One thing I have learned from the media since the Democrat Convention is that gold star families have absolute moral authority. Even when a family attacks a candidate who had nothing to do with their son’s death at a national convention, if the candidate responds to the criticism, he is a wretched person attacking a gold star family. I am sure the media will apply this standard even-handedly to both candidates:
The parents of two Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks in 2012 have filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state at the time.
Patricia Smith and Charles Woods are seeking damages for wrongful death, defamation, the intentional infliction of emotional distress and more. They filed the lawsuit in US District Court in Washington on Monday.
The move comes three months from the general election, from two parents who have been critical of the Democratic presidential nominee’s handling of Benghazi and the public and private answers she’s given to questions about just what occurred at the US diplomatic compound there the night their sons were killed.
The lawsuit was filed by Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, a conservative organization that’s been critical of Clinton and sought her emails from her private server during her tenure as secretary of state.
Go here to read the rest. The wrongful death suit is a stretch due to the immunity that government officials possess. The defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress counts are more likely to succeed due to Clinton’s many interviews since she left office in which she has denied lying to family members of the Benghazi dead, telling them that the attack was caused by an anti-Mohammed video. She has suggested that their memories are faulty, in effect calling them liars. In any case I am sure that the press will swing into action with moral outrage, just as when Trump responded to the attack on him by the Khan family. I am sure the moral outrage of the press will sound something like this:
Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal helps point out that most members of the media this year are nothing but Democrat shills. In that respect this year is like all years since 1964 although this year they are not bothering to make any attempt to disguise the fact:
“American “journalists.” Pretty much the same thing. CNN’s Carol Costello desperately tries to get a parent of one of Lady Macbeth’s victims to focus on what’s truly important:
Charles Woods, father of U.S. Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was killed during the Benghazi attack, appeared on CNN Tuesday. CNN Newsroom host Carol Costello repeatedly badgered him about Donald Trump’s feud with Khizr Khan, and whether Trump should apologize. Transcript below, via CNN.
“I know who should apologize, and that would be Hillary Clinton, for lying to the American families who lost their loved ones as well as to the American public,” Woods said.And I’m sure when the election comes out next year, they’re going to have to make the decision, who should they vote for, based upon who will do the best job of defending this country.
WOODS: And I think the whole reason …
COSTELLO: Do you, do you think, Sir …
WOODS: … Clinton proved at Benghazi that she was incapable of protecting 35 of her own employees. So how could she possibly protect 330 million Americans at home?
COSTELLO: Do you think that Mr. Trump should apologize to Mr. Khan?
WOODS: You know, I really don’t know what’s been said. I haven’t seen a T.V. set since last Monday or Tuesday …
COSTELLO: So Eric Trump is saying that his father sort of apologized by calling Khan’s son a hero. And that Donald Trump has also sacrificed for this country.
WOODS: Well I would agree with what Mr. Trump said, definitely Khan was an American hero. He was a patriotic American, and he was also a moderate Muslim.
COSTELLO: But should Mr. Trump apologize?
WOODS: You know, like I say, I don’t know what he originally said, and I don’t know what he’s said since then. I — I know who should apologize, and that would be Hillary Clinton, for lying to the American families who lost their loved ones, as well as to the American public. You know, she’s …
COSTELLO: Do you …
WOODS: … in fact, she’s even doubled down and called us liars. Which is not appropriate at all. Because like I said, either she’s lying …
COSTELLO: Who are you endorsing this election?
WOODS: Well my son would still be alive if Mrs. Clinton was performing her job properly, as Secretary of State. So in good conscience I cannot vote for the person who was directly responsible for the death of my son. There is only two choices, and obviously I support Donald Trump.
And the main reason is because national security, as well as the economy, are the two most important issues that voters are going to have to decide upon next November.
COSTELLO: And just the last question I’ll ask you, do you wish that Mr. Trump would stop talking about the Khans now?
WOODS: You know, when Hillary Clinton on several occasions, has called the Benghazi victims’ families liars, would that be — should she apologize for that?
That exchange, ladies and gentlemen, is why so many of us have to depend on foreign news sources to find out what’s really going on in our own country.
Doctor Dorothy Woods, widow of fallen American hero Tyrone Woods, reminds us that what happened at Benghazi goes way beyond partisan politics. Americans fighting for their lives were denied military support, their requests for assistance falling on deaf ears, and there has still been no satisfactory explanation as to why. Ordinary Americans, whenever they have an opportunity, should ask Hillary Clinton what happened, since the Clinton supporting media refuses to do its job.
The House Select Committee on Benghazi have released their 800 page report. Go here to links for the sections of the report. Working in the law mines all day, I have not yet had an opportunity to read the report. Here are the key findings from people who have read it:
The State Department under Hillary Clinton continually ignored requests for beefed up security for our diplomats in Libya.
There was no attempt, no attempt, to send any military assets to our men fighting in Benghazi. They were left on their own. This, at best, was criminal negligence.
In the four years since the attack, only one of the hundreds of terrorists involved has been brought to justice. Obama’s pledge that he would seek out and punish the terrorists was empty hot air.
Subsequent to the attack the administration engaged in a conspiracy to mislead the American public by portraying this carefully coordinated terrorist attack as a riot over some anti-Islamic film by an obscure filmmaker.
The Administration has stonewalled the investigation since it commenced.
My family and I went to see 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi on Saturday. I found the movie to be an exciting and moving recreation of the actions of the CIA contractors, all former members of elite American military units, who fought against the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12, and a damning indictment of the lack of action by the administration which left these men in the lurch, their criminal inaction leading to the death of former Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. A strong language advisory as military men under fire have been known to swear on occasion, and I would further note that my wife had to leave the theater because she found the movie too intense. My review is below the fold and the usual warning as to spoilers is in full effect.
The movie 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi is being released tomorrow. From what I have been hearing from people who have had access to advance screenings, it is a gripping tribute to the CIA operatives, former members of special forces units, who during the attack on the American consulate on 9/11/12 in Benghazi, Libya, on their own initiative and against orders from higher ups, rescued 32 Americans from the consulate and then stood off the terrorists at the CIA compound until the people they rescued could be evacuated. Their urgent requests for air support went unanswered, the Obama administration, paralyzed due to the attack spoiling the mendacious campaign slogan of the Obama campaign that Al-Qaida was finished, was unwilling to make the story larger by sending military units to support the brave men holding the compound. In the fighting, two former Seals, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were slain. It is outrageous that the effort to award each of these heroes the Congressional Gold Medal has been stalled in Congress, but that pales to insignificance in that the villains who left these two men to die have incurred no penalties for the betrayal of the fundamental duty owed by a government to those who fight our enemies: to render them every assistance possible.
Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air. Retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell, who was Deputy Director for Intelligence for Africom (Africa Command), at the time of the Benghazi attack, gets to the heart of the matter:
Sharryl Attkisson, who left CBS News because of their unwillingness to report on news harmful to the Obama administration, reports on the attempt by the Obama administration to intentionally lie to the American people about the Benghazi attack:
Newly-released documents reveal direct White House involvement in steering the public narrative about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, toward that of a spontaneous protest that never happened.
One of the operative documents, which the government had withheld from Congress and reporters for a year and a half, is an internal September 14, 2012 email to White House press officials from Ben Rhodes, President Obama’s Assistant and Deputy National Security Advisor. (Disclosure:Ben Rhodes is the brother of David Rhodes, the President of CBS News, where I was employed until March.) In the email, Ben Rhodes lists as a “goal” the White House desire “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure or policy.”
The email is entitled, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan, Saturday at 4:00 pm ET” and refers to White House involvement in preparing then-U.S.Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice for her upcoming appearance on Sunday television network political talk shows.
The Rhodes email states that another “goal” is “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”
A court compelled the release of the documents, which were heavily-redacted, to the conservative watchdog group JudicialWatch, which has sued the government over its failed Freedom of Information responses. I have also requested Benghazi-related documents under Freedom of Information law, but the government has only produced a few pages to date.
Today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the Rhodes email the “smoking gun” showing the “political manipulation by the White House” after the attacks.
Well, it took over a year, but 60 Minutes last night ran a feature on the Benghazi attack on September 11, 2012 that is absolutely damning for the Obama administration. With Lara Logan as the lead reporter, it revealed an administration indifferent to the security for our diplomats and who left men fighting for us in the aftermath of the attack to fend for themselves. It did not ask the key question of why no military assets were sent to rescue them. From the transcript of the report:
The same force that had gone to the compound was now defending the CIA Annex. Hours later, they were joined by a small team of Americans from Tripoli. From defensive positions on these rooftops, the Americans fought back a professional enemy. In a final wave of intense fighting just after 5 a.m., the attackers unleashed a barrage of mortars. Three of them slammed into this roof, killing former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Lara Logan: They hit that roof three times.
Andy Wood: They, they hit those roofs three times.
Lara Logan: In the dark.
Andy Wood: Yea, that’s getting the basketball through the hoop over your shoulder.
Lara Logan: What does it take to pull off an attack like that?
Andy Wood: Coordination, planning, training, experienced personnel. They practice those things. They knew what they were doing. That was a– that was a well-executed attack.
We have learned there were two Delta Force operators who fought at the Annex and they’ve since been awarded the Distinguished Service Cross and the Navy Cross — two of the military’s highest honors. The Americans who rushed to help that night went without asking for permission and the lingering question is why no larger military response ever crossed the border into Libya — something Greg Hicks realized wasn’t going to happen just an hour into the attack.
Lara Logan: You have this conversation with the defense attache. You ask him what military assets are on their way. And he says–
Greg Hicks: Effectively, they’re not. And I– for a moment, I just felt lost. I just couldn’t believe the answer. And then I made the call to the Annex chief, and I told him, “Listen, you’ve gotta tell those guys there may not be any help coming.”
Lara Logan: That’s a tough thing to understand. Why?
Greg Hicks: It just is. We–, for us, for the people that go out onto the edge, to represent our country, we believe that if we get in trouble, they’re coming to get us. That our back is covered. To hear that it’s not, it’s a terrible, terrible experience.
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.
The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”
Another says, “You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation.”
Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom is always brilliant but he outdoes himself in a remarkable post where he explains just how ominous for the Republic the Benghazi scandal is:
I have very little I wish to say today, so sick to my stomach am I from hearing yesterday’s testimony on Benghazi, wherein career civil servants were very obviously, and oftentimes visibly, working to restrain their anger, outrage, and outright disbelief at what their own government had done (and hadn’t done) to secure the lives of Americans.
In short, the subtext of yesterday’s testimony was precisely this: it does matter. And those Democrats who have spent the last 24 hours trying to dismiss or diminish or deflect the testimony as a non-story — a tack that the mainstream press has aided them with, failing for the most part to even mention the hearings, much less provide any in-depth coverage of the revelations, save for the occasional story informing us that there were no revelations — are no better than any third-world goosestepping apparatchik whose job it is to provide cover for a Dear Leader.
They sicken me in a way I cannot even put into words — and that’s saying something, given my occasionally-documented facility with the language. These people are monsters of a sort, but even that appellation can do their rank cynicism and their easy disregard for conscience no real justice.
And the media, without doubt co-conspirators in what is a major scandal — and an even more major cover-up — are so committed to progressive activism, and to their own self-styled righteousness and compassion (which, relying on a surreal tautology and the anti-foundationalism at the heart of their ideology, they presume to claim is a function of their progressivism: they are good, so therefore what they do is good; and what they do is good because it’s being done by good people), that they have found a way to convince themselves that their biases, be it by omission or by massaging of the facts to report that there’s nothing new to report, are somehow noble and are in the service of a Greater Good.