for jobs by determining to end Obamacare, with his latest weekly email missive stating "Obamacare Must Go."  To be fair, he is also determined to create a couple dozen jobs through the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline.  Which must be what makes the American Chemistry Council so darned proud.

These ads will be running for a few days, because the American Chemistry Council understands just how to buy a senator or two.  And our two senators from South Carolina are ready to stand up and be bought.

And if they have to do it together, well, I guess that's a price they're willing to pay.

Another Stranger than Fiction Moment in Congress

People sometimes confuse the wonderful Borowitz Report fantasies with reality.  This is why.

South Carolina's own Joe Wilson, who everyone in the world knows for the class clown act of yelling "you lie" at the President of the United States during a Congressional speech, is at it again.

On Wednesday, at a House Foreign Affairs committee hearing, he posed a "question" to Secretary of State John Kerry, asking whether President Obama was working the Syria angle to in effect take our attention away from Benghazi and Obamacare.

Well, even Borowitz couldn't have dreamed that up.

John Kerry, who has up to now been able to narrate lists of evidence about the worst atrocities in his infamous monotone, responded in kind to this nonsense.

However, when Wilson's buddy from South Carolina Jeff Duncan held forth with the same accusations, Kerry had had it (4:20):

It's good to know that South Carolina is heavily represented in the House Idiot Caucus, but it's a bit upsetting to think that these guys also serve on the committee that asks the questions that will determine the vote on intervention in Syria.

I like to think that back in the home districts, constituents are looking a little embarrassed and not high-fiving each other in the streets.

Meanwhile, it was good to see John Kerry get his blood up.  This decision is far too important to stand on Congressional form and politeness.

Who IS Lindsey Graham?

I think it's safe to say you can't pin him down.  I remember when he used to be the sane and reasonable of South Carolina's two senators.  Admittedly, it's a low bar, but still.

During the bashing of Sonia Sotomayor during the Supreme Court justice's confirmation hearings, Graham indicated that, while she may not have been his choice, it was the president's prerogative to choose a nominee that reflected his values.  Why then, has he been first in line to beat up on Obama's cabinet picks, even before he has picked them?

Hand in hand with best buddy John McCain, Graham attacked Susan Rice over her Sunday talk show comments regarding the causes of the attacks in Benghazi.  As though she were on the intelligence front lines.  His goal may have been payback for John Bolton, but the intensity and inappropriate timing of the Rice attacks are more reminiscent of Graham's June, 2012, assault on Eric Holder, who was left holding the bag for a secret Bush gun program that backfired.  Interesting that after the outing of Valeria Plame during the Bush years, Graham could get so incensed over White House leaks.

But that Susan Rice deal made Graham look pretty tough, so much so that he went after Chuck Hagel, disappointed that Hagel wasn't the vicious defender of freedom that he would have liked.

On the other hand, as long as we're talking strange inconsistencies, Graham has just gone to bat for our President in the matter of drone attacks.  The man should be able to kill whoever he wants, he's the President, Graham contends.

And then we have Lindsey Graham on gun control:

He impressed no less than Jon Stewart with his argument against restricting weapon capacity:  "Changing the magazine -- I can do that pretty quick."  And seeking to top his own self in the crazy category:  "We need high capacity magazines so moms won't run out of bullets defending their kids."

I think I have the answer, though, to this conundrum that is Lindsey Graham.  It came to me as I was reading Bob Woodward's The Price of Politics.  During the interminable and unproductive fiscal wrangling last year, Joe Biden accuses Graham of messing with him on the payroll tax extension.  According to Woodward, Graham replies,

I'm not fucking with you.  I mean, it's not that I'm beyond fucking with you.  I'm just not fucking with you here.

When I read that quote, I got it.  Our Lindsey Graham's number 1 job is Lindsey Graham.  And that means speaking to his constituency:  those overly-trusting yet paranoid, Fox informed, equal parts American patriot and confederate that have kept him in office all these long years.

And those comments about a President's right to nominate whatever left wing justice he chooses just did not set as well with those constituents as supporting Obama's right to fire them drones.  Votes like those supporting the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor just plain old got his base riled up enough to wander off the base, if you know what I mean.

Those murmurs about a challenge from the right just might be happening.  But have no fear.  Lindsey Graham can "change that magazine pretty quick."  He's proven that he can fight, on any side he needs to be.  He's not worried about sounding crazy, just soft.  And when he says things that don't seem to make sense, that too may be part of the plan.  He may just be "fucking with you."