I was recently challenged in a Facebook conversation to “debunk” the Benghazi allegations made in the “official record” about Hillary Clinton. So, I’ve been trying to understand what has made the Republicans so sure they had proof of some malfeasance by Clinton while Secretary of State during the tragic attack.
In March of 2002, the US Embassy in Peru was attacked. Nine were killed. Number of Congressional investigations? Zero.
Evidently what has so many viewers of FOX and Breitbart upset, is the theory that Clinton and Obama “concocted” the theory that the attack was a response to an inflammatory internet video, during a phone call between Clinton and Obama on the night of the attack, September 11, 2012. Judicial Watch, through a FOIA request, found no evidence that there was any record of intelligence indicating the attack was in response to any such video. I found no evidence that Judicial Watch found evidence that there was absolutely no such video-linking intelligence. Perhaps the video theory was just a reasonable conclusion by someone who was paying attention to what was going on, like Clinton or Obama. The next day, September 12, Obama referred to the attack as a terror attack. On September 20, Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney said, without equivocation, that it was a terrorist attack. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/politics/fact-check-terror/
In June 2002, twelve people died in an attack on the US consulate in Pakistan. Number of congressional investigations? Zero.
The President of Judicial Watch Tom Fitton concluded from this lack of evidence about intelligence linking the video to the attack that Obama and Clinton decided to “push the video lie.” https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/foia-docs-prove-obama-and-hillary-concocted-benghazi-video-lie-with-jihadist-help Ummm. So, surmising that the attack might be linked to the video is somehow an attempt to deceive? Even though, days later the Obama administration dismissed the video theory?
In December, 2004, the US consulate in Saudi Arabia was attacked. Nine died. No congressional investigations.
One of the proofs offered by the right that this video theory was some sort of conspiracy was because Clinton referred to the attackers of Benghazi as an Al Queda-like group in an email to her daughter on the night of the attack. www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/08/with-2-a-m-state-department-email-trove-82-percent-of-clinton-emails-now-released/ . So, calling the attackers Al Queda-like somehow dismisses the idea that attack was in response to a video? Or, that it wasn’t a spontaneous attack?
In September of 2008, The US Embassy in Yemen was attacked. Ten died. No congressional investigation.
Last October, Clinton weathered eleven hours testifying before the House Benghazi committee. This was the eighth congressional investigation of the Benghazi affair. Congressman Kevin McCarthy fecklessly admitted the real goal of Republicans when he bragged that the investigations had driven down Clinton’s poll numbers. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony-20151022-story.html
Certainly, whenever there is a tragic loss of life within the American diplomatic corps, there should be investigation in order to learn from mistakes made, and to avoid those mistakes in the future. But to spend millions of dollars to try to prove that Clinton conspired with Obama to make the attack look like a spontaneous attack due to some video, rather than an organized terrorist attack, seems like an absurd waste of time and taxpayer money. Why was calling it a response to a video rather than a terrorist attack supposed to make the Obama administration, and Clinton look better? It would not have to me.
For twenty-five years the Republicans have done their best to impugn Hillary Clinton. Rumor, innuendo, conspiracy theories have been legion. Actual proof of criminal activity? Zero.
The only conspiracy I see in the Benghazi affair is that of the Republican conspiracy to undermine Hillary Clinton. Have I debunked the official record? No, because there was nothing in that record that proved anything against Clinton.