During testimony about the Benghazi terror attack that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got a bit testy (to say the least) when Republican Senator Ron Johnson (WI) dared to ask her why the Obama administration used the talking points about a protest (resulting from an anti-Islam YouTube video) for so long when the facts were easily verifiable.
Hillary asked, "What difference does it make?" Her heated comments were telling, as her angry response did not answer the valid question posed by Johnson, which also touched on the survivors of the attacks, who have been all but forgotten.
When pressed, Hillary went ballistic. She loudly stated,
"The fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"
The incomparable Thomas Sowell observed in an opinion piece for the New American,
"Students of propaganda may admire the skill with which she misdirected people's attention. But those of us who are still old-fashioned enough to think that the truth matters cannot applaud her success."
Clinton's question distorted the issue, as the discussion was not about the motive of the "militants," but the reasoning behind the Obama Administration's persistence in misleading the American people for weeks after the attack.
Watch the video:
This is clearly a sore spot for the Obama Administration, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that Senator Johnson's question was not sincere, but "an obvious political obsession over a series of talking points that again bears no relevance on the central issues." Of course it is a legitimate question, and the fact that it has never been answered is exactly what has led to the continued speculation.
As Sowell opines, "Once the September 11th attack in Benghazi is seen for what it was — a highly coordinated and highly successful operation by terrorists who were said to have been vanquished — that calls into question the Obama administration's Middle East foreign policy." It seems likely that despite the fact that it was apparent that the attack was not a "spontaneous protest" based on the low-budget film gone awry, the message persisted because it did not fit into the narrative at the time that "al Qaeda is on the run."
Where Are the Survivors?
When asked directly how many survivors there were, Clinton said there were 25-30. How does the Secretary of State not have a direct answer to such a basic question? Clearly, the survivors would have much insight to give about the events on the ground on September 11th, but not one journalist has spoken to any of them. In fact, the White House has not even named them, five of whom were reportedly injured, one seriously. In response to whether Clinton spoke to the survivors, Clinton said,
"...I still have a DS agent at Walter Reed seriously injured. Getting them into Frankfurt Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over to immediately start talking to them—We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews."
It is strange that the Secretary of State only spoke with one of the survivors. The secrecy surrounding the survivors is unusual and a bit frightening, frankly. What reason could there possibly be for keeping the people who experienced the terror attack first hand under wraps?
Questions tend to linger until they are answered.
Photo Source: CNS News
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 11