I haven't followed the case very closely, but I get the impression that, by inflicting 27 to 30 stab wounds (depending on the news source) in addition to slitting her lover's throat and shooting him, Jodi Arias may have inflicted more wounds than even OJ Simpson was accused of dispensing. If only she had yelled, "Allahu Akbar," or at least done things Kermit Gosnell-style, and said that she was merely performing a very-very-late-term-abortion, things may have worked out differently for her. Come to think of it, had she the foresight to kill as many potential opponents as possible, she could have been given a small country to run, along with the undying adulation of the New York Times editorial board. Castro is getting old after all, Hugo Chavez is dead, and Sean Penn needs someone new to admire.
Imagine for a moment all of the heavy hitters, with their heavy gravitas, gravitating from one piece of chicanery to the next. Hillary Clinton could have testified, presumably having as much knowledge of the Arias case as she claims to have had of security problems at Benghazi, and thundered, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" before receiving the MSNBC Distinguished Award for Indignant Ignorance. For his part, Jay Carney could have employed his boyish charm and pugnacious dishonesty to simultaneously deride the murder as old news and call out the prosecution for politicizing the issue. They could have even jailed a film maker.
For that matter, if Jodi Arias had murdered Travis Alexander as an act of jihad, she would have benefited from the Attorney General's announcement that no backlash would be tolerated, and that the full weight of the US Justice Department would come crashing down like thunder on the head of anyone guilty of Anti-Ariasism. And if no such acts were forthcoming, the Council on American-Islamic Relations would have fabricated a few just to give the media something -- anything -- to talk about besides the murder.
Major newspapers would have implored us to understand the rage and address the root causes. Maybe Jodi didn't make the soccer team. Maybe it was George Bush's fault. The US Army could have conducted social actions seminars for the troops, warning them of any extremists who might question Ms. Arias' motives. For his part, Dana Milbank could have described the story as, "…a made-for-Hollywood plot with slow, theatrical delivery and genuine emotion," but reluctantly conclude that the story would, "…not be much use…"
The preceding being rank nonsense of course, primarily because Jodi Arias didn't claim Islamic motives for her butchery, it bears reminding that the same arguments, methodology, and pathologies described above have comprised the liberal response to Islamist attacks in general and the Benghazi attack in particular. How else to explain the yawning indifference that greeted the news that an event reported by those on-scene as an attack, was, for days and weeks thereafter, referred to as a 'spontaneous demonstration' whose roots lay in an obscure YouTube video? And what, in retrospect, ought we to make of the Presidential statement that was made on the day of the attack?
This attack on the American individuals and embassies is outrageous, it's disgusting, it breaks the hearts of all of us who think of these people who have served during their lives for the cause of freedom, and justice, and honor.
… America will not tolerate attacks against our citizens and against our embassies. We'll defend also our constitutional rights of speech, and assembly, and religion. We have confidence in our cause in America. We respect our Constitution. We stand for the principles our Constitution protects. We encourage other nations to understand and respect the principles in our Constitution, because we recognize that these principles are the ultimate source of freedom for individuals around the world.
That statement had a lot going for it, encapsulating the horrific reality of the attack and, with one glaring problem, speaking to American resolve in the face of savagery. The glaring problem, incidentally, was the fact that President Obama never made that statement. Governor Romney did, for which trouble he was vilified by people who've spent the intervening months either ignoring the facts of the Benghazi attack or actively covering them up. As for the President's response, we turn to a video that you paid for, starring the President and then-Secretary of State Clinton. From the President's remarks:
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification for this type of senseless violence. None.
And if that doesn't put the fear of some deity or other into the radicals, Secretary Clinton delivered the following ultimatum:
Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious, that the United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America's commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.
From resolution of this magnitude, Islamic attacks will spring eternal. The crowning crime of it all is that, even as they spoke this pusillanimous pablum into the camera, they knew bloody good and well that a video had nothing to do with this; that it wasn't a spontaneous uprising, but rather a coordinated and planned attack. They knew this from real-time reports from the battle. They knew this because they had been warned by the intelligence community and by the diplomatic staff in Benghazi that something was brewing. Secretary Clinton knew because she had rejected requests for increased security, and it was her State Department that was busy re-writing administration talking points, deleting references to al Qaeda and the CIA's earlier warnings.
This is neither a botched burglary nor a trade of arms for hostages. Four Americans are dead due to inadequate security in the face of a known and growing threat, and a steadfast refusal to send reinforcements to the battle. The response afterward was to obfuscate, lie, and denigrate anyone who sought the truth in order to get through the election. We now know that Special Forces personnel were ready to roll, but were told to stand down. We know that people within the State Department who wanted to tell the truth were instructed by State Department lawyers to remain silent and, in some cases, were subject to retribution.
What we don't know yet, but might still find out, is what exactly the President did during the attack. Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the utterly regrettable Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, have both testified that, aside from a 15 minute discussion in the Oval Office, neither of them heard from the President through the remainder of the evening, even as our Ambassador and three others were being murdered.
Where was he? Did he give the "stand down" orders to Special Forces personnel? He has promised a thorough review, and his administration has followed through on that promise by trying to muzzle people like Gregory Hicks. It's time for the President to be truthful on his actions that fateful night. And it's time for the House to convene a Special Committee on Benghazi with full subpoena power. It shouldn't be that difficult, really. Just pretend it's as important as Jodi Arias.