A Symptomatic Lie

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

I have not been able to follow news regarding the terrorist attacks in Benghazi, but I never for a moment doubted that they were terrorist attacks. Indeed, even if they were motivated (read: excused, in the minds of Islamists and leftists) by reaction to an anti-Islamic video, the attacks would have been completely unjustifiable acts of terrorism.

The Obama administration disagrees and, as Thomas Sowell devastatingly argues, is prepared to perpetuate a baseless myth in order to claim that its policy of continuing to appease Islamists is conducive to American security. Considering Hillary Clinton's widely-publicized "What difference..." remark as the expert sleight-of-hand that it was, Sowell further considers the narrative it was meant to support:

To have the attack in Benghazi be seen as a terrorist attack -- and a devastating one -- would have ruined this picture, with an election coming up.

The key question that remains unanswered to this day is: What speck of evidence is there that the attack in Benghazi was due to the much-discussed video or that there was ever any protest demonstration outside the ambassador's quarters?

If there is no evidence whatever, then the whole attempt to say that a protest over a video escalated into an attack was a deliberate hoax by people who knew better.
Well said, but we can see much more about the stature of this administration, as well as the precariousness of our situation from this episode. That there haven't been many loud calls for evidence of such a protest is bad enough. That the Obama administration may be correct to think it can get away with what it is trying to do is worse. If killing people over a video is treated as if it were okay, or even understandable, by most of the population, the whole concept of the right to free speech is in serious trouble. Since when has someone's right to live been subordinate to whether some video impugns the superstitious beliefs of savages?

In one sense, the Obama administration can be seen here for what it is: pikers cashing in on a cultural milieu they could neither have created themselves nor gotten into power without. On the other hand, they're the ones charged with protecting American interests (i.e., lives and rights), abroad and at home. If they'll lie to perpetuate a story that still wouldn't excuse the attacks even if it were true, how can we expect them to understand or care about what American interests actually are, much less really protect them? More important, how can we expect them not to actively violate our rights when it suits their own purposes?

-- CAV

No comments: