“It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition.” — Thomas Jefferson, 1785
FEATURED RIGHT ANALYSIS
By Nate Jackson
With an acclaimed performance at the Democrat debate behind her, and Joe Biden demurring on a presidential run, Hillary Clinton’s next hurdle before securing her iron grip on the Democrat nomination was an appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi Thursday. And if Leftmedia circle-the-wagons headlines like “No clear wins for GOP at Benghazi hearing” and “Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed” are any indication, she has little reason to worry.
Or does she?
Committee Democrats did their best to grandstand and ask leading questions to help bring out the “answers” Clinton wanted to give. But her felonious complicity in and her subsequent cover-up of the true story of the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi was on full display. As committee chairman Trey Gowdy made clear in his opening statement, Ambassador Christopher Stevens, his aide Sean Smith, and two diplomatic security officers, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, deserve answers and accountability.
Clinton was addressing three audiences Thursday, the first two being obvious: the committee and her public constituency. The third audience was less evident — FBI investigators, who are looking for any attempts she makes to obfuscate the truth. If she does anything to divert from the truth — not just perjury — it’s a felony. And we all know the Clintons are adept at perjuring themselves.
There is still a chance, however remote, that Clinton will be indicted by the FBI regarding her mishandling of classified material on her private email server. Which brings us to the most significant moment in Thursday’s Benghazi hearings, thanks to her now-public emails.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) brought up a couple of key communications from Clinton in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack revealing that she knew from the moment shots were fired it was terrorism. The night of the attack, Clinton emailed her daughter, Chelsea, and said, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like [sic] group.”
“You tell the American people one thing,” Jordan noted. “You tell your family an entirely different story.”
Even more damning is the second record: a State Department summary of a call between Clinton and the Egyptian prime minister the day after the attack. Those notes reveal she informed him, “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack — not a protest.” Furthermore, “Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
Yet on the night of the attack, the State Department issued a statement blaming “inflammatory material posted on the Internet” for a spontaneous protest that became violent.
On the anniversary of 9/11 by mere coincidence, we suppose.
Jordan laid into Clinton: “Let me read that one more time. We know — not we think, not it might be — we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with a film. It was a planned attack. Not a protest. State Department experts knew the truth. You knew the truth, but that’s not what the American people got.”
Democrats and their Leftmedia posse want us to believe Clinton emerged from the hearing unscathed, and that she had every right to look as irritated and bored as she did. But it’s no wonder Clinton sought to conceal her email, and then, when she could no longer do so, deleted 30,000 of them before handing over printed copies to the State Department. She had a lot to hide.
At one point in the 11-hour hearing, Clinton attempted to take the moral high ground, asserting, “I would imagine I’ve thought more about what happened than all of you put together. I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been wracking my brain about what more could have been done or should have been done.”
Chris Stevens has lost a lot of sleep too, though he was unavailable for comment.
As we have said all along, Clinton and the entire Obama administration lied about the attack. Not only did Clinton lie to the American people for weeks, she had the audacity to lie to the families of the four slain Americans over their flag-draped caskets. “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with,” she told them.
And on Thursday, she doubled down on that lie, insisting, “I believe to this day the video played a role.”
Totally outrageous. But her penchant for uttering falsehoods has become habitual. Indeed, she appears presidential because she’s no longer fazed by the prospect of lying.
Clinton and Obama lied about Benghazi in order to provide political cover for Obama’s 2012 campaign and Clinton’s 2016 aspirations. After all, as secretary of state, she would far rather conjure up a false narrative related to an obscure anti-Islamic Internet video than to acknowledge that the first ambassador killed in 30 years was murdered by al-Qaida. Not when Clinton and Obama were covering up her record of malfeasance by insisting their foreign policy was a success and al-Qaida was “on the run.”
“Where did the false narrative start?” Jordan asked rhetorically. “It started with you, Madame Secretary.”
That inconvenient truth renders her completely unfit for office, and we will endeavor to persuade the American people to see it that clearly. Whether or not she’s indicted by the FBI, she should be indicted by voters and sent into permanent retirement.
TOP RIGHT HOOKS
The New York Times is ringing the alarm bells over the likelihood this year will top 2014 for the hottest year on record (it wasn’t, by the way). “2015 Likely to Be Hottest Year Ever Recorded,” read Wednesday’s headline trumpeting NOAA’s announcement that the first nine months of this year featured unparalleled warmth. That’s not entirely surprising — with a strong (historic?) El Niño taking shape, the odds were high anyway — so we’ll just go ahead and make it official: 2015 will be the warmest year on record. But the veracity of that claim depends on who’s keeping score. There are two critical drawbacks. First, NOAA relies on land-based measurements, which can easily be manipulated, and there is a significant amount of geography that doesn’t contain any data — meaning the overall picture is very much incomplete. Second, and most egregious, the agency continues to tinker with historical records to inflate today’s warming. So forgive us for being skeptical of an agency that reconfigures data for political purposes.
On the other hand, satellite measurements reveal that the Great Pause is still going strong, now at 18 years and eight months. Some believe this warming hiatus will eventually end because of El Niño, but so far it hasn’t. And that’s perhaps the most surprising thing of all — because all streaks eventually end. The Left, of course, can barely conceal its excitement over NOAA’s claims, because it fits their narrative perfectly. UN delegates will meet for a climate summit in Paris next month. And the sense is that they’ll finally have enough momentum to regulate carbon emissions.
Secretary of State John Kerry recently said, “[W]hen I hear a United States senator say, ‘I’m not a scientist so I can’t make a judgment,’ or a candidate for president for that matter, I’m absolutely astounded. … [W]hen more than 6,000-plus peer-reviewed studies of the world’s best scientists all lay out that [global warming] is happening and mankind is contributing to it, it seems to me that [climate skeptics] disqualify themselves fundamentally from high public office with those kinds of statements.” Given the facts — 18 years, eight months and counting, John — why should skeptics be penalized for rejecting junk science?
“I think we always have to guard against mission creep,” Barack Obama said in June 2014, “so let me repeat what I’ve said in the past: American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again.” But here we are. U.S. government officials said Thursday that a Special Forces soldier was killed in Iraq rescuing 70 prisoners that the Islamic State planned to murder in the morning. What is nobler than snatching people caught in the clutches of such evil? The prisoners were a mix of townspeople, soldiers in the Iraqi army and former Islamic State fighters who were accused of being spies. But despite the overall success of the operation, the Obama administration is running damage control. “U.S. forces are not in a combat role in Iraq,” said Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook on Thursday. The details of the raid, as described by Reuters, betray a greater involvement in the fight against the Islamic State than the administration has let citizens believe. To strike the Islamic State, the U.S. loaded up five helicopters with “dozens” of U.S. soldiers and peshmerga fighters. Even before the body armor was shouldered and the magazines loaded, the U.S. helped collect intelligence and supported the operation with air strike capabilities. The U.S. soldiers — the official story goes — were only there in an advisory role. But when do advisors go into the thick of combat, standing within striking distance of Islamic State bullets? Obama said that there would be “no boots on the ground” and the geopolitical situation is under control while “al-Qaida is on the run.” So now he’s twisting reality and denying honor to this American soldier who paid the ultimate sacrifice for Obama’s interests.
Did Kate Steinle die in vain? On July 1, the 32-year-old Steinle was shot by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant with seven previous felony convictions and five deportations, as she was strolling arm-in-arm with her father on San Francisco’s Pier 14. Her death highlighted the fact that American cities deal with spikes of crime when they institute “sanctuary city” policies that allow illegal immigrants to walk the streets protected from law enforcement. (Steinle’s killer had been released from jail — but not deported — in March.) Democrats continue to resist much-needed reform. Most recently, the Senate tried to bring forward a measure named The Stop Sanctuary Cities Act, which would have stopped federal funds from flowing to any city that declared itself a sanctuary. Senate Democrats blocked blocked the bill from advancing despite a 54-45 vote Oct. 20 (it needed 60 votes to move forward). Back in San Francisco, Steinle’s murder didn’t appear to faze the city’s leaders. In a unanimous vote, the city’s Board of Supervisors affirmed its sanctuary city policies. Even liberal Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) spoke out against San Francisco’s radical stance. “I believe these murders could have been prevented if there were open channels of communication between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities about dangerous individuals,” she said. In Feinstein’s comments there’s hope. While she voted against “Kate’s Law,” she — and hopefully other Democrats — is interested in some kind of sanctuary city reform.
MORE ORIGINAL PERSPECTIVE
- ANALYSIS: Walmart Wage Hikes Come With a Steep Price
- Ben Carson’s Educational Policy Is No Friend of Liberty
- House Sends Opening Salvo in Budget Fight
BEST OF RIGHT OPINION
- Charles Krauthammer: Iran Marches, Russia Rules, Obama Watches
- Erick Erickson: The Fundamentals Still Matter
- Mona Charen: About a Boy
For more, visit Right Opinion.
- Feds Have Spent More on Origami Condoms, Fat Lesbian Studies Than on Benghazi Committee
- Ryan Officially Runs for Speaker
- Obama Vetoes Defense Policy Bill
For more, visit Patriot Headline Report
OPINION IN BRIEF
Charles Krauthammer: “Putin’s larger strategy is also obvious. He is not reconstructing the old Soviet empire. That’s too large a task. But he is rebuilding and reasserting Russia’s ability to project power beyond its borders. … They are pounding non-Islamic State rebels, many equipped, trained and allegedly supported by the U.S. and Obama’s vaunted 60-nation coalition. What a comfort to be pulverized by 60 to 90 Russian airstrikes each day but to know that Belgium is with you. … Obama’s response to all this? Nothing. He has washed his hands of the region, still the center of world oil production and trade, and still the world’s most volatile region, seething with virulent jihadism ready for export. When you call something a quagmire you have told the world that you’re out and staying out. Russia and Iran will have their way. ‘60 Minutes’ asked Obama: Are you concerned about yielding leadership to Russia? Obama responded dismissively: Propping up a weak ally is not leadership. I’m leading the world on climate change.”
From the House’s bulldog: “Why were there so many requests for more security personnel and equipment, and why were those requests denied in Washington? Why did the State Department compound and facility not even come close to meeting proper security specifications? What policies were we pursuing in Libya that required a physical presence in spite of the escalating violence? Who in Washington was aware of the escalating violence? What precautions, if any, were taken on the anniversary of 9/11? What happened in Washington after the first attack? And what was our response to that attack? What did the military do or not do? What did our leaders in Washington do or not do, and when? Why was the American public given such divergent accounts of what caused these attacks, and why is it so hard to get information from the very government these four men represented, served and sacrificed for?” —Trey Gowdy
“Libya is in chaos. It’s a festering pit of radicalism, anarchy and death, epitomizing everything that can go wrong when Western intervention has no clear long-term purpose. And a woman who believes she should be president of the United States — ostensibly on the strength of her decision-making abilities as secretary of state — believes that what’s going on in Libya is a success.” —commentator David Harsanyi
Leadership: “I never thought I’d be speaker. But I pledged to you that if I could be a unifying figure, then I would serve, I would go all in. After talking with so many of you and hearing your words of encouragement, I believe we are ready to move forward as one, united team. And I am ready and eager to be our speaker.” —Rep. Paul Ryan in an email to Republican lawmakers
Upright: “Obama should not be using our military for political leverage. The budgets for the president’s liberal priorities have gone up significantly while he has been in office, but the president isn’t satisfied and is willing to use a national security bill as leverage for more. Vetoing the defense bill in order to increase domestic spending is wrong and is Washington at its worst.” —Heritage Foundation’s Justin Johnson
“After a lot of speculation, Vice President Joe Biden announced that he is not running for president of the United States. He made the announcement this afternoon from the Rose Garden at the White House. It’s weird to hold a press conference to say you’re not doing something, right? Like announcing to your girlfriend that you won’t be proposing.” —Jimmy Kimmel
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.