Hillary Clinton on Benghazi: The Fog of War or the Murk of Mendacity?

Tweet

In a Washington Free Beacon article entitled "Clinton Says She Never Lied About Benghazi, Cites ‘Fog of War’ Instead During Interview," Aaron Kliegman writes about Hillary Clinton's interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week." Kliegman writes:

"Host Stephanopoulos ... played two clips, each showing a parent of one of the victims saying that Clinton lied directly to them about the cause of the attack, including Charles Woods, father of retired Navy Seal Tyrone Woods, before asking, 'Did you tell them it was about a film? And what’s your response?'

Clinton responded that she has already answered all of these questions and 'can’t help it that people think there has to be something else there,' referring to Republicans who have been investigating the Benghazi attack.

She continued, 'I said very clearly, there had been a terrorist group, uh, that had taken responsibility on Facebook, um, between the time that, uh, I – you know, when I talked to my daughter, that was the latest information; we were, uh, giving it credibility. And then we learned the next day it wasn’t true. In fact, they retracted it. This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war and I think most Americans understand that.'

Stephanopoulos did not ask a follow-up question before moving the interview to Clinton’s unfavorable poll numbers amongst voters regarding her trustworthiness."

Indeed, there was no follow-up question from Stephanopoulos, who should have asked if Clinton was again in contact with the parents of the victims to inform them that the "film" had nothing to do with the attack.

It is no wonder that American voters believe by a nearly two-to-one margin that Clinton is lying about Benghazi.

Associated Press, "State Dept. plans release of Clinton emails by next January": Emails or Portions of Emails?

Today, an Associated Press article appearing in The Washington Post entitled "State Dept. plans release of Clinton emails by next January" begins:

"By Associated Press May 19 at 1:36 AM

WASHINGTON — The State Department has proposed releasing portions of 55,000 pages of e-mails from former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton by next January.

The department made the proposal in a federal court filing Monday night, in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by Vice News."

Note the difference between the headline, which refers to the release of emails (possibly even all of Clinton's emails), and what immediately follows in the text, which refers to the release of "portions" of emails.

Yes, there is a difference.

[See also the same headline and the same first two paragraphs in an Associated Press article being published by ABC News, home of George Stephanopoulos.]

David Ignatius, "Time for candidate Clinton to step up on trade": Actually, It's Time for Her to Step Down

Yet another "remarkable" opinion piece from David Ignatius today. In a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Time for candidate Clinton to step up on trade," Ignatius would have us know:

"What does Hillary Clinton believe about the Trans-Pacific Partnership or the Iran nuclear deal? You would assume that she’s supportive because she helped get both agreements started. But she has been a study in reticence — a trimmer checking the political winds, rather than a leader.

. . . .

Clinton should put away the waffle iron when it comes to the Iran deal, too. As secretary of state, she launched the secret channel in Oman that passed the message that Iran could enrich uranium if it agreed to tight controls on its nuclear program. Her experience with such secret diplomacy is one reason she’s a compelling candidate. But she has been stinting in her comments so far about the Iran pact.

. . . .

But it’s Clinton’s rope-a-dope approach to the TPP that deserves most attention, because it highlights her vulnerability as a candidate. Her caution conveys the sense that she’s running because she wants to get elected, rather than as the exponent of a set of beliefs. Critics have argued that Clinton, similarly, sought to play by a special set of rules in her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state and in the Clinton Foundation’s harvest of contributions from foreigners."

Yup, she should be answering questions about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Iran nuclear deal, her private email server, and donations from foreigners to the Clinton Foundation. But she won't. What you don't know can't hurt her, and Hillary has decided upon a campaign of silence.

ABC's George Stephanopoulos gave the Clinton Foundation $50,000? Oops, make that $75,000, but no mention of this transgression in Ignatius's essay. "What difference does it make" that Stephanopoulos asked Peter Schweizer, who wrote "Clinton Cash," if he had a "partisan interest" during an interview three weeks ago?

You see, this "compelling candidate" should step down, not up, and put an end to her $2.5 billion presidential campaign, but fat chance of that happening. We live in a world gone rotten.

Ruth Marcus, "Obama’s Style on Syria Needs Refashioning": Obama's "Scary" Presidential Conviction

The Obama presidency is fast coming apart at the seams when uber-liberal columnist Ruth Marcus terms Obama's thought processes "scary."

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Obama’s style on Syria needs refashioning" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-obamas-style-on-syria-needs-refashioning/2013/09/16/861b8bba-1efb-11e3-94a2-6c66b668ea55_story.html?hpid=z4), Marcus focuses on the president's claim that his Syria policy is being graded on "style" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/new-york-times-editorial-syrian-pact.html) and not on its outcome. Marcus writes:

"Style points? Seriously? Style points? That’s what President Obama thinks the criticism of his zigzag Syria policy amounts to?

As presidential spin, this is insulting. As presidential conviction — if this is what he really believes — it’s scary."

Well, no one better psychoanalyzes that "style" than Peter Wehner over at Commentary. In a piece entitled "The Obama Mythology Has Been Shattered" (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/09/16/the-obama-mythology-has-been-shattered/#more-833252), Wehner observes:

"Taking in new information is fine; pursuing a policy characterized by head-snapping shifts, ambivalence, ineptness, and bipolarity is not.

Let’s see if we can help [White House press secretary Jay Carney] out by summarizing for him some (but hardly all) of his boss’s epic incompetence, starting with declaring that Bashar al-Assad must leave–and now taking steps that secure Assad’s grip on power. Then there’s the president warning the Syrian regime not to cross the 'red line' of using chemical weapons–and doing nothing when it did (on several different occasions).

But there’s more, including President Obama promising to arm rebels attempting to overthrow Assad–and delaying doing so for many crucial months; indicating he’d by-pass Congress when it came to seeking a use-of-force resolution–and then shocking everyone, including his entire staff, by reversing direction; putting British Prime Minister Cameron in a position where he needed to go to Parliament for a vote in order to approve an imminent strike–and then pulling back from the strike, leaving Mr. Cameron hung out to dry; insisting that Assad must be militarily punished for using chemical weapons–and now pursuing a fruitless diplomatic strategy in which Assad will not be on the receiving end of a military strike. And let’s not forget Mr. Obama’s secretary of state, who framed the conflict with Syria as (a) a 'Munich moment' before (b) assuring people that a strike against our modern-day Hitler would be 'incredibly small' followed by (c) engaging in negotiations destined to fail with the man he called 'thug' and 'murderer' who is guilty of committing a 'moral obscenity.'"

In my prior blog entry, I asked, regarding Obama's reference to "style" during his interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, whether the president was "delusional or just deceitful?" The answer to my own question is that I don't know.

But if Ruth Marcus is scared by Obama's behavior, how should the rest of us feel?

New York Times Editorial, "The Syrian Pact": Will Pradva Purchase the Morally Bankrupt New York Times?

Did you listen to Obama's interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Friday (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/09/full-transcript-president-obamas-exclusive-interview-with-george-stephanopoulos/), during which Obama responded to claims of of confusion and incompetence surrounding his foreign policy? Note the president's stuttering interchange regarding Syria:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS:

Senator Corker, Foreign Relations Committee, said– you’re not comfortable as Commander-In-Chief, it’s like watching a person who’s caged. The president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, “Words like ad-hoc, improvised, unsteady come to mind. This is probably the most undisciplined stretch of foreign policy in your presidency.” What do you make of that?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:

Well– you know, I– I– I think that– folks here in Washington– like to grade on style. And so had we rolled out something that was very smooth and disciplined and– linear– they would have graded it well, even if it was a disastrous policy.

Well, Obama managed to roll out something that was lumpy, undisciplined and also disastrous, and after listening to his explanation, I found myself asking, is America's president delusional or just deceitful? Perhaps, as Obama's talk show host David Letterman recently observed (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/05/letterman_on_obamas_red_line_for_syria_the_guy_has_learned_how_to_bullshit.html):

"So, it's taken him five years, but finally the guy has learned how to bullshit."

How reassuring.

Today, after reading an editorial by The New York Times entitled "The Syrian Pact" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/opinion/the-syrian-pact.html?_r=0), I find myself also asking, Is this newspaper's editorial board delusional or just deceitful? Or perhaps it can also be observed with respect to the Times, "It's taken them 162 years, but finally these guys and girls have also learned how to bullshit."

Let's have a look at this latest steaming horse apple cooked up by their editorial board:

"The United States-Russian agreement to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal is remarkably ambitious and offers a better chance of deterring this threat than the limited military strikes that President Obama was considering.

Even so, the task of cataloging, securing and destroying President Bashar al-Assad’s poison gas cache — which Washington and Moscow have estimated at 1,000 tons — is daunting. It will require vigilance and commitment by the United Nations, with success ultimately dependent on the cooperation of Mr. Assad, whose forces are responsible for most of the 100,000 deaths in the brutal civil war, including what the United States says were more than 1,400 deaths in a chemical attack in August."

The agreement is "remarkably ambitious," and the task is "daunting"? Oh really? As was previously reported by the Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?pagewanted=all):

"'This situation has no precedent,' said Amy E. Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. 'They are cramming what would probably be five or six years’ worth of work into a period of several months, and they are undertaking this in an extremely difficult security environment due to the ongoing civil war.'"

Or stated otherwise, implementation of this "agreement" is not "doable." The Times editorial continues:

"The agreement avoids imminent American military action, but Mr. Assad will be responsible for providing security for United Nations inspectors, as well as access to sites and information. If he fails to dismantle his program, the Security Council resolution would authorize punitive measures. President Obama has said that American military action is still on the table."

Hmm, a mass murderer is now responsible for implementation of a "pact," which is counter to his own interests, but he can nevertheless be expected to abide by its terms. After all, if he doesn't comply, he is being faced with . . . ? Oh, that's right, he is not being faced with anything tangible or substantive.

The Times editorial states regarding Putin's diplomatic coup:

"President Vladimir Putin of Russia has undoubtedly elevated his stature in the Middle East with this diplomatic move. But he is now on the hook as he never was before to make sure that Mr. Assad does not use chemical weapons. Mr. Putin has drawn a line at poison gas, but it will be cynical and reprehensible if he continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms, which have killed the vast majority of Syria’s civilian victims."

Putin is "on the hook"? Yeah, right. If Assad again uses chemical weapons, Putin will again pin the blame on the rebels. "It will be cynical and reprehensible if [Putin] continues to supply Mr. Assad with conventional arms"? And I suppose this former KGB official is not already "cynical and reprehensible"?

As acknowledged by Jeffrey Goldberg in a Bloomberg article entitled "New Syria Agreement Is a Big Victory. For Assad." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-15/everyone-wins-with-new-syria-agreement-except-syrians-.html):

"By partnering with Russia and the West on the disarmament process, a process that is meant to last into 2014 (and most likely won’t be finished for years, even if it is carried out in good faith, which is a big 'if'), Assad has made himself indispensable. A post-Assad regime wouldn’t necessarily be party to this agreement, and might not even go through the motions. Syria, post-Assad, might very well be more fractured and chaotic than it is now, which is to say, even less of an environment in which United Nations weapons inspectors could safely go about their work. The U.S. now needs Assad in place for the duration. He’s the guy, after all, whose lieutenants know where the chemical weapons are.

This agreement represents a victory for Putin for fairly obvious reasons: He is the leader of a second-tier power who has nevertheless made himself into the new power player of the Middle East (he’s heading off to Iran now for discussions on its nuclear program). He has shown up an American president, and he will be considered, by the perpetually naive at least, to be something akin to a peacemaker, when, in fact, he’s a bloody-minded autocrat."

In case you didn't know, Goldberg is one of Obama's best media friends. Yup, this is all one big disaster.

Next we are told by the Times:
 

"President Obama deserves credit for putting a focus on upholding an international ban on chemical weapons and for setting aside military action at this time in favor of a diplomatic deal. The Syria crisis should demonstrate to Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, that Mr. Obama, who has held out the possibility of military action against Iran’s nuclear program, is serious about a negotiated solution. Mr. Obama’s disclosure that he had indirectly exchanged messages with Mr. Rouhani was encouraging."

Obama's wavering, amorphous policy vis-a-vis Assad, which will one day be written up in "Profiles in Cowardice," will encourage Iran to reach a peaceful negotiation regarding its nuclear weapons program? Cut the crap! Iran has learned that "As President of the United States, Obama does bluff" (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/).

The editorial concludes:

"There are many uncertainties ahead, including what the administration will do to support the Syrian opposition. Now that Russia and the United States have reached a deal, there’s reason to hope this cooperation will help advance an overall peace settlement for Syria."

Which brings us back to the title of this New York Times editorial: "The Syrian Pact." A "pact"? Like the "Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact" or a pact with the devil? In any event, there is no reason whatsoever to hope that Assad, a mass murderer, will abide by its terms.

Make no mistake about it: The New York Times long ago lost its credibility, and for the sake of good order, it should now toss aside its ethical journalism handbook and proudly advertise itself as the semi-official mouthpiece of the Obama administration. The Times is morally bankrupt and failing financially, but maybe, after its publication of Putin's propaganda opinion piece (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/vladimir-putin-plea-for-caution-from.html), Pravda might be willing to buy a controlling interest and keep it afloat for a few more years.