By DICK MORRIS
Published on
DickMorris.com on January 24, 2012
During the entire farce of the Senate Hearing on Benghazi, nobody
mentioned the words video or film or movie. Or the word cover-up. It
would be like covering a moon shot without mentioning the word space.
Reality to the Senate: The only reason for the hearing was to determine
how the decision to cover-up the Benghazi killings by pretending it was
a demonstration gone awry. It was not to decide how to avoid these
situations in the future or to ask about State Department procedures.
We just re-elected a president who won, in part, by deliberately
deceiving us about a terror attack on September 11th, the eleventh
anniversary of the original attack. He pretended that the violence was
connected to a video and it was not. That is what these hearings should
have been about.
Instead, they were about everything but.
It wasn't until Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Cal) in the House
hearing -- after three hours of Capitol Hill testimony -- that anyone
even mentioned the film or the video. To his credit, Rohrabacher asked
the question squarely and to her discredit, Hillary ducked it.
When Senator Jeff Flake and John McCain got
closer to the issue of the cover-up -- without addressing it directly --
Hillary flared and asked "what difference does it make?" It makes
quite a difference. Tony Blair was forced out of office because he
"sexed up" a memo about Saddam's WMD capabilities. If President
Obama blamed the attack in Libya on a film, knowing that it was not a
demonstration but a planned terrorist attack and did so two months
before an election, then that is an impeachable offense. That's
what difference it makes.
But, even within the foul lines of the soft ball questions she was
asked, Hillary's replies were evasive.
Her best, which deserves a place in history, was when she asked if she
knew of the twenty previous attacks in Benghazi she replied, "I was
aware of those that were brought to my attention."
She said she was "not involved in the talking points" White House
spokespeople used to describe the attack. But then she admitted
her staff was. So she was involved.
She pleaded a lack of capability to stem the attack. But in an age
of supersonic planes, drones, and cruise missiles, can she really
maintain that we had no military assets to bring to bear? The
truth is that Obama wanted to keep our footprint in Libya light so as
not to evoke their - and his own - dismal memories of European and
Western colonialism with a robust military presence. It was
political correctness, not a lack of military assets, which made it
impossible to save our ambassador's life.
And then there was the phone that never rang. Pressed by Sen. Ron
Johnson of Wisconsin on why she didn't just call the men who returned
from Benghazi to find out what happened, she claimed not to want to
interfere with an ongoing investigation. Is there anyone who
believes that? Isn't it more likely that she didn't want to know
the truth so that she didn't have to embarrass her president by
contradicting him?
Why didn't she talk with the Assessment Review Board investigating the
episode? Because she had no knowledge of the security issues.
It's not her affair! That's like a Secretary of Defense saying he
didn't know about the military situation. She's Secretary of
State. That's what her job is about.
President Obama got away with a massive cover-up pure and simple and his
escape was evident in the pathetic questioning and evasive answers in
the Hillary Clinton testimony.
Subscribe to Dick's Newsletter
|