"I'm going to leave it at that . . ."

. . . instead of answering your question, says Secy. Clinton.  Joseph Curl outlines the shape-shifting story of the Benghazi attack, strangely reminiscent of the more triumphant, but still shape-shifting, story of the bin Laden raid:
On the eve of a House oversight committee hearing, the State Department called a briefing for the media.  For an hour, over the telephone, top department officials spun a new tale that bore almost no resemblance to the official story they’d been telling for weeks. 
There was no protest, the officials said, no protest that grew out of hand until a spontaneous mob — whipped into a rage over a video — poured into the consulate. In fact, “nothing was out of the ordinary” on the night of the attack, one official said. . . . 
The FBI wouldn’t reach Benghazi for 17 days.  When bureau agents finally did, they took tapes from the closed-circuit security cameras.  More, reports emerged that an unmanned drone also captured the attack on video.  The story was changing fast, and just before administration officials were to testify officially before Congress.  The sudden respinning was reminiscent of the evolving story on the raid to get Osama bin Laden — first he had a gun, there was a firefight, he hid behind one of his wives; then, no gun, no firefight, no wife.
Well, screenplays do get re-written all the time, as we discover what the audience likes.   "The question is whether reporters will follow the trail of lies and deceit or leave off just as the whole mess is imploding," Curl suggests.  But actually, if you're the New York Times, the question is whether reporters will start down the trail in the first place.  As Mark Steyn noted:
Surely, even among Obama’s media sycophants, there must be someone who recognizes that all the cushy court eunuch posts are filled and, rather than being the umpteenth extra in the crowd scene, there’s a reputation, a Pulitzer and maybe a movie deal to be made here.

14 comments:

  1. From Curl's article [emphasis added]: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, thrown under the bus [by Obama], simply refused to answer questions about the attack. “That’s the very way that I’m answering your question today,” she said after not answering. “And I think I’ll leave it at that.”

    I have to wonder, given Secretary Clinton's history with a philandering (and so abusive, say I) husband, and a present boss who's thrown her under the bus presently and attacked her character for personal political gain earlier, whether her present behavior isn't consistent with the behavior of an abused woman who's just trying to make the pain go away for a little bit.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  2. Or, she's learned in a long political life that answering "I don't recall" can keep her out of jail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The question yet to be asked is, why was Stevens in Benghazi at all that day? He had just returned to the country from Europe. Three days earlier one of the Libyan security personnel had reported from Benghazi to the Embassy in Libya that security conditions were worsening.

    What took him there? Allegedly it was a meeting with the Turkish consul general, but that could have happened at the Embassy. Protocol, in fact, would suggest that it ought to happen at the Embassy because the US Ambassador is more important than a consul-general for any nation.

    So why did he go to Benghazi, nearly alone, with locally-hired security, almost as soon as he was back in the country?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Courtiers have to stay loyal to their patron. Maybe there's no post unfilled at the moment, but with a little jockeying maybe the current Emptier of the Royal Second Undersecretary's Chamberpot will be tossed under the bus and the reporter can move up a notch.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What took him [to Benghazi]?

    I've seen descriptions of Stevens' character that he was the sort of diplomat who insisted on going to where the people were--sort of like the minister who insists on visiting the bars and brothels because that's where the sinners were--rather than expecting that they would come to him.

    Which doesn't answer "why there," or "why at this time," or "for what purpose," but it does suggest that the trip was entirely consistent with his view of his job as diplomat in Libya.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, by all accounts he spent a lot of time in Benghazi specifically. Whether it was a bar or a brothel that took him there is the question we haven't seen asked. What was the mission? It wasn't -- or, rather, wasn't just -- a meeting with a Turkish consul.

    There was something going on in Benghazi itself that demanded his attention. We don't have any idea what it was.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "There was something going on in Benghazi itself that demanded his attention."

    Agreed.

    "We don't have any idea what it was."

    I trust it will come out someday, maybe.

    In the meantime relentlessly poking the Administration for a coherent, consistent explanation is appropriate.

    P.S. 21 days and a wake up...

    ReplyDelete
  8. P.S. 21 days and a wake up...

    You actually gonna be able to sleep that night?

    20 days and a long day's night in my house. Even though I'll already have voted here in Plano.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  9. "You actually gonna be able to sleep that night?"

    TBD. The spinal cord and Jack Daniels has final say on when and how much I sleep. Obama? Nah. He's going downnnnnnn.

    "20 days and a long day's night in my house. Even though I'll already have voted here in Plano."

    Tonight Walkin' Boss told me she needed to vote early due to work and the sports schedule at school. Looks like we'll hit the ballot box early next week.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Obama? Nah. He's going downnnnnnn.

    I wish I shared your confidence.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I wish I shared your confidence."

    Yeah, me too.

    ReplyDelete
  12. For what it's worth, I've never doubted that the Republican (whoever he was) would win this year. It's sad that the margin is as close as it seems to be, although perhaps on Election Day it won't be as close as it looks.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "perhaps on Election Day it won't be as close as it looks."

    Agreed.

    MIL & FIL voted today at their designated poll located in one of the close in Metro Hotlanta counties.

    MIL & FIL vote every election and MIL says she has never seen so many people queued up to vote.

    MIL told Walkin' Boss that the crowded line to vote wrapped around the building, a rather large building. MIL said it took a little over two hours from the time when MIL & FIL queued up until they had their ballots in their hands.

    I'll not bother to mention the various topics of conversation MIL said she [over]heard and participated in while waiting in line, but what MIL relayed supports your statement.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, I can't decide if I want to vote early, or save it for the magic of participating on the big day. Georgia isn't going to decide the election, but still. It's a part of being a citizen.

    ReplyDelete