[E]very single controversy involving Clinton seems to turn out the same way: When the dust settles, her initial denials and rationalizations are disproven by the facts.

Tweet

"House Benghazi Report Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton," read this week's transparently apologist New York Times headline. 

But that constitutes a proverbial "Dog Bites Man" headline, because it doesn't address the relevant question. 

Namely, when even The Huffington Post observes that "just 31 percent of voters think Clinton is honest and trustworthy, while nearly two-thirds said they don't think she is," the relevant question is whether the evidence confirms our suspicions of an Obama Administration and its Secretary of State more obsessed with an approaching election than preventing, stopping or coming to terms with a devastating terrorist attack. 

Accordingly, a proverbial "Man Bites Dog" headline would've been that the Benghazi report somehow vindicated Clinton's or the Obama Administration's competence and truthfulness.  But it did not. 

At best, the report now confirms the utter incompetence of Clinton and the Obama Administration.  At worst, it reveals them as deliberately dishonest to the American people on what is perhaps the most grave issue facing the nation today, international terrorism and radical Islamic violence. 

On the night of the Benghazi attack, as perhaps the most damning example, Clinton wrote her daughter Chelsea - to whom she had no motivation to lie - that, "Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Quedalike [sic] group[.]"  Thus, before the attack even concluded with two more Americans murdered, she knew the truth. 

Similarly, in her telephone conversation with Libyan President Mohoammed al Magariaf that evening, Clinton made no reference to any protest or video, but rather admitted, "[O]ur diplomatic mission was attacked...  [T]here is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia [sic] is claiming responsibility for." 

To the American public that very same night, however, Clinton's official statement read, "I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today...  Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." 

The next day, Clinton acknowledged to Egyptian Prime Minister Hisham Kandil that, "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film.  It was a planned attack - not a protest...  Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda."  Yet Clinton's official remarks that day continued to scapegoat the obscure Internet video:  "We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.  Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." 

Two days after that, the father of Tyrone Woods recounts how Clinton persisted with her false public narrative.  "I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand," Mr. Woods says, "and she said we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son." 

That grotesque dishonesty wasn't limited to Hillary Clinton, of course. 

On September 14, 2012, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney falsely claimed that, "We have no information to suggest that it was a preplanned attack.  The unrest we've seen around the region has been in reaction to a video that Muslims, many Muslims find offensive.  And while the violence is reprehensible and unjustified, it is not a reaction to the 9/11 anniversary that we know of, or to U.S. policy." 

Two days after that, National Security Advisor Susan Rice infamously appeared on the Sunday morning news programs to declare that, "we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, a premeditated attack." 

But this week's Benghazi report doesn't just confirm the Obama Administration's abject dishonesty.  It also spells out how the Administration completely failed to provide security to the Benghazi compound despite ample opportunity and literally hundreds of requests to do so. 

The report also establishes the timeline showing that no rescue or protective attack was dispatched, even in the initial hours when the Administration had no idea what was happening or how long it would continue. 

Importantly, the report also shows how the Obama Administration, which is under a duty to assist in reaching the truth, not only failed to cooperate in the official investigation but actively obstructed it. 

But now Clinton, in a desperate race to become president herself, reverts to her familiar modus operandi of denial, delay and obfuscation.  Then, when the evidence ultimately proves the falsity of her claims, dismiss it all as "old news." 

After all, in four decades of public life, when have subsequent events vindicated Hillary's initial narrative?  When has information learned following explosive revelations turned out to support her version of events rather than to undermine her tales, distractions, diversions and rationalizations?  Quite the opposite, every single controversy involving Clinton seems to turn out the same way:  When the dust settles, her initial denials and rationalizations are disproven by the facts. 

More broadly, on the heels of Paris, Brussels, Orlando and now the Istanbul airport massacre, this week's Benghazi report confirms the Obama Administration's ongoing failure to recognize, confront and come clean about the worldwide and domestic terrorist threat. 

Far from vindicating Hillary Clinton or the Obama Administration, the report cements their dishonorable official behavior for the American electorate to ponder.