In typical left-wing fashion, Sec. of State Hillary Clinton appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to testify on the investigation into the events which claimed the lives of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya and said that it really makes no difference why the attack occurred… blah, blah, blah. Of course it makes a difference! It makes a big difference!

Why does it make a difference? Because from the time the attacks occurred the Obama administration all spoke from the same script: The attacks were due to a spontaneous uprising because of outrage over an anti-Muslim Internet video. For weeks, administration officials repeated this story. In speech after speech, Barack Obama said the same thing.

Then later we learned that this was a planned, coordinated attack, and that almost immediately, the administration knew it was terrorism. So why promote a false storyline?

As reported by the Washington Times, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) questioned Clinton on the false Benghazi story:

Mr. Johnson, a newly added member to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, had asked why the Obama administration had not been able to ascertain what had happened by simply asking officials who had been in Benghazi on the night of the attack.

He asked why Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on news talk shows five days after the attack to assert that the assault emerged from spontaneous protests against the video that had swept across the region on Sept. 11.

Mr. Johnson asserted that Mrs. Rice had appeared to be “purposefully misleading the American public,” and he demanded for Mrs. Clinton to explain why “we were misled that there were supposedly protests.”

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” Mrs. Clinton said as the exchange grew heated.

The Daily Caller reports that during the testimony, Clinton said she was not responsible for putting Susan Rice in front of the television cameras nor did she help craft the talking points:

Rice drew sharp condemnation for portraying the attack as anything other than terrorism and withdrew her name from consideration to be Secretary of State when it became clear that a confirmation by the Senate would be a heavy lift.

Clinton said she was not the person who selected Rice to be the public face, nor was she involved in putting together the talking points on which Rice relied that day.

“I personally was not focused on talking points, I was focused on keeping our people safe,” Clinton said.

Sen. Rand Paul blasted Clinton for the mistakes made and told her that if he were president, she would have been relieved of her post:

Finally, a Republican is stepping forward and telling it like it is!

And so we have round one in the books and we are nowhere closer to learning why a blatantly false story was presented to the American people. Could it be that a terrorist attack in a country that Obama claims to have helped “liberate” doesn’t fit nicely into his story that al Qaeda is on the run? It seems that it’s so easy to blame an Internet video rather than seeing the reality that terrorism is thriving and regrouping under Obama’s watch. That’s the real story!

No votes yet.
Please wait...