Yes, I guess one could say that Eleanor Clift is “gaslighting“.  But what’s remarkable is the strength of her position that Ambassador Stevens wasn’t murdered. In a recent Daily Beast Column she advances the same position. Here’s where it first began:

Clift also writes for the Daily Beast, and to give you some perspective on how she can justify her position here’s how she follows up:

After getting hammered by the right for remarks I made on the McLaughlin Group last weekend, I’d like to put what I said into the context that my critics omit. My information came from a former ambassador who lamented that complex and chaotic events in Benghazi are being way oversimplified. He pointed out that Ambassador Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation in the safe room of a CIA outpost, that he wasn’t murdered in the sense that word is normally used. I thought this was an appropriate observation and still do, despite the hysteria my saying so has ignited on the right. (link)

What part of the word “murder” is being falsely used. The unlawful killing of another – CHECK, with malice of forethought – CHECK, and the specific intent to kill – CHECK. Sounds like Ambassador Stevens had the murder experience to us.

What’s Clift really trying to do here ? Proclaim that bad things happen sometime so “what difference does it make”?  Who knows.

What we do know is that Ambassador Stevens was killed by terrorists who attacked a diplomatic outpost. We do know there was more than just “smoke inhalation” at play, and it’s reasonable to assume Mr. Stevens did not enjoy the experience.