Ken Berwitz
The New York Timeshas done it again.
Here is its latestidiotorial – this one demanding that Republicans shut down the Benghaziinvestigation – with my comments in blue:
House Republicans may bedisinclined to disband the Select Committee on Benghazi with the presidential race heating up. But at thevery least they should rename their laughable crusade, which has cost taxpayers$4.6 million, “the Inquisition of Hillary RodhamClinton.” Y\’mean a Benghaziinvestigation, which came into existence specifically because emails emerged -including one from Obama\’s Communications Advisor BenRhodes, which was discovered byJudicial Watch only after invoking the Freedom Of Information Act, telling Obama\’s people how to lie about what happened there – had nothingto do with the start of these investigations? FYI: the emailreferenced above came to light a year BEFORE Hillary Clinton announced hercandidacy – but, evidently, that doesn\’t count in the NY Times editorial boardroom.
Representative Kevin McCarthy ofCalifornia, a leading candidate to become the next speaker of the House, acknowledged last week thatwas the point of burrowing into the details of the 2012 attacks on governmentfacilities in eastern Libya that killed the American ambassador and threecolleagues. This isan amazingly dishonest claim – even by what now passes for New York Timesstandards. Read the next paragraph and see why.
“Everybody thought HillaryClinton was unbeatable, right?” Mr. McCarthy said in an astonishing moment of candor that was clearlya gaffe, rather than a principled admission. “But we put together aBenghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numberstoday?” Youadmit it was clearly a gaffe, rather than a principled admission – afterINVOKING it in the previous paragraph as though McCarthy meant it exactlythat way? Holy excrement.
How about mentioning that McCarthy has said he didn\’t meanit this way countless times since, and apologized profusely for his choice ofwords? No need. Usingthis journalistic standard, you should have spent the last 7 years attackingPresident Obama for thinking there are 60 states instead of 50 (not 57, as isvery often claimed). Your bear-nakedlack of honesty here is breathtaking.
Lawmakers have long abused theirinvestigative authority for political purposes. But the effort to find Mrs.Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the Libya attacks, waspersonally responsible for the deaths has lost any semblance of credibility.It\’s become an insult to the memory of four slain Americans. Theonly credibility lost here is by the Obama administration lying to our facesabout what caused Benghazi, and stonewalling the investigation every way itcould – which is the only reason it have taken this long. And, by theway, what is your problem with the Secretary of State being held to account forthis? Who the hellshould beheld to account? A file clerk at HUD?
The deaths of Ambassador J.Christopher Stevens and his colleagues have been exhaustively investigated byseveral other congressional committees and anindependent panel of experts commissionedby the Department of State. The reviews found systemic failings at the StateDepartment. But they found no evidence that Mrs. Clinton was directlyresponsible for the security lapses, which, of course, is the goal of theRepublicans who want to derail her presidential bid. The possibility that allthose investigators have somehow missed a crucial, damning piece of evidenceseems negligible. No evidence because Hillary Clinton has spent the last yeardesperately trying to withhold it – including erasing her servers (which, as itturns out, may not have worked…and, I suspect, is the real reason the Times ishaving enough of an apoplexy to put out this idiotorial).
Led by Representative Trey Gowdy ofSouth Carolina, a former federal prosecutor, the Benghazi committee has trudgedon, summoning a seemingly endless list of witnesses who have offered little new substantive informationabout the attacks. Since it was impaneled in May 2014, the committee has spentmore than critical congressional committees, including the House Intelligenceand Veterans\’ Affairs Committees, which have oversight over bureaucracies withmultibillion-dollar budgets. Again, if Obama, Clinton & Co. had not spent the lastyear stonewalling – thus elongating the committee\’s work – this would not havehappened. Brilliant move, Times editorial board, to blame everyone butthe people who are to blame.
“There\’s nothing to justifythe committee\’s long duration or expense,” said Representative AdamSchiff, a Democrat from California who sits on the committee and has called for it to be disbanded. “We have nothing to tell the families and nothingto tell the American people.” Well,that settles things. Adam Schiff, a hardline leftward Democrat partisan,has spoken. How can anyone argue with such a neutral source?
Mrs. Clinton is scheduled totestify before the committee on Oct. 22. The hearing will give Republicansanother chance to attack the credibility and trustworthiness of the leadingDemocratic presidential candidate. It will do nothing to make Americanembassies abroad safer or help the relatives of the four killed in Libya. Boohoo. Poor set-upon Hillary. Maybe this time she\’ll have something tooffer besides “What difference does it make” – which goes unmentionedin this idiotorial…and, therefore, is apparently an acceptable answer to theTimes editorial board.
The hearing should be the lastsalvo for a committee that has accomplished nothing. If the Republicans insiston keeping the process alive, the Democrats should stop participating in thischarade. After a year of ducking, deflecting and evading, I\’d settlefor them starting to participate.
One other thing: the overriding premise of this idiotorial is that Republicans want toderail a Clinton candidacy. Has the New York Times editorial boardbothered to look at every major poll over the past three months? The onesthat show Hillary Clinton\’s candidacy dropping faster than a skydiver with adefective rip cord? Has it ever occurred to them that, with those pollsin mind, Republicans might WANT Hillary Clinton to be the candidate?
I guess not.
