Andrew McCarthy Speaks Powerfully Ahead of Hillary’s Testimony at the Benghazi Hearings

Posted on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 by Post Scripts

Posted by Tina

Andrew McCarthy is an experience litigator in matters of national security. He was the lead prosecutor the 1993 World Trade Center bombing case. McCarthy successfully prosecuted of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. He writes for National Review. Today he, like John Bolton,has chosen to write about the Benghazi hearings and Hilary’s much anticipated opportunity to tell the truth about Benghazi. Please read his article, Hillary Clinton’s Appearance Before the Benghazi Committee in which he asks an important question: “What mission was so essential that it was necessary to keep Americans on-site when the jihadist threat had become so intense that other nations and organizations were pulling their people out?”

In other words, what were our people doing in that God forsaken place? These are important questions that speak to her competence to lead:

These questions implicate disastrous policy that was, very much, bipartisan policy: (a) withdrawing American support for the Qaddafi regime that our government was funding and allied with against jihadist terror; (b) switching sides to aid and arm the jihadist-rife “rebels” who opposed Qaddafi; (c) waging a war under false pretenses – i.e., working for Qaddafi’s ouster, without congressional authorization, under the guise of a U.N. mandate that only permitted the protection of civilians; and (d) transitioning from support of Libyan jihadists to support for Syrian jihadists – i.e., transitioning from the policy that has left Libya a failed state with a growing ISIS and al Qaeda foot print, to a policy that contributed to the ascendancy of ISIS – by among other things, abetting the shipment of weapons from Libya to Syria.

McCarthy expresses disappointment in the committee’s “zest” for getting to the bottom of these important issues, suggesting errors that fueled accusations and obfuscation. He also blasts the partisan Clinton “camp” citing Clinton’s “herculean effort to impede fact-finding” and the farcical ARB (State Department investigation of itself):

Mrs. Clinton hand-picked the investigators conveniently and compliantly did not bother to interview her and other key Benghazi players. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that Mrs. Clinton withheld hundreds of her own emails from the ARB and that it did not have access to other highly relevant information. Further, a top State Department official has publicly stated that he walked in on an effort led by then-secretary Clinton’s staff to conceal unflattering information from the files being amassed for review by the ARB.

McCarthy offers the committee members some good advice. I hope they’re paying attention.

I should also note at this time that the State Department has withheld Chris Stevens emails, turning them over only today when the committee has little time to look through them.

Tomorrow’s hearings have the potential to serve the American people well both in terms of what is revealed and in terms of Hillary’s fitness to lead.

I can’t wait to read what Mr. McCarthy has to say after Hillary’s testimony…stay tuned.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Andrew McCarthy Speaks Powerfully Ahead of Hillary’s Testimony at the Benghazi Hearings

  1. Tina says:
    Saturday, October 24, 2015 at 10:24 pm

    Andrew McCarthy’s has quite a bit to say after Hillary’s dramatic performance art appearance before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It included a few paragraphs I hadn’t expected:

    In point of fact, Clinton and Obama had everything to do with the anti-Islamic video trailer, Innocence of Muslims. Virtually no one would have known of it had they not tirelessly publicized it in the international media and in official American government statements that were studiously linked to the Benghazi massacre.

    In reality, though, it was the video that had nothing to do with the rage and violence directed at Americans, first in Egypt, then Libya, then beyond. The violence at the U.S. embassy in Cairo had been threatened for months by al-Qaeda operatives and was clearly planned to erupt on the eleventh anniversary of the terror network’s 9/11 atrocities. The jihadists had been empowered by both the overthrow of the Qaddafi regime in Libya, orchestrated by Obama and Clinton, and the Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt, championed by Obama and Clinton

    In the weeks before September 11, 2012, al-Qaeda saber-rattled about a potential Tehran 1979–style attack on the U.S. embassy in Cairo — perhaps they’d burn it to the ground, perhaps they’d take hostages to trade for American concessions like release of the Blind Sheikh (imprisoned for terrorism convictions in the U.S.). Administration officials knew there would be trouble on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. They also knew that, if the trouble was perceived as the foreseeable fallout of their Islamist empowerment policy, it could mortally damage Obama’s 2012 reelection bid and Clinton’s 2016 election ambitions.

    So the administration swung into action. The obscure video trailer had been condemned by a fiery mufti in Egypt. Word of it began to circulate, but almost no one had seen it. Though in some small circles it was added to the endless list of Islamist grievances against America, those grievances are ideologically driven — and Islamist ideology is incorrigibly anti-American, regardless of what pretexts are cited for acting on it. So Clinton’s opportunistic underlings pounced, seeing the video as their chance to shape a fraudulent narrative. As Muslims — including al-Qaeda operatives — began menacing the Cairo embassy, the State Department put out a series of tweets, a transparent effort to spin the inevitable rioting as incited by the video, not enabled by the administration’s own promotion of Islamic supremacists. The Benghazi siege began a few hours later

    And another:

    The administration then put the criminal-justice system in service of the fraud. Making good on Clinton’s deceitful vow, police raided the home of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the video’s producer — arresting him in the dead of night, as if he were a violent criminal, even though he had been cooperating with law enforcement. Why was he cooperating with law enforcement? Far from a crime, the making of the video was constitutionally protected activity — the kind of activity the executive branch is duty-bound to protect. But Nakoula went to law enforcement because Obama and Clinton’s smear had put his life in danger

    They did that, willfully, because they needed a scapegoat: Nakoula could serve the dual purposes of deceiving Americans into linking Benghazi’s dead to the video while convincing Muslims of Obama and Clinton’s longstanding commitment to subordinate constitutional free-speech rights to sharia’s blasphemy standards. Nakoula, a small-time con man whose prior conviction made him susceptible to revocation of parole, was the perfect foil. He spent nearly a year in prison while Obama celebrated his reelection, Clinton plotted her campaign to replace him, and the Democrat-media complex helped them bury Benghazi as “old news.”

    Is there any rotten thing this bunch will not do?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.