Is the government really out to get us?

A lot of the political news this week seems to revolve around one central question: Is the government REALLY out to get us?
   Republicans are all in a snit over the growing Benghazi scandal. That attack, on Sept. 11, 2012, resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, and according to the Republican narrative, the fault for those deaths lies not with the terrorists who attacked the embassy, but with President Barack Obama. According the Republican version of events, Obama not only knew of the likelihood of an attack, but he refused to provide adequate security to prevent it, despite repeated requests. To make matters worse, once the attack was under way, he refused to send help to stop it, even telling one special forces unit in the area to "stand down." And after the attack? Well, he lied to the American people about its origins, first blaming it on an obscure anti-Muslim film and resulting riots, then refusing to call it a terrorist attack, instead calling it "an act of terror." And the reason for all this? Why, to help himself get re-elected, of course!
   If that's not evil enough for you, Republicans also upset over a recent admission by the Internal Revenue Service that some lower-level agents were targeting conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status for extra scrutiny. Attorney General Eric Holder has launched an investigation into the affair, and President Obama has called it "unacceptable," vowing "It will never happen again." So where do we begin in extricating ourselves from all this muck?
   In my opinion, the Benghazi probe is little more than a partisan witch hunt. It is a tragedy that has been blown completely out of proportion by desperate Republicans trying to bring down a president that has been more successful than they had hoped. This isn't to say that an investigation into the attack isn't warranted. There are legitimate questions that need to be answered about how the attackers were able to succeed and what steps can be taken to improve security and thwart future attacks. But to suggest that the president knew the attack was imminent and did nothing to prevent it; to suggest that he intentionally withheld help that could have saved American lives; to suggest that he lied to the American people about the attack to help improve his own chances for reelection is ludicrous. It's fantasy. It suggests that not only is our president incompetent, but he's a criminal.
   Here's a dose of reality. Obama's reaction in the first days following the attack isn't out of the ordinary. To suggest that the attack was spurred by an anti-Muslim film that had gone viral on the Internet wasn't out of the realm of possibility. There WERE protests going on over the film, and violence has erupted over something as simple as a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad. Of course, it turned out that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the film, but it wasn't unreasonable to think that they might be connected.
   As for the president's early refusal to label the attack as terrorism, I don't see this as evidence of a coverup. Rather, it seems to me it was a case of Obama acting prudently instead of automatically jumping to the conclusion that it was terrorism, especially before all the facts had been established. That's the sign of a good leader, someone who gets his facts in order before unnecessarily alarming the public.
   Of course, not everything can be explained away so easily. There apparently was intelligence warning that some type of attack was imminent in the region. And there is conflicting testimony as to whether it was possible to send help and whether U.S. forces were told to "stand down." The truth is, we may never know what exactly happened that night, what orders were given and by whom. And while it's clear mistakes were made, nothing I've seen suggests that there was any kind of pre-meditation on the government's part or any kind of coverup. There certainly is nothing there that rises to the level of Watergate, no matter how much Republicans want to make the connection. Watergate was about a president knowing about criminal activity and actively covering it up. Obama might have made mistakes in the hours and days following the Benghazi attack, but nothing he did rises to the level of criminal.
   Switching gears to the mess at the IRS, Republicans are outraged, and rightfully so, that conservative groups were targeted for extra scrutiny when seeking tax-exempt status. There's no denying that was wrong, but their outrage rings a little hollow when you consider all the outrageous things the GOP has given tacit approval to over the years. Consider:
   It was a GOP-led Congress that passed the PATRIOT Act -- possibly the worst piece of legislation ever conceived -- in the fevered days immediately following 9/11. That one piece of legislation gave the federal government almost unlimited power to prosecute a mythical "War on Terror," including the power to wiretap the phones of ordinary Americans.
   It was a Republican administration under George W. Bush that gave tacit approval to the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" (torture) for high-level terror suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay.
   It was the Republican administration of George W. Bush that introduced the idea of "enemy combatants," which has resulted in dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo being held indefinitely without charges and without hope of ever going to trial.
   And now Republicans are upset because some flunkies at the IRS decided to take it upon themselves to give conservative groups a little extra scrutiny? Don't get me wrong. What those employees at the IRS did was wrong, and they should pay with their jobs. But for Republicans to react with such righteous indignation over such a trivial offense seems a tad hypocritical when compared to the true outrages that they have been willing to look the other way on.
   And so, to answer the question I posed at the beginning of this post: Is the government really out to get us? My answer? I don't think so. I believe, by and large, those who work in government are good, earnest people committed to helping their fellow citizens. And I believe government, in its purest form, is committed to the idea of helping those who can't help themselves and protecting our freedoms. Does that mean there aren't abuses in government? Of course not. But I think it grossly unfair to judge the entire body by the mistakes and abuses of a few.