The Benghazi scandal: The difference it makes

| Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

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.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.


Show commenting policy