There are plenty of idioms out there to describe the current situation of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the Benghazi situation. What goes around comes around, In a pickle, Burying her head in the sand, but the one that I think fits the best is in the title of this article. The double standard that is taking place between the Benghazi situation today and the Watergate fiasco in the 1970s is astounding. It has been said before that Benghazi and Watergate are similar, but that no one died during the Watergate mess.
Hillary Clinton plays a role in both of these public ordeals, but she is in quite different roles. This is what prompted me to visit how things change when the shoe is on the other foot.
In the 1970s, Hillary sat on the House Judiciary Committee, and specifically as part of the impeachment inquiry of Nixon. The interesting thing, as stated by Ben Shapiro of Townhall.com, is that “Hillary believed Nixon was ‘evil.’” This belief led Hillary to do some unethical things in drafting impeachment language. In an example of this, “she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel,” this according to Jerry Zeifman author of Without Honor: The impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot. Her recommendation was a clear violation of basic human rights, as well as, a direct violation of the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
If Hillary is willing to deny the President a basic human right then what else would she do? A quick examination of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we see in Article 6 that “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law” and in Article 7 “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination” and there are others in that same vain. Now the UN holds no authority over the sovereignty of a nation, but the left does hold the UN in a special status, so it is only prudent to hold the left to those standards they wish to hold everyone else.
As for Watergate, it was not the break-in that brought down Nixon, it was the confluence of the cover-up, the damn hippies, Vietnam, and the media that loved to kick Nixon around. The counter-culture lowlifes like Bill and Hillary Clinton, Robert Redford and Hollywood, among others, made it their mission to bring down Richard Nixon, despite the fact that he was a moderate Republican who gave us the EPA and started China down the path that led to its near world domination today. I imagine that had these damned hippies known then what we know now about the EPA and China’s rise in world economic affairs, perhaps they wouldn’t have been so quick to destroy this man’s life and reputation.
Anyhow, flash-forward several decades and we come to Hillary with the shoe now on her foot. She and her boss, Barack Hussein Obama, were never going to fall for the mistakes of Benghazi. However, the cover-up is proving to be the thing that may bring them down. Hillary declares that the American people are on a wild goose chase and trying to derail her reputation. Sounds familiar to the “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” that she told us was trying to take down Bill back when a little blue dress was supplying the world with more DNA than an episode of CSI. Watching her congressional testimony several months ago, we got a sense of her frustration of being grilled in such a way that would make even her younger 1970’s self, proud. At one point during the trial she declared “what difference does it make” when discussing if the deaths of four American heroes, including the Ambassador to Libya, was caused by a group of marauders or a group of terrorists?
In 1974, a break-in at the Watergate Complex and the DNC offices brought down a president, but today we now find that our nation has ‘progressed’ in that we can see beyond the incompetence of our President and our Secretary of State, even if that ineptitude led to death. The media thinks it is a non-event that doesn’t deserve scrutiny. On Bill O’Reilly’s show on May 9, 2013, he showed that MSNBC gave no time to the Benghazi story, and CNN devoted seventeen minutes. Fox News on the other hand gave over an hour and a half worth of story time during the live hearings on the matter. As for the nightly network news, none of the big three devoted the first segment to Benghazi and gave only two minutes each for NBC and ABC while CBS gave slightly more with nearly five minutes. This shows that the media is withholding information from the people who receive their news from those outlets.
Is the American public being played for fools? Are they being given the whole truth? Why does one meaningless cover-up cause a resignation of the President, but another gets only a few minutes of air-time? Are the lives of Americans really so meaningless to the political media class that they will ignore them in order to protect their masters? Inquiring minds want to know.