What came out of the recent appearance by Hillary Clinton, prodigious liar, when she was examined by a House Committee over the "Benghazi Affair" is hard to credit. For ordinary, God-fearing people, it seems incredible.
The "Affair" has faded in memories, somewhat. In 2012, just before the upcoming presidential election, Al Qaeda attacked a US embassy outpost in Benghazi. Four Americans, including the ambassador, Chris Stevens lost their lives as a result. Within twenty-four hours President Obama and Hillary Clinton (then Secretary of State) were proclaiming that the attack was actually a demonstration, a spontaneous uprising of outrage at an anti-Islamic video made by some random person in the United States (and hitherto watched by around five people, according to generous assumptions). Sub-text: the deaths of the four Americans were ultimately the responsibility of the random video-maker.
Thus ran the public narrative, defended by Clinton and Obama to this day.
But there is now clear, documentary evidence that Clinton and Obama and the ruling coterie were all lying and deceiving the public. They knew all along it was a terror attack and that Al Qaeda was involved. Why the cover-up? Because of the needs of propaganda and (as it is now called) framing. Obama was running for re-election on one of his few positive accomplishments--the alleged defeat of Al Qaeda. It would just not do to have clear evidence that Al Qaeda was not only alive and well, it was killing American diplomats and guards in Libya at will.
Hence a pretext, an artfully constructed falsehood, a deflection--assiduously promoted in public, the media, interviews, and declarations for weeks by Obama, Clinton, and the Administration--and held to this day.
When before the House Committee these past days, Clinton's "recovered e-mails" show, not only was she fully aware that the attack upon the Embassy was an Al Qaeda attack, but she freely acknowledged it to associates, family members, and her correspondents--as well as, to other governments.
Is there any wonder why the US is now held in such low esteem internationally? She is caught fabricating a lie. She acknowledges truthfully (yet confidentially) to selected foreign governments that the fatal attack in Benghazi was an Al Qaeda operation. Yet she and Obama tell a bold-faced lie to the American people. Is there any wonder that the US is now regarded with contempt in the international arena, as the biggest lying hound dog on the planet.
Obama and Clinton are morally bankrupt. They are unfit for office. They are perjurers. Lies, deceit and dissembling doth become them both.
Here is what came out of the Clinton's testimony:
Benghazi Committee Bombshell
By Brendan BordelonClinton Knew ‘Attack Had Nothing to Do with the Film’
National Review Online
It took two and a half hours, but Republicans members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi just dropped a bombshell on former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. In the course of his questioning of Clinton on her conduct surrounding the 2012 Benghazi attack, Ohio Republican congressman Jim Jordan revealed several new, previously overlooked e-mails indicating the Obama administration, the State Department, and Clinton herself all knew the assault was driven by al-Qaeda-linked terrorists — even while they all told the American people and the families of victims that a riot sparked by an anti-Islam YouTube video was responsible.
Jordan began by revisiting Susan Rice’s televised claim in the days after the attack that the tragedy was “a spontaneous reaction as a consequence of a [Youtube] video.” At the time, Republicans cast doubt on the idea that an anti-video demonstration had spiraled out of control. With a tough White House re-election vote just weeks away, they charged that the Obama administration was deliberately shifting the narrative in order to avoid questions over their anti-terrorism policy. And as news continued to trickle out of Libya, it became clear that the attack was a planned by Ansar al-Sharia, an al-Qaeda linked group, and that there had been no demonstration at all.
Clinton also parroted the YouTube statement in the days after the attacks, even telling family members of the victims that the pastor who made the video would be brought to justice. But on Thursday, Ohio representative Jim Jordan revealed that State Department experts knew the administration’s line on Benghazi was bogus — and that it was driven entirely by politics.
In a series of e-mails shown by Jordan, experts in the State Department’s Near East Affairs Bureau are shown reacting dubiously to Rice’s claim. “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one,” one wrote. “Off the reservation on five networks!” another responded. Another e-mail said the “WH [was] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.”
E-mails and phone transcripts unveiled by Jordan show that Clinton herself knew the attacks were driven by terrorists, even while she continued to tell the American people it was a spontaneous, video-driven assault. Approximately one hour after she signed off on a State Department release blaming the video on the night of the attack, Clinton e-mailed her family. “Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda-like group,” she wrote.
The night of the attack, Clinton also called the prime minister of Libya, explaining that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed responsibility. And in a call with Egyptian prime minister Hisham Kandil, Clinton deliberately rejected the video idea. “We know the attack had nothing to do with the film,” she says. “It was a planned attack, not a protest . . . Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda.”
Jordan confronted Clinton about the discrepancy. “I’m reading what you said, plain language,” he said. ‘“We know the attack had nothing to do with a film.’ That’s as plain as it can get. Why didn’t you just speak plain to the American people?”
“I did,” Clinton said. “If you look at my statement, as opposed to what I was saying to the Egyptian prime minister, I did state clearly. And I said it again in more detail the next morning, as did the president. I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative, congressman.”
— Brendan Bordelon is a political reporter for National Review.
No comments:
Post a Comment