In 2012, a couple of weeks after the assault on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, I noted the strange chumminess of Hillary Clinton’s eulogies to her “friend” “Chris” Stevens:
On Hugh Hewitt’s radio last week, National Review columnist Mark Steyn accused the Obama administration of using slain U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens as a political prop.
Steyn, author of “After America: Get Ready for Armageddon,” particularly criticized the way top administration officials — including the president — referred to Stevens as a “friend…”
“They have spent the next four weeks in effect lying to us, including people who claim to be Chris — everyone calls him ‘Chris’ in this administration — Chris, he is known to all, he is friend to all, Chris Stevens. Hillary Clinton calls him ‘Chris.’ Barack Obama calls him ‘Chris.'”
“Hillary Clinton stood next to her friend Chris’ coffin and went on about this video, even though she knew it was nothing to do with that,” Steyn continued.
I disliked the mateyness. I would have preferred it had Obama and Clinton referred to him as “Ambassador Stevens”: He was the representative of the United States, and that is why he died. And it seemed to me that all the Chris-this-Chris-that stuff was designed, like everything else, to deflect from the reality of what had happened – a successful military assault on the anniversary of 9/11 – and to turn it into merely a personal tragedy for poor “Chris”. I returned to the theme on several occasions:
Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world — it was all “Chris this” and “Chris that,” as if they’d known each other since third grade.
Yet, for such a close personal friend, “Chris” evidently had trouble getting hold of Hillary when he needed to: