Why it matters whether Benghazi was terrorism or not.

You’ve no doubt seen this bit about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton losing control and snapping back at Senator Ron Johnson’s reasonable, if pointed, observation that the White House kept pushing out a fake narrative on the terrorist strike on, and murder of, our embassy staff in Libya:

Before we go any further: we knew by the day afterward that Benghazi was a terrorist attack.  The White House simply refused to admit it because telling the truth about four murdered Americans was less important than winning a Presidential election.  Anyway, TWS quoted the relevant bit: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it 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?”

A lot of people are going off on this, for a lot of different reasons: here’s mine.  It matters because – contra Hillary Clinton’s tacit attitude, and frankly, contra Barack Obama’s tacit attitude, too – the US government exists for the benefit of its citizens, and it is responsive to the desires and opinions of its citizens.  Not the other way around.  When one of our people gets killed, the government has no right to hide the reason, despite how personally or professionally embarrassing that the reason might be.  And it is especially important that American voters be told what is actually happening, because – and this will be a shock to the Democratic party, I’m sure – American foreign policy is ultimately supposed to be reflective of the will of the American electorate.

If you give us false information – for example, if the government lies and claims that a deliberate terrorist attack was actually due to general anti-American sentiment being taken to its logical conclusion – then there is the terrible risk that the American electorate will make bad decisions based on that false information.  Did the Obama administration even THINK that the citizenry’s response to their lies might have been Bomb Libya again?  Do they really think that Obama administration has the moral courage to refuse to do that sort of thing, if sufficiently pressed?  Did they even consider that they nearly got more innocent people killed?

…Dear God, but I hope that the answer to all of those questions was “no.”

Moe Lane

9 thoughts on “Why it matters whether Benghazi was terrorism or not.”

  1. If Hillary is allowed to bury this, then she’s got no reason not to run in 2016… does she?

  2. Not to mention that they rounded up the guy they blamed it on and threw him in prison on a flimsy pretense. They people who were horrified that we might use military tribunals to try Khalid Sheikh Muhammed for his role in the murder of thousands suddenly went quiet when a petty grifter is blamed for multiple murders, rousted out of his home in the middle of the night in front of dozens of press cameras, and jailed for supposed parole violations.

  3. How classy of Hillary. How dare someone question her about why the American people were misled about who was behind this terrorist attack. She certainly put Sen. Johnson in his place, didn’t she? Impressive.

  4. Hillary, if you have no clue as to why that’s important and you can’t answer why we allowed our embassies in unstable areas to become targets, kindly excuse yourself from humanity and stay away from us civilized folks.

  5. Don’t any of you assholes get it? She bumped her head and injured herself, she’s a sympathetic figure now. You can’t question her. She can’t remember anymore. Questioning her eminence is unpatriotic.

Comments are closed.