Confidence men know that their
victim -- "the mark" as he has been called -- is eventually going to
realize that he has been cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he
realizes it immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the confidence
man is long gone.
So part of the confidence racket
is creating a period of uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of
what is happening. This delaying process has been called "cooling out the
mark."
The same principle applies in
politics. When the accusations that led to the impeachment of President Bill
Clinton first surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed,
the truth came out -- but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton's own White House
aides later called it "telling the truth slowly."
By the time the whole truth came
out, it was called "old news," and the clever phrase now was that we
should "move on." It was a successful "cooling
out" of the public, keeping them in uncertainty so long that, by the time
the whole truth came out, there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth
had suddenly come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public,
the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.
We are currently seeing another
"cooling out" process, growing out of the terrorist attack on the
American consulate in Benghazi on September 11th this year. The belated release of State
Department e-mails shows that the Obama administration knew, while the attack
on the American consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed
terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the consulate who
were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures from a camera on an
American drone overhead. About an hour before the attack,
the scene outside was calm enough for the American ambassador to accompany a
Turkish official to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could
hardly have happened if there were protesting mobs there.
Why then did both President Obama
and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice keep repeating the story that this was a
spontaneous protest riot against an anti-Islamic video in America?
The White House knew the facts --
but they knew that the voting public did not. And it mattered hugely whether
the facts became known to the public before or after the election. What the
White House needed was a process of "cooling out" the voters, keeping
them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.
Not only did the Obama
administration keep repeating the false story about an anti-Islamic video being
the cause of a riot that turned violent, the man who produced that video was
tracked down and arrested, creating a media distraction. All this kept the video story
front and center, with the actions and inaction's of the Obama administration kept
in the background.
The White House had to know that
it was only a matter of time before the truth would come out. But time was what
mattered, with an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the
period of distraction and uncertainty -- "cooling out" the voters --
the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was reelected, it would
be politically irrelevant what facts came out.