Democrats Allow Partisan Spite to Cloud Release of Official Benghazi Report

If you ever needed any more proof of just how royally screwed up the priorities of Democrats are, look no further than their actions surrounding the night of September 11, 2012 and on to this very day.

On this day, Republicans, led by Chairman Trey Gowdy, released their report regarding the attack on an American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

In a childish attempt to defuse what was coming, Democrats released their own version of a “report” on Monday, that consisted of very little more than calling Republicans names.

Because we’re supposed to take them seriously.

Take for example, the ever-obstinate Rep. Elijah Cummings, a ranking member on the Benghazi commission.

Ranking Member Elijah Cummings early Tuesday called the Republican report “partisan” but could offer no additional comment because “we haven’t read it because Republicans didn’t want us to check it against the evidence we obtained.”‎

Did Democrats give their Republican colleagues a copy of their twisted version of a report before releasing it preemptively on Monday?

No, but this is the backwards reality of Democrats.

For his part, Gowdy scoffed at Cummings’ rant.

Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina took direct aim at Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee’s highest-ranking Democrat, for painting him as a “overzealous prosecutor desperately trying to land a front-page conviction rather than a neutral judge of facts seeking to improve the security of our diplomatic corps.”

“If anyone would recognize an overzealous prosecutor it would be someone from Baltimore,” Mr. Gowdy said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” in an apparent reference to Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s failed push to prosecute officers in the death of Freddie Gray.

“I will tell you that up front. Secondarily, he hasn’t read the report,” Mr. Gowdy said.

Sweet burn. Sweet facts.

Gowdy further commented:

“It is a series of heroic acts by our fellow Americans and what we can do to prevent the next [attack],” Mr. Gowdy said. “Yes, Hillary Clinton was the secretary of state at the time. I can’t get around that fact. But the focus of this report is on exactly what the families asked us to focus on, and shame on the Democrats for figuring that out two years too late.”

Among those facts uncovered were that there was a fundamental misunderstanding of who the allies were on the ground. Those allies were a group called “Libyan Military Intelligence,” a remnant of military officers who had served under Moammar Khaddafy, the same dictator that America had helped topple a year earlier.

Meanwhile, those forces that were contracted to provide protection on the ground, the February 17 Martyr Brigade, recommended by the new Libyan government, fled the scene and left the consulate unprotected.

Also at play in holding back needed help on that night was the overwhelming sense of political correctness over commonsense that Democrats so often fall to.

While Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was calling for forces to be deployed to the area, Democrats in the State Department were clutching their pearls over whether the help they sent should be dressed in civilian attire or military garb. The gist being, if they went in dressed as American soldiers, it might seem as if there was conflict.

From Conservative Review:

In fact, the State Department under Hillary Clinton was so concerned with “diplomatic sensitivities of the attire” worn by U.S. Marines, that over the course of their deployment the Marines “changed in and out of their uniforms four times.” Yes, Americans were dying while the Marines who could have saved them were changing their clothes under orders from the State Department.

Because terrorists attacking an American consulate and killing Americans isn’t conflict.

At least it isn’t when Democrats are riding the narrative that President Obama had ended terrorism and promoted peace throughout the world, during an election cycle.