For two months now the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya has been the topic du jour for some news outlets, with accusations that President Barack Obama knew exactly what was happening there in real time.

For the past week the resignation of CIA Director David Petraeus has joined the menu since the CIA’s involvement in Benghazi has been a side dish to the main “scandal”. The dessert  that sweetens the deal is the sex, lies and email (alas, no videotape) complications from the Petraeus/Paula Broadwell affair with the cherry on top being the General John Allen/Jill Kelley story.

I guess the idea of high level government officials actually engaging in extramarital sexual activity offends the sensibilities of journalists who may believe they are the only public persons entitled to such decadence.

But at the heart of all this is the belief that all streams of information are immediately available to the President and that all such information is complete and infallibly accurate upon first reading.

Maybe not so much, eh?

We should have learned  years ago that within a President’s inner circle there exist a number of personal constituencies who may or may not be open and honest when reporting to him.

Even more so these inner conduits of data and ideas and pure reportage of facts act within their perceptions of what the President is willing to hear or needs to hear or is in his best interest to hear or in his worst interest if he does hear.

Too, the President himself has to censor the information presented to him as it is filtered down to the vital essentials. He can ignore any of this at his peril because future developments may determine that some of the details were bypassed but were far more important to the narrative than first imagined.

One must consider that the President of the United States has access to more raw information than anyone else on the planet. Yet there are people with their own agendas willing to withhold information from him and another group of people whose main job at his command is to shield him from information.

Deniable Plausibility is the medical term for diagnosis of this latter ailment.

Without getting into too many specifics this phenomenon is both venerable and eternal.

The more a topic is a favored scenario of the President the more likely his attention to detail on that topic will lead to undeniable implausibility. Watergate anyone? Richard Nixon’s paranoia engulfed him in matters that were ultimately criminal.

Our present day situation has some calling for impeachment for knowledge of an incident while Ronald Reagan’s supposed ignorance of Iran/Contra strains credulity for lack of knowledge about a policy.

This last paragraph is not a full assessment of either “scandal” rather it is to illustrate that political considerations are or were at play in critiquing both. It is yet to be seen whether Obama received the same coating of Teflon seemingly applied to the Gipper.

Conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied when bad things come to light once they can gain any traction with their spin on the affair, regardless of what any investigation ultimately concludes. However, there is a certain logic here in that our Presidents and their senior advisors can be quite adroit at never telling the literal truth on the subject.

On the other hand when all objective evidence is thoroughly vetted and submitted for forensic examination and the DNA tests come back negative, those same conspiratists will not be thwarted.

So my prediction for the final review of our three course meal is that our  mystery diners will either daintily dab at their chins with fine linen napkins and enjoy an after dinner mint or push their chairs back from the table, exude a loud belch and call for the antacids.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • ciejai  On November 16, 2012 at 12:07 PM

    Oh, to be a fly on the wall during Thanksgiving dinner in a couple of these households!

    • umoc193  On November 16, 2012 at 2:21 PM

      BTW, thanks for the props against LIR on Rob Rogers. I used to think some of our old conservative adversaries were bad. I have sworn off him, though I note he keeps baiting me with his comments.I refuse to bite. I figure without attention he’ll go away. I mean the guy is absolutely delusional.

      I wonder if he has regular readers in Sweden and Australia.

      Oh, well, ’nuff said.

  • little_minx  On November 16, 2012 at 3:13 PM

    Waving hello to CJ!!!

  • ciejai  On November 16, 2012 at 4:07 PM

    His shtick is dumbfounding, UMOC. You’ve made a valiant try but he’s a lost cause. No values, no sense, and an inflated view of himself in all aspects. It’s come down to this– HockeyDad loves him! What a boor. And a bore.

    Hi minx!

    Happy Thanksgiving to both of you.

  • hockeyfather  On November 29, 2012 at 2:16 PM

    So am I the boor or the bore? 😉

Please give me your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: