The Benghazi scandal: The difference it makes
The Obama administration's default position continues to be misrepresentation. Now add manufactured righteous indignation to the mix.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shed the tears, raised the hands and pounded the table when, during a Wednesday hearing before a Senate committee, she was cornered with the reality of the failures and cover-up in the scandalous tragedy now known simply as Benghazi.
As Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed Mrs. Clinton, she exploded:
“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or is it because of guys out for a walk one night and they decide to go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”
But it makes all the difference (and not for the false choice she proffered).
The Obama administration lied — for weeks — about the true nature of Sept. 11, 2012's attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, which left dead the U.S. ambassador and three others. And it's clear it did so — in the middle of an election campaign, on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 and in light of Osama bin Laden's killing — to preserve the campaign narrative that the administration had conquered terrorism.
The Benghazi murders were not the spontaneous result of the “protest” of an amateur video. The murderers were not “guys out for a walk.” It was, of course, a well-orchestrated terrorist attack, one that the Obama administration invited by ignoring pleas for better security.
Indeed, Mrs. Clinton accepted responsibility for the Benghazi deaths. But that's not the same as accepting responsibility for the truth.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- The Thursday wrap
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- An NLRB ambush
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: The Pa. attorney general’s credibility is gone
- A carbon tax? Cap it
- U.N. Watch: Resist the temptation
- Greensburg Tuesday takes