The House Benghazi Hearings: A Different Perspective

If the House Committee Hearings on Benghazi proved nothing else, they clearly pointed up just how politically polarized our country is -- polarized to the point that the truth of the matter under investigation is the last thing that at least one side is interested in. The Democrats' only function during these hearings was to provide support for their beleaguered presidential candidate -- a shameless liar. When they weren’t throwing her softballs, they were trying to make the case for her innocence in this matter. And when they weren’t grandstanding on her behalf, they were doing everything in their power to undermine the credibility (and, as a consequence, the integrity) of their Committee. How? By clearly stating, that, in their opinion, this Committee’s sole effort was to lynch poor, innocent Hillary; that everything that they had uncovered (or yet might uncover) had already been made clear to the public by the various other investigations that had been conducted by various other committees and agencies.

We did learn a great deal from the tireless efforts of this committee and its capable leader, Trey Gowdy. Gowdy is one of those people who remind you that there are a few decent, hardworking, sincere, dedicated, and patriotic members of Congress. He certainly showed restraint in dealing with the minority members of his Committee.

First, what did we learn that we may not have known before? A couple of things of critical importance: (1) That Hillary knew, without question, at the very time the Benghazi catastrophe was in progress, that it was not the result of an innocent protest that had gone terribly astray as the result of an anti-Muslim video (the story which she had been trying to sell to the American public); (2) that some of the emails that she had sought to pass off as not being classified, were in fact classified; and (3) that it was thanks to this Committee’s efforts that we learned of her inappropriate (and possibly illegal) use of a private server (as well as private emails) that may have produced a national security violation. But, even were this not the case -- that, in the final analysis, the Committee had only confirmed what we already knew (and this is not the case) -- what were the Democrat Congressmen so afraid of? Why did they feel it necessary to impugn the integrity of their Republican colleagues at every turn -- by practically stating that this hearing was nothing but a political witch hunt (a conclusion in which they may have thought they found support in the idiotic statement made by Kevin McCarthy some weeks earlier)?

Hillary tried to do her typical dance with the truth with respect to the video assertion, by stating that yes it was true that we knew it was a terrorist attack since Ansar al Sharia immediately claimed responsibility for the attack. But then, she asserted, they seemed to back away from that the next day. How does she square this circle with the fact that she was not only playing up the video-as-a-cause argument days later, but greeted the families of the deceased on their coffined return with the comforting assurance that they were going to get the producer of the video and punish him for causing this tragedy. Several of the family members of the deceased have since appeared on TV confirming Hillary’s comforting (and dishonest) words to them.

She clearly blamed the video for some time after the incident, even though she had emailed members of her family and a couple of world leaders clearly stating that she and the president knew at the time of the attack that it was indeed a planned terrorist action that had nothing to do with a video or a harmless protest that had gone off the tracks. Her efforts to try to square this circle fell far short of the mark -- notwithstanding the vigorous efforts of the Democrats on the Committee.

She also stated in these Hearings that she was responsible -- for the tragedy I assume. When one congressman tried to pin down what it was exactly that she was responsible for, she rambled on for a few meaningless sentences. If she was indeed responsible -- which she was, since it was a State Department lapse that happened on her watch, and she was the head of the State Department -- she tried to fob this off as the responsibility of her security people. But even if that is so, don’t they work for her? And isn’t she responsible for their lapses -- particularly where 4 Americans died as the result of those lapses? And, as one astute congressman inquired, has anyone been fired or otherwise held accountable for those lapses? And why were Ambassador Steven’s repeated requests for additional security repeatedly denied? And why had none of them ever been brought to her attention -- particularly since the ambassador was not only her agent, but her “good friend?”

In any event, since the hearings produced no obvious “gotcha” moment, the Dems and the Media (is there a difference?) deemed her a winner, and her poll numbers spiked shortly thereafter. But they are wrong -- as noted above, there was a “gotcha” moment, at least for the national election, if not for the Democrat primaries. There were emails to her family and to the Egyptian prime minister clearly indicating that she (and the administration) were contemporaneously aware that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack that had nothing to do with any video. And that will come back to bite her in the national election (unless the Republicans, as they are want to do, find some way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). For purposes of the Democrat Primary, all Hillary had to do was not look angry or too dishonest (which, for her, is no easy task) and come up with any explanation for any blunder that didn’t look too absurd -- in short, just survive the Hearing with no serious body blows -- and the Dems would be happy. Let’s remember, her only primary opposition is a geriatric lunatic who wants to turn the U.S. into a third-world country (and do it more rapidly than Hillary). So unless the FBI comes up with an indictable offense with respect to her email situation, she’s home free as far as the Democrat nomination is concerned. And with this Justice Department, there will be no indictments unless they uncover a memo in which Hillary clearly states that she wanted Stevens et al dead.

But in the general election, the Benghazi Committee’s discoveries should doom Hillary’s electoral prospects -- by revealing that, in addition to being a pathological liar, she is a hopeless leader and a pathetic loser. If not, the real losers will be the truth and, as a consequence, America.

If the House Committee Hearings on Benghazi proved nothing else, they clearly pointed up just how politically polarized our country is -- polarized to the point that the truth of the matter under investigation is the last thing that at least one side is interested in. The Democrats' only function during these hearings was to provide support for their beleaguered presidential candidate -- a shameless liar. When they weren’t throwing her softballs, they were trying to make the case for her innocence in this matter. And when they weren’t grandstanding on her behalf, they were doing everything in their power to undermine the credibility (and, as a consequence, the integrity) of their Committee. How? By clearly stating, that, in their opinion, this Committee’s sole effort was to lynch poor, innocent Hillary; that everything that they had uncovered (or yet might uncover) had already been made clear to the public by the various other investigations that had been conducted by various other committees and agencies.

We did learn a great deal from the tireless efforts of this committee and its capable leader, Trey Gowdy. Gowdy is one of those people who remind you that there are a few decent, hardworking, sincere, dedicated, and patriotic members of Congress. He certainly showed restraint in dealing with the minority members of his Committee.

First, what did we learn that we may not have known before? A couple of things of critical importance: (1) That Hillary knew, without question, at the very time the Benghazi catastrophe was in progress, that it was not the result of an innocent protest that had gone terribly astray as the result of an anti-Muslim video (the story which she had been trying to sell to the American public); (2) that some of the emails that she had sought to pass off as not being classified, were in fact classified; and (3) that it was thanks to this Committee’s efforts that we learned of her inappropriate (and possibly illegal) use of a private server (as well as private emails) that may have produced a national security violation. But, even were this not the case -- that, in the final analysis, the Committee had only confirmed what we already knew (and this is not the case) -- what were the Democrat Congressmen so afraid of? Why did they feel it necessary to impugn the integrity of their Republican colleagues at every turn -- by practically stating that this hearing was nothing but a political witch hunt (a conclusion in which they may have thought they found support in the idiotic statement made by Kevin McCarthy some weeks earlier)?

Hillary tried to do her typical dance with the truth with respect to the video assertion, by stating that yes it was true that we knew it was a terrorist attack since Ansar al Sharia immediately claimed responsibility for the attack. But then, she asserted, they seemed to back away from that the next day. How does she square this circle with the fact that she was not only playing up the video-as-a-cause argument days later, but greeted the families of the deceased on their coffined return with the comforting assurance that they were going to get the producer of the video and punish him for causing this tragedy. Several of the family members of the deceased have since appeared on TV confirming Hillary’s comforting (and dishonest) words to them.

She clearly blamed the video for some time after the incident, even though she had emailed members of her family and a couple of world leaders clearly stating that she and the president knew at the time of the attack that it was indeed a planned terrorist action that had nothing to do with a video or a harmless protest that had gone off the tracks. Her efforts to try to square this circle fell far short of the mark -- notwithstanding the vigorous efforts of the Democrats on the Committee.

She also stated in these Hearings that she was responsible -- for the tragedy I assume. When one congressman tried to pin down what it was exactly that she was responsible for, she rambled on for a few meaningless sentences. If she was indeed responsible -- which she was, since it was a State Department lapse that happened on her watch, and she was the head of the State Department -- she tried to fob this off as the responsibility of her security people. But even if that is so, don’t they work for her? And isn’t she responsible for their lapses -- particularly where 4 Americans died as the result of those lapses? And, as one astute congressman inquired, has anyone been fired or otherwise held accountable for those lapses? And why were Ambassador Steven’s repeated requests for additional security repeatedly denied? And why had none of them ever been brought to her attention -- particularly since the ambassador was not only her agent, but her “good friend?”

In any event, since the hearings produced no obvious “gotcha” moment, the Dems and the Media (is there a difference?) deemed her a winner, and her poll numbers spiked shortly thereafter. But they are wrong -- as noted above, there was a “gotcha” moment, at least for the national election, if not for the Democrat primaries. There were emails to her family and to the Egyptian prime minister clearly indicating that she (and the administration) were contemporaneously aware that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack that had nothing to do with any video. And that will come back to bite her in the national election (unless the Republicans, as they are want to do, find some way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory). For purposes of the Democrat Primary, all Hillary had to do was not look angry or too dishonest (which, for her, is no easy task) and come up with any explanation for any blunder that didn’t look too absurd -- in short, just survive the Hearing with no serious body blows -- and the Dems would be happy. Let’s remember, her only primary opposition is a geriatric lunatic who wants to turn the U.S. into a third-world country (and do it more rapidly than Hillary). So unless the FBI comes up with an indictable offense with respect to her email situation, she’s home free as far as the Democrat nomination is concerned. And with this Justice Department, there will be no indictments unless they uncover a memo in which Hillary clearly states that she wanted Stevens et al dead.

But in the general election, the Benghazi Committee’s discoveries should doom Hillary’s electoral prospects -- by revealing that, in addition to being a pathological liar, she is a hopeless leader and a pathetic loser. If not, the real losers will be the truth and, as a consequence, America.