As Sec. of State Hillary Clinton delivered an Oscar-worthy performance during hearings about her failures in Benghazi, the blogosphere lit up. In response to criticism about President Barack Obama’s war in Libya and irresponsible spending by the State Dept., Democrats harped on another war despite the fact it has nothing to do with Libya.
An example of Democrat rhetoric can be found at an article published at Front Page where a reader commented:
How many American dollars was wasted on a war that George W. Bush started in Iraq in his quest for "weapons of mass destruction"? $810,542,654 and counting.
The Front Page article pointed out examples of ridiculous spending at the State Dept., just as The US Report has pointed out since 2010 when we learned State would spend $1 million on visual artists to do community artwork in villages in foreign countries. By 2012, The US Report was calling attention to a Government Accountability Office report that, among other matters, indicated the biggest problem the State Dept. has is finding employees to serve in posts that are either dangerous or not located in wealthy countries. TUSR also pointed out State built new visa facilities in countries like Brazil and China—to increase tourism.
Front Page noted State Department’s purchases of items like an e-book reader:
It did however have 16 million dollars to spend on 2,500 kindle book readers at the drastically inflated price of $6,600 per device.
State also spent $79,000 to purchase Obama’s books. Front Page has an in-depth list of State spending that should be questioned by any rational American.
The Front Page reader wasn’t the only Dem to bring up Iraq. Illinois Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin ranted about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction during the hearings on Wednesday in an obvious ploy to give Mrs. Clinton cover. President George W. Bush was successfully but improperly labeled a liar by Democrats and state-influenced media about Iraq.
Ironically, a Leftist site, Raw Story, actually corrected the record on Iraq in 2005, rightly pointing out that President Bill Clinton was already engaging in that country. Like Obama, Clinton chose to downplay his actions although he enthusiastically dropped a lot of bombs in the last three years of his presidency:
Between 1999 and 2001, the U.S. and British-led air forces in Iraq dropped 1.3 million pounds of bombs in response to purported violations of the no-fly zones and anti-aircraft fire from Saddam Hussein.
Clinton’s bombing campaign most certainly did not win America friends in the Arab or Muslim sectors. If Iraq wasn’t a threat, why did Clinton bomb the daylights out of the place?
After 9/11, it was natural for the U.S. to believe Iraq posed a threat, based on intelligence reports that turned out to be inaccurate. The 9/11 Commission Report includes information about this. Raw Story said this [boldface added]:
After an approval from Congress for war, and an unsuccessful bid for a second UN resolution, the U.S. invaded Iraq in March 2003.
Obama got no such approval for his war in Libya. Nothing was budgeted for a Libya engagement.
The Benghazi scandal has been handled poorly by most media who were eager to reelect a president despite high unemployment, an ever-growing U.S. deficit and social divisiveness encouraged by Democrats purely for political gain.
Iraq has nothing to do with Libya. Obama has yet to own up to his failure in that country and in Benghazi in particular where Westerners were warned again this week to leave.
It is quite likely that alphabet and other Democrat-influenced media are producing spin in an effort to protect Mrs. Clinton because many assume she will run for president in 2016 despite the fact that her husband’s presidency ended in scandal with even Leftist media criticizing the couple for their behavior in the White House.
Republicans have never corrected the record on Bush and Clinton regarding Iraq. It would be a good idea to do that with 2016 in mind. You can bet Dems are already strategizing for their next presidential run. You can also bet that alphabet and other Democrat-influenced media will continue to defend Mrs. Clinton in anticipation of her presidential run.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Jan. 25, 2013)