The timing seems right, so let's revisit the Benghazi controversy.

A number of times within the past year, I've shared my perspective on the Benghazi controversy.  In the very beginning, I formed an opinion before the most important details regarding the event had been made public.  I was obliged to completely revisit my original beliefs and comments, which I did, using this forum.  That fact does not change the single most concise and unavoidable truth surrounding this sad occurrence.  In the United States, we have a tradition in government service that "The Buck Stops Here".  President Harry S. Truman helped establish this little cliché by placing a notice on his desk containing that simple message.  Truman was announcing loud and clear, that in his role as President of the United States, he alone was accountable for the actions of his government.  Since Truman, countless Generals, Chiefs, Secretaries, Directors and Presidents have expressed the now-famous sentiment, "I take full responsibility.......".  Following the terrible events of September 11, 2012, which included the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three additional young men, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quick to follow tradition and accept "full responsibility".  Since that time, Clinton and the leftist media have jumped through hoops so that she can avoid doing just that- taking responsibility.  I will not push the envelope so far as to say that Clinton is responsible for the casualties that resulted from the terrorist assault on both the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, and the nearby CIA Annex.  But we must accept some very simple facts: the United States had an accredited U.S. Ambassador on the ground, in an environment that was, to say the least, totally unsecure and dangerous.  Communications examined from that time period make it clear that the Clinton State Department was aware of Benghazi's major security deficiencies.  Who made the decision to send Ambassador Stevens and his necessary support staff into this war zone?  More importantly, once Foggy Bottom became aware of the dangerous environment, why weren't Stevens and his staff evacuated?  At least the level of security at the Consulate and Annex could have been increased.  No matter how much the NY Times, MSNBC, and the Washington Post declare otherwise, those questions need to be answered.  I noticed that the media have once again introduced Ambassador Steven's family into the controversy.  Steven's family have publicly stated on more than one occasion that they do not hold Hillary Clinton responsible. However, the parents of the other three young men who died that night DO hold her responsible.  It is beyond offensive to me that the liberal press and media publicize the opinions of Ambassador Stevens' family, but don't mention the other three men who lost their lives.  They have families as well, even if they aren't from the beltway elite.

Regardless of the issues raised in the preceding paragraph, I would happily agree to put this subject to bed, if I could get the Obama Administration and the Hillary Clinton camp to address one particular detail.  Immediately following the announcement in the press that Ambassador Stevens, along with three brave young Americans, had died during a night of violence in Benghazi, the Obama Administration identified the catalyst for the violence.  According to the Administration, local Libyans were angry because of an "anti-Islamic" video that had been released in California.  In their anger, they decided to riot and storm the U.S. Consulate and Annex.  According to all reliable eyewitness accounts and follow-up intelligence, the attacks that night were carried out by Islamic Extremist groups intent on committing acts of terror against Americans.  The people who attacked the Consulate that night and later the Annex, were not thinking about some stupid videos made in California.  As I was preparing to write this article and I was googling certain events to confirm certain dates, I came across a recent MediaMatters article claiming that, still to this day, the riots on the night of September 11, 2012 were the result of anger on he part of average, law-abiding Libyans who could not help but express their anguish and pain by attacking the U.S. Consulate.  Hillary Clinton has always believed that the ends justifies the means. Heck, Media Matters is happy to peddle an outright fabrication just to deflect legitimate criticism of their candidate.  It has become obvious to me that the Democrats and the left have adopted Hillary's Modus Operandi with no hesitation. 

Alongside the usual characters, this political season has unleashed a flood of new political operatives from both major parties.  Finding an honest, decent soul amongst the bunch is the real challenge.  True, I have always voted Republican, but people would be wrong to assume that I follow the party platform, hook, line, and stinker.  If someone is curious enough to see where I stood as the primary season unfolded, all of my blog posts from that time period are available for perusal.  As for me, I'm done worrying about what happened in January, February, March and April this year.  I am voting for Donald Trump for president.  As for the rest of you, there are three candidates running from three parties, and you have until November to decide which person will be our next president.  Today's blog post marks the beginning of a series of commentaries I will write detailing Hillary Clinton's foreign policy achievements and initiatives.  Thank you to all who have commented and shared my posts.