“We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,” Hillary Clinton told Charles Woods.
The video that the Secretary of State and past and future presidential candidate was referring to was a YouTube trailer for “The Innocence of Muslims.” The killers of Woods, Stevens, Smith and Doherty could rest easy. No drone ever came for them. The cops instead came for a man who uploaded a YouTube video.
At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary told the families, “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
Even in the presence of the families of the murdered Americans who died because of her, Hillary Clinton was still making lying about Islamic terrorism and apologizing to Muslims into her two major priorities.
Two days earlier, Hillary Clinton’s Assistant Secretary of State had told the Libyan ambassador that Ansar Al-Sharia, a group linked to Al Qaeda, was responsible. The morning of the receiving ceremony AFRICOM had sent the State Department a list of suspects, including Al Qaeda members, responsible for the Benghazi attack.
In January, Hillary had blamed “imperfect information.” As she makes her rounds promoting her book, she’s fighting to keep the video lie alive.
In “Hard Choices,” Hillary claims that there were “scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives. It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.”
Since it’s impossible to disprove a negative, it would be equally inaccurate to state that none of the attackers were influenced by a frustrated passion for Hillary Clinton. Since there’s no way to disprove the possibility that at least one of the attackers was motivated by the video, by love for Hillary or by hallucinations induced by bath salts, it’s inaccurate to state that none of the attackers carried a torch for Hillary, were angry at a YouTube video or were tripping on bath salts.
You expect to hear that kind of argument from a college freshman who just took Logic I and is trying to explain that she didn’t finish her essay because nothing can truly be finished. But you don’t expect to have to listen to this kind of childish drivel from the frontrunner for the presidency of the United States.
The Benghazi attack wasn’t carried out by a disparate group of loners with their own motives. It was an assault by a heavily armed Jihadist group whose motive was, in their own words, to ensure that “there will be nothing ruling in this country other than the laws of Allah.”
US diplomatic facilities are outposts of infidel law that don’t answer to Allah. They had to be destroyed.
Al Qaeda’s first successful attack on the US targeted embassies in Africa. Credit was claimed by a previously obscure group tied to Al Qaeda.
The attack on the Benghazi mission was similar to the failed 2008 attack on the US embassy in Yemen which used RPGs, snipers and car bombs in another carefully planned assault by an Al Qaeda affiliate. The difference was that US diplomatic facilities in Yemen were heavily fortified and defended while the Benghazi mission couldn’t have had worse security if Al Qaeda had been hired to protect it.
And considering the complex affiliations of the Martyrs of 17 February Brigade that was hired, and then not paid, to protect the mission, that is conceivably what did happen.
On September 11, 2012, Islamist groups carried out attacks against US embassies in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen. The Egyptian attack was organized by the brother of the Al Qaeda leader. The attacks in Yemen and Tunisia had also been organized or promoted by Al Qaeda terrorists and supporters.
These attacks were less heavily armed, but their goal was to remove the flag of the United States and raise the war flag of Jihad over these small outposts of US soil on Muslim land. These were not protests. They were motivated by the same pretext as Osama bin Laden’s original declaration of war on the United States for “occupying” the “holy land” of Saudi Arabia.
Al Qaeda’s attacks on US diplomatic facilities have been motivated by Bin Laden’s fatwa that “After Belief there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the Holy land.”
Like Hillary, Rice and Obama, Al Qaeda’s propaganda has been known to change, but its objectives have remained consistent. Their first US embassy attack took place in August 1998. Every few years there have been attacks by Al Qaeda affiliates against US diplomatic facilities around the world. From Saudi Arabia to Syria to Pakistan to Turkey, the attacks routinely came around every two years.
By September 11, 2012, the US was due for another attack on its diplomatic facilities. On September 13, 2006, the US embassy in Damascus had been attacked. On September 17, 2008, the US embassy in Yemen had been attacked. In 2010, the Pakistani Taliban had targeted the US Consulate.
It should not have been very difficult to spot the pattern.
Hillary’s defenders pass around a list of attacks on US diplomatic facilities under Bush. But the vast majority of those attacks were stopped by guards and defenses. The casualties were usually locals.
In Yemen, the attackers dressed in police uniforms and set off multiple car bombs to breach the embassy grounds. They had RPGs and grenades and had even set up a sniper ambush. And they still did not succeed in killing a single American diplomat, let alone in overrunning the facility.
The only American citizens killed were Yemenis related to a wanted US Al Qaeda terrorist.
That was what an attack on a US diplomatic facility looked like under Bush. That is what should have happened in Benghazi if Hillary had done her job. Instead the Benghazi facility had a “weak perimeter” and “incomplete fence” even according to the board that Hillary set up to whitewash her conduct.
But according to Hillary, she was “not equipped to sit and look at blueprints, to determine where the blast walls need to be or where the reinforcements need to be.”
There are shades of Obama in that arrogant disdain. Hillary admitted that the facility was in the top upper ten highest risk locations. And yet she couldn’t be bothered to check into its security. Are we to believe that she will be equipped to look at war plans if she becomes the President of the United States?
Hillary was also unequipped to read cables from Ambassador Stevens begging for extra security. According to her, they were only addressed to her as a “procedural quirk.”
So Hillary is innocent. Completely innocent. Some people below her may have screwed up by denying support and security to the Benghazi mission. And none of them were fired either.
They too were innocent.
The Benghazi attackers were only innocently reacting to a “hateful video.” The only guilty perpetrator that Hillary could find had uploaded a YouTube video.
In the innocence of Hillary there is a preview of her administration. When things go wrong, someone else will be at fault because she wasn’t equipped to look at the numbers or the maps. The buck won’t stop with her except as another “procedural quirk.”
Someone else will always be the guilty party. If Los Angeles gets nuked, a protester burning a Koran will be locked up. If a passenger jet is bombed, someone offending Muslims on Twitter will be punished.
There will always be someone else to take the fall. Someone who isn’t a Muslim terrorist or Hillary Clinton.
Source: Frontpage Magazine
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.