Suppose you are the United States Secretary of State. 

Suppose post-qaddafi Libya – a creation of your boss, the President, who operated without benefit of constitutionally mandated congressional advice and consent – has degenerated into a governmentless spawning ground for terrorists. 

Suppose you have assets in Libya – most notably in Benghazi, which is where your ambassador and other personnel are.

Are you supposed to give a damn about what happens to them?

You\’d never know it by the indifference Hillary “what difference does it make” Clinton showed, as this real-life situation became more and more impossible.

Excerpted from Byron York\’s piece for which – unlike almost any mainstream media – looks at the emails which were grudgingly released by Ms. Clinton (the ones not destroyed, that is), and what they tell us (the bold print is mine):

Beginning in the spring of 2012, the threat – and the reality – of violence in Libya were ever-present. There was attack after attack, and warning after warning, yet none seemed to penetrate Hillary Clinton\’s carefully-constructed email world. Most significantly, on Aug. 16, 2012, less than a month before the attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens sent an urgent warning to the State Department saying Americans in Libya could not defend U.S. facilities “in the event of a coordinated attack, due to limited manpower, security measures, weapons capabilities, host nation support, and the overall size of the compound.” Clinton has testified under oath that she never saw Stevens\’ call for help.

Indeed, what is striking about Clinton\’s Libya-related emails is how few references there are to the violence that led to the Sept. 11 attack. Just to show how significant that violence was, it\’s worth looking at the State Department\’s special investigation, the Accountability Review Board, which, for all its flaws – it has been reasonably called a “whitewash” – contains a good timeline of violent events in the months leading up to the Benghazi attack.

“2012 saw an overall deterioration of the security environment in Benghazi, as highlighted by a series of security incidents involving the Special Mission, international organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and third-country nationals and diplomats,” the report said…”

Mr. York goes on to list out the “security incidents” which were noted – 20 of them in less than 5 months preceding the attack (please use my link to read his entire piece and see them).

Does Hillary Clinton claim she didn\’t know about those as well?

And even if you believe the virtually impossible – that Hillary Clinton was blissfully ignorant of everything going on in Libya – we always come back to the fact that this attack took place on September 11th.  9/11.  The one day of the year that terrorists would most want to strike the United States.  The one day above all others that our assets everywhere – but especially in terrorist-infested Libya – should have been on highest alert, with the most significant contingency plans in effect.

And yet, Ms. Clinton did nothing.  There was no increase in security.  She treated 9/11 in terrorist Libya like any other day.

Speaking bluntly, Hillary Clinton left Ambassador Chris Stevens, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty to die.

Today the media are full of news about Dennis Hastert, a former Speaker Of The House who has been out of politics for 7 years, over money he may have misappropriated and paid to someone who might have been blackmailing him over an indiscretion of years and years ago. 

We do not know any of the specifics regarding this incident, because they have not yet been made public, yet the news coverage is overwhelming.

But a former Secretary of State and current odds-on favorite to be the Democrats\’ presidential candidate in 2016 being showed up as an incompetent liar, whose misfeasance in office was material to the death of four US Citizens, including a US Ambassador?   Barely a mention.

Thank you, Byron York, for reporting this.  And indescribable shame to mainstream media for looking the other way.

How dare you call yourselves neutral journalists.  How dare you call yourselves journalists at all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *