She may be right

Sadly, Clinton's insult, that the cause of the Benghazi raid doesn't matter, may fit

  • Follow Editorials

The Obama administration did its level best to prevent you from hearing it. But those listening closely Wednesday nonetheless heard the unmistakable thud of American self-governance hitting a new low.

This administration lied through its teeth last fall about what caused the attack on our embassy in Benghazi that killed four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya. Officials initially blamed an anti-Islam Internet video – and, in fact, the American filmmaker is the only person incarcerated as a result of the attack.

Ultimately, after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice went on a handful of Sunday talk shows to spin the fantasy that the Internet video caused a public protest outside our embassy that went bad, the administration had to admit there was never any protest at all – and that the attack was a premeditated al-Qaida-style assault.

The administration also has been caught red-handed with cables from the Benghazi embassy pleading for better security prior to the attack – which caught officials napping on Sept. 11, of all days.

Then the administration managed to delay the day of reckoning on Capitol Hill far past the November election – until this Wednesday, when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally fielded the questions of Congress in an oddly truncated one-day session.

There, she managed to take things to an entirely new low. Exhibiting gratuitous and unjustified indignation, Clinton flailed her arms and angrily wailed about the cause of the attack, “What difference ... does it make?”

Well, four dead Americans makes a huge difference to some of us, Madame Secretary.

We have never seen so many well-educated, high-paid, high-office adults acting so much like teenagers who didn’t do their homework and are trying to shift both blame and attention. Except that, in this case, four people lie dead and terrorists around the world have seen that America can be attacked with impunity.

Mrs. Clinton’s Biden-esque theatrics are shameful enough. But her unprecedented claim that the cause of last fall’s deadly attack doesn’t matter is beyond shameful. It’s disgusting and reprehensible. A country that was lied to and stonewalled – to this day – is now being told not to care.

Just remember her insult to the nation when the frothy sycophantic media beg her to run for president in 2016.

Moreover, get a load of what she says about the cause of the attack in these two sentences – and how wholly and completely inconsistent and contradictory they are:

“What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and to do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.”

Read that again: “What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened...” Hello? If it’s her job to figure out what happened in the attack, how can the cause of it possibly be irrelevant? It’s just nonsensical.

But that’s what happens when you try to gin up undue indignation in an effort to somehow look heroic instead of culpable. It’s what happens when you think that combativeness is a defense.

Meanwhile, notice what else made the news Wednesday: The Department of Defense suddenly decided to drop the bombshell that it will allow women in combat. Could that have been a diversionary tactic to make the Clinton story less conspicuous? If so, it worked: It led several nightly newscasts and may have been responsible for knocking the Clinton story off of front pages.

America today appears to be that easily manipulated, that successfully lied to and filibustered. And so many Americans don’t seem to notice or care.

Regrettably, in the end, Mrs. Clinton may be right. It may not matter after all.

Comments (28) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Willow Bailey
Willow Bailey 01/25/13 - 09:20 pm
The truth must be hidden to

The truth must be hidden to keep this farce of a president in office.

Darby 01/26/13 - 01:51 am
"Where's the outrage when THEY....

are murdered?" Our soldiers who die in combat are not murdered. If they die, it's usually because of a mistake they make, or because of a failure by politicians or bureaucrats to provide what they need.

A good example would be the eighteen Rangers who died trying to carry out a fool's mission for the Clinton administration in Mogadishu. When given the almost impossible assignment, they asked for additional equipment and support which was denied. The reason given was that the administration did not want to "raise the American profile" any higher than necessary. Of course, being professional soldiers, they went in anyway, without what they needed.

The result was the basis for the Hollywood production, "Black Hawk Down", so all was not lost. Somebody in Tinsel Town managed to make a profit off the lives lost.

Young Fred
Young Fred 01/26/13 - 02:30 am
carcraft 01/25/13 - 07:17 pm

carcraft 01/25/13 - 07:17 pm

“In combat arms if a commander misses intelligence and ignores warnings about threats and he sustains a loss as our State Department did the commander gets relieved and his career is over. So far nobody has faced the music in the state department! So there is your difference!”

That statement, perhaps, goes to show the depth of depravity our federal government has sunk under our current leadership.

Two leaders, patriots, got relieved because of the Benghazi debacle; Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette and General Carter Ham.

The “misconduct” that caused this? They ignored calls to stand down and did everything possible to save/protect those lives in danger.

The “official, government” line is “no, no, we told no one to stand down, we sent six CIA operatives in harms way to save as many lives as possible.”

But, the first hand accounts and interviews with the “men on the ground” tell a different story, the story of men, who despite the order to stand down, did everything in their power to save as many lives as possible. By last count, saving twenty six lives.

I guess most citizens will believe the story that most closely fits their own world view.

If you believe the official gov't line to be true, why did these two men get relieved of their command?

If you believe the official gov't line to be true, why have the hero’s that did save lives, according to both accounts, not been honored?

Back to Top
Search Augusta jobs
Top headlines
Defendant acquitted of top charges at rape trial
After less than two hours of deliberations, the jury acquitted Christopher Davis of rape and aggravated sodomy, convicting him only of aggravated assault, possession of a knife during the ...