Hillary Clinton’s public copy on Benghazi is that she will not respond to any more queries about her involvement in that tragedy on her watch because that would be playing politics “on the backs of our dead.” This by any reading is, of course, playing politics to the maximum on the subject, especially since her leadership and response to crises will be of greatest interest to Americans if/when she runs for president. Although we have a fairly good idea about her in/ability in the realm of international diplomacy, the real bottom line here is that we have no idea whether she can handle that 3AM call given how she utterly failed to handle the 3PM call that kept ringing for months leading up to 11 September 2011, before she picked up and then blew it.
But that’s just a peripheral preamble to what I want to highlight as another peek into the workings of a liberal (of the self-declared progressive kind of) mind. In the carefully leaked chapter of her forthcoming book Hard Choices, she continues the prevarication on the video’s role in Al Qaeda’s attack on the Benghazi consulate with a logical tour de force. There she advances the new proposition that the video could still have played a role in supporting the attack, since (seat belts please!) no one has yet proved that the video did NOT play such a role. Now requiring the proof of a negative to resurrect and eliminate a discredited factor, when a sufficient cause for the attack has already been established, is vintage liberal logic.
Of course, the sad part is that the nation’s innumerate hordes have no ready defense against such a cynical bamboozle, and will include it as another legitimate aspect of Benghazi when they weigh the pro/con arguments about Hillary’s errors and omissions while SecState.