This morning a teaser at WND with the headline “Diane Sawyer ‘Destroys’ Hillary on Benghazi”, introduced me to a Washington Post story claiming that ABC News reporter Diane Sawyer “upended the emphases of Benghazi “scandal” coverage in an interview with Hillary Clinton. Instead of “obsessing” over the lies Obama’s advisers told “to frame the events as a random spasm of violence”, Sawyer “went heavy on the
security questions”, an approach that supposedly puts Clinton on the spot for not making sure the Benghazi installation was properly prepared for a terrorist attack.
For a variety of reasons (none of which have to do with usefully informing America’s voters), the elitist faction media propagandists favors the ‘soap opera’ approach to election coverage. This approach “obsesses” over the personal dramas of the candidates, in order to broadcast news “stories” (in the sense of romantic fictions) that keep viewers from surfing away. Like the cliffhanger melodramas serialized in theaters in the early days of cinema, each installment ends with dramatic questions.
The Clinton cliffhanger includes questions like: “Was the death of Americans at Benghazi Hillary Clinton’s responsibility? If she admits responsibility, will people admire her honesty and forgive her failure/ Or will they conclude that her incompetence makes her unfit for the Presidency? Like the Bull dancers of ancient Crete, will she find a way to grasp and leap over the horns of this dilemma/ Or will she be trampled underfoot by the great beast of fickle popular opinion?
This is all well and good if politics is just another form of entertainment, and voters are passive consumers, whose only purpose and reward is an engaging distraction from their otherwise boring, inconsequential lives. But if they are responsible members of the sovereign body of the people, serious about their historically exceptional opportunity, as American citizens, to make decisions that shape the destiny of their country, this soap opera fluff doesn’t help them do their duty.
The elitist faction media has fawned over Hillary Clinton as the smart, no-nonsense archetype of the modern woman, finally come into her own as a leader and administrator. Somewhat like Jimmy Carter, she has been credited with an almost Napoleon like capacity to master the details required for a sound decision. She was, like Sherlock Holmes’s smarter brother, tacitly admitted to be the more intelligent counterpart of the Bill and Hillary duo.
Take this as true and the real questions raised by her neglect of the Benghazi compound’s security are not about her competence (which we can take for granted). They’re about her motives. Someone as smart and capable as she is supposed to be doesn’t suddenly wake up dumb. This is especially unlikely when it comes to decisions about covert operations, which are well-known to require the utmost discretion and attention to detail. When actions must be deceitfully camouflaged, such care is mandatory to keep anomalies from attracting cunning would-be predators to the scent of truth.
This makes it reasonable to assume that Hillary Clinton and the other Obama faction national security decision makers, including Obama himself, made a conscious decision not to harden the Benghazi installation against terrorist attack. The activity required to do so would have attracted attention from undesirable quarters. In the old cliffhangers, if you were hiding the payroll in the chuck wagon, you wouldn’t send along a special detail to guard it. You’d let things go forward as usual. When employing such a tactic, security doesn’t lie in having the competence to make special preparations against attack. It lies in having the courage to decide that there will be no such preparations.
Unlike Diane Sawyer, I’m willing to credit Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the other Obama faction decision makers involved, with that kind of hardy courage. But then the Benghazi episode continues to be haunted by the same questions raised by their specious cover story about angry Muslims reacting spontaneously to a purported insult to Islam. What was going on at Benghazi that required, and still apparently requires, deceitful evasion, distracting story lines and all the other camouflage of psychological war? Are these means being deployed in defense of the Constitution and people of the United States? Or are they being used to hide the fact that something about Benghazi resembles the recent Bergdahl swap— so that the truth of it would add to the conviction that the Obama faction pursues an agenda that includes giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies?
There’s a cliffhanger story line for you. But Hillary Clinton isn’t hanging by its thread. America is.