Liberals blindly accept Clinton’s corruption on Benghazi

This week, the Select Committee on Benghazi finally got its hearing with democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Despite the plethora of evidence against Clinton revealed on Thursday, many liberal media outlets are saying that she emerged “unscathed” from the hearing.

In the months leading up to Thursday, many from the left had called the hearing a partisan attack on Clinton, intentionally devised by republicans to ruin her run for president. Even Bernie Sanders, who remains second in the democratic race, supported Clinton on the issue of Benghazi in the first debate. Sanders said America was sick of hearing about Benghazi and wanted to focus on the “real” issues burdening our country.

Well, here is a real issue Clinton, Sanders, and anyone else who thinks that this hearing’s purpose was to tarnish Clinton’s name: Four Americans died on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. Several members of our federal government, including Clinton, President Barack Obama, Susan Rice and others in the State Department, purposely lied to the American people by calling the attack a “protest” to an anti-Muslim YouTube video released prior to the attack. There is now proof that within 24 hours of the attack, Clinton was in contact with the Egyptian Prime Minister through email and said: “We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack – not a protest.”

That’s a much different version of the story from what the American people received within 24 hours of the attack.

And somehow, nobody from the left seems to care!

Let’s get this straight. Clinton, Obama, and Rice didn’t refer to the event as a terrorist attack even once. For years, they have been preaching to the American people that what happened in Benghazi was a spontaneous reaction as consequence of an online video. They’ve said it on several occasions over the last three years, including the funerals of the four Americans who lost their lives that day.

It’s truly disgusting how the liberal media has turned this into a partisan issue. So partisan, in fact, that nobody on the left is acknowledging Clinton’s corruption.

This isn’t about what party Clinton belongs to, or what her ideologies are as a presidential candidate. This was a fact-finding mission about the loss of four American lives under Clinton’s watch. Four American lives that she knowingly swept under the rug until this week – three years later – details finally emerged proving that Clinton and her staff knew from the beginning that what unfolded in Benghazi was a planned attack by a terrorist organization with links to Al-Qaeda.

Think about what happened in 1974, when Richard Nixon resigned as a result of the Watergate scandal and his pending impeachment. America used to have no tolerance for political corruption, regardless of the extent of corruption. Forty years ago, we didn’t tolerate a break in and bugging of the Democratic National Headquarters. In 2015, we accept, applaud, and endorse a presidential candidate, who as our chief diplomat, intentionally misled the American people into believing that a planned terrorist attack was a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video, solely to keep her image in tact for a run at the presidency in 2016.

Is this really a partisan debate, or have Americans become so accustomed to corruption in our political system that they don’t even care anymore? And, after the hearing, how is it even possible to endorse a presidential candidate who covered up a terrorist attack on an American consulate to save her political career?

Jacob Posik

About Jacob Posik

Jacob Posik, of Turner, is the editor of The Maine Wire, an online news and opinion service offered by the Maine Heritage Policy Center. His blog covers local and national political topics.