Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Glenn Beck Has Frighteningly Bizarre Opinion on Trey Gowdy Heading Benghazi Panel

Towards the end of the worst of the Cliven Bundy/BLM standoff in Nevada, I noted that Glenn Beck took a position that both bore false witness about the intentions of Mr. Bundy's supporters at the scene and condemned the use of force - apparently under any circumstance, when faced with tyranny and utter loss of Freedom.


What I found on The Blaze today, however, makes Beck's previous comments look reasonable by comparison. Making remarks on the appointment of Rep.Trey Gowdy of South Carolina to head the select committee on the Benghazi scandal, he drew the most (as noted in the title) the most frighteningly bizarre comments that I could imagine which consequently left me wondering:

-Whose side is he on?


-Is he on drugs?

In the quotes, Beck leaves no doubt that Trey Gowdy is fully capable of finding out who made the decisions to leave the consulate staff in Benghazi to fend for themselves and the reasons why this occurred.

Sounds good? - Not to Beck.

Beck leaves us with no option other than to conclude that he would rather we let whoever is responsible be left anonymous. His justification for this position is simply incredulous:

-If we find out, then we may well have to resort to impeachment; the American people don't have the nerve nor the desire for this.

-The American people will react to calls for impeachment with declining support for top Republican contenders for the 2016 presidential election.

-The Republican establishment may want to have opportunity to distance themselves from staunch conservatives such as Rep. Gowdy or Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.  

What does one say in response?

"Many conservatives rejoiced when House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) selected Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) to lead a select committee to investigate the 2012 Benghazi attacks. A former prosecutor, Gowdy has a reputation for being ruthless in his pursuit of the truth, and has promised that he will get to the bottom of the scandal.

But Beck warned his radio audience Wednesday that it may be too soon to rejoice, and what may seem to be an olive branch by the GOP to the more conservative members of the party may be part of a longer-term strategy.

“I’m telling you, Trey Gowdy is in trouble,” Beck remarked, proceeding to highlight how the move could have ramifications on the 2016 presidential election.

“Everyone in the GOP knows [that] if you go after these guys, if you really dig in, you’re going to be left with … ‘impeach the people in charge, or put them in jail,’” Beck began. “This is dangerous, impeachable stuff that we’re talking about. People have died.”

Beck said the American people likely don’t have the “stomach” for trials and impeachments, especially since Boehner waited until years after the scandal to put the committee together. So when Gowdy tackles the scandal like a “pit bull” and inevitably uncovers explosive information, Beck said the White House — and even some Republicans — will likely paint him as unreasonable and trying to “destroy all government.”

“The Republicans put Trey Gowdy in charge because if it works … and the American people dohave the stomach for it, all the better,” Beck said. “The Mitch McConnells and the John Boehners of the world will say, ‘Yep, we did that, we’re tough.’”

But Beck is betting that the Republican establishment has a much more cynical plan.

While they are happy to take credit for being “tough” now, he said, “when it comes time for [Texas Sen.] Ted Cruz or [Kentucky Sen.] Rand Paul to run for president of the United States, the GOP will say, ‘Look at these people. … All they want is impeachment. They want hearings. They want investigations. That’s not moving America forward. What difference does it make today?’”

“Trey Gowdy will be alone on an island,” Beck said. “That’s what’s happening"

Here's the way it works - If we have reason to believe that cause exists for an investigation, then we have hearings. If those who are summoned do not cooperate or it is determined that investigators need to be given greater authority to compel the recalcitrant to cooperate, then we ensure that this happens. If we find that their is sufficient evidence of grave wrongdoing, then we move for impeachment. Anything less is to be complicit in the wrongdoing. 

Beck is rapidly flushing his credibility down the drain. What does he prefer we do? Forget about the whole thing because the results may not be pleasant or because the Republican establishment may take advantage of the outcome to denigrate honorable legislators? What is most bizarre is that he cites the reason ("People have died.") why we must take appropriate action but does so in order to make us worried about the possible results.  

This is precisely the path that leads to totalitarianism, and Beck is encouraging all of us to take it. Fear of what the opposition (both the Left and establishment Republicans) may do in response to necessary action should never be a factor when crucial decisions are being made. 

No comments:

Post a Comment