Skip to main content

Benghazi: How to rebut Democratic talking points in 7 easy lessons

Written By | May 13, 2014

SAN DIEGO, May, 12 2014 — A couple of weeks have passed since the release of smoking gun emails connecting a White House aide to former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday morning talk show tour in which she repeatedly misstated the reasons for the Benghazi nightmare of 9-11-12.

As Republican lawmakers begin putting in place a select committee to investigate further, there is much discussion about whether Democrats will be willing to send their own participants to the committee.

The most recent turn in the wheels of justice began when Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, asking for the formation of an investigating committee that would interview officials of the Obama administration in a public forum.

“It is now abundantly clear that senior White House staff were directly involved in coordinating the messaging in response to the Benghazi attacks and were actively working to tie the reason to the infamous Internet video,” Wolf said..

He was referring to emails which revealed what many have long suspected, somebody working for the White House  specifically instructed Rice to offer an anti-Islamic video as the reason why Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi. According to Wolf, these false talking points highlight the need for a committee with more teeth than its predecessors, namely subpoena power!

READ ALSO: Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi betrayal and the other shoe

Says Wolf, “While we cannot control how this administration pursues, or fails to pursue, those terrorists responsible for the deaths of four Americans, we can ensure that the American people learn the truth about what happened and which officials should be held accountable.”

Democratic lawmakers, along with other Obama fans and surrogates are trying to get around this investigation with a series of buzz words and talking points. We have heard everything from the cry “witch hunt” by House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, to refurbished versions of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s famous, “what difference does it make” speech.

Republicans have not mastered talking points as well as Democrats. In an attempt to help them out, here is a modest list of rebuttals to the tiresome rhetoric.


“Republicans have been politicizing a tragedy.”

Let’s be clear:  The politicization of a tragedy began with Democrats when the video story was offered instead of the truth, a truth which contradicted the Obama campaign’s re-election narrative in the fall of 2012 about Al-Qaeda being on the run.


“The investigation should be conducted in a bi-partisan manner.”

“Bipartisanship” to the Democrats means interfering with which documents or E Mails get released or which specific people are interviewed. Translation: “Only if the committee finds nothing new, will bipartisanship have occurred.”


“The only important thing is to make sure this kind of tragic taking of American lives never  happens again.”

Everybody agrees that we don’t want it to happen again. That’s the understatement of all time. Who can name one Republican who disagrees? Part of that goal is to find out exactly how it happened in the first place. Why was our military so slow to act when we knew the American compound was under attack? Meanwhile, if we also want to hold our administration accountable for lying about the reason for the attack, that does not in any way, shape, or form hinder future protocols to prevent repeated attacks. This is not an either/or proposition.


“Countless documents about Benghazi have already been turned over by the State Department.”

It doesn’t matter how many documents have been turned over if the incriminating documents have been held back. The bottom line is that the White House was asked to turn over all documents. Incidentally, the recent smoking gun E Mails were finally turned over only after a request from Judicial Watch, not previous investigating committees.


“The American people are tired of this investigation. After all, it’s been going on now for almost two years.”

Most Americans have heard little if anything about this investigation because they’ve been relying on the main stream media for their news and in that forum, discussion about Benghazi has been fleeting. It’s difficult to be tired of something you seldom hear about.

READ ALSO: The left demonizes conservatives over Benghazi, water remains wet

Meanwhile, if the investigation has been moving at the pace of a snail, it’s only because the Obama administration has been even slower in its cooperation.


“Four Americans are dead. What difference does it make why it happened?”

This talking point traces its origin to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

“Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?”

As a matter of fact, it actually made a big difference to the former Secretary. Why else would she promise the parents of the victims that the director responsible for an anti-Islam video was being brought to justice when she already knew by that time that that this was a planned a terrorist attack?


“This investigation is a witch hunt.”

The term “witch hunt” suggests false accusation or the deliberate punishing of the innocent. Asking for information in an attempt to get to the bottom of a situation is not a witch hunt, especially when we already know that the video explanation was a false narrative and may therefore be the tip of a much bigger iceberg.

Speaking of the video, ironically, this is where the real witch hunt took place. Since when is it against the law in America to express your opinion in a movie about Mohammad, Islam or any other subject?  Supposing Ambassador Stevens and the others had been murdered because of a video? Even if such were the case, it is the responsibility of our President to punish the blood thirsty killers, not the film director.  How refreshing it might be to imagine a Commander-in-Chief who says to the world:

“Be on notice. In America, we do not arrest those who exercise freedom of speech. But here’s what we do to those who harm Americans overseas: When we find the perpetrators, they will be publicly hanged and their bodies will be left dangling on the ropes for a whole month as a warning to any future terrorists!”

But alas, that is not the kind of talking point Obama is noted for.

As for their real talking points, Democrats are never in short supply. For the sake of our country’s future, freedom and integrity, let’s hope these cheap detour attempts get rejected and placed out in the pasture where they belong.


This is Bob Siegel, making the obvious, obvious.


Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and columnist. Information about his radio show can be found at
Fox News contributed to the hard news portions of this article.

Bob Siegel

Bob Siegel

A graduate of Denver Seminary and San Jose State University, Bob Siegel is a radio talk show host and popular guest speaker at churches and college campuses across the country, using a variety of media including, seminars, formal debates, outdoor open forums, and one man drama presentations. In addition to his own weekly radio show (KCBQ 1170, San Diego) Bob has been a guest on many other programs, including The 700 Club, Washington Times Radio's Inside the Story, The Rick Amato Show, KUSI Television's Good Morning San Diego, and the world popular Jonathan Parkradio drama series, for which Bob guest starred in two episodes and wrote one episode, The Clue From Ninevah. In addition to CDN, Bob is a regular contributor for San Diego Rostra. Bob does a good deal of playwriting as well (14 plays & 5 collaborations), including the award winning, Eternal Reach. Bob has also published books of both fiction and non-fiction including; I'd Like to Believe In Jesus, But...and a fantasy novel, The Dangerous Christmas Ornament.