Who’s More Shameful, Hillary or Her Media Protectors?
Isn’t it just great that the liberal establishment views Hillary Clinton’s testimony in the Benghazi hearings in terms of performance art rather than substance? That’s the liberals’ way of telling you how much they value integrity.
It would be one thing if the mainstream liberal media said, “Clinton got caught red-handed in a number of lies, and not just on insignificant matters but on very important ones, but overall she held up well under pressure, and because of her performance, the hearings may actually be a net plus for her.”
At least that would be closer to honest. It wouldn’t be totally forthright, though, because if the liberal media went after her for her lies instead of helping cover them up, there is no way the hearings would benefit her.
In fact, conservatives have complained about the liberal media for so long that we tend to forget just how influential they are to their followers — liberal America and Democratic voters. If they would ever do the right thing — as opposed to selecting and slanting the news to promote the liberal agenda — America would be quite a different place today.
Do you believe for a minute, for example, that former IRS official Lois Lerner would have escaped prosecution if the liberal media had exposed the corrupt collusion of the Obama administration in declining to prosecute her? It’s almost guaranteed that an honest watchdog media would not have let that occur.
It’s the same thing with Benghazi. President Obama ran in 2008 promising he would make the world safer by fighting terrorism through diplomacy. Not long after he implemented his appeasement policies, he began bragging (and the media amplified his boasts) that the world was already safer — presumably because of his flowery speeches on the glories of Islam.
What evidence did he have? Well, it was the same kind of evidence upon which his bogus Nobel Peace Prize was granted: He talked a good game. Obama sweet-talked Islam; therefore, terrorists were standing down — even though they weren’t.
To bolster this illusion, the administration suppressed intelligence on the rise of the Islamic State and downplayed the increasing hostility and terrorism of other Islamic terrorist groups. The White House was so intent on pushing this fantasy that I wouldn’t be surprised if the reason it ignored Ambassador Chris Stevens’ desperate requests for additional security is that the administration was more willing to risk harm to our people than to fortify our consulate and risk political consequences for the failure of its policies to mollify Islamists.
Clinton would have us believe that she and Stevens were fast friends, but he didn’t even have her personal email address. Of course, if Clinton were a true friend, she also wouldn’t have continually thrown Stevens under the bus during her testimony in repeatedly stressing that he knew the risks associated with his position. Yes, Hillary, he knew the risks, all right, which is why he pleaded with you and others for more security — and you all coldly ignored him.
From the outset, however, the administration’s most sinister and transparent lie was its calculated scapegoating of an Internet video dissing Islam. I was appalled and incredulous from the beginning that anyone was falling for this obvious invention. It never passed the smell test.
The Benghazi attacks were on Sept. 11 and clearly orchestrated, and additional security requests alerted us that an attack was likely. Plus, why would the administration go to such lengths to blame an obscure video for the brutal murder of Stevens and three other Americans, taking more time denouncing the video than the attacks? It’s as if the administration surreptitiously was perversely justifying the Islamists murdering innocent Americans because of alleged insults to their religion — all the while pretending outwardly that it didn’t think their reaction was justified.
We no longer need to rely solely on our common sense in analyzing these events. It has now been proved beyond any doubt, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, that the entire administration knew the attacks were preplanned terrorism and that this random video had nothing — not 30 percent, not 20 percent, not 10 percent, not 0.0001 percent — to do with them. In fact, it will probably become clear someday that administration lackeys scoured the Internet for just such a video to cover their rear ends after the attacks.
Susan Rice, Clinton and President Obama himself were all over television and everywhere else — including Clinton’s lying to the victims’ families while standing over the coffins — disseminating this unconscionable lie to advance the administration’s narrative. The liberal media understand the gravity of Clinton’s lies but, instead of showcasing them and shaming her, are concealing them in a fog of compliments over her performance.
They can gloat to their heart’s content over Clinton’s “stamina” and “poise” and ignore her disgraceful conduct and moral unfitness, but I’m praying people will realize that she is nothing but a self-serving charlatan who always puts her own political interests above the nation’s.
Today they will boast, but tomorrow — God willing — they will encounter justice.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book is “The Emmaus Code: Finding Jesus in the Old Testament,” which will be released Nov. 9.