From USA Today:
One day after the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded the assault had been planned 10 days earlier by an al-Qaeda affiliate, according to documents released Monday by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. “The attack on the American consulate in Benghazi was planned and executed by The Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman,” said a preliminary intelligence report by the Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained through a lawsuit following a Freedom of Information Act request.
Wait…I thought that Hillary Clinton, State, President Obama and Susan Rice were all laboring under the misconception that the attack was spontaneous and prompted by a YouTube video, and the claims that the Obama Administration was stalling the revelations of what they already knew so Mitt Romney couldn’t challenge Obama’s carefully manufactured narrative that he had terrorism on the run were just partisan sour grapes. That’s been the spin the liberal press has been accepting from the White House for over two years.
What’s going on here? Well, the “narrative” carefully shifted away from the most transparent administration in history lying to the American public to excessive Republican claims that the outpost wasn’t given proper security, wasn’t rescued when it could have been, was the product of criminal incompetence. As soon as those accusations failed, Democrats and the news media promptly adopted the official Obama line: Benghazi was a “nothingburger,” in the contemptuous words of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. It was a manufactured scandal of no substance designed to discredit Hillary Clinton.
But no evidence proved that Obama, Clinton and Rice weren’t lying about the attacks being spontaneous and not organized terrorism, and all the evidence has demonstrated the contrary, with this latest piece of the puzzle simply filling in some of the blanks. Of course, the latest story wasn’t even covered by most of the mainstream media; I was shocked to see it in USA Today. Judicial Watch is a conservative organization, you see. To be fair, it’s a whack job conservative organization. That means it could legitimately discover cold fusion and the news media wouldn’t pay attention.
Maybe it isn’t news. After all, the Obama cover-up worked. As Harry Reid said, after admitting his part in the organized effort to make sure that the 2012 Presidential elections was based as much on smears, lies and slight of hand as real issues, “Romney lost, didn’t he?” Hillary’s famous dismissal of the issue in the Benghazi hearings was on the mark: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Mission accomplished. There was even an article yesterday about how the Benghazi investigation hasn’t turned up anything definitive, and is a waste of money. It’s Congress’s fault that the Obama Administration has parceled out documents, dragged its feet, derided the effort at oversight, made sure that the exercise, a core Congressional function, was represented to the public as pointless, without merit and a political “witch hunt.” This was the well tested formula that served Bill and Hillary Clinton so well muddying the investigation of Whitewater, of using the White House itself to sell political access, of Monica Madness, of the White House Travel Office and other slimy enterprises. The Democrats have mastered it now: Deny, withhold, stonewall, attack, ridicule, rationalize, drag it out, delay, and bore—and eventually the public, which has the attention span of a May fly, moves on and can’t be dragged back,—after all, David Letterman is leaving! Indeed, the “Move on” stage in the sequence was the origin of Move-On.org, the first political organization launched as the embodiment of a cynical cover-up tactic.
It was always obvious—to me, to anyone looking at the time-line, listening to the double-talk and with the integrity to be objective— that the Administration was lying about what Benghazi was and when they knew it. There was even one brief moment in time when the news media was admitting it too, when even old CBS lib Bob Schieffer admonished official White House liars for Susan Rice’s disgraceful Lie Tour of five Sunday talk shows. That was all forgotten, though, in the muddying of the waters during the investigation.
It really was brilliant. The Republicans had to look into the issues of whether the outpost had been denied adequate security and abandoned in its desperate hours. It was reasonable to assume incompetence—after all, this administration is incompetent at just about everything, and when your ambassador’s dead body is dragged into the street of a foreign city, it is obvious that somebody miscalculated somewhere. The Obama Administration parceled out the information perfectly, allowed ambiguous testimony and conflicting missives to drag out the process, and then, when the most inflammatory theories collapsed, pronounced the “scandal” over.
The real scandal was always and still is the lying and the cover-up, driven entirely by political considerations. The American public had a right to know that Obama’s handling of terrorism wasn’t as rosy as he had claimed during his campaign for re-election. It had a right to know that the YouTube nonsense, which was even carried to the UN, was a campaign lie. But now the election’s over, Mitt Romney is boxing Evander Holyfield for some reason, and ISIS is on the march. It’s too much to expect that public to care that it was lied to any more—it has been lied to so often.
Since the public no longer cares about the Benghazi charade, it figures that it doesn’t care that Hillary Clinton violated policy and government ethics making sure that her e-mails, which might have exposed that and God knows what else, couldn’t be discovered. So she destroyed some and the rest will be, the State Department says, made public carefully and gradually over many months. Of course they will. And when past lies and cover-ups are revealed by them, the public will have “moved on.”
I’m clearly too naive and idealistic for this kind of mutated democracy. I don’t think our leaders should lie to the public for their own benefit (sometimes lying is necessary for the nation’s benefit: I’m not that naive). I think citizens of all political views should resent being lied to, and that they should resent a President who knowingly employs liars. I really think—this will make you laugh and laugh—that when a group of White House staff members sit around and concoct a fake story like the YouTube fantasy and make it clear that the President, Secretary of State and U.N. Ambassador are going to keep repeating it to help the President win an election, somebody in the room should say, “Wait a minute. That’s not honest, transparent or fair. I’m not going to be part of this. In fact, if you do this, I’m going to resign and let the news media know why: there is intentional lying in the White House, and the American public deserves better treatment. In fact, it has a right to better treatment.”
Yes, I’m an idiot. I would do that. I keep expecting someone to have the guts and principles to do it. This, of course, is why I face my declining years promoting the increasingly derided practice of ethics and guiding a soon-to-be defunct quixotic theater company, while Hillary Clinton, I hear, is a lock to become President despite a near total contempt for honesty, integrity, and the intelligence of the American people.
No, I have to give credit where credit is due. The Benghazi cover-up was a masterpiece. I guess Democrats are proud.