Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Report
By: Bill O'ReillyJune 28, 2016
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

First off, the terror attack that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya on September 11th, 2012 was an act of war.

Yet the Obama administration does not see it that way; only one person is currently under arrest for the action.

From the beginning the attack was marginalized, first described as a spontaneous uprising against Americans, then spun as partisan politics.

Talking Points would like to lay out the truth tonight.

The Republican congressional report has concluded the following:

That almost immediately after American Ambassador Christopher Stevens came under attack, State Department officials in Washington knew exactly what was happening.

Greg Hicks, a State Department official in Libya, was talking to D.C. and says there was no discussion about any video prompting the terror attack.

It was quickly apparent that the terrorists were organized and those Libyans hired to protect the ambassador had run away.

Then hours after Ambassador Stevens was murdered there was a big meeting in the White House.

But approximately half that meeting was spent on politics, not trying to get American assets into Libya to protect the remaining Americans there.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says he ordered the military to go to Libya, but that did not happen.

Panetta says President Obama and Secretary Clinton agreed with his order.

It is unclear why the military did not carry out Panetta’s mandate, and President Obama did not order an investigation to find out.

But here's the worst part: Even though President Obama did not himself say videos caused the terror attack, his ambassador to the UN did say that.

Sept. 16, 2012

SUSAN RICE, THEN-US AMBASSADOR TO THE UN: “What happened this week in Cairo, in Benghazi and many other parts of the region was a result, a direct result, of a heinous and offensive video.”

And Ambassador Rice's statement was not corrected by the White House.

Summing up, the Republican report says the federal government failed to protect Ambassador Stevens and the three other Americans who were murdered and that the Obama administration misled the world after the fact.

Now to the Democratic side of the House committee.

Their report is strange to say the least.

Congressman Elijah Cummings, about as partisan a man as there is in the House, led the Democratic response.

It says the following.

That Democrats on the committee still do not know what motivated the terror attack.  They still will not concede the video thing was a ruse.

That Obama administration officials did not make intentionally misleading statements, even though Ambassador Rice obviously did not put forth the truth.

Maybe she was misled by her superiors, but again, the White House did not order an investigation to find that out and the committee Democrats do not seem to have a problem not knowing what exactly happened.

And finally, that even though the State Department's security measures were quote "woefully inadequate," Secretary Clinton had nothing to do with that.

Wow, quite the conclusion.

Talking Points is not blaming Hillary Clinton for Benghazi, but certainly any fair-minded person knows that the Obama administration has consistently downplayed terror attacks.

Fort Hood, Orlando and Benghazi.

Explanations: workplace violence, gun-driven domestic terrorism and videos.

Come on.

The question going forward, will this hurt Hillary Clinton in her run for the presidency?

The answer is speculative but the facts say this:

Those who support Mrs. Clinton are not going to turn against her over Benghazi.

Those who despise the secretary already believe she mismanaged Libya.

In the middle, aimless Americans who kind of wander around not really knowing anything.

Are they likely to pay attention to the Benghazi report?

No.  They are not.

So, will Benghazi hurt Hillary Clinton?

Most likely not.

And that's the memo.

High Bar Shirt Co.