More Benghazi Whitewashing To Clean Up A Dirt-Covered Administration
There has not been enough Congressional investigation into the armed assault on the Benghazi diplomatic compound, which occurred on September 11, 2012. The State Department continues to refuse access to the American survivors by Members of Congress performing their constitutionally mandated role of oversight, and at this point “National Security” is hardly a reasonable excuse. Why do they continue to block survivor’s testimony when Barack Obama declared this to be “a phony scandal” anyway?
It is no secret that Hillary Clinton is making plans to run for her party’s 2016 presidential slot—so while the fires in Benghazi were still blazing, the Democrat Machine immediately went to work. Susan Rice handled all of the Sunday talk show interviews for Clinton following the assault, telling Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes that the former Secretary of State was “exhausted” from her “incredibly painful and stressful week”.
As former Representative Lt. Col. Allen West recently wrote in a rather frank, plainspoken December 23rd Facebook editorial, “If that was stressful for Hillary, then she ain’t ready to be the Commander-in-Chief, EVER.”
It was during those Sunday talk show appearances that Rice made the specious claim that the attack was a “spontaneous protest over a You Tube video.” It is astounding that Rice continues to push that story when even the White House backed far away from it—and especially after the Congressional hearings and under-oath testimony of witnesses debunked that idea entirely.
But Rice is not alone in her attempt to re-write the re-write of history.
In their Saturday, December 28th edition, the New York Times has decided to join the “Let’s clean up Hillary and get her absolved of any culpability” team by publishing a new version of the Benghazi attacks. According to this latest account, we are being told that a months-long investigation with Libyans. These Libyan “witnesses” supposedly had “direct knowledge of the attack” and have somehow managed to assure the New York Times that al-Qaeda was not involved at all. Nope. None. Forget what our American witnesses have said. And ignore the multiple notes which Ambassador Stevens himself had written prior to the attacks, noting that the al-Qaeda flag was flying all over the place– on buildings, on the backs of military-style trucks, everywhere one looked. But thanks to Libyans feeding this brand new information to the New York Times, everything has been cleared up now. Right?
Nice try, NYT, but it doesn’t wash. Your ‘new information’ won’t clean up Hillary Clinton in her future presidential bid, nor does it absolve Barack Obama of his dereliction of duty. When informed sovereign U.S. soil was under armed assault, American lives threatened and his personal representative to the area was missing, the Commander-in-Chief failed to order military defense, rather that any nearby military assistance stand down. He then reportedly left the Situation Room for the duration of the attack and we still have not been told where Obama went. Clinton as Secretary of State did no more than make one phone call to Obama, obviously encouraging the defense of the United States to not be part of the conversation.
Until both of these public servants are required to provide answers to questions under oath, the American people will never have the answers we not only deserve, but are entitled to, in order to solve the puzzle of that night in Benghazi.
