History will remember Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s performance before senators and House members at the congressional Benghazi hearings as a stunning indictment of her profound failures and those of Obama administration.
In jaw-dropping testimony, Clinton defiantly defended her incompetence and her supreme lack of critical thinking, while making the stunning admission that the motive and immediate cover-up of an act of war and the resultant slaughter of an American ambassador and three attaches representing America abroad “didn’t matter.” It was, in fact, a matter of life and death. What could matter more?
The only thing more shocking than Hillary’s braying on her gross negligence was the media’s effusive praise afterward, lauding her performance as “winning the first presidential debate” of 2016.
The biggest and most overlooked aspect of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony last week was that she used the word “jihadists” to refer to the enemy, in defiance of the Obama administration’s longstanding prohibition of any mention of Islam in defining the ongoing threats and acts of war against the U.S. Hillary’s jihad declarations ran afoul of Obama CIA pick John Brennan’s denial that our foes are jihadists, and in contradiction to the Obama administration’s policy of arming those jihadists in Libya.
Barack Obama has advanced jihad and the Shariah throughout his presidency. The Obama administration’s official talking points in the fallout of the slaughter in Benghazi were Shariah-adherent. Obama, Hillary and Susan Rice blamed freedom of speech, yet again advancing the Islamic supremacist goal of imposing Shariah domestically and internationally. This has included repeated denials that our foes are “jihadists” at all. And so Clinton’s usage was a stunning anomaly. Perhaps it was because she is resigning, or maybe the denial of reality was no longer possible.
Clinton was hardly consistent, though. When she was pressed on whether Ambassador Stevens and the other victims of jihad in Benghazi were killed because of a video about Muhammad, she shouted the now-famous words: “What difference does it make?” This was just after Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pointed out that if Hillary had made a “simple phone call” to the Benghazi consulate, she would have known that there was no protest. In response, Clinton first claimed that state officials had decided not to speak to anyone in Benghazi before the FBI did, and when pressed further, she started shouting. They were the actions of a guilty toddler caught in the act.
Hillary copped out on the big lie, blaming a YouTube video (that is, blaming freedom of expression) for the attacks. There was no basis in fact for that. None. When pressed, Hillary passed the buck to “intelligence.” That may be so, but if you were secretary of state and America was under attack, wouldn’t you want to see the evidence of such a claim? And if I had the information at Atlas Shrugs within 24 hours, wouldn’t a secretary of state have better access to intel?
And what difference does it make? All the difference in the world. Our people were killed and continue to be slaughtered because of jihad. This willful blindness puts us all at risk. How can we win a war if we are afraid to speak to the motive? Four months after the attack, the secretary of state said she still did not know why our embassy was attacked. Incompetent liar or spineless coward? Is it any wonder we are losing the war?
What difference does it make? Life and death. More murders of Americans. The New York Times reports that some Algeria jihadists took part in the Benghazi jihad. And why didn’t she grant requests to improve security at the Benghazi consulate? She says she didn’t see them. That’s as hard to believe as the Obama administration claim that Islamic jihadists aren’t Islamic jihadists. Clinton didn’t read the cable from Stevens begging for security? After the attacks on the British embassy? She should have been fired for that alone.
Then, when asked why she didn’t go on the Sunday morning interview shows after Benghazi, Clinton said that she “didn’t like” going on them and “had better things to do.” Uh, that’s your job, Madame Secretary. Hillary had better things to do than answer to the American people? (Susan Rice went on instead, and made all those unbelievable statements about how this was all a protest over a video.)
Clinton also continued to display her relentless partisanship throughout the questioning that followed her testimony, as she played with her pencil, paper and pantsuit when Republicans questioned her, but listened intently when Democrats heaped praise and accolades on her myriad failures. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., lauded Hillary’s work for women’s rights across the world. Yes, helping install the Shariah in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia (and more countries to come) has done wonders for women.
If I were in the Foreign Service, I would be very worried about my security after her testimony. As an American, I am worried about our national security. The Republicans never took off the kid gloves, save Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C.
Hillary’s testimony was a sorry end to her pathetic stint as secretary of state. She railed against jihadists, but just last month, she accused Israel of lacking “empathy” with and “generosity” toward the “Palestinian” jihadists. She was demanding that Jews empathize with their annihilationists. She wanted Jews to “be generous” with those obsessed with their quest to eliminate and exterminate the tiny Jewish state. She railed against jihadists, but she has partnered with them in Egypt and Libya and Gaza and Syria.
And in April 2012, Hillary overruled House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., and released funds to jihadists in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. But the American people do not want to support Islamic jihad, ethnic cleansing and Islamic Jew hatred. So what happened to a government by the people and for the people?
Good riddance, Madame Secretary. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
|
