Battlespaces Part 2: Benghazi

The atrocity at Benghazi, Libya on September 11 of last year, which had the potential -- sadly, unexploited -- to sweep Obama from office, is the current hot news topic because of the three "whistleblowers" who are about to testify before Congress. One of those three, Gregory Hicks, was the deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya, the number-2 man in the Benghazi consulate. That makes him a particularly threatening witness for the Democrats, who are desperate to preserve both the Obama regime and the presidential prospects of Hillary Clinton. Thus, it stands to reason that the Obamunists are anxious to detoxify Hicks's testimony.

Trouble is, Hicks's station, reputation, and service record command respect and credibility. You can't simply mount a smear campaign against such a man. You have to be more adroit and indirect than that. Given the urgency of the thing, what the following video depicts is about all the Obamunists could possibly do.

First, note the absolute colorlessness of press secretary Jim Carney's diction. It's particularly notable when contrasted to the dynamism and character of Ari Fleischer and the late Tony Snow. It is, however, well matched to the message he wants to lodge in the minds of his audience.

Second, note the parade of nominal authorities Carney cites in favor of the Administration's preferred position: all of high station, none associated with any shady or even questionable doings. They (of course) concur that the Administration did everything possible during the hours of the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

Third, note that Carney does not refer even indirectly to Consul Hicks. Hicks is not a presence to Carney; he's not even alluded to. The parade of authorities Carney does mention, being persons of presumed high repute and stainless service, imply by Hicks's absence from the list that the consul is of no particular note or stature. Carney thus delegitimizes Hicks as a witness simply by excluding him.

Sometimes that's the best you can do -- but it's more effective than you might think. Consider how the Main Stream Media routinely exclude stories that "cross-cut The Narrative" from their coverage, thus protecting the collection of attitudes and assumptions they seek to sustain in the reading / viewing public.

Consul Hicks will, of course, have his "day in court" when he testifies before Congress. But don't expect the Administration or its media palace guards to grant Hicks's testimony more than an offhand, mildly contemptuous mention. It's far more likely that we'll hear paeans to the various authorities who support the Administration's contention that there was nothing it could have done to preserve the lives of Stevens and the other three victims of the -- now clearly al-Qaeda orchestrated -- attack on the Benghazi consulate. It's guaranteed that if anything discreditable to a contrarian witness can be unearthed, even so much as a failure to recycle his bottles and cans, it will become front-page / above-the-fold news.

The facts are against Obama and his henchmen.
The Constitutional powers and duties of the president are plain.
Obama and Clinton are as culpable in the deaths of Stevens et alii as their murderers.

Expect lots more table-pounding in the days to come.