On July 18, 1969, while most Americans were feverishly
devouring the unfolding events of America's first manned moon landing, the late
Senator Edward "Ted" Kennedy was doing what cretins typically do. He
was tooling around in the backwaters of coastal Massachusetts with Mary Jo
Kopechne, a young political aid, who was not his wife. This was after throwing
a reunion party for the "Boiler Room Girls" a group of women
(including Kopechne) who had participated in the presidential campaign of
Robert Kennedy.
Most of the tragic events that followed are well known.
Kennedy vehemently denied that he had been drinking alcohol. Yet he drove off
the road and into a tidal channel, leaving Kopechne trapped in the vehicle
where she eventually suffocated. It was nine hours before Kennedy reported the
accident to anyone. Forensic investigation revealed that Kopechne could have
been rescued after more than an hour, had help arrived in time.
In the aftermath of the Chappaquiddick incident, Kennedy
went on to serve one of the most distinguished careers in the United States
Senate, eventually being given the title of "Lion of the Senate" by
his colleagues. On his death in August of 2009, he was eulogized as a noble
statesman. And since that time, it has of course been considered poor form to
speak ill of so dignified an individual.
Nevertheless, the ugly reality of Chappaquiddick, and the
emptiness of Kennedy's soul and conscience that it revealed, should be
considered as telling evidence of the true nature of American liberalism.
Having moved on to other acts of hedonism throughout his later life, the manner
in which his colleagues, and the left-leaning ones in particular, were willing
to laud him is a testament to their own ethical bankruptcy. And the pattern
still fits to this day, with the entire atrocity of Benghazi and its aftermath
standing as incontrovertible proof.
Had Ted Kennedy possessed even a modicum of concern for
the plight of Kopechne, he could well have gotten sufficient help in time to
secure her safety. But the amassed evidence of his words and actions throughout
the entire night of July 18 revealed that he was fixated solely on how the
scandal would adversely affect his own political fortunes. In the days
following, though publicly expressing remorse and contrition, he clearly had no
intention of owning up to his actions. The notion that he, Ted Kennedy, had not
consumed any alcoholic beverage at his own party was but a single glaring
example of his consuming disingenuousness.
Furthermore, his initial public
appearances in the wake of the event were embarrassingly self-focused,
shamelessly trivializing the death of a young woman, while attempting to cast
himself as the pitiable victim, brooding a week later in a televised speech
"whether some awful curse did actually hang over all of the
Kennedys." Extra legal judicial action by which he successfully evaded any
jail time only added more evidence of his privileged status and total lack of
remorse.
Rolling forward to September
11, 2012, and the horrific atrocities that occurred at the U.S. Consulate in
Benghazi Libya, it becomes disturbingly clear that the elevated status of
liberals, at least in their own minds, has not been confined to the Kennedy
dynasty. Neither is their reptilian level of callous indifference to others,
including other liberals. Even a brief review of the Benghazi episode, and the
real motivations, concerns, and actions of the Obama cabal will reveal abundant
evidence to support such a contention.
From the moment word reached
the White House that the American consulate in Benghazi Libya was under siege
by Islamic terrorists, Obama Administration officials knew they had reason to
worry. Barack Obama had incessantly and gratuitously "spiked the
ball" over the success of the U.S. Navy Seal mission to kill Osama bin
Laden, the master-mind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center and Pentagon. Obama had repeatedly invoked the bin Laden mission as
political leverage, essentially claiming that by it he had achieved victory in
the War on Terror. Such a large scale coordinated assault against an American
diplomatic outpost would constitute proof that his proclamations on the end of
the terror war were bogus. And with the 2012 presidential election only weeks
away, he could not afford the liability of such news.
So the decision was made to
flatly deny any terrorist assault was occurring, even to the point of refusing
available military aid to the besieged diplomatic corps. The deplorable result
of that callous verdict was the torture, death, and mutilation of Chris
Stevens, America's Ambassador to Libya, along with three other Americans. Yet
the cruel and hard-hearted policy of keeping the military at bay, in hopes of
minimizing negative news coverage of the actual resurgence of Islamic terrorism
and Obama's complicity in it, represented only a tiny portion of the scandal
and malfeasance associated with the Benghazi attacks.
In an act appallingly
reminiscent of the cold, dispassionate conduct of Ted Kennedy back in 1969,
Obama boarded Air Force One even as the extent of the attacks was being
learned, and flew to Las Vegas for a campaign fundraiser, as if to create the
notion that he was somehow unconnected with the event and therefore not to be
held responsible. Meanwhile, the best and brightest of the Obama Administration
were busily concocting a ridiculous cover story, involving a kooky small-time anti-Muslim
video, as the supposed explanation for Islamist brutality that defied Obama's
rosy promises of having defeated and neutralized the threat of Islamic terror.
Consequently, no individual or
organization charged with the protection of American diplomats has ever been
held accountable for the obvious lapses in security that left Stevens and his
associates vulnerable, and eventually cost them their lives. And no actual
culpability is ever likely to be assigned, since the trail would lead directly
back to the highest levels of the Obama White House.
Among the greatest affronts of
this sordid affair was the deflection by then Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton during a Senate investigative committee hearing: "What difference,
at this point, does it make?" hysterically spewed as if the only wrongful
injury of the entire Benghazi debacle was that inflicted on her by those Senate
inquisitors. Clearly, by her words and her demeanor, Clinton was striving to
emulate Ted Kennedy in the victim role, dismissing the needless death of
underlings as an inflammatory distraction. Yet the contributing factors of the
Benghazi disaster, and the political calculations that rendered the lives and
safety of Americans inconsequential do make a "difference" in the character
of those officials whose inept and self-serving ways set the stage for the
event.
On Sunday, it was reported that
the Iraqi city of Fallujah had fallen to al Qaeda. Territory secured from
Islamist monsters, at the cost of American lives, has now been needlessly ceded
back to them. As America's buffer against the encroachment of Muslim terrorist
organizations is crumbling, and the likelihood of a new wave of attacks
continues to grow, Barack Obama is playing golf in Hawaii and Hillary Clinton
is making plans to retake the White House in 2016. Indeed, "What
difference at this point does it make?"
Read more: Family Security Matters This article appeared here..
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
No comments:
Post a Comment