Over the last five weeks, three distinct stages have unfolded in the Benghazi cover-up revealing the inner Obama and Clinton. At first blush, we thought Benghazi exposed the amateurish and irresponsible nature of the Obama administration.
For Mr. Obama, “responsibility” does not mean precluding terrible events from happening, rather responsibility to appoint a commission to investigate what already happened, with a likely outcome exonerating the President.
Thus, long-time Arabist and leftist, Thomas Pickering, was chosen to lead the investigation with the goal, in typical Obama and leftist fashion, of blaming someone else or circumstances for disasters occurring under their watch. It is accepted somehow among liberals that we Americans are to indulge their administrations to “learn on the job” and perform better the next time, as if an apprenticeship – something ironic coming from a group that claims it is uniquely “smart”.
The second stage began when we received concrete evidence the administration had actually fabricated a lie to cover-up the true nature of the attack. It was never a consequence of a video, as they claimed, but, as we learned, an anticipated military-style attack designed to coincide on 9/11.
This particular cover-up constitutes a unique category in itself, much different than situations where politicians, and even regular people, deny their culpability as a way of saving themselves embarrassment.
It was something we Americans have never seen before: a deliberate concoction of a counter definition and scenario of what actually happened.
This is what dictators and communist rulers have historically done when brainwashing the people: it isn’t what you see or what the facts are, rather what they manufacture them to be. It is rulership by propaganda. Worse – and a first in American history—a man was arrested so as to buttress and give credence to the manufactured claim of Obama and Clinton.
Citizens watch out: you can be rounded-up and sent to jail, not for what you criminally do, but because the ruler finds your arrest convenient for his political narrative.
In the last few days, we have gone beyond amateur negation of responsibility and cover-up to stage three, something far more ominous and perfidious: it appears that Obama and Clinton will not save Americans even while watching them die, even when in a position to save them. The administration watched in real-time as the killing was going on and our military wanted to do the right thing but were constrained by administration officials from doing so.
Too many liberals keep asserting that Benghazi should have no bearing on the upcoming election: Why, they keep asking, should it matter? Implied in the question is: after all, this is not a critical issue like abortion on demand, gay marriage, or government paid contraception pills.
Such assertions reveal how utterly frivolous liberals have become, as well as skewed as to what is important for a civilization. But to those of us who do not live in their Manhattan-bubble of ersatz and foolish hierarchy of values Benghazi does matter, more than anything else. It displays a mind set, so endemic to the Obama’s and Clinton’s of the world, that protecting American life is not priority number one. Indeed, it is secondary and submissive to a greater value.
The value and consideration that seems to determine decisions for Obama and Clinton is: what will the world-wide Islamic community think?
Bringing in troops to save our men would have been the paramount goal of any other administration, but not this one. Their whole foreign policy is based on appeasing the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic leaders, such as Morsi and Erdogan.
Knowing they will not fight Islamists head-on, and imbibing a political and social sentiment where nothing is more worthy than elevating Islam to equal status of Westernism, they appease and, worse, commiserate. Barack Obama will not fight Islamic aggression when needed. His fight against the Taliban is because they are disliked by the Muslim Brotherhood and are the enemy of the Islamic leaders such as Corsi, Erdogan, and those now taking over northern Africa.
One of the parents of our men unnecessarily killed in Libya remarked how unfeeling Hillary and Obama were when meeting them when their son’s coffin arrived stateside. We saw their same indifference to American deaths after the Fort Hood massacre by the jihadist yelling Allah Akbar. Obama gets emotional only when, for example, Professor Gates rouses umbrage regarding police he calls racist or in the Trayvon Martin case.
Hillary Clinton, the bereaved father reports, remarked: “Don’t worry, we will get the man who made the video.” Not only was she insidiously using the parents to further her fabrication (by then, she knew the real truth), but also revealing her dangerous world view. The natural reaction would have been to feel and say, we will capture the man who killed your son. Instead, for Clinton, the more grievous sin and the one who must be brought to justice is he who has insulted Islam. Perhaps Mrs. Clinton is so caught up in her campaign to enact Islamic Blasphemy Laws that for her nothing is more important than protecting Islam’s beliefs—not even innocent American life.
The message of Benghazi is simple. Obama and Clinton’s priority is not protecting Americans if it does not coincide with their goal of incorporating Islam as an equal, or superior, to Americanism, or our Constitution.
Worse, it appears to be not simply a political calculation, but a value, an emotion and peculiar affinity they feel. People like this should not be entrusted with the safety and dignity of Americans.
Editor’s Note: Rabbi Aryeh Spero is author of Push Back: Reclaiming our American Judeo-Christian Spirit and president of Caucus for America.