With Hillary Clinton's testimony before the House Benghazi Select Committee only days away, liberals have settled on a simplistic meme to frame the media narrative -- if Clinton as secretary of state was somehow at fault for the attacks on American diplomatic outposts in Benghazi in 2012, how was President George W. Bush not at fault for al Qaeda hitting the U.S. in 2001?
The two jihadist assaults do share a specific thing in common -- their date, Sept. 11, separated by 11 years. Beyond that, the analogy is deliberately misleading and hence inherently appealing to the left, as conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh pointed out Monday.
Limbaugh's remarks came in response to Jake Tapper's interview with Jeb Bush over fellow GOP candidate Donald Trump's remarks on George W. Bush and 9/11 --
OK, Trumpsters, I need to know what you're thinking here -- Donald Trump said that he had to say it, that 9/11 happened while George W. Bush was president. He wished it didn't but it did and the implication was clear that 9/11, if you're going to start blaming politicians for things that happened when they're in office, then how do you not blame George W. Bush for 9/11? And then Democrats immediately picked that up and applauded Mr. Trump and said, exactly right. And so if the Republicans are not going to acknowledge that George W. Bush was to blame and was responsible for 9/11, well then how in the world can Hillary Clinton be blamed for what happened in Benghazi?
And to show you how effect-, I think that's so bogus, that's so full of holes it's Swiss cheese but I ran it by a lot of people over the weekend and they think it makes sense. And frankly I have been shocked at how easy it has been. It really is mind-boggling. It has been easy to talk to people who voted for and supported Bush and say, yeah, well you know what, if we're going to blame Hillary for Benghazi, I guess we do, to be credible, we gotta say that Bush had some role in 9/11, I mean. I'm incredulous! I'm literally incredulous when I hear this.And Jake Tapper, by the way, asked Jeb Bush this very question -- if George W. Bush wasn't responsible for 9/11, how do you blame Hillary for Benghazi? That was on State of the Union, the CNN Sunday show, and Jeb's answer frankly was hard to discern. Let me take a stab at this by asking Jake Tapper and any of you who might think that this is a valid analogous comparison, because this is, it's so clear what's going on here. This is all part of the set up here for the Thursday hearings, folks. I mean, is it patently ridiculous to suggest that Hillary Clinton should get a pass because we gave George W. Bush a pass on 9/11? And that's what Jake Tapper is basically asking Jeb.
So let me ask some questions here --
Do you remember all of those times that George W. Bush mocked and made fun of and stonewalled all those 9/11 investigations?
Do you remember how he refused to participate with the 9/11 Commission?
Do you remember how he went to the media and had them cover for him and made it look like he had nothing to do with it?
Do you remember how they blamed a video for inciting the anger in the Muslim community that led to 9/11?
You remember all of that happening, right? No! You don't remember it happening because none of it did.
George Bush did not mock or stonewall the 9/11 investigations. Hillary Clinton still is doing that on Benghazi.
Did George W. Bush lie to the families of people who died in 9/11? You remember him doing that, right? I mean, it was well known that Bush was out there as he was giving aid and comfort, he was blaming a video, or the Minnesota FBI, or somebody, for the fact that 9/11 had happened. You remember that, right? He was blaming everybody else.
No, you don't remember that because it didn't happen. Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama are who did that. They lied to the families of the dead in Benghazi. They lied about why they were murdered and they tried to scapegoat this videographer, this real whacko that made some YouTube video that nobody had seen.
Do you remember Bush at some point during the 9/11 committee and the commission and their public hearings, do you remember Bush being asked about it and him saying, what difference does it matter now anyway?! What difference does it make? You don't remember that, do you, because George W. Bush never said that. That was Hillary Clinton that said that.
It was Hillary Clinton who screeched out, at this point what difference does it make?!, how her ambassador was killed and three others.
Do you remember when the 3,000 Americans who were murdered begged President Bush for protection against terrorist threats? No, you don't, because that didn't happen either.
But there's even more and I'll tell you, I'm really curious about this comparison or how it's come up here. This is akin, you know, Jake Tapper has pulled a George Stephanopoulos and war on women here, folks, and you're about to fall for it if you think this has some legitimacy.When 9/11 happened, do you realize that Bush didn't even have his full administration in office because of the Florida recount aftermath? Do you remember that George W. Bush kept a lot of Bill Clinton people in position in a show of bipartisanship after he was inaugurated, to show good faith, trying to smooth over the rough feelings because of the Florida recount? Do you remember that? It's hard to come up with an analogy here that makes any kind of sense whatsoever.
To which I'd add -- the attack in Benghazi occurred a decade into the post-9/11 world. When 9/11 itself took place, on the cusp of a new century, that sobering new world only then reared its ugly head. Every year since 9/11, Americans have been on alert, especially those serving in dangerous outposts abroad -- such as Libya -- and most especially on the Sept. 11 anniversary itself, lest history repeat itself.
Moreover, the Benghazi onslaught came shortly after a mob attacked the U.S. embassy in Cairo, purportedly in response to the anti-Muslim video cited by Limbaugh. One didn't need psychic powers to discern that American diplomats in neighboring Libya, a lawless, chaotic state since the fall of Gaddafi only a year earlier, might be in danger.
If Clinton's appearance before the Benghazi committee accomplishes nothing else, perhaps it might finally resolve a mystery that has remained stubbornly unanswered for the last four years -- where was Obama for those seven long hours when our people were under deadly assault in Benghazi, and what was he doing? The dreaded 3 a.m. call Clinton warned about in the 2008 campaign was now ringing off the hook, while Obama remained curiously disengaged.
