Hillary Knew More Than She Is Saying--Was There A Cover-up To Protect Her 2016 Prospects?

What Difference Does It Make?: Blaming The Dead For Benghazi

January 24, 2014 by Sam Rolley 

 34 13

 

 2 79

“What difference does it make?” –Hillary Clinton on Jan. 23, 2013, in response to Congressional questions about the obvious holes in the official narrative provided by her and the White House surrounding the Benghazi terror attacks that killed four Americans in Sept. 2012.  

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other ranking Obama Administration officials lied about what happened in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.

But Clinton wasn’t the one out pushing the lies. Instead, the State Department suckered then Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice into hitting the television news gamut to lie in an effort cover Clinton’s derelict of duty as the Nation’s top diplomat.

For serving as Clinton’s stunt double, Rice would later get a raise.

After failing in its attempts to push on a skeptical public the lie that U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his colleagues died as a result of a poorly produced video insulting Muhammad, the Administration quietly backed down. The new Democratic strategy for protecting lefty it-girl Clinton and her boss, President Barack Obama, was to stay quiet and accuse anyone who dared bringing up the dead Americans in Benghazi of fueling a false controversy.

By claiming that any questions about the strange events leading up to Benghazi should only exist in the minds of conspiracy theorists until the government’s official review of the attacks was completed, Democrats brilliantly set in motion what could be the Nation’s most shameless passing of the buck.

By not accepting responsibility, the Democrats helped themselves in three major ways. Obama was afforded the ability to brush off any questions about his leadership until after he was comfortably re-elected. Clinton was allowed to bow out of office with ample time to rebuild her image before her next Presidential bid. And while Americans waited for answers, recollections of the initial government explanations were dulled.

When Clinton was asked about the lies just over a year ago, she said that they didn’t matter.

Last week, Americans who have followed the Benghazi saga from the very beginning found out exactly why it matters that top Administration officials lied with the release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on the attacks.

The report concluded that the attack was preventable; but, oddly enough, it also went out of its way to absolve Clinton of any responsibility for the American deaths.

The report does fault the State Department for a lack of security in Benghazi. But Clinton’s name doesn’t appear in the body of the report; instead surfacing only once, in an addendum included by Republican lawmakers.

Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Jim Risch of Idaho, Dan Coats of Indiana, Marco Rubio of Florida and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, asserted in the addendum: “Ultimately, however, the final responsibility for security at diplomatic facilities lies with the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. At the end of the day, she was responsible for ensuring the safety of all Americans serving in our diplomatic facilities. Her failure to do so clearly made a difference in the lives of the four murdered Americans and their families.”

The addendum was condemned by Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who said in a statement, “I want the record to be clear: I condemn any efforts to use this report for political purposes.”

And mainstream media pretty much ignored the addition, instead turning the blame for the attacks on someone who, because of the State Department’s negligence, is no longer able to defend himself: Ambassador Stevens.

Former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy Gregory Hicks noticed the blame-Stevens trend and, in a Wall Street Journal editorial this week, condemned media for doing so:

When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel, from the State Department and the U.S. military, assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador’s authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris’s authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.

To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris “was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together.” He added, “Quit blaming the dead guy.”

Clinton was aware of what she was doing from the moment Steven’s blood ceased to flow through his body. That’s why the State Department’s initial lies are and were so important.

While Rice bought time pushing a bogus narrative, Clinton huddled — likely with some of the same strategy friends responsible for her political hit list — to come up with the best plan to protect her 2016 ambitions in light of her failures.

Unfortunately for Clinton, she couldn’t have anticipated the other scandals which have poured from the Obama Administration in the past year, making Americans more skeptical of political elitists than ever before. If Clinton is preparing for a White House bid, she’s going to have to come to terms with the fact that her failures led to American deaths is still, and will remain, to borrow from Joe Biden, a big f***in’ deal.