If the Benghazi committee doesn’t ask Hillary this ONE question, it’s a waste of time

Right now, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is appearing before the much-maligned Benghazi special committee. Let’s be honest with ourselves right up front, if this were a former Republican Secretary of State going before a Democrat majority hearing over the deaths of four Americans in a very questionable military operation, there would be no negative press.

Furthermore, does anyone believe that a Republican official under this type of scrutiny would be able to run for president? Heck no! The liberal progressive media would be having a field day. Remember the bumper stickers, “Bush Lied, Americans Died?” Well, let’s remember that John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, and others said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction — funny, their names were not on the bumper sticker.

As Hillary Clinton, certainly now the crowned Democrat presidential nominee, has taken the oath before the committee, there is only one question that need be asked. Here is how I would ask it, “Secretary Clinton, did you lie about the impetus behind the Benghazi terrorist attack?”

And I would not allow any typical Clintonian obfuscation. I reiterate, “Mrs. Clinton, this is a yes or no question, did you or did you not lie about the cause, the impetus behind the Benghazi terrorist attack?”

Ladies and gents, nothing else matters. Truly, if Mrs. Clinton responds “no” that she did not lie, then the American people knows she has perjured herself. If she responds “yes” then she admits she was part of a purposeful deception of the American people surrounding the abandonment and deaths of four Americans.

I would then adjourn the hearing and end the committee, and allow the American people to decide the future of one Hillary Rodham Clinton. If the American people are fine with someone who wants to be commander-in-chief who proven she will abandon Americans to die and lie about it — this was certainly not about an anti-Islam video — they get what they deserve. If the liberal left media has such politicized morals and character that they feel this is excusable, then we are in a far more serious situation as a nation than ever imagined.

And you must understand, there are many other circumstances surrounding the un-Constitutional Libyan invasion operation, as The Daily Beast presents, “When Hillary Clinton appears before Congress’s special committee on Benghazi Thursday, she’ll likely be asked all the wrong questions. Clinton will be peppered with queries about why she kept a private email server, what caused the 2012 attacks on the U.S. special consulate in Benghazi, and how come U.S. forces didn’t respond more quickly to the strikes. But the really important issues—the questions longstanding followers of the U.S. and NATO intervention want answered—are: Why did Hillary Clinton push for strikes that contributed to the fall of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi? And why didn’t the Obama administration bother to plan for the all-too-predictable chaos that came next?

In 2011, as the United States considered intervention, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among those who pushed for intervention—without resolving just how Libya would be governed after Gaddafi, according to a senior defense official who was part of the decision-making process. Obama advisers like Samantha Power and Susan Rice also made the case alongside Clinton.

They argued the U.S. had a moral obligation to save lives in Benghazi facing a threatened genocide by Libyan dictator Gaddafi. The only strategy spelled out publicly was that the Europeans’ newly formed “Libyan Transitional Council” would be at the forefront of the effort.

Washington was “leading from behind,” to use a famous phrase from the era. As then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who opposed the U.S. intervention, frustratingly explained to The Daily Beast: “We were playing it by ear.” But to Clinton, Libya was—and still remains—a major achievement. “We came, we saw, he died,” she crowed in October 2011. “Smart power at its best” is how Clinton described it during the most recent Democratic debate.”

Folks, there’s nothing “smart” about toppling a foreign government without a follow-up plan — hey, isn’t that what the left said about George W. Bush and Iraq? Oops, I forget the rules of the road, liberal progressive hypocrisy.

I find it so interesting that the liberal left, and some very questionable members of the GOP, still blame ISIS and the failure in the Middle East on Bush. How ludicrous. Yet, the morass that has become Libya based on Obama and Clinton’s folly is hardly mentioned. We rented out our intelligence and air assets to Islamic jihadists who now run the oil rich country of Libya — yes, ISIS has an established base of operations, a sanctuary. Nothing smart about that.

And we now know that Gaddafi was willing to leave and allow for a peaceful transition — after all, he’d come clean about his nuclear weapons program. And the excuse about staving off a mass genocide just doesn’t fly, why not intervene in Syria? After all, the infamous Obama red line was crossed and there has been a massive genocide of Syrians by Bashar Assad who we were told must go. And go Assad did — he went to Russia to meet with Vladimir Putin.

To my dear friends on the liberal progressive socialist left, tell me, would you just blow all of this off if it were a Republican president and former secretary of state running for president?

There is only one reason why a lie is proliferated such as Obama, Clinton, and Susan Rice did surrounding the Benghazi incident — you are hiding something.

And even the Daily Beast is challenging the whole narrative produced by Obama and Hillary, “In the email caches released so far from her personal account, former adviser Sidney Blumenthal repeatedly kept Libya before Clinton, sharing his views of the situation, at the time contradicting the diplomats working for Clinton. Blumenthal, a longtime adviser to both Clinton and President Clinton, was not an expert on the region. And yet, the day after the attack in Benghazi, Blumenthal drafted an email to Clinton that read like a State Department cable.

He said his sources were those that had “direct access to the Libyan Transitional National Council, as well as the highest European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services.” And those sources said the attack was the result of a protest “inspired by what many devout Libyans viewed as a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Mohammed originating in America.” It’s a narrative that was quickly disproven.”

So why was this elaborate deception created based on emails we know came from Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, whose big brother is head of CBS?

You know what I find most amazing? The only person who has been prosecuted and jailed over this whole episode was the shadowy fella who did the video — and who died because of his actions. Similarly, Bowe Bergdahl may just walk free after deserting his post in a combat zone — but he did serve with honor and distinction according to Susan Rice.

So America, ask yourself, are we so polarized as a nation that we will sit there and just say, move along, nothing to see here? Stop attacking Hillary Clinton and leave her alone so she can freely run for president, commander-in-chief? Why does Hillary Clinton deserve a pass when four Americans — Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Ty Woods and Glen Doherty — were attacked, and no one came to their rescue. The lost their freedom. They lost their lives.

There is only one question to be asked, “Mrs. Clinton, did you lie about the nature of the Benghazi attack?” And this is no laughing matter like wiping a server clean with a cloth. Her answer and our response as a nation will tell a lot about who we have become.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here