Potpourri of weekly events

By Jim Killebrew

[June 17, 2014]  The late Paul Harvey used to have a closing to his news broadcasts that he entitled, "A potpourri of today's news" in which he looked back over his newscast and provided a quasi-summary that added a bit more information and drew some conclusions that wrapped up his news day. With the past week or so being fairly important in America's history with all the political issues swirling around, it seems appropriate to offer a short "potpourri" of the national events in today's installment of Perspectives. The "take-away" is, "Do we want to keep our current status-quo?"

Lost email

It appears Lois Learner is now off the hook for her part in the Internal Revenue Service's scandal for targeting all the conservative groups that were identified by the Administration as enemies. It seems the IRS has now reported they have lost two (2) years of emails that included all the ones from Lois Learner…and those two years included the time the IRS was charged with targeting the conservative groups. Too bad; another computer glitz in the Obama administration.

It is so easy to actually see the loss of character as it happens before our eyes as the story of the loss of two years of emails from and to Lois Learner of the IRS unfolds. With the past and continuing record of astounding disbelief with the parsing of words from this Administration to change the truth into a lie, can we be blamed for lacking credibility in all those players? As we, as a nation, keep traveling that road of dishonesty and modified truth, to what destination will we finally end?

Impeachment possibilities

The Congress was proceeding toward impeachment for President Nixon for the low-level operatives breaking into the democrat office at Watergate to steal the democrat's plans for the election cycle. The ensuing cover-up and loss of several minutes of White House taped conversation sent the Congress and the American people over the edge. The result of course was Nixon's resignation.

By comparison this President has to his credit fast and furious gun running; enacting the immigration "Dream Act" by Presidential fiat; the entire Benghazi issue that resulted in an American Ambassador and three other Americans being murdered while the President and his Administration spun lies about a video being the cause when they knew better; The Department of Defense targeting journalists for investigations; the National Security Administration collecting meta data on all Americans and leaders in allied countries; the Internal Revenue Service targeting perceived enemies of the Administration for extended reviews regarding tax-exempt status; stonewalling Congressional investigations with cover-ups and refusals to hand over information regarding the investigations; the Administration's Attorney General being cited for Contempt of Congress for failure to cooperate in investigations and then given protection through Executive privilege by the President; the scandalous deaths of forty veterans being put on secret waiting lists in the Veterans Administration Hospitals; the President releasing known terrorist from GITMO back into a situation where they can rejoin fighting terrorist groups putting Americans in danger; withdrawing American troops from war theaters where terrorists continue to be active in their attempts to kill Americans; and finally, the current issue in the Middle East where Iraq is being overrun by terrorists again and the President projecting to the world he intends to establish the exact same conditions in the Afghanistan war theater by giving the enemy advance notice of his intentions to withdraw fighting forces by the end of the year. For all of this, who in the Congress in either of the parties is talking about impeachment the way they did for Nixon and Clinton?

Hiring our leaders

Suppose we could sit down in a nice comfortable room in the Pentagon and actually engage in an interview process with the guy who was seeking the job Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The guy is a highly decorated man whose service extends thirty years covering highly distinguished service from the war in Southeast Asia all the way through the current war efforts. In his interview we asked him the question about the best way to keep America safe and win wars against our common enemies. As you sit back to listen to his response the following is what you hear.

"I would start by telegraphing to our enemy the date on which we are going to stop fighting; we begin to withdraw our troops long before the enemy stops fighting; we empty out our enemy combatant prisoners for the high-ranking enemy leaders to return to the war effort; we turn away from our allies for them to protect themselves even before they are prepared to do so; we cut our military budget and downsize the personnel and equipment to weaken our defenses; we announce to all our enemies of the world we are no longer willing to engage in any war effort; and, finally, we turn our back on our long-time allies to the extent they can no longer trust us to have their backs if attacked by a common enemy."

Would we hire that general for the job of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? If we wouldn't, then why would we want to hire a Commander-in-Chief who actually practices that policy?

Finally, on our presumptive candidate

Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi issue: "I take full responsibility, but I was not making security decisions." Really? As the Secretary of State is she saying that issues like security in US Consulates and Embassies around the world are farmed out to lower level staff to make the decision? And she allowed those decisions of ignoring the pleas of the Ambassador for more security to stand without her intervention? What kind of Secretary of State was she? We have already lost once on that "telephone call that comes at 3:00 o'clock in the morning," do we want to take another chance on that call not being answered?

[By JIM KILLEBREW]