Do We Have "Better Things to Worry About?"

The situation with regard to the investigation into Benghazi has changed recently. With the House Speaker appointing a select committee (finally) with subpoena power, the chance finally arises that something of relevance may be disclosed by one or more people involved. It's a small chance, given the record of the President, his staff, and the lengths they have previously gone to avoid giving truthful information on anything placing the administration in an unflattering light, but still a chance. What hasn't changed is the rhetoric of the President's defenders in congress and the media. Much of it seems to rest on one question: Don't we have better things to worry about?

The tone generally used when asking the question, at least in this case, drips with the venom of ire and ridicule, implying most definitely that the answer is "yes," with a healthy dose of "my, aren't you stupid for even considering the issue." Leaving whatever implications lurk in the question behind, the answer almost certainly is that there are better things to worry about, things of greater concern to most individuals and the country as a whole. And despite that, I still have problems with that response.

Saying that there are "better" things to worry about is no measure of the importance of the truth regarding Benghazi, or much of anything else. With the state of the world today, there is always something more important that "could" be pursued, whether you are deciding on what ice cream to have for dessert or seeking a cure for cancer. There will always be something around that could be presented with greater value or urgency, making the question useless when evaluating this type of action. The question never deals with how important the particular issue may be, making it not a reason, but a deflection.

My main problem with the question in a case like this, however, is related question: How do we know?

Granting that there are probably more important things to be worried about, how can I be sure? What is the basis of that decision? Right now, we know that the facts don't support the initial reasons the President and the then Secretary of State gave for the attack on the consulate. We know that they have supplied no explanation for how the reasoning was arrived at, nor who made the decision on what was to be released. We have testimony that the President was not in the situation room while the attack on the consulate was going on, but no information on where he was or what he was doing. We have stand down orders for military forces wanting to send in support even though there was time to render some kind of aid. We have just about every witness to and about the event locked down under gag order by the administration, and a string of denials.

What this adds up to, at least as far as I am able to reason, is an administration that is untruthful about the reasons for or against use military action, and determined to prevent release of detrimental information at all costs. Logically, that means that any reason the administration gives for a military action is suspect. When he says he is using drones to target terrorists, we don't know if they are terrorists. When he says the NSA is not retaining information on citizens, we can't take his word for it. If he says he needs to send in the national guard to put down a terrorist stronghold in a remote part of this country, are they really terrorists, or just some people that the President has reasons to label as terrorists?

I may have better things to worry about, but this will do for now.