Mountain Views News          Saturday, July 9, 2016

OPINIONB4 OPINIONB4 
Mountain 
Views 
News 
PUBLISHER/ EDITOR 
Susan Henderson 
CITY EDITOR 
Dean Lee 
EAST VALLEY EDITOR 
Joan Schmidt 
BUSINESS EDITOR 
LaQuetta Shamblee 
PRODUCTION 
Richard Garcia 
SALES 
Patricia Colonello 
626-355-2737 
626-818-2698 
WEBMASTER 
John Aveny 
CONTRIBUTORS 
Chris Leclerc 
Bob Eklund 
Howard HaysPaul CarpenterKim Clymer-KelleyChristopher NyergesPeter Dills 
Dr. Tina Paul 
Rich Johnson 
Merri Jill Finstrom 
Lori KoopRev. James SnyderTina Paul 
Mary CarneyKatie HopkinsDeanne Davis 
Despina ArouzmanGreg WelbornRenee Quenell 
Ben Show 
Sean KaydenMarc Garlett 
Pat Birdsall (retired) 
Mountain Views News 
has been adjudicated asa newspaper of GeneralCirculation for the County 
of Los Angeles in CourtCase number GS004724: 
for the City of SierraMadre; in Court Case 
GS005940 and for the 
City of Monrovia in CourtCase No. GS006989 and 
is published every Saturday 
at 80 W. Sierra MadreBlvd., No. 327, Sierra 
Madre, California, 91024. 
All contents are copyrighted 
and may not bereproduced without the 
express written consent ofthe publisher. All rights 
reserved. All submissions 
to this newspaper becomethe property of the Mountain 
Views News and maybe published in part or 
whole. 
Opinions and viewsexpressed by the writersprinted in this paper donot necessarily expressthe views and opinionsof the publisher or staffof the Mountain Views 
News. 
Mountain Views News is 
wholly owned by GraceLorraine Publications, 
Inc. and reserves the rightto refuse publication ofadvertisements and other 
materials submitted for 
publication. 
Letters to the editor and 
correspondence should 
be sent to: 
Mountain Views News 
80 W. Sierra Madre Bl. 
#327 
Sierra Madre, Ca. 
91024 
Phone: 626-355-2737 
Fax: 626-609-3285 
email: 
mtnviewsnews@aol.com 
Mountain Views News 
Mission Statement 
The traditions of 
community news-
papers and the 
concerns of our readers 
are this newspaper’s 
top priorities. We 
support a prosperouscommunity of well-
informed citizens. 
We hold in highregard the values 
of the exceptionalquality of life in our 
community, includingthe magnificence of 
our natural resources. 
Integrity will be our 
guide. 
WILL Durst -Raging Moderate 



WHO WILL WIN THE DONALD 
TRUMP VEEPSTAKES? 

Now that the presumptive nominees are set, the presiden


tial campaign has officially entered its “begging for money 

like we’re raising bail for our little sister who’s being held

in a Turkish prison” stage. And a pre- convention lull has

descended upon the proceedings like a moist blanket of

sulk. Not to be confused with the post-convention lull,
which will be similar but ratcheted up by a desperation factor of four. 

Both campaigns have stalled like interstate highways under constructionduring rush hour on a holiday weekend, and stumbling on any actual newnews is similar to finding football cleats in the Ballet Russe dressing room. 

The big discussion right now is a little something called the “Veepstakes,”
with all of Washington debating who the candidates should pick to makethem more electable. You got your “top tier” list, your “short” list, and the“we’re only floating their names because they endorsed us and we needtheir mailing list” list. 

So it’s time to play the only game in town, guessing who goes on the bottom 
of the bumper sticker, this week focusing on the Donald, which istricky, because he’s insulted at least half the field of prospective suitors. 

First off, old friend, Sarah Palin, because the two make such an adorable 
couple. 

Bernie Sanders, who would give the New York businessman a partner withlegislative experience, not to mention really sticking it in Hillary’s craw. 

Newt Gingrich, who shares with the Donald the unbreakable bond of twoex-wives. 

Ted Cruz, because the chance to see the two of them snarl and bark at each 
other for four months would become must see TV. 

Ted Nugent, because nothing says “sticking it to the man” like a crazy aging 
long-haired rock and roller. 

Ted Turner, because he and Trump are the yin and yang of 80s businessfailures. 

Continuing the Ted thread, Ted Levine who played serial killer Buffalo Billin “Silence of the Lambs.” 

Texas Senator John Tower. Sure he died in 1991, but the posters would allread Trump/Tower and, as the man himself would tell you, “free publicityis free publicity.” 

Ed McMahon, who although also dead, remains the ultimate “yes” man. 

Boris Johnson, to nail down the wackiest hair in history ticket. 

Phil Robertson, the elder of the Duck Dynasty clan because in comparison,
the Donald would seem tranquil and serene. 

Caitlyn Jenner, because that would really double down on the woman cardand confuse liberals. 

George Lopez, to play the green card. And if he turns it down, give it toCarlos Mencia, which would really tick him off. 

Mike Tyson, because he was an early endorser and could translate some ofTrump’s more complex policies. 

Kim Kardashian, because her butt counts as two electoral votes and come 
on, you know you want it. 

Gary Busey, in order to make the New York businessman look morepresidential. 

Dennis Rodman. See above. 

Omarosa Manigualt-Stallworth would act as assassination insurance because 
nobody would dare touch a hair on Trump’s head for fear of givingher power over our navies. 

And finally, Chris Christie as a reward for climbing so high up the Donald’sbutt he runs the risk of being arrested for impersonating a suppository. 

Will Durst is an award-winning, nationally acclaimed columnist, comedian 
and former Pizza Hut assistant manager. 

LEFT TURN/RIGHT TURN 
DICK Polman 

GOODBYE, BENGHAZI SLEUTHS. TAKE YOURTINFOIL HATS. 

To quote poet T. S. Eliot, the House Select Committee on Benghazi finallyfolded its tent Tuesday - “not with a bang, but a whimper.” 

Most of us — with the exception of paranoid conspiracy theorists and fact-

impaired trolls — have long assumed that this partisan Republican concoc


tion would fail to nail Hillary Clinton for the deaths of those four Americansat the Libyan outpost in 2012. We have not been disappointed. 

None of the previous investigations unearthed any evidence that Clinton, in her role as secretary of 
state, had done anything perfidious or criminal. The Republican-led House Intelligence Committee, 
in its 2014 report, had found no such evidence. The Senate Intelligence Committee found no such 
evidence. The Senate Armed Services Committee found no such evidence. The House Foreign Affairs 
Committee found no such evidence. The House Oversight & Government Reform Committeefound no such evidence. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee foundno such evidence. 

Nor did the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Nor did Benghazi investigator Thomas Pickering,
a three-time ambassador who served Ronald Reagan, who concluded way back in 2013 that nobodyin the Obama administration — Clinton or anyone else — had tried to conceal anything for politicalpurposes. In Pickering’s words at the time: “The notion of a, quote, ‘coverup’ has all the elements ofPulitzer Prize fiction.” 

At a cost to the taxpayer of $7 million — money that would’ve been better spent shoring up the U.S. 
embassy security that Republicans profess to care so much about — Gowdy’s panel basically told uswhat we’ve long known already. I’m frankly too bored with this topic to detail the redundant findings, 
but suffice it to say that there was no politically motivated attempt to play down the terrorism 
angle. 

In fact, Gowdy was asked if there was any evidence at all that the military could’ve saved those lives? 

His reply: “I don’t know.” 

Yes, that T.S. Eliot poem captures the essence of those Republican sleuths: 

We are the hollow men 
We are the stuffed men 

Leaning together 

Headpiece filled with straw 

And thus ends the probe that took longer than investigations of Pearl Harbor, the 1983 Beriut bombing, 
Iran-Contra, 9/11 and George W. Bush’s “weapons of mass destruction” con job in Iraq. 

Why in the world was this latest Benghazi panel created in the first place? Kevin McCarthy, a House 
Republican leader, gave the game away last October when he accidentally revealed, “Everybodythought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee. Aselect committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping.” 

Three weeks later, the committee grilled Clinton on live television for 11 hours and never laid aglove on her. All they got, as a video moment, was the coughing fit she suffered near the end, which 
prompted this headline on the right-wing Drudge Report: “Hillary Health Warning.” And lastI checked, her “numbers” have been climbing anyway — at least when matched against DonaldTrump, who is viewed by a landslide majority of Americans as unfit for high office. 

Nevertheless, as we well know, Gowdy’s nothingburger won’t sate appetites on the Republican right. 
As the historian Richard Hofstadter wrote more than a half-century ago, there is “a paranoid stylein American politics,” characterized by “heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial 
fantasy.” 

Which probably means we’ll get a new Benghazi committee to investigate the unfinished work of this 
Benghazi committee. 

Perhaps there are ways to link Benghazi to the death of Vince Foster. Someone should look intothat. 

THE ONE TRUTH 
ABOUT BENGHAZI 

The ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus 
is often credited with thatold chestnut about truth being thefirst casualty of war. 

It’s a good thing Aeschylus wasn’taround last week for the release of 
the House Benghazi Committee 
report. 

With four, competing narrativesof the September 2012 attacks hitting 
the street within hours of each 
other, the truth not only became acasualty, it fell into that bottomlessgap that separates fact and internetfed 
conspiracy theory. 

Far from settling anything, whichwas its putative goal, the committee’s 
majority report (at a cost of $7million) and its disputatious, alternate-
reality hangers-on only servedto push people further into their respective 
corners. 

Democrats, Republicans, rabid 
conservatives and the conspiracy-
minded each came away convinced 
this week that their version of reality 
was the right and true one. 

Whether they came away anysmarter is less clear. 

Shocking no one, the Democraticreport soft-pedaled any notion ofculpability for Clinton and President 
Barack Obama, putting it alldown to campaign season politics. 

In this, they were ably assisted byHouse Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, 
of California, who pantsedthe committee and it’s chairman,

U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C), andhis committee by publicly admitting 
that it was all about politics 
from the start. 
Then Gowdy, who said he wouldn’trelease his report in the middle ofthe campaign season, went aheadand did it anyway. 

The report by majority Republicans 
concluded that Clinton and President 
Barack Obama should have 
been more aware of the danger toAmericans in Libya and done moreto protect them. 

The years-long probe has alreadyproduced its most damaging revelation: 
That Clinton, openly floutingsecrecy rules, used a private emailserver while she was the nation’s 
top diplomat. It’s resulted in a still-
unfinished FBI investigation thatcould yet topple her candidacy. 

The minority-majority report by

U.S. Reps. Mike Pompeo of Kansasand Jim Jordan of Ohio, concludedthat Clinton’s actions during theattacks were “morally reprehensi-
JOHN L. Micek 

ble,” MSNBCreported. 

But when 
Pompeo was 
asked by NBCNews to back 
that conclusion 
up, all he 
could managewas that it was 
something hebelieved “in 
my heart,” which is hardly guilt beyond 
a reasonable doubt. 


The conclusions by that CitizensCommission should be familiar to 
anyone who’s spent time prowlingthe dark recesses of the right-wingweb. It repeats, for instance, thefantastical charge that Obama and 
Clinton were running guns to al-
Qaeda rebels in Libya. 

But it’s the perfect metaphor for ourhyper-partisan and hyper-polarizedtimes. 

In poll after poll, including one asmost recently as this month, thedivides between Republicans andDemocrats are stark. And they have 
only been deepened by this year’sunusually combative presidential 
election. 

For instance, more than half theDemocratic respondents (55 percent) 
to a recent Pew poll said theRepublican Party made them feel“afraid,” while a plurality (49 percent) 
of Republicans said the same. 

And it’s worse among the more engaged, 
with seven in 10 Democratic 
respondents and nearly two-thirdsof Republicans (62 percent) giving 
the same answer, the Pew canvassfound. 

More than half of Republicans(52 percent) said Democrats were 
“closed-minded,” and “dishonest”
(47 percent), compared to the sevenin 10 and 42 percent, respectively, of 
Democrats who said the same about 
Republicans, the Pew poll found. 

A 2014 Pew poll, meanwhile, foundliberals and conservatives were each 
more likely to get their informationfrom a small cluster of sources. 

So, if you’re a voter, who are you going 
to believe about Benghazi? Theshort answer is whichever group’s 
account most closely aligns to yourworldview. 

Expecting an objective account ofthe Benghazi attacks during an election 
year was only slightly more optimistic 
than expecting the Philliesto take home a pennant this season. 

It’s a nice fantasy - but there’s noway it could ever happen. 

Mountain Views News 80 W Sierra Madre Blvd. No. 327 Sierra Madre, Ca. 91024 Office: 626.355.2737 Fax: 626.609.3285 Email: editor@mtnviewsnews.com Website: www.mtnviewsnews.com