When a question is a lie; it makes all the difference

Shawn Mitchell
|
Posted: May 09, 2013 12:01 AM

What difference does it make if they drew down his security while England and other nations read the leaves of terror intelligence and withdrew their embassies from the region altogether? Or that he begged repeatedly for better security while threats and attacks escalated, and State says: “We have no idea who saw or denied his requests.”?

What difference does it make that Secretary of State Clinton ran the kind of shop where pleas from an ambassador in the hottest of global hot spots could be either denied by SOS or ignored by staff?

What difference does it make that, even after it drew down his security, the administration says the mightiest fighting force on earth had no response team available within several hours to reach  the unprotected consulate in the hottest of global hot spots?

What difference does it make that after the president was briefed, he disappeared, and no ordinary American knows what he did or didn’t do for the duration of the multi-hour attack, only that he left for a Las Vegas fundraiser soon after?

What difference does it make the besieged and hunted on the ground were begging for help, from anywhere, for hours and the administration’s terror response team was not activated and called into the situation?
What difference does it make that proximate forces were running to respond, but were ordered to stand down, even as no one knows who gave the Pilate-in-hand-washing-mode order to let death proceed?

What difference does it make that the President says he contradicted the order that we know was given—stand down--with the order that he says he gave: “Do what we have to to make sure our people are safe!” or that only the president can order cross border incursions, but the administration has never said whether he did or didn’t give that order?

What difference does it make that after the ambassador was slaughtered, Gregory Hicks, the imperiled second-in-command gave a 2:00 a.m. phone briefing to Secretary Clinton, told her of the sophisticated terrorist attack, with NO mention of a protest or a video that no one had ever heard of...
...and hours later she stood over the caskets of the slain, and dishonestly, viciously blamed a protest that didn’t happen for a reaction to a video that was unknown, for the deaths caused by hers or the president's non-feasance?

What difference does it make that the CIA prepared information that reported the Al Qaeda terror connection, but administration political operatives “scrubbed” the references to terror and Al Qaeda, without any basis to do so?

What difference does it make that from the caskets on the eastern seaboard, to an address in the Rose Garden, a flack on the Sunday talk shows, to tax funded TV commercials in the Middle East, to the President of the United States addressing the world at the United Nations, the administration ran with “vicious video” meme, when they knew it was irrelevant and false from the get go?

What difference does it make that the fictional video story directly contradicted, undermined, and humiliated Libya’s president who said it obviously was a terrorist attack?

What difference does it make that the vicious video story was friendlier to the president’s reelection narrative that Al Qaeda was on the ropes and war was in retreat?

What difference does it make that the president’s subordinates located and arrested the hapless movie maker for unrelated probation violations, and he still languishes in jail?

What difference does it make that when the surviving charge d’ affaires questioned State personnel how the US ambassador could say such false things about a “non-event” video, he hit a career dead end, got harassed, and demoted?

What difference does it make that Mr. Hicks was ordered not to speak alone with congressional investigators—a first in his long and distinguished career, and when he did, Secretary Clinton’s right hand woman called and screamed at him?

What difference does it make that the head of the CIA had a sudden scandal and resigned days before he was to testify about Benghazi?

What difference does it make that when he later testified, he said he didn’t know who changed the CIA talking points, or why, but he was sure they weren’t changed for political reasons?

What difference does it make that the United States of America has a media that, with few honorable exceptions, has not asked these questions, has not pursued them, has put no pressure at all on the administration to answer them, and has mocked or savaged those who do?