When analyzing the Benghazi hearings, Shakespeare’s famous line from Hamlet, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”, seems to be playing out in front of our eyes.
I’d humbly add my own corollary, as well: “Methinks the Media doth protest too much, on behalf of the lady…”
That’s because, despite some tremendous revelations as to what actually transpired in Benghazi on 9/11/2012, the Media has decided upon their narrative and are sticking to it with their usual cultish zeal. Below, I’m including two examples of just how the Main Stream Media plans to portray these proceedings, for as long as they’re able.
The first is from NPR, that bastion of non-partisanship that we subsidize with our tax dollars. Does this look to you like a non-biased headline of an inquiry into American deaths and the apparent cover-up which followed?
“Do GOP’s Benghazi Charges
Harm Hillary Clinton In 2016?”
Yeah: that just SCREAMS “impartiality”, doesn’t it?
But that’s going to be the story, for as long as the Media can manage. Benghazi is to exclusively be about Hillary’s political viability in the next presidential election, rather than four Americans dying as a result of Barack Obama’s campaign narrative and his political viability leading up to the last one.
This was seen even more clearly in this clip from Democrat Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton of D.C., as she gave
the DNC’s her view of the hearings:
In case you didn’t get all that, I’ll translate for you: “Will you Bitter Clingers stop with your insane Benghazi fetish already?? How many times do we have to tell you women-hating, right-wing nutjobs that there’s nothing to see here?!?”
But of course, there were new revelations which were learned, and the Dems most certainly have reason to be anxious about Hillary, since she figures in them prominently, albeit not flatteringly.
What’s new, Kessler points out, is Hicks’ testimony that he spoke directly with Hillary Clinton on the night of the attack and briefed her:
“So it is not new that there was no protest. That’s been officially well established. It is also not new that many officials knew it was a terrorist attack.
What is new is that Hicks has put a human face on previous reporting. He also disclosed he spoke directly to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton the night of the attack, presumably relaying his conclusions.”
Hey, that sounds suspiciously as if Hillary did, in fact, know what was happening that night, despite her blaming an obscure internet video three days later:
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with.
It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
So the media has one aspect of this correct: this entire sordid tale is most assuredly political in nature. But they have the ‘when’ and the ‘who’ wrong: its ORIGIN was political, not its investigation. And it was HILLARY (along with Obama and who knows who else) who were the practitioners, not the Republicans conducting these hearings.
Charles Krauthammer did his usual spot-on job of summarizing the Leftist’s narrative here:
“…this didn’t start today, with Hillary as the lead candidate in the next election. It started in September, October, and November when there was still an election. Obama was the President; Hillary’s election in the future was never an issue.
So to pretend this is all about Hillary and her presidential campaign as Democrats are doing is preposterous.”
Benghazi is now, at the very least, an example of prioritizing political mendacity over the safety of our Libyan consulate. Lives were lost, trust has been squandered, and the last echoes of ‘Hope-N-Change’ now ring hollow with irony.
Or to paraphrase another famous Shakespearean line: