I wonder when everyone will get to the point that a US ambassador was killed at a black ops site, security was probably, or should have been under the CIA, (the President’s private army I’ve heard,) and whatever appearances there may be being projected on the issue, the truth is not in any of this bullshit.
The fantastic grilling served up by Sawyer wasn’t exceptional just because of its smartness, its civility or its persistence. It was exceptional for the way in which it upended the emphases of Benghazi “scandal” coverage. Ever since the issue roared to life amid the 2012 presidential campaign, media fixation has attached to how the Obama White House managed the post-attack phase. The allegation here is that Obama’s advisers attempted to frame the events as a random spasm of violence in reaction to an anti-Islam video, as opposed to admitting right away that the United States had been victimized again by terrorism.
Or are we to believe that acts of terrorism only happen to Americans when non-Americans pull this crap, when we do it is in defense of democracy, and when right-wing lunatics do it in country, well that’s merely a tragedy?
Instead of obsessing over that phase of Benghazi, Sawyer went heavy on the security questions: They came first, they dominated the nearly 10-minute Benghazi discussion and they may well fuel a new round of questions for the former secretary. Fox News, which interviews Clinton on June 17, might consider giving her a chance to clarify just what taking responsibility means.
Sage advice coming from Fred Hiatt’s paper. Maybe we should ask him and then we would have baseline to go by.