Clinton can’t avoid Benghazi questions
Published: Thursday, February 7, 2013
Updated: Thursday, February 7, 2013 17:02
The attack in Benghazi marked the low point in Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of State.
On Feb. 1, senator John Kerry succeeded her in the diplomatic position.
Even though the Benghazi incident happened months ago and a new Secretary of State has filled Clinton’s roll, many individuals are not done scrutinizing the tragedy that left four American’s dead.
The major concern over Benghazi rests in the belief that Clinton and her administration purposefully deceived the American public about the attack.
This isn’t the first time a Clinton has been accused of deception. As exciting as Bill Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal was, it did not have the side affects politically as the scandal that took place twenty years prior.
In 1972, the Watergate scandal motivated President Richard Nixon to resign. Although Nixon had handily won the previous election, a plan was devised to spy on the Democratic National Committee.
After the operatives were caught, Nixon lied about his involvement, fired staff, and eventually resignation.
It wasn’t the information that Nixon was seeking that had people fired up, but the deceitful cover that pressed him to resign.
If only Nixon had remedied the situation by being honest about his involvement, the incident could have been astronomically different.
Fast forward 40 years to America’s handling of the Benghazi consulate attack where there is a similar situation.
Just like Watergate, Benghazi could have had a different outcome.
Regardless of the desire to forgo, or place blame on Secretary of State Clinton for ignoring the 3 requests for more protection; Clinton cannot deny that these requests were overlooked.
This may be why the administration had a smoke and mirrors explanation for the attack.
Just as Nixon had done, the current administration offered a scapegoat. Instead of five White House “plumbers,” Clinton’s team pinned the blame on a riot over a YouTube video that depicted Mohamed.
The evidence surrounding the Watergate eventually lead reporters to believe Nixon was directly involved. The evidence surrounding Benghazi lead officials to be certain that this was not a spontaneous attack.
After the scandal, Nixon kept hushed over the issue and lied to the press. After the attack Susan Rice, Ambassador to the United Nations lied to the press and everyone around her kept hushed.
During Clinton’s Senate address over Benghazi, Clinton read from a statement, “As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right.”
Even though she has taken responsibility she still was not interested in answering the question about deceiving the public. When asked she said, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
In that place of power and trust, being honest makes all the difference. Honesty should not be a switch that can merely be turned on or off.
John McCain, past presidential hopeful and Arizona Senator echoes this sentiment, “the American people deserve to know answers, and they certainly don’t deserve false answers.”
After leaving office on Friday Clinton told AP, “There are some people in politics and in the press who can’t be confused by the facts. They just will not live in an evidence-based world. And that’s regrettable.”
As bitter as her statement sounds, at least she will not be remembered for saying, “I’m not a crook.”
It will be interesting to see how Benghazi will continue to follow her as she decides to run for president in 2016.
Micah Christensen is a Communication Studies major of Cheyenne, Wyo.