In the case of the White House's machinations about
what happened in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and two
other Americans were killed in a terrorist attack, what we observe is
the opposite of "transparency."
Investigators from the House of Representatives
subpoenaed from the White House an e-mail written by Ben Rhodes, a
deputy national security adviser to President Obama. It was never
provided. But the White House was forced to respond to a Freedom of
Information Act request filed by the watchdog group Judicial Watch. The
e-mail reveals how the White House developed a narrative about Benghazi
which, it seems, had little relationship to what really happened. It
blamed a video, rather than terrorists, for the attack, lest voters came
to believe that terrorism had not been finally defeated, as the White
House sought to proclaim.
Now, a House select committee will be investigating
what really happened in Benghazi and how the White House handled the
matter. Our most "transparent" administration has already declared that
many of the documents the committee will seek have been classified as
top secret---something the president has the power to do for any reason
he chooses, Republicans, however, can hardly complain---because they
are the ones who gave this power to President George W. Bush. Of
course, the committee can subpoena the records and a federal judge will
finally decide whether of not they will be released.
-- Allan C. Brownfield, "The Obama Administration May Be Our Least -- Not Most -- 'Transparent' Administration" (Salem-News.com).
--