Paul Krugman, "The Ignorance Caucus": Hillary Doesn't Suppress the Facts?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Ignorance Caucus" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/11/opinion/krugman-the-ignorance-caucus.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman would have us know that Democrats believe "at least in principle, in letting its policy views be shaped by facts," whereas Republicans believe in "suppressing the facts if they contradict its fixed beliefs." In furtherance of his thesis, Krugman concludes his essay by citing Hillary Clinton:

"In her parting shot on leaving the State Department, Hillary Clinton said of her Republican critics, 'They just will not live in an evidence-based world.' She was referring specifically to the Benghazi controversy, but her point applies much more generally. And for all the talk of reforming and reinventing the G.O.P., the ignorance caucus retains a firm grip on the party’s heart and mind."

Okay, I understand: Republicans "suppress" the facts, and Democrats don't.

But as long as Krugman is citing Hillary in support of his argument that Democrats are in favor of letting the facts be known, let's have another look at Hillary's testimony at the Senate Benghazi hearings. Just in case you missed it:

Senator Johnson: "We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that. An assault sprang out of that. And that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days, and they didn't know that."

Hillary: "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans."

Senator Johnson: "I understand."

Hillary: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."

Query: How do you figure out what happened in Benghazi and prevent it from ever happening again if you refuse to ascertain whether the deaths stemmed from a spontaneous protest or a planned attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate? It makes a big difference. In fact, I would say that it makes all the difference in the world if you want to take smart, effective measures to bolster US embassy defense and "to prevent it from ever happening again."

More facts suppressed by the Obama administration? As observed by Kathleen Parker in a February 9 Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Hillary Clinton and the ghosts of Benghazi" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-hillary-clinton-and-the-ghosts-of-benghazi/2013/02/08/423e3bc6-722c-11e2-ac36-3d8d9dcaa2e2_story.html?hpid=z2):

"Americans got a clearer picture of what transpired last Sept. 11 during testimony Thursday by retiring Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Panetta said he personally delivered the news to Obama that the consulate in Benghazi was under attack during a 30-minute briefing that also included Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The president said, 'Do whatever you need to do to be able to protect our people there,' and that was that. He and Panetta didn’t speak again that night — and neither Dempsey nor Panetta spoke to Clinton at all."

Only Republicans suppress the facts? Yeah, right.