We all were waiting for this moment. We knew there had to be more—that something was missing –finally it came into focus–there was a key part of the Benghazi puzzle we still didn’t have. This ongoing investigation has dumbfounded all of us including the Republicans on Capitol Hill responsible for uncovering the mystery of Benghazi attack on the U. S. consulate in Benghazi that killed four Americans including our U. S. ambassador.The families—at least some families of the victims have been frustrated and upset that there has been no definitive answer to exactly what took place and the answer to why our Consulate was left vulnerable on the anniversary of 9/11. We have surmised what happened that tragic night — not only have the lingering questions not been answered, but no one has been brought to justice from an attack that took place over twenty months ago. Patience and perseverance by the Republicans may have just uncovered the truth. And,contrary to what the White House would have us believe, plenty of people have been waiting for the truth for almost two years.
The presence of the newest evidence—an email was uncovered by Judicial Watch, through a Freedom of Information Act request. The memo was titled “Prep Call with Susan”. The email was written by top White House aid Benjamin Rhodes, Deputy National Security Advisor in 2012.
The e-mail contains information that would be used for the strategy immediately following the Benghazi attack,and talking points for Susan Rice who went on five Sunday talk shows five days later on September 16. Susan Rice has said that she gave the talking points from the latest information she had received. It has really never been doubted that Susan Rice was used as a scape goat to lie to the nation about the nature of the attacks. The e-mail from Mr. Rhodes would be used for the strategy immediately following the Benghazi attack, and talking points for Susan Rice who went on five talk shows. Susan Rice has said that she gave the talking points from the latest information she had received. The e-mail is dated September 14, 2012, and is from Ben Rhodes to Susan Rice, then U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Let’s back up for just a moment. On Wednesday April 2, 2014, an ex-CIA official, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell testified before a House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Morrell testified that Obama administration officials were alerted the day before they went on national television that a key component of their Benghazi storyline might not be accurate. They clung to this storyline even after U. S. Intelligence brought out that those talking points were false—that the attack was not, in fact, the result of a video.
In the latest e-mail, Mr. Rhodes’ key objective was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video and not a broader failure of policy.” Mr. Rhodes went on to say that “since we began to see protests in response to this Internet video, the President had directed the Administration to take a number of steps. His top priority has been the safety and security of all Americans serving abroad.
On Thursday, May 1, 2014, key Republicans in the House declared that the White House displayed criminal behavior by withholding, for months, a 7-page e-mail that contains key information. This e-mail offers important information that the Obama Administration built the storyline about the anti-Muslim video. The damning e-mail shows that the response given to the American people right after the attacks was fabricated to help President Obama in the last six weeks before the presidential election of 2012. The e-mail was withheld by the State Department and should have been included in the subpoena for all relevant documents. House Speaker John Boehner in a scathing statement demanded that John Kerry must testify before Congress about why his department held the email with key information rather than submit it with all of the documents. Well, it isn’t difficult to guess why that particular e-mail was withheld, and why now the State Department says it will refuse to release it citing executive privilege. And they think Republicans are just politicizing this tragedy—they’re conducting a witch hunt?
Now there is another potential delay since the State Department is showing signs of refusing to submit the e-mail to the select committee which will be conducting new hearings in light of the latest facts.
As Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post wrote in a May 1, 2014, article entitled: THE WORST EXCUSE EVER , “The White House’s belated release of the documents at the very least show it has been actively evading legitimate congressional requests for relevant information.
Speaker John B oehner (R-)OH—made this statement: “four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi, and this White House has gone to extraordinary lengths to mislead, obstruct, and obscure what actually took place. I am appalled to learn that the administration concealed relevant documents after the House subpoenaed all emails related to the misleading talking points. When four Americans die at the hands of terrorists, the families of the victims—and the American people deserve the full unvarnished truth and nothing less. Instead, this White House has been callously dismissive of our efforts to get answers…the House has a constitutional obligation to carry out oversight of the administration, and the president has the obligation to cooperate. This evasiveness must end. Our investigation into the events of that September night is going to continue until this White House owns up to the truth—and until these terrorists are brought to justice.”
Rubin continues, “as for the content of the Rhodes email, in a raucous back and forth with ABC News’s Jonathan Karl, Jay Carney insisted that the instructions by Ben Rhodes issued on September 14, 2012 to prepare then Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice to go on multiple Sunday shows to stress the anti-Muslim video and to deny this represented a presidential lapse, didn’t refer to Benghazi.”
That was too much for a number of news people. Fox News’s Bret Baier remarked: “This was a surreal answer from Jay Carney. Now, this is a prep session with Susan Rice, getting ready for five Sunday talk shows. This is three days after the 9/11, 2012 attack. Everybody in the chain has said it’s a terrorist attack, everyone in the chain is saying there’s no protest. And yet this email, if we’re to believe Jay Carney at the White House, had nothing to do with Benghazi.”
Baier continues, “according to Carney, It was more about the broad scope of the region. Now, imagine that. What are they going to ask about on five Sunday talk shows when you have four Americans who were killed just days before? They’re not going to ask about the other protests that didn’t see any Americans killed. So then he said that the reason they didn’t put forward this email to the committee –they eventually got it to the committee redacted –was because it didn’t deal with Benghazi. Now that really strains credulity. I mean, it is really out there.”
Jake Tapper, Chief Washington Correspondent, CNN News, was similarly dubious observing, “The context of Rhodes’ email is, of course, that President Barak Obama was in the midst of a heated re-election campaign, where one of his talking points was that he had brought a steady hand in fighting terrorist, indeed that ‘al Qaeda is on the run.”
Nor were Republicans on Capitol Hill buying this. In a letter to the speaker, retiring Rep. Frank Wolfe(R-VA) stressed: “Mr. speaker, it is now abundantly clear that Senior White House staff were directly involved in coordinating the messaging in response to the Benghazi attacks and were actively working to tie the reason to the infamous Internet video, which they knew from the CIA and others was demonstrably false. In short, the administration, specifically the White House lied about a matter with direct bearing on U. S. national security in order to influence an electoral outcome. In light of these new documents, it is more clear than ever that a House Select Committee is needed to conduct a comprehensive investigation unhindered by jurisdictional barriers, interview all key administration witnesses including the White House staff identified in these e-mails, and hold public hearings to explain to the American people, once and for all, just what happened that night, and in the days and weeks that followed.”
In addition to Lindsay Graham (R-SC), Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), as well as House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) all argued that the Rhodes memo confirmed that the effort to push the video narrative for Libya came out of the White House.
It’s hard to believe that this is not a Benghazi-specific document. The White House was being bombarded by questions about the ambassador’s death. There was a ceremony broadcast live on September 14, where White House officials lined up to meet the incoming caskets of the murdered Americans. And we are to believe the Rhodes memo was about other demonstrations only? Strangely Carney does not say , “This refers to Egypt but not Libya.” To the contrary, Sen. Lindsay Graham (RSC) pointed out that “ the e-mail itself references the desire to get people who harmed Americans–the only Americans harmed—killed—were in Benghazi.”
Let’s recall the sequence of events. State Department, CIA officials and reporters have explained that within 24 hours, certainly 48 hours (Sept. 13) the State Department and CIA knew this was a planned terrorist attack. The FBI was already dispatched. A background briefing by the State Department on Sept. 12 reiterated that this was a coordinated attack. The CIA in whatever version of taking points it generated never referred to the video, yet Rhodes made that the entire focus of his narrative. (Rhodes is unlikely to be the author of a story like this. As deputy national security advisor he certainly would have either gotten the word from on high or conferred with superiors before sending Rice out with a bogus explanation for the deaths of four Americans.)”
Rep. Peter King (R-NY), a top official on the House Intelligence Committee came out on Sunday, May 4, 2014, and blasted his fellow Democrat colleague for suggesting that his fellow Democrats boycott the newly announced committee given the job of investigating the Benghazi attacks. Rep. Kling said that doing so would be “terribly arrogant” and “wrong”.
The call for a boycott was made by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) during an interview on “Fox News Sunday”.He was responding to House Speaker John Boehner’s announcement Friday that the House would vote on a select committee to investigate Benghazi. Schiff said that Democrats should not give the select committee “more credibility”, by joining, dismissing new evidence that Republicans have called a “smoking gun” showing the White House politicized the tragedy just weeks before the 2012 presidential election.
“I think it is a colossal waste of time, said Schiff, also a member of the intelligence panel. “I don’t think it makes sense, really, for Democrats to participate.” King, speaking afterward with Fox News, said this would be a mistake for Democrats as it would show they cannot defend the administration. Yes, it’s curious why if they are so sure this is a witch hunt by Republicans they wouldn’t want to go before a committee to have a chance to defend themselves and their actions. “If Democrats boycott this committee, refuse to take part, the American people are going to conclude, and I think quite rightly, that they feel they have something to hide”, King said. But, Schiff called the select committee a “tremendous
This combined with the push-back by key Democrats on being a part of a bi-partisan committee, Republicans say will only confirm that they were right all along about a cover-up because the attacks came just prior to the 2012 presidential election. Democrats used the “winning the war on ‘al Qaeda” as their key campaign platform, in the absence of being able to run on other major accomplishments such as the economy and employment.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority leader Nancy Pelosi said she could “care less” about Benghazi, but then issued a demand that the committee be divided equally between Republicans and Democrats.
Of note is the fact that White House press secretary, Jay Carney called the e-mail in question “irrelevant” and downplayed its importance, declaring that the content of the e-mail was not about Benghazi, but instead about the protests taking place across the Middle East at the time. “This document, as I said, was explicitly not about Benghazi but about the general dynamic in the Arab, or in the Muslim world at the time.” He continued with “this was part of our effort to explain our views both as a matter of policy and as a matter of what was happening on the ground with regards to the protests that were underway around the region.” Digging himself deeper, he went on to say that the email from Mr. Rhodes” was not included with the documents was because it was not directly about the Benghazi attack.”
So now we have lies on top of lies on top of lies. Do we have to wonder why the administration doesn’t want the State Department to release this “smoking gun” e-mail or why Democrats don’t want Democrats to be a part of a select committee on hearings investigating Benghazi?
Senator John McCain said, in a Fox News interview, that Carney had destroyed his reputation—with the spin. Of course, for Carney to spin it the way that he did—when the fact that he was lying was really transparent—in front of a bunch of reporters who knew he was lying was a last desperate attempt to duck the truth. He surely must know that, when he was saying all of that, there was a chance that the committee would be able to obtain that e-mail with exactly what happened and the level of the President’s involvement. Sean Hannity labeled him, “Obama’s paid liar”. Carney surely knew that, in light of the past, and in light of new evidence, neither he nor the others can lie their way out of a jam. And—he is Obama’s paid liar if one wants to put it that bluntly since at that point it’s obvious that they are attempting to protect the President, even at a heavy cost to themselves. But, the American people aren’t buying it either. Polls show that 46% of Americans think Obama himself lies at least part of the time. And those polled included a large number of Democrats and Independents.
But back to McCain. What he said in the interview with Fox offers a bit of clarity. Carney was in a heated exchange with Jon Karl of ABC News during the latest press conference. Senator McCain was in disbelief when Carney decided to take Karl to task about the e-mail– all of the time knowing that Karl and the rest of the reporters there already knew the truth and that he was attempting to spin his way out of the corner he was in at the moment. McCain in an interview with Greta Van Susteren, said, “I have never seen anything like after 19 months the emails concerning their priorities and the President’s spokesperson saying it had nothing to do with Benghazi. Now that has reached a new point.” He went on to say to Greta, “…..he has destroyed his own reputation by that statement that what clearly was the talking points, ….saying that it had nothing to do with Benghazi…”
The pathetic thing is—it is one thing to try to cover for your boss when feasible—to be loyal–it is quite another thing when you know the truth is out—to then at a personal cost to your credibility to continue to spin a web of lies…..but does the President care, or the people in the State Department, or anyone else who is lying. What is his return for paying such a large public price— for being Obama’s number one stooge. Democratic strategist Doug Shoen said that “I am…hard-pressed to believe that what Jay Carney has said–day after day, week after week—is anything but the most obvious political spin.” Shoen goes on to say “I wouldn’t do it if I were him…[sic]”
As if it weren’t enough that he had already offered transparent blatant lies, when ABC reporter Jon Karl was slamming him during the press conference about why the important e-mail had not been released to Congress, Carney incredulously answered, “I can say it again and again, and I know you keep asking again and again. This document was not about Benghazi.”
This is one good reason for Republicans to go on with a select committee to get to the bottom of Benghazi, as Jay Carney is actively still lying about Benghazi and the cover-up, and damning Republicans—this is the only way for Republicans to settle the issue once and for all and to prove, for their own credibility, that they were right in the first place and that this is an administration has lied over and over to the American people. There are voters who voted for the President in the last election who preferred to look the other way. There are Democrats who will run for office in and have an effect on the next election. There is a liberal media that has covered and carried water for the Democrats over the years that has no credibility, that will be actively talking to the public during elections this year and in the future. So, in this case and in the cases of the other “phony scandals” it is important to get the truth out. It is not just a witch hunt when one side is guilty and covers their guilt by perpetuating lies.
Darryl Issa, who chairs the House Oversight Committee said, “it is disturbing and perhaps criminal that documents like these were hidden by the Obama Administration”. He went on to say that “the American people have learned that you cannot believe what the White House says. It is clear that they wanted to protect Obama.”
Democrat strategist and co-host of “The Five” on Fox, Bob Beckel, believes it was an election issue but thinks a select committee is bogus. He thinks it is a Republican ploy. What he doesn’t acknowledge—nor do the other Democrats who don’t want their side to get in a position where they have to acknowledge the truth, is that if it were a Republican President and other Republicans involved, they would certainly go for the committee. Remember Watergate—and no lives were lost in Watergate. Nixon lied and they went after him. Bill Clinton lied and they wanted to protect him. On Tuesday May 5, 2014 with Martha McCallum on America’s Newsroom, Beckel said “ what does it matter?” McCallum replied, “you sound like Hillary”. One can only guess that the reason he, as well as the other Democrats, even if they acknowledge wrong-doing (which they certainly can’t deny now unless they make themselves look like total idiots) don’t want the committee is because they don’t want the email out there for all to see. They still want to protect Mr. Obama, and the e-mail may point directly to him. As long as the email isn’t produced to read, there still can be—I say can be—some doubt as to whether the President was directly involved, lied to the American people— we know he did but if it isn’t there in black and white so to speak, they can still deny the involvement of the White House, and more precisely the President and Hillary Clinton. In that case neither the Republicans nor Fox News who have been covering the story since the attacks, nor the American people would be able to say for sure that the White House was directly involved. The White House and liberal press have been hanging onto that slightest bit of doubt that the White House was involved in a cover-up.
Democrat pollster and analyst Doug Shoen said “there are legitimate questions about Benghazi that remain unanswered.”
Democrat strategist Kirsten Powers believes, and she was about the only Democrat who right from the start agreed it was about the 2012 election and Susan Rice gave a false narrative. She submitted that she thinks they have lied. Kirsten is not one to look into the camera at the American people and tell or perpetuate a bold-faced lie. She has great moral clarity. On Monday, May 5, Democratic Strategist, Joe Trippi on with Martha McCallum also acknowledged that the Democrats aren’t in a good position and also acknowledged that the e-mail was a political ploy to keep the truth from the voters since it was in the middle of a heated election campaign. Trippi also, even though a Democrat, doesn’t cave into pandering just to cover for his party. He also always gives thoughtful and honest answers. Being a Democrat, he many times disagrees with certain talking points, but not when the facts tell the truth even if the truth goes against his party. He and Powers are two of the few who won’t sell their souls by carrying water just for the sake of their party.
In the case of Benghazi, it is clear, as Bill O’Reilly said after the discovery of the damaging e-mail, that the key members of the Administration were concerned with protecting the President. They also may be trying to protect Hillary Clinton, who will have the best chance of winning the Democrat primary and White House for the Democrats in 2016, as the Clintons are still beloved by the Democrats. As for Mr. Obama, well, it could possibly cause him some problems. There is still an outside chance of getting him on the stand to testify, but only if they can actually get that e-mail, or through a judge get parts of the e-mail released. There is also a big chance that Hillary Clinton will have to testify under oath.
Keep in mind that the select committee hearings are not just about the scrubbed talking points and outright lies in regard to the infamous video, but also to answer other questions the American people, and more importantly the families of the victims, want answered—why was the consulate and the ambassador left vulnerable and without adequate protection on such a date as the anniversary of 9/11? Why were repeated requests for adequate security denied in light of the fact that there had been other terrorist attacks in the region? And who specifically denied the requests. It was so dangerous that other embassies had pulled out, the United Kingdom had left and our people were the only ones there. There had been repeated warnings of an impending attack. Hillary Clinton at the time was the head of the State Department so the lingering questions which will shed light on the subject calls for testimony by her. The testimony by Mrs. Clinton and others can answer the question of whether or not there was, in fact, a failure of policy in regard to Benghazi. Also, there are questions as to why in the case of a violent attack that lasted some eight hours, why no one in the Administration were around that evening. Where was Clinton, Obama, Biden and National Security Advisor Tom Donalin ? Why did President Obama leave the very next morning to attend a campaign rally? He was in Las Vegas in the company of Jay-Z and Beyonce—just hours after the attack leaving our ambassador and four others dead.
The White House, the other Democrats on Capitol Hill and the liberal media are the only ones who don’t want a select committee—Everyone else does–especially the American people and the families of the victims? After all, the President called this scandal—this tragic scandal—a “phony” scandal (along with all of the other scandals whirling around Washington D.C.). When the Democrats are involved in one, they want to just move on. If it weren’t for Fox News, and Republicans, these scandals would have been dropped and no hope for the families affected or the American people to receive answers.
President Obama had a chance to prevent the issue of Benghazi from dragging on some days after the attack when it was confirmed that it was a terrorist attack when he appeared on “The View” and was asked point blank about it and chose to lie rather than to just say, “Oh, now we are sure it was a terrorist attack.” It was only because of the lies that it has dragged on and it is now 20 months later with no cooperation from the Administration. And– just this past February, in his Superbowl interview with Bill O’Reilly, the President once again had a chance to clear it up. Yet, some sixteen months later—in his O’Reilly interview, he was still lying about it—wouldn’t give a straight answer. But he, of course, claimed that Bill was unfair to him. Yet, this important e-mail was left out of the requested information that was turned over to Congress. It is his and their own fault that they leave glaring “hints of a cover-up” hanging for people to reconfirm their suspicions. They have made it into something that the rest of us don’t want to drop.
There were two lawyers on the news on May 8, saying that the Administration politicized Benghazi because it was in the middle of a heated presidential race. Then they, particularly one, added, “but that is just what Republicans are doing now.” Well, there are two different scenarios here and that is a lame statement. First of all, the Democrats—the White House orchestrated a cover up where four Americans were killed and put out lies to the American people—intentional, prepared statements, and the President even called it a “phony” scandal. And, because they were found out right away, they, the other Democrats on Capitol Hill, and the liberal press labeled it a “witch hunt”. The President and Hillary Clinton, even as they were receiving the caskets containing the bodies, were still calling it a vile attack because of a video. They were saying that the perpetrators were going to be brought to justice. Not only were they lying, they did not actively start looking for the perpetrators because they were in the middle of an election campaign and didn’t want the American people to know the truth.
Pat Smith, the mother of dead Navy Seal Shawn Smith, said, and it was shown on TV footage that Hillary Clinton whispered to her that “we are going to find the person who put out that video.” In more than one interview with Fox News Mrs. Smith expressed astonishment that, since they knew at the time it wasn’t the result of a video, that Hillary Clinton whispered in her ear in person as she was receiving the body of her dead son, that they would “ find the person who made that video.” And—and as of today, they still have not brought to justice, the people responsible—only the person who made the video who had nothing to do with the attack.
Republicans using the cover-up in a major scandal about an attack that left four Americans dead including our ambassador, making it a political issue during an election year is a bit different. And– why shouldn’t they?? Why shouldn’t they? It is a major transgression of the Democrats—and they were helped and protected by the liberal media. When the administration—any administration is blatantly lying to the American people, it is perfectly proper for it to be brought to the attention of the American voters. He lying in this regard about such a grave situation—if there is a difference in lies—is much more serious in terms of trust than Watergate actually was. Watergate didn’t really effect the lives of Americans in a personal way. You see, if there isn’t accountability, parties in power could do this day in and day out with no consequences.
The Democrats think Republicans are politicizing all of the scandals. The stonewalling tactics and the narrative the Democrats are trying to convey to the American people that Republicans just want to use the various scandals for political reasons —are tactics to try to shut down free speech—they want to keep important messages from reaching the voters so they are informed about their government officials and how the administration and lawmakers are running their government and making decisions which affect their daily lives. These tactics are intended to try to get to the source of information brought to the American people and try to shut it down so that they can control the message. In the case of Benghazi the Administration deliberately put out false information for the sole purpose of misleading the American people. If that very transgression isn’t reason enough to have a select committee to conduct a further investigation, I can’t imagine what else would be. If the Democrats did not want it to head in this direction they should have done the right thing in the first place—tell the truth and hand over all of the requested information. Their actions are what put out a red flag that the facts were being hidden from the people.
House Speaker Boehner has chosen Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a second-term Republican and former federal prosecutor to head the Benghazi Select Committee investigating the terrorist attack and the deaths of our Americans. Nancy Pelosi has chosen the four Democrats who will sit on the 12-member panel. Besides ranking member Elijah Cummings (D-MD), the other four members will be Adam Smith of Washington, Adam Schiff and Linda Sanchez, both of California, and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois.
Mrs. Pelosi said it was the only way to insure that the latest congressional investigation (there have been others on this issue) “is not a one-sided review of what transpired.” Pelosi went on to say that “I think it is important for the American people to have a pursuit of these questions done in as fair and as open and balanced way as possible. That simply is not possible leaving it to the Republicans.” Oh yes—and who has been lying all along? They thought that by stonewalling over the past 20 plus months the Republicans would just “drop it” and the whole thing would go away. They forget that most Americans aren’t stupid and if they had told the truth in the beginning, and hadn’t worked to cover up the facts and withhold vital information when all transmissions had been requested it would have possibly been settled and would have “gone away” long ago. They, including Mrs. Clinton and more importantly Mr. Obama himself have had numerous opportunities to deliver the truth to the American people and the suffering families of the victims. It is especially arrogant, self-serving, and reprehensible that the families of the victims have been lied to and strung along for the better part of two years without a resolution and much swifter delivery of the truth—and—the perpetrators brought to justice.
We have Susan Rice saying that she has no regrets about going on five Sunday talk shows, and blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video. Then we have the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton saying in her upcoming memoir, “Hard Choices” that the GOP turned Benghazi into a political tool. Clinton also said that the incident is surrounded by a “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media.” And—who orchestrated a cover-up as a political tool? I sure hope she’s talking about those in her own party. The people of America would have no information, at least no reliable information if not for Fox News staying on the story and details and information have unfolded. And they don’t report hearsay, misinformation, or lies. The liberal media has reported very little about any of the numerous scandals, and that is how the Democrats wish it had remained. The real rub for the Democrats and their level of hatred and bitterness has stemmed directly from the fact that they lied, the “scandal” has not gone away, the Republicans persevered with the goal of uncovering the truth—until finally the missing smoking-gun piece of evidence—the key email, it appears, has been uncovered. Now, the Dems are backed into a corner, and their main darling, Mrs. Clinton is watching her reputation and candidacy for the 2016 presidential election being tarnished if not damaged. It will remain to be seen—if whether or not her voting blocs are and will still be drinking the Kool-Aid. They have no right to be bitter. The fate of those who lie and try to keep up a false narrative is that the truth usually always comes out and they should have known that. If they had told the truth in the beginning and apologized to the American people for any possible policy failures, by now most of the wounds may have been healed. Of course they probably were rightly afraid that if they had done that, Mr. Obama would not still be sitting in the Oval Office. So, they considered it was worth taking a chance on ruining Hillary Clinton’s political future in the process. Of course, she was part of the process. They naively thought that putting Susan Rice on five Sunday talk shows as their “front person” would work.
Mrs. Clinton in her new book also, to some extent, continues to push the false narrative—she writes, “There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives…it is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.” Video? Who does she think she’s kidding—the Kool-Aid drinkers? So she continues to revisit that falsehood. In other words, now there were many attacks and some of them weren’t but…possibly some were the result of the video. So, what she is doing with her readers, who will certainly mostly be her voters—she is trying to keep them in la la land and believing that it might have been the video, when we know for sure that it was a terrorist attack and not the video. In other words, she thinks they’re stupid. She is still clinging to the narrative about the video rather than acknowledge that it was a terrorist attack on our embassy and on America!
The administration including Mrs. Pelosi and the other Democrats who take issue with the special committee to get the facts out in the open seem to conveniently forget that—in such cases as this and all of the other scandals, the Constitution calls for and provides for the continuous oversight of the federal Government to insure that the people of America don’t fall into the hands of a corrupt, overreaching and dictator style of government, and to guarantee the continuation of a government that is by the people and for the people.