THE GREAT BENGHAZI EVASION

SPECIAL POST

My first impression of the Senate hearings yesterday was that the whole thing was well choreographed, that all of the questions had been determined ahead of time and that Hillary Clinton was responding with prepared answers.  Indeed, she would receive a question and look down to her papers and read her response.  Had the person been testifying been Barack Obama, I could have expected teleprompters in the room.  That was my first impression and, to that extent, I had to wonder whether or not this whole scenario was just smoke and mirrors with window dressing. 

It was clear from the beginning that the Democrats in the room were there to feather their own political nests and that the questions they were delivering were inherently designed to make Clinton appear to be lily-pure-clean with respect to what happened at Benghazi.  As a side note, one could gather from the way she was treated by the Democrats on the panel that she has already been anointed as their 2016 Presidential candidate; they were tip-toeing through the tulips. 

There were some moments of challenge however, and some sparks did fly over the purported “cover-up.”  Clinton defiantly suggested that we should quit looking into those questions and concentrate on catching the perpetrators.  “What difference does it make?” The way the Senate hearings eventually unfolded, the Republicans asked the pointed questions and the Democrats defended Clinton from those attacks while asking their own watered-down questions.   

Does it make a difference?  Absolutely it does if another wrong was perpetrated on the American public and deliberately covered up, or if there was misfeasance or malfeasance.   

The House hearing was somewhat similar.  She ducked the query of who put Susan Rice out there to answer questions.  The Republicans asked some very pointed questions, but it was difficult to determine whether or not they were orchestrated.  She again dodged on the question of why the misleading statements originally came out and a cover-up started with the “What’s the difference?” tactic.  And she successfully evaded many questions by pointing out that the matter was still under FBI investigation. 

After the hearings were over, news headlines insisted that Hillary had blown her cool at least once and that angry words were spoken, as if a bloodbath occurred on the floors of Congress.  At most, I would label those moments as being “skirmishes.”  And, at the end of the day, I don’t think we know anything more about the Benghazi Massacre today than we did the day after it happened.  These hearings certainly did not shed any light on the events and were, as far as I am concerned, a complete waste of time and an opportunity for a lot of political grandstanding. 

As far as Hillary's performance goes, who could expect anything different?   Remember the Rose Law Firm scandal?  

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.