By Stephen Z. Nemo:
With President Obama’s policies now alienating
a majority of voters, many Democrats fear public displeasure may affect more
than their control of the US Senate in 2014. It may threaten their 2016 presidential
frontrunner, Hillary Clinton. Work is
underway to rehabilitate Clinton’s image, which was tarnished by her complicity
in the Obama administration’s claim that the September 11, 2012 attack on
America’s diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, was the work of a mob angered
by an anti-Islamic video produced in America. US Ambassador Chris Stevens and
three others were killed in that attack.
As you surely know, the assault was the work
of Libyan jihadists with ties to Al Qaeda.
A December 28 New York Times article by David Kirkpatrick claimed, “Benghazi was not
infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to
American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously
planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs… contrary to
claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an
American-made video denigrating Islam.”
Then Kirkpatrick dropped this bombshell two
days later in a Tweet to his followers: “We [the New York Times] had a reporter on the scene [in Benghazi] talking
to the attackers during the attack- still invaluable.”
The Obama administration’s Benghazi cover-up
just got a lot more interesting.
Two months before the 2012 presidential
election, while Obama was telling Americans his administration had profoundly degraded
Al Qaeda’s ability to wage war, its affiliated terrorists were murdering US
Ambassador Chris Stevens, among others, while a New York Times reporter blithely took notes and interviewed terrorists
covered in American blood.
Nearly one year ago, Hillary told inquisitive
Republican Senators, “Was it [the Benghazi attack] because of a protest or was
it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans?
What difference at this point does it make?”
Charles Woods, father of slain Navy Seal Tyrone Woods (who
died along with the US ambassador in Benghazi), told Fox’s Sean Hannity, “I would say, what difference does it make?
Credibility, because in a courtroom situation we have a rule that says if a
person’s testimony is proven to be false in any part, the rest of their
testimony is to be disregarded on that subject.”
Lies have been the Obama administration’s most
trusted and constant companion. The lies aided in pulling the wool over the
eyes of disengaged Americans regarding their ability to keep truly affordable
private insurance plans under ObamaCare.
The liar is confronted with a major problem,
you see: one lie requires a host of lies to support the first. ObamaCare was born
of many lies (“If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like
your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan”).
In support of her lie concerning the motive for
the attack on the US mission in Libya, Hillary said, “Now, I know it is hard
for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just
prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day.
Now, I would note that in today’s world with today’s technologies, that is impossible.
But even if it were possible, our country does have a long tradition of free
expression, which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law, and we do not
stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful
they may be.”
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who produced the video
“The Innocence of Muslims,” spent a
year behind bars for his exercise in “free expression.”
Now the New
York Times carries a story clearly designed to rehabilitate Hillary
Clinton’s soiled image as an Obama
co-conspirator who deflected blame for the Benghazi attack from
jihadists to an American filmmaker; a scapegoat for offending the sensibilities
of hotheaded Islamists and, well, Hillary.
No comments:
Post a Comment