One of the most appealing aspects of being a liberal journalist – for efficiency’s sake, no doubt – is that you don’t have to wait until the game is over to report the winner and the final score — no matter how many additional runs are scored.
Ahead of yesterday’s Benghazi hearing, the predictable Los Angeles Times and The New York Times had declared – in pre-written stories for this morning’s editions – that Hillary Clinton was the untouched and still undefeated winner of the sparring.
The L.A. Times’s lead headline, “Clinton holds up under Benghazi panel grill,” was going to convey that sentiment regardless of the lies, prevarications and contradictions that Hillary related.
Even after Hillary’s more or less 11 hours of wavy, wobbly, disingenuous testimony, she deftly avoided responding to the two most important unresolved questions surrounding the four American deaths that President Obama allowed and lied about on the eve of the 2012 election:
- What did Secretary of State Clinton know and do, between late afternoon and midnight on the day of the massacre, Sept. 11, and
- What in the world was President Obama doing during this period?
As far as we know, nothing, because he and she felt to take any overt action would spoil Mr. Obama’s re-election chances.
Ambassador Chris Stevens, whose name Hillary mangled, sent 600 messages to Hillary requesting greatly strengthened protection in this hellhole. None of the 600 emails, according to Hillary, reached her, she said in her moon-is-made-of-green-cheese testimony.
Disregard her other major lies and evasions yesterday.
Why isn’t someone, any normal person, outraged by this?
Instead, liberals ignore these needless murders to concentrate on a cop in Flukeyville shooting a violator of the law because it suits their race-based narrative.
