"Benghazi without the Shame"

It’s a leap year, which means it’s even more important than usual for the Obama administration to deny the threat of Islamic terrorism. In September 2012, it fell to Susan Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., to make the rounds on the Sunday-morning talk shows and peddle the falsehood that the attack at Benghazi, Libya, was just a high-spirited reaction to an amateur video.

Yesterday—a week after the biggest terror attack on American soil since 9/11—the Rice role fell to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. This time, the administration didn’t even bother pretending it was going to tell the truth.


raven said...

Seems like they are back tracking after the WSJ article.

E Hines said...

Only somewhat. They're still withholding 18, or so, minutes.

One of the damages done by this administration's and this DoJ's routine dishonesty is that there could be entirely valid reasons for withholding those minutes: there might be names mentioned or other data discussed that legitimately could be withheld to protect an investigation, either this one or a related one.

But it's impossible to believe this AG or this President regarding even legitimate reasons.

Eric Hines

E Hines said...

Lynch, on Sunday's Fox News show with Chris Wallace, insisted that DoJ would be absolutely transparent about the Orlando terrorist investigation. Unfortunately, Wallace chose not to ask her whether this transparency would apply to the Clinton investigation, also.

Eric Hines

Anonymous said...

The writeup in the local newspaper includes two stories saying the FBI and DOJ have released the transcript of the call by the killer. The headlines are nearly identical, and BOTH of them say he used the word "God" instead of Allah. The second story does disclose that "Republicans" criticized the earlier release, but you have to read a lot of column inches first, and the impression given does not reflect the full-spectrum, wide-throated roar from online.

There opening paragraphs have a deletion where the FBI clarifies that the phrases using the word "God" were in arabic, and not any of the potential native tongues of the person of Afghan descent.

I cannot imagine that, if an American Catholic used a quote in latin from the Mass, that the paper would report only a translation. Further, the word "Allah" is familiar to American readers. The use of the translation is offensive.


Grim said...

... the phrases using the word "God" were in arabic, and not any of the potential native tongues of the person of Afghan descent.

That's an excellent point. That shows that the use wasn't cultural or ethnic, but explicitly religious.

Ymar Sakar said...

The god of Islam, Allah, is very different from the god of the Hebrews/tribe of Israel and the god of Jesus Christ.

That's something people should make note of, it'll become important later on.