Ed Morrissey @ The Week:
A few months ago, defenders of President Obama and Hillary Clinton cheered when Clinton angrily responded to Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wis.) questions about the attack on our consulate in Benghazi and the White House’s response by asking, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” This week, both Clinton and Obama may find out — and may soon find themselves in a trap of their own making.
Recall that the attack took place in the middle of the general election, just a couple of weeks after the party conventions. Obama and the Democrats had just argued that the administration’s foreign-policy successes, including the intervention in Libya, showed that America had a steady and seasoned commander-in-chief, and that voters should think twice before electing an untried Mitt Romney.
On the ground in Benghazi, however, the truth was that the sudden vacuum of power had liberated not eastern Libya but the Islamist terrorist networks that had long operated there. Militias competed with the weak central government’s forces for control of Benghazi, and terrorists ran much of what lay outside of the city. Other Western nations packed up their diplomatic installations and headed back to Tripoli, but not the United States. Instead, the U.S. kept its consulate open while reducing its security forces even in the face of intelligence of increasing danger and escalating attacks on Western assets.
By the time the 11th anniversary of 9/11 rolled around, the stage was set for disaster. Not only had the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department not prepared one of its most-vulnerable diplomatic outposts for a terrorist attack on the anniversary of al Qaeda’s greatest success, they had reduced security and ignored the pleas of their own ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens. Stevens inexplicably traveled to Benghazi on the anniversary and ended up being the first American ambassador murdered in the line of duty in 33 years.
Only after more than a week had passed would the Obama administration admit what had been painfully obvious: Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists had staged a coordinated attack on the consulate and another on a safe house a few hours later, and an amateurish YouTube video had nothing to do with it. After Congress demanded an investigation, the White House convened the Accountability Review Board to conduct a supposedly independent investigation. That stalled the question of incompetence and cover-up until well after the election, which Obama narrowly won, and interest waned. By December, when the ARB largely let Obama and Clinton off the hook, the story had dropped out of the national consciousness. It seemed as though the administration’s strategy to defuse those questions had worked, and that was true for a few months.
However, questions have always percolated about witnesses that never appeared before congressional committees to tell their stories. And a renewed sense that the elaborate stall-and-deny plan had gone awry came last week, when the State Department’s inspector general announced a probe into the ARB and its processes. Shortly afterward, whistle-blowers stepped forward and said that the ARB had never interviewed them, even though they had volunteered to tell their stories as witnesses to the attack. At the same time, House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa has finally deposed these witnesses. Their testimony this week could discredit Obama, Clinton, and the entire foreign-policy apparatus.
Chief among these witnesses will be Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran of the State Department and the deputy chief of mission in Tripoli. In a portion of the interviews released by Issa over the weekend, Hicks declared that the “jaw-dropping” declaration by Susan Rice about the nature of the attack was entirely false. “I never reported a demonstration,” Hicks told Issa, “I reported an attack on the consulate.” In Stevens’ last known conversation, he told Hicks, “Greg, we are under attack.”
The mainstream media carried water for Obama so he could get re-elected.
And now, even after, they still try to mitigate all of this Benghazi unpleasantness.
Is there such a thing as ”radical Islam?”
According to the Los Angeles Times, the answer is, No.
The LATimes now calls radicalized jihadi-type Muslims part of – get this – CONSERVATIVE Islam!
In a weird sense, the LATimes writer is correct.
Radical (I mean CONSERVATIVE) Muslims are those who follow their Koran/Hadith and use Mohammad as their model for life….as ALL Muslims are encouraged to do by those books.
In America Muslims were directly warned by Osama bin Ladin that they were ”apostates” for assimilating.
IF Muslims were in America and assimilated, he taught that they might be targets of jihadis.
There was no protection for such Americanized Muslims from al Qaeda, he taught.
(See The Al Qaeda Reader.)
So, our neighbors, who happen to be Muslim and are such nice folks, are the ”radicals” according to the LATimes.
And, in many Islamic places those ”radicals” are killed for apostasy.
It is the most recent demand from Islamists, 1/2 million of them.
Hifazat-e-Islam has called for enforcement of Shariah and strict blasphemy laws in the country to execute atheists.
We are in a Brave New World:
‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’
Same with ”hispanic,” “life,” “choice,” ”immigrant,” and so on.
yep they will keep on saying that until their city gets attacked. Then they will sing another tune.
@Enchanted: I would not be too sure about that — my bet is they will just double down on the stupidity
Hey, Hillary! If it doesn’t make any difference, then why not release everything, including the names of the survivors?