Friday night follies and liberal denial

Everyone loves the guy who says "I told you so."

In that vein, let's take a little stroll down Memory Lane, shall we? C'mon. It'll be fun on this otherwise dreary and rainy Friday.

Now that at least one small segment of the ever-diminishing mainstream media (ABC News) has realized – after eight long months – that there was something (actually a lot) amiss in the initial reporting of the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks against Americans in Benghazi, maybe we should look back to last fall.

• On Nov. 18, 2012, someone told intelligent HCP readers that while ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, etc., were all too content to propagate the Obama administration myth that some underground ant-Islam video – that less than a handful of people have ever seen – was a direct cause for the Sept. 11-12 assault on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Fox News told a different and much more accurate story.

To give the left-leaning CNN its due, the liberal network did concede last year that the Obama administration's behavior is indicative of a cover-up. Ya think?

As I wrote six months ago, the early absence of any real reporting by the mainstream media on the deaths of four Americans suggests either a measure of incompetence or a degree of partisan collusion. (Given the mainstream media's track record of the past 20 years, the correct answer is probably a little bit of both.)

The early Benghazi reporting – or lack thereof – was to accept on face value the administration's insistence that some bargain-basement anti-Mohammed video clip that no one has ever seen caused "a protest" to turn deadly.

We now know that that was – and is – a crock of political horse spit.

These terrorists were well-armed with rocket-propelled grenades. They weren't using slingshots and launching water balloons like a passel of college protesters out on the town. This was serious stuff. Deadly serious, in fact.

I concluded that November 2012 column by saying that with his second term now secure, it's time for Obama to come clean on Benghazi.

He has not. Nor has any other high-ranking Cabinet official. Hillary Ramrod slithered away like a thief in the night. At least Janet Waco had the intestinal fortitude to stand by her man over the Texas atrocity.

When something as serious as an attack on an American ambassador and U.S. servicemen fails to warrant any military support, the buck must stop with the commander in chief. Not the secretary of state, not an ambassador, not the CIA director, and not the Pentagon.

Wasn't it former President Harry Truman who said "The buck stops here?"

* * *

• In all fairness, HCP columnist Gary Lewis was ahead of me on the Benghazi-gate coverup.

On Oct. 11, 2012, barely four weeks after the terrorist attacks against us, Gary quoted former presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"What did Romney say at the Virginia Military Institute?" Gary asked.

Here are some snippets:

“The attack on our Consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012 was likely the work of forces affiliated with those that attacked our homeland on Sept. 11, 2001. This latest assault cannot be blamed on a reprehensible video insulting Islam, despite the administration’s attempts to convince us of that for so long.”

"How mature and reasonable," Gary wrote. "Instead of trying to foist blame somewhere else, Romney had the audacity to put the blame where it belonged – on the perpetrators!"

Reasonable minds would agree, Gary. But do not expect that from the liberal apologists.

Instead of acknowledging the many malfeasances of the Obama administration, they will burn up the Google search engines in hopes of finding something – anything – similar for which to blame OB1's predecessor.

But why stop with Bush? Why not go back to FDR and World War II? Why not "Remember the Maine and to hell with Spain?" Why not remind us that Nixon famously said "I am not a crook?"

Here's a clue to those of you entrapped in the common media virus (pneumococcus?), also known as liberal denial: Just because other presidents and other administrations erred, those actions ought not allow – carte blanche – for all succeeding presidents and administrations to do the same.

A few of those on the left have objected to a recent HCP column by Col. Richard Brauer, USAF (ret.) entitled "Americans died – Hillary Clinton lied." However, Col. Brauer was right.

Of course, the left has yet to offer any substance of a believable defense for the former secretary of state and Arkansas cattle futures expert.

They haven't offered a defense – aside from doing their best to dredge up past infractions by past administrations – for one solid reason: They can't. She's a damned liar and they know it.

We told you so months ago.

* * *

On a separate – but nonetheless related – topic, how about those Internal Revenue pranksters? ("Revenuers," as George Jones would call them.)

As we reported this week, after its initial denial, the IRS has offered a post-election apology to conservative groups for inappropriately going after them during the 2012 presidential election.

You can't make this spit up.

The Associated Press reported today that "Organizations were singled out because they included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status."

IRS spokesperson Lois Lerner said these groups were asked for their list of donors – which violates the federal IRS policies.

"That was wrong," Lerner said.

Yes, it was.

What's also wrong is that we – the American workers and taxpayers – paid for this improper conduct. What a disgrace.

"That was absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That's not how we go about selecting cases for further review," Lerner said. "The IRS would like to apologize for that."

Apologize, my (armpit).

What the IRS ought to do is compensate every conservative organization that it wrongfully attacked for their time and trouble and accountant/legal fees in combating the false accusations.

Moreover, the IRS' guilty employees ought to pay for this. It would be blatantly unfair to put this added burden on taxpayers.

In addition, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman should resign if he hasn't already.

He told Congress in March 2012 that the IRS was not targeting groups based on their political views.

"There's absolutely no targeting," Shulman said, in his best Hillary Ramrod Clinton impersonation.

"I don't think there's any question we were unfairly targeted," said Ohio TEA Party leader Tom Zawistowski.

"Zawistowski's group was among many conservative organizations that battled the IRS over what they saw as its discriminatory treatment of their effort to gain non-profit status," The AP reported.

"In all," the AP said, "about 300 groups were singled out for additional review. Of those, about a quarter were singled out because they had 'tea party' or 'patriot' somewhere in their applications."

It remains to be seen if the IRS has targeted any groups with "tin-foil hats" or if they are monitoring the Kroger sales of aluminum foil.

One thing is trying to break through the political fog, though.

The current president's longtime love affair with the mainstream media may be in some jeopardy. They are beginning to feel jilted, while Fox News eats their lunch. Day after day.

Funny stuff for Friday Night Follies.

Rory Ryan is publisher of The Highland County Press.