"What Difference Does it Make?"

Sorry for the long gap in posting. I had a technical issue with the blog, i.e., I couldn't remember my password, and couldn't log on to write a post. In addition, of course, I watched that Hillary performance on the Hill re Benghazi, and, well, I was left stunned and speechless. There was so much wrong, dishonest, craven, brazen, and downright disgusting in Hilary's performance that I am still having a hard time commenting on it. 

Ever since Joseph Welch's line to Senator McCarthy in 1954, "Have you no sense of decency?", lib-lefties keep looking to replicate that little piece of faux outrage. The Benghazi testimony was Hillary's chance, and she clearly decided that her "At this point, what difference does it make?" line would be her Joseph Welch moment. Judging from the media's acceptance and even applauding of this little piece of theater, it would appear that Hillary calculated correctly. She has gotten away with her horrid mismanagement and leadership of US foreign policy. We are instructed to forget about Benghazi, and the delusional policies that paved the road to it. The liberals are busily talking about President Hillary Clinton--and to be fair she has demonstrated the requisite amount of incompetence and deception to be a viable candidate for the Democrats.

You have to hand it to the lefties. They are brazenly honest about their dishonest plans. All the famous lefties have been open about their intentions: Lenin and Hitler certainly hid nothing, and today's little lefties hide nothing. Obama's statement about "You didn't build that," the DNC proudly proclaiming "Government is the only thing to which we all belong," and now Hillary's "What's the difference?" have a long tradition that relies on the opposition's inability to understand honest crookedness. They are so arrogant and so confident that nobody will call them out, that they enjoy telling us openly how they will take away everything we value. 

To the matter at hand. There is so much wrong with what Hillary said that I can only cover a few points.  Her whole attitude was one of taking a victory lap. She is leaving the State Department, and she ran out the clock on  Benghazi. Her phrase "At this point" sums it up. The steam has gone out of the issue, and the tactic of delay, obfuscation, and deception has worked; the administration has eluded responsibility for a major foreign policy disaster of criminal proportions. They did it before with "Fast and Furious" and they have done it again. State's Accountability Review Board report, of course, was a whitewash; it was a carefully worded truce between Chicago and Foggy Bottom. It avoided dealing with the fundamentals of the Benghazi disaster, i.e., the foreign policy of this administration, and, in exchange, the bureaucrats were not held responsible for the decisions they took in implementing that foreign policy. Nobody was to blame for anything. 

As a lawyer, Hillary must know how absurd her line "what is the difference?" sounds. Here we have an administration that insists on treating acts of terror against Americans as criminal matters, e.g., call in the FBI to "the crime scene," yet here we have the Secretary of State saying it really makes no difference what motivated the "criminals" or whether the "crime" was premeditated and planned in conjunction with others. More important, however, if it made no difference why did the administration send out that horrid political hack Susan Rice to lie about it all? To blame it on a video? Where was Hillary? Why wasn't she out front telling us all on the Sunday talk shows that it made "no difference?"   Why have Rice lie?

It, of course, "does make a difference." If the attack was a well-planned one, who planned it? Were any foreign states involved? Why didn't our intel pick it up? If it was a spontaneous event, why didn't it occur to anybody at State or in the Embassy in Libya that the date of September 11 was a particularly propitious one for such "spontaneous" events? Why was Stevens in Benghazi on September 11? Why was that facility still open when the security situation in the city had been deteriorating rapidly? The questions just pour forth; you can think of dozens more.

I have written many times before about the idiocy of our policy in Libya and North Africa (see my archives), and won't repeat all that. Let me just say that hearings did not explore the biggest issue of all. What did the administration think would happen in North Africa once Mubarak and Qaddafi were removed?

Hillary got away with it. She put on the typical lefty show of mock outrage, weepiness, blaming others, e.g., "not enough money," and brazen dishonesty. It worked. We most likely will not hear much more about Benghazi or how it forms an integral part of the larger foreign policy disaster we see unfolding before our eyes.