Hillary Clinton, former First Lady and former U.S. Senator,
is soon to step down as Secretary of State --- and none to soon.
Just days earlier, Clinton finally testified before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs
Committee about what she knew, or supposedly knew, regarding
the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya on September
11, 2012 by radical Islamics which resulted in the deaths of the
American Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other
Americans, and ten other Americans being injured. To recap,
let's take a look at what transpired to bring about this terrible
There had been some violent incidents at the consulate dating
back to April 2012. Two former security guards for the
consulate threw a homemade "fish bomb" IED over the fence
at the building; happily no casualties resulted from this action.
In May 2012 an affiliate of Al-Qaida claimed responsibility
for an attack on the International Red Cross office in Benghazi.
The Red Cross immediately closed their office there.
On June 10 British ambassador to Libya Dominic Asquith
survived an assassination attempt in Benghazi. The British
Foreign Office withdrew all of their consular staff before
the month's end.
On the day of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission,
about 200 Islamic activists protested against the film,
"The Innocence of Muslims" in at the U.S. Embassy in
Cairo. After the attack, CNN reported that a Benghazi
security officer and a U.S. battalion commander met with
U.S. diplomats three days beforehand, warning them of
the deteriorating security in Benghazi, saying that the
situation "scared us". Ambassador Stevens had repeatedly
requested security enhancement in communiques to the
White House, but his plaintive requests were not heeded.
On September 11 (a terrible irony!), the ambassador and
three other Americans were brutally murdered by radical
Islamics that had attacked the compound. The string of
aforementioned events were an eloquent warning of trouble
ahead that Team Obama never picked up on.
Although the next day President Barack Obama issued a
statement condemning the attack. Secretary Clinton had
followed this up with a statement of her own that day,
describing the attackers as "heavily armed militants"
and reaffirmed the United States' "commitment to
religious tolerance" (the film in question supposedly
cast Islam in a negative light, at least where radical
Islamists were concerned). She and the president went
on to eulogize the slain Americans over the coming
days. The White House even called the attack a "terrorist
attack", with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney
using those exact words to describe the incident in a
press release. But when members of both the House and
the Senate tried to get more information on the attack,
they were rebuffed by President Obama. Beyond some
limited information given by Secretary Clinton in a
classified briefing, there were still things left to be
desired in the minds of more than a few congressional
members, but nothing more seemed to be forthcoming.
The administration announced that the attack was a spontaneous
response to a hateful video, but Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
countered that this was "patently false", and asked "What
did the president know? When did he know it? And
what did he do about it?" For Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI),
Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said
on September 13 that the attack looked to have the
hallmarks of the work of al-Qaeda and furthermore,
stated that he "(saw) no information that shows that there
was a protest going on ... It was clearly designed to be an
attack." Perhaps Rep. Rogers was able to discern some
evidence of forethought and planning in the attack.
Rep. Rogers and his colleagues on his committee
would most likely know, and had concluded that the
consulate should have been better secured before and
after the attack.
So when Secretary Clinton testified before Congress
and was pressed by some senators, especially Ron
Ron Johnson (R-WI) as to why the nation was misled
for weeks following the fateful attack, Secretary
Clinton angrily fired back with "What difference,
at this point, does it make?" Hillary, four of your
fellow Americans, including an ambassador in your
charge, were violently murdered by bloodthirsty
radical Islamists who attacked the American consulate
in a distant country, the ambassador having made
repeated plaintive requests for greater security which
you and the president didn't respond to --- which may
well have kept these four people alive and protected!
Does that not make a difference to you? Your outraged
Peasant shudders to think what Clinton's honest answer
to that question would be.
And all this, from an administration which its president
claimed would be a transparent administration. This
sorry lot has all the transparency of mud!
And it was Republican senators who pitched the hard
questions to Secretary Clinton, while the Democrat
senators lobbed the soft stuff to her. Predictable.
And the stonewalling continues. Team Obama refuses
to tell the truth about these events unless an irate,
indignant public pressures them into doing so.
And sadly, that indignation is not very evident; the
so-called mainstream media still is able to lull and
bamboozle many people into accepting the "official"
version of things, into not questioning anything, just
going along with the "narrative". This is but one way
in how come just enough of the American electorate
voted to give Obama and company a second term.
We must keep up the pressure to get Congress to
initiate and carry out a full investigation into this
avoidable tragedy. For this administration cares
little about the people, even their own foreign
policy team, and little about the truth. And Secretary
Clinton still entertains thoughts of making another
run for the White House when Obama's final term
runs out! Hillary Clinton is as big a liar and obfu-
scator as her husband, and she was therefore an
all-too-perfect tool for a president whose talent
and propensity for lying rivals, if not surpasses,
those of both Clintons. It is good that she will no
longer be our top diplomat, given the above; she
should not ever be our head of state, and for the