A Review of What We Know About Benghazi So Far: Issues and Sub-Scandals

The Benghazi Scorecard

by j
Yated Ne'eman
May 24, 2013


My guess is that Benghazi is about to be overshadowed by a slew of IRS-related scandals. For low-information citizens more interested in the tabloid fare served up in supermarket checkout lines, Benghazi is a long way away and its significance hard to pinpoint. Every one, however,deals with the IRS at one level or another.

But Benghazi will resurface in spades, if, as expected, Hillary Clinton decides to make a run for the presidency in 2016. Over her long public career, Hillary has been caught telling numerous lies. Remember her memory of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. Remember the great "right-wing conspiracy" accusing her husband of improprieties.

None of her lies, however, reveal her Lady Macbeth-like ambition and ruthlessness to the same degree as her telling the father of slain Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, as his son's coffin lay in front of them, that the U.S. government would arrest and prosecute the maker of the film that allegedly triggered the Benghazi attack, long after she knew conclusively that the video had absolutely nothing to do with that attack. (The government did, in fact, arrest the filmmaker, and he has been in jail since for probation violation.)

Because questions still remain and because the issue is so likely to resurface again it is worthwhile to review what we know at this point and what we can reasonably surmise.

Mideast Media Sampler 5/03/13: The Benghazi Scandal Continues -- And Hillary is Not Clear of It Yet

by David Gerstman, contributing blogger at Legal Insurrection


1) The innocence of the Obama administration

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on September 14, 2012:

The Mideast Media Sampler 3/8/13: Samira Ibrahim and Other Failures of Secretaries of State

From David Gerstman:

The state of the Secretaries of State One of John Kerry's first acts in office as Secretary of State was a good one. Lee Smith writes in John Kerry Roasts Turkey:

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not a man who minces words. He has called Israel a “terrorist state” and has suggested that “Allah would punish” Israel for its inhumane actions in Gaza. Usually, the United States pretends not to hear Erdogan’s rants—but not on Friday, when John Kerry, while visiting Ankara during his first trip abroad as secretary of state, denounced Erdogan for calling Zionism “a crime against humanity.” In response to Erdogan, Kerry said: “We not only disagree with it, we found it objectionable.” 

On Monday at AIPAC, Vice President Joe Biden praised Kerry for standing up to the Turkish prime minister—and Kerry deserved the props. Kerry’s comment is as critical as State Department language gets regarding a NATO ally—and it’s about time. Policymakers from the Bush and Obama Administrations have sweet-talked and protected Erdogan since his Justice and Development party, known by its Turkish acronym AKP, came to power in 2003. Both White Houses saw Turkey as the model for moderate Islamism, a political current ostensibly willing to embrace democratic norms and project friendly power abroad, including the continuation of its strategic relationship with Israel. They believed Erdogan held the future of U.S. Middle East policy in his hands.

However his next high profile effort did not go so well. Samuel Tadros reported in the Weekly Standard, Michelle Obama and John Kerry to Honor Anti-Semite and 9/11 Fan:

Considering Panetta's Testimony, We Can Understand Obama's Cover-up Of The Benghazi Disaster

William Kristol and Peter Wehner lay out what Panetta's congressional testimony reveals about Obama's failure in Benghazi:

Thanks to the congressional testimony of outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey late last week, we know they met with President Obama on Sept. 11 at 5 p.m. in a pre-scheduled meeting, when they informed the president about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The meeting lasted about a half-hour. Mr. Panetta said they spent roughly 20 minutes of the session briefing the president on the chaos at the American Embassy in Cairo and the attack in Benghazi, which eventually cost the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and information officer Sean Smith.

Video: Looks Like Hillary Doesn't Really Take Responsibility For The Benghazi Terrorist Attack After All

Despite Hillarycare, Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, the cattle-futures mess, the circumstances surrounding the 2000 Clinton pardons, “suspension of disbelief,” etc., Ms. Clinton, for not fully explained reasons, remains mostly beyond audit and censure, a fact she has come to appreciate.
Victor Davis Hanson, What Difference?

Back in October, Hillary claimed to take responsibility for the tragic -- and possibly avoidable -- terrorist attack that resulted in the death of 4 Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya.

The unasked question was whether Clinton thought there should be actual consequences for the failure of the State Department to resolve security issues and see to the proper defense of Americans there.

Here is Hillary "taking responsibility" -- do you think she plans on accepting any consequences for the State Department's failure?

The Middle East Media Sampler 1/25/2013: Roger Cohen Thinks Israel's Friends, Aren't

From +David Gerstman:

1) False friend Cohen

In Israel's True Friends, Roger Cohen argued that Israel's "'true friends' ... are in facts true friends only of the Israeli right:"

... propels Israel into repetitive miniwars of dubious strategic value.

(Apparently he needed some editing as the verb "propels" doesn't seem to match its antecedent.)

Did Hillary Clinton Really Give Instructions To Increase Security In Benghazi?

That is what is being claimed.

At The Daily Caller, Edward Klein writes about Hillary’s non mea culpa:

At the second presidential debate this week, Barack Obama finally appeared to man-up and acknowledge that, as president and commander in chief, he was responsible for the deaths of four Americans during the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

After all, said the president, the secretary of state “works for me,” and as the top person in the administration’s chain of command, the buck stopped at him.

It was, at best, a late and half-hearted admission of culpability.

But was Clinton's own mea culpa any less half-hearted?

Hillary Clinton: Please, Please Let Us Waste US Taxpayer $$ On Incompetent Governments And Terrorists!

The net effect of these and other restrictions in the bill would be debilitating to my efforts to carry out a considered foreign policy and diplomacy, and to use foreign assistance strategically to that end.
Hillary Clinton in letter to House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.)

Clinton is referring to would limit US funding of corrupt governments and those which incorporate terrorist groups--and Clinton is threatening to veto that bill:

Clinton also said the bill would ban economic assistance to governments that don't meet anti-corruption criteria, which she said "has the potential to affect a staggering number of needy aid recipients."

YAWN! Hillary:If Iran Attacked Israel With Nukes 'We Would Be Able to Totally Obliterate Them' (Updated)

This according to ABC News.
Looks like someone is after the Jewish vote.

3 questions:

o Was there ever any question that if Iran would actually use nuclear arms against Israel that 'we would be able to totally obliterate them'? The real question is not if the US would be able to take action--the question is whether we would take strong action. Hillary does not answer that.

o Secondly, considering the indications that Iran has been behind the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, shouldn't Hillary be directing her suddenly hawkish pronouncements against what Iran actually is doing?

o And the fact that Hillary is not addressing Iran's killing of our troops--doesn't that indicate that Hillary is full of baloney?

Or is she still recovering from the sniper fire in KosovoBosnia?

UPDATE: Soccer Dad writes today about Hillary's Transformation, noting that JoshuaPundit believes that her support for Israel is real and not pandering. Still, while Hillary is very gung-ho now about how she as President will attack Iran if they use nuclear arms against Israel, keep in mind that last year we heard the following from Hillary about Iran:

"Clinton then reiterated her position that the president does not have authority to launch an attack on Iran and said she was working on legislation with Democratic Virginia Sen. Jim Webb to put that into law."

I'm just not convinced that her support for Israel is authentic.

In any case, Caroline Glick explains that Clinton's deterrence model is no more effective than Obama's plan for dialog:

The second reason that basing US policy towards Iran on a deterrence model will likely fail is because Iran's leadership has made clear that is not necessarily concerned about the survivability of Iran. From Ayatollah Khomeini to Ayatollah Khamenei to Ali Rafsanjani to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's leadership has made clear that they are not Iranian patriots but global Islamic revolutionaries. Given their millenarian, apocalyptic view of their country's purpose in world affairs, there is good reason to believe that a strategy based on some form of mutually assured destruction would have only marginal impact on Iran's decision-makers.

Clinton's idea sounds good, but it is canned and does not take into account the context of the country and culture she is talking about.

Crossoposted at Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Hillary.

Hillary Clinton States Her Israel Policy

In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Clinton boils it all down to one paragraph:

Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians. The fundamental elements of a final agreement have been clear since 2000: a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank in return for a declaration that the conflict is over, recognition of Israel's right to exist, guarantees of Israeli security, diplomatic recognition of Israel, and normalization of its relations with Arab states. U.S. diplomacy is critical in helping to resolve this conflict. In addition to facilitating negotiations, we must engage in regional diplomacy to gain Arab support for a Palestinian leadership that is committed to peace and willing to engage in a dialogue with the Israelis. Whether or not the United States makes progress in helping to broker a final agreement, consistent U.S. involvement can lower the level of violence and restore our credibility in the region.

Martin Kramer takes this apart in detail, but some things in particular stand out:

There is no mention of terrorism--the issue is to "lower the level of violence." Not eliminate the rockets fired at Israeli citizens; just lower the violence--even then, it is not clear is she is referring to Palestinian 'violence' or overall violence in the Middle East.

According to Clinton, the Palestinian Arabs get a state. What does Israel get? She gets: 'a declaration', 'recognition', 'guarantees', 'diplomatic recognition', and 'normalization'. Clinton does not take a stand that the terrorism--which she does not mention anyway--will stop. Israel gets words; Palestinian Arabs get themselves a brand new country.

Even among the words, the guarantees, recognition, and declarations--Kramer points out that something is left out:

The Palestinians insist that they will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state, because this effectively negates their "right of return." Hillary herself, in a statement made in September, said she personally "believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state... must never be questioned." Yet Hillary's formula in the Foreign Affairs piece invites the Palestinians to do just that, asking them simply to "recognize Israel's right to exist."

A Palestinian can only read this as an invitation to hold firm to the bogus "right of return" (and hold out against the Bush-Rice diplomatic surge in anticipation of a Hillary administration).

The New York Sun has an article about Hillary's statement--good thing too. If you look for it on Hillary Clinton's site, you can't find it. If you go to "issues" or "press releases" and search for 'Israel': nothing comes up. And don't even think of doing a search of her site--there is no such option. After all, no point in taking a stand and being held responsible for it.

According to September article in the New York Sun:

Last Tuesday, prior to the start of the Jewish High Holiday season, Mrs. Clinton's campaign circulated a paper articulating her support for Israel. Headlined "Hillary Clinton: A Long History of Strong and Steadfast Leadership for the U.S.- Israel Relationship," the statement addressed Mrs. Clinton's positions on Israel's fight against terrorism, the threat of Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital. "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned," the paper states. [emphasis added]

Besides supporting Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, which implies rejecting the Palestinian Arab right of return, Clinton also supports an undivided Jerusalem--of course she can afford to commit to that, seeing as how Olmert and friends have expressed their readiness to divide Jerusalem.

It should be obvious, but what a former director of AIPAC is quoted as saying bears repeating--presidential candidates will say anything for votes:

Morrie Amitay — who is a former director of Aipac, a Washington lawyer, and a pro- Israel activist — cautioned against reading too much into Mrs. Clinton's statement. "What a candidate says before they're elected is fairly meaningless. She's become a friend of Israel only recently. You do not know what she really believes," Mr. Amitay said. [emphasis added]

The fact remains, as Martin Kramer makes clear, putting aside how candidates do not necessarily do what they promise once elected--what Clinton says in her Foreign Policy article does not jive with her statement to the Jewish community in September.

Read Martin Kramer's Hillary: Triangulation on Israel?
[Hat tip: Powerline]

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillary Clinton.

Neither Democrats Nor Republicans Court Arab Arab-American Leadership

Apparently the Jewish vote is not the only vote that the Democratic Party is taking for granted:

None of the American leading presidential candidates whether Democrats or Republicans, showed up at the Arab American Institute national conference held this week in Detroit.

Some 600 Arab American leaders participated in the parley, considered to be the Arab equivalent of the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

Frontrunner Hillary Clinton did not disappoint--unless the Arab leadership was actually looking for specifics from the woman who kissed Suha Arafat:

The senior Democratic candidates made due with a recorded message. Senator Hillary Clinton did not mention the word "Palestine" or "Palestinian state," but made due with a general promise to renew the peace process with "an effort to grant peace and security to Israel and the Palestinians." Clinton said in a recording sent to the conference that the US under her leadership would be regularly involved in the US "in a way that will prevent violence and renew faith in America in the area."

Democrats seem to feel they have a lock on the Arab vote with vague promises and the war in Iraq--but what if Al Qaeda really is defeated and Iraq acquires a real measure of peace and stability by next year, what then? Would the Arab vote still be in the Democratic Party's back pocket? Unlike the Jewish vote, the Arab vote did go Republican before, back in 2000. Who's to say it cannot happen again? What would it take?

Technorati Tag: Arab Americans and Democratic Party.

Hillary vs. Hillary vs. Hillary vs. Hillary

An ad from the John Edwards campaign.

Not that politicians don't do this all the time, but it's rare to see it caught so well.

[Hat tip: Powerline]

Technorati Tag: Hillary Clinton.

The Difference Between Clinton and Rice

The Town Crier writes:

Who ever thought we would see the day in which HILLARY CLINTON would fully support Israel and it's military action - an attack on Syria to take out nuclear devices - Only to find out a few days later that Bush administration's own CONDI RICE was against the measure - with the added preposterous idea that Israel is somehow going to "destabilize" the Middle East.

I don't see why this should come as a surprise, seeing that Clinton is a politician running for office who takes little risk approving an action that has already been taken--just see how she tried to avoid answering the question whether she would approve of Israel taking out Iranian reactors. Rice on the other hand is the Secretary of State--and has to deal with the diplomatic consequences of Israel trespassing Syrian airspace and destroying its target.

Not that I am a fan of either Rice or the current US policy towards Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. However, if Clinton is such a friend of Israel, it would be nice to see her not place it safe and give her support to an action against Iran--a far greater threat to Israel.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hillary Clinton.

HILLARY: MALIKI, NO; ARAFAT, YES. On Hillary Clinton's statment that Maliki of Iraq must go, Andy McCarthy writes:

All that said, though, shouldn't Senator Clinton have a higher standard to meet in explaining why Maliki is unacceptable? This is the same former First Lady who actively encouraged her husband's embrace of Yasser Arafat — a poisonously corrupt master terrorist the Clintons cultivated as a statesman, repeatedly hosted at the White House, and got a second intifada for their troubles. Plus, we now know that, through all that time, the government knew Arafat had ordered the cold-blooded murder of American diplomats in Sudan in 1973.

Shouldn't Sen. Clinton have to explain on what basis Arafat was acceptable but Maliki isn't?

Maybe because she was so impressed by Suha Arafat?

Technorati Tag: Hillary Clinton and Arafat and Maliki.

HILLARY CLINTON AND STAR TREK. The Jewish World Review has a piece by Kathleen Parker on the releasing of some letters of Hillary Clinton from during her college years.

Parker concludes:

Reading too much into these musings is a temptation to resist. Even so, it seems not much of a stretch to say that Hillary's superego won the joust. She married an id boy and let Bill Clinton carry the couple's narcissism for her, while Hillary carried the cross of self-discipline and moral vigor for him.

I suppose Parker things this is a good thing. Obviously she does not remember the Star Trek episode from the original series--"The Enemy Within," where Kirk is split into 2 separate beings.

Written by renowned novelist-screenwriter Richard Matheson (The Incredible Shrinking Man), the outstanding episode "The Enemy Within" proposes a transporter malfunction that results in Captain Kirk being divided into two versions of himself, one aggressive and brutal, the other sensitive and good. Essentially, the personality mix that makes Kirk an effective leader and balanced man is scattered like so many marbles, and the result is one captain running around mauling women and wreaking havoc while the other is frightened and indecisive.

Is this really the kind of image of Hillary that Parker wants to convey?

Technorati Tag: Hillary Clinton and Kathleen Parker.

HILLARY TO NATIONAL JEWISH DEMOCRATIC COUNCIL: TALK TO IRAN. Jim Geraghty has a post about Clinton advocating James Baker's recommendation of using diplomacy--and being applauded for the idea, which Geraghty approaches skeptically.

Senator Clinton was applauded when she talked about re-engagement with Iran, a position that I suspect would be more controversial with other Jewish organizations.

"We cannot should not and must allow Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons - that has to be our starting point. No option can be taken off the table. But I think it’s important to look at all options – some have been narrowed by the choices of this administration. If the Bush administration had been smarter, and had been engaged with Iran, Syria and others, I’m not saying dangers would be lessened, but that the process of direct engagement is important. This president’s attitude is “I don’t talk to bad people.” I don’t think that is a smart way to manage the threats we face."

Geraghty has more on Clinton's speech, including a partial transcript.

Technorati Tag: Iran and Hillary Clinton and Israel.