Hillary’s Benghazi Hearings: “Don’t Look at Me!”
What we learned from Hillary Clinton’s Congressional hearings on Benghazi was nothing. What was revealed was a combative, arrogant Secretary of State, who thinks she’s above reproach or accountability and was especially miffed she had to be questioned by members of Congress about why four Americans were killed at the US Consulate in Benghazi under her watch.
Hillary’s attitude toward the entire “Benghazi affair” is summed up well in her irritated response to Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) question about what caused the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” she shouted.
For America’s Secretary of State to dismiss the cause of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens’ death and those of three other Americans as irrelevant is beyond shocking when her job is to ensure the safety of diplomats abroad as they pursue US policy. The reason why the cause of their deaths makes a DIFFERENCE is because Ambassador Stevens and other US diplomats sent numerous cables and emails warning the State Department security at the Benghazi consulate was inadequate.
It matters that the Obama administration mislead the American people from the start about the attack, suggesting for weeks, most notably through UN Ambassador Susan Rice, that the attack was caused by a spontaneous protest over an American produced anti-Muslim video. After killing Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration wanted us to believe the threat of al Qaeda and Islamic radicals was diminished but the Benghazi attack blew an inconvenient hole in the President’s narrative.
The CIA confirmed numerous times to Congress , including former CIA Director David Petraeus, the agency knew immediately the Benghazi attack was planned and implemented by terrorists. But the real “difference” this all makes is the State Department’s Accountability Review Board’s report, commissioned by Madame Hillary herself, concluded the attack on Benghazi resulted from the State Department’s gross negligence in security. Translation: “big screw up.”
This all makes a “difference” because it makes Secretary Clinton look incompetent. When she flippantly declared with a smirk during the Senate hearing that she couldn’t be bothered to read the 1.4 million cables that came through to the State Department last year, including those from Ambassador Stevens, Senator Rand Paul expressed the collective disgust of America.
“Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables form Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post,” said Senator Paul.
Despite Democrats in the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committee thanking Clinton for her “candor,” she showed none. Instead, Madame Secretary spent the entire day oozing contempt for Congress and distancing herself from blame.
“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process,” said Hillary before the Senate hearing and reiterated the “Intelligence community is the principle decider of talking points.” (Reminder: the talking points was the misinformation Susan Rice recited chapter and verse on several Sunday morning talk shows, declaring without question the Benghazi attack was caused by a protest. Of course this cost Rice Hillary’s job. )
Before the House, Madame Secretary threw the CIA under the bust again, saying “the intelligence community failed to recognize the threat in Benghazi.” I thought the State Department’s mission is to pursue American foreign policy and protect our interests abroad along with identifying threats to the US, thus making it part of our “intelligence community.”
The gist of Hillary’s testimony was “Don’t look at me, it wasn’t my fault.” But Hillary said last year as Secretary of State she would take full responsibility for Benghazi? Perhaps the stars in her eyes, contemplating a run for president in 2016, made her rethink all that Benghazi culpability stuff.
After hearing our Secretary of State drone on all day January 23, 2013, we, the American people, were left scratching our heads with more questions than answers on Benghazi and thank goodness Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had the guts to point that out.
“The answers, frankly, that you’ve given this morning are not satisfactory to me,” declared a testy Senator McCain.
Meanwhile Democrats couldn’t stop their effusive praise of Hillary for visiting over 100 countries. Traveling around world racking up frequent flier miles doesn’t make you a good Secretary of State but implementing effective foreign policy does! Democrats also kept praising Hillary during her hearings for doing “such a great job.” If the Secretary did such a great job, why are four diplomats dead and Islamic extremists and al Qaeda taking hold in Mali and other parts of North Africa?
“When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism takes root; our interests suffer; our security at home is threatened,” exclaimed Secretary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton couldn’t have described her job performance any better as chief promoter of Obama’s “absent” from the world, lead from behind foreign policy. It seems Hillary spent a lot of time flying around the world thinking about how great her travels would look on her 2016 presidential resume but little time on the basics of running the State Department. Bon Voyage Hillary!
@ scott..Is these guys are insane…??
David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP – Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee.
“I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues.
So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.
When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.
Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.
What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.
But I do know that the official explanation doesn’t hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation.”
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11
Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. “The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous…
It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile.”
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career. Instructor, undergraduate and graduate courses in environmental science, environmental engineering, nuclear physics, emergency management
“When we blew up the World Trade Center – I want to repeat, that it was deliberately blown up. The aircraft definitely hit the sucker. There were definite explosions inside the thing. You talk to Willie Rodriguez, you talk to the police and the fire, my guys – no two ways about it. It’s on the radio communications. Everything else out there. It happened. The Pentagon, same thing. No aircraft hit the Pentagon. Totally impossible! You couldn’t make the turns with a 757. You couldn’t fly it in over the highway. You couldn’t fly it over the light poles. You couldn’t even get it that close to the ground because of turbulence.”
Catherine Austin Fitts – Assistant Secretary of Housing under George H.W. Bush. Former Managing Director and Member of the Board of Wall Street investment bank, Dillon, Read & Co
“The official story could not possibly have happened. In other words, what the administration has put forward is essentially a conspiracy theory that does not conform to the facts. It’s not possible. It’s not operationally feasible… The Commission was a whitewash.”
@ Republicans have done nothing for the country in the last 13 years…Obamacare is far from perfect but it is better than what we had..I would like to see some changes such as the Public Option but at least there is someting to work with…Republicans didn’t want to change anything….Romney had the same advisors Bush had so what would he do differently..??..The Clinton gave the country a surplus , which Bush used to give a huge tax break to the rich…And the fact that white supremacist groups want to take over the GOP is enough for me to not trust these guys…By the way , the tea party had little to do with taxes and everything to do with racism…Obama lowered taxes in the stimulus package , but the tea party folks still complained..He turned the economy around and they still complain…He got Healthcare passed ….someting no other president was able to do and they still complain…The tea party has been effective at blowing up the GOP..With their hard lines extreme right wing racist attitude they have turned most of the country off simply because their 15 minutes of fame is over…They have done nothing since they took over the House except cause headaches for the few republicans that still think the purpose of being in congress is to actually get somthing done…Sorry but I don’t trust these guys…The democrats are also crooks , thieves you name it…But at least they “try to do something” for the middle class , for veterans , for the youth , for the elderly , for minorities etc…And they are not trying to suppress my right to vote…I have good reason to blame republicans for most of our problems….
@Truevoice
You keep repeating the same mantra. And lies about the Tea Party. I disagree with your perception of the Democrats helping the middle class. Sorry I bothered…
@ truevoice
While we may see things the same, relatively speaking, when I try to put a number on it, things look a bit differently. On a scale of 1 the 10 I see the republicans at a one and the democrats at a two. Therefore, when I see the vote, I see a choice between getting screwed and getting screwed without lubrication.
Any politician that puts one hand on the Bible while reciting an oath to protect the constitution against its enemies both foreign and domestic and then subsequently attacks the constitution, not only disrespects the flag and the republic for which it stands, but also shows disrespect for that Bible.
When Clinton put his hand on the Bible and said he didn’t have sexual relations with Monica, the democrats all gave him a pass because it was about sex instead of something that mattered. Now that they are peeing on the bill of rights, it matters, but they are still giving them a pass.
Is it not a concern until the people on MSNBC say it is something to be concerned about??
@scott…The tea party is nothing but a headache for the whole right now…Can you explain why you think democrats don’t help the middle class..And do you have any facts to back that up…By the way , what happen with the 911 issue…??
@wes…Clinton got some head and lied about…who cares…Bush got to sleep with Condi Rice and lied about damn near everything..I’m just being honest about it..Clinton was no saint but he also didn’t get us in a war with Iraq and a doomed economy…Now I’m curious as to how Obama disrespected the Constitution….By the way, there are other parties you can vote for….Some governors , congressmen and senators have come from other parties…Your right to vote shouyld be suppressed…Remember somebody in your bloodline died so you and I could have the right so I don’t take voter suppression lightly no matter who does it….
@Truevoice — you have proved nothing, your facts are repeated assertions, most of your rants are name calling and other irrelevancies. You have however, proved you can distort issues more than I have the tolerance to deal with …
It appears to me that you comment here to annoy others and to cast aspersions on the Republicans and others who do not adhere to the liberal progressive line.
@ truevoice
When Congress passed a law to make it legal for the government to detain US citizens without a right to a speed trial, Obama had the opportunity to veto. He gave an oath to protect the constitution but he chose not to. People not only died for our right to vote. People died so we can all enjoy the liberty that is protected by our constitution. We have a Bill of Rights and our right to vote is implicit within our first amendment rights. I think it is a mistake to give up practically all other rights on the pretense that it will make us more secure while we enjoy our rights protected by the first amendment.
Bush did the same thing Obama did when he allowed (and encouraged) Congress to pass the Patriot Act, which targeted our right to be secure in our possessions (that’s why courts issue warrants). The Patriot Act allows law enforcement to bypass warrants in the name of protecting us against terrorism. Less than two years ago, Congress did it to us again (this time allowing government to hold US citizens indefinitely without our day in court to stand before our accusers). The falsely accused very desperately need this right. Our system was designed to protect the innocent, but legislation passed since 911 has been circumventing that protection. So if you are bound and determined to assert 911 was an inside job, you may wish to speculate that the reason for doing it was to have an excuse to systematically dismantle our liberty. I don’t know if 911 was an inside job, but the empirical evidence is there that our liberty and freedom is under being threatened. It is your choice to ignore these threats and focus on republicans denying certain people’s right to vote and district gerrymandering to skew election results, but once all the other rights are gone, your right to vote won’t be worth a hill of beans.
@ truevoice
When Al Gore says the politicians in Washington are beholden to the people who help get them elected, he isn’t just saying that in order to sell a book. It is happening. We can dream that Obama is somehow above all of that nonsense, but that is all it is is a dream.
@Wes – well said. That is the essence of conservatism in my view. We want to live by laws not presidential decree.
Ya, well said Wes.
@ Scott
I try to avoid making generalizations. If I was to call myself a conservative, people might make certain assumptions about my beliefs. For example, generally speaking, conservatives are against socialized medicine. Yet among them who are old enough to know better, they see Medicare as the treasure that separates them from financial devastation. To me that sounds like a bad case of cognitive dissonance, because Medicare is nothing but socialized medicine, but that’s what I get for making generalizations.
When people are divided into these left/right camps, it becomes politically strategic to paint Obama as some kind of socialist maniac. In my opinion that doesn’t help solve some of the problems that really need to get fixed. 99% of the citizens of this nation cannot afford to be a patient in the current medical system without some kind of public assistance. The republicans know it but they are so in love with conservatism that they wanted to nominate somebody on the right that could run against Obama from the center. The result was a candidate that was all over the place. In the aftermath, the republicans still believe conservatism is the answer that everyone seeks and if they would have just “sold” or presented their message more effectively, they would have won the whitehouse.
If I was forced to categorize myself, I would call myself a nationalist. As bad as I sometimes say things are, this isn’t totalitarianism (not yet). The only thing separating us from this totalitarian global machine is the rights we have guarded by our constitution. If Obama is dragging me kicking and screaming toward globalism, as all of his predecessors have, then he is part of the problem. If that makes me a conservative for believing that way, then I believe the conservatives got this one right.
@ Noel
When Ed Schultz said that the constitutional was old and outdated, I felt like throwing the remote at the tv.
@Wes – again, well said.
I believe many of our problems as a society come from lacking knowledge of what will work and how Homo Sapiens was evolved to live. Political arguments seem to be based on one of 3 things:
1. what God wants. who is really conversing with him?
2. some theory without regard to emotions… to me, the flaw with Libertarians.
3. emotional reaction to some perceived injustice (real or not) with a one step reaction. To me this is the essence of the Democratic party and a big flaw in the Republicans, too.
I think both sides are for freedom, equality, and opportunity. The issue becomes how to achieve these things taking into account the flaws of humans. VERY Simplistically, I think the liberals tend to be willing to ignore rights for the good of society as they see it. Rightists tend to be willing to live with unjust results from people abusing their power and to want to intrude into private lives.
I apologize for labeling you with little evidence, but I am overjoyed to see a mind trying to find real answers to sticky problems.
As far as how close we are to Totalitarianism: One of my brother-in-laws friends is a car dealer and vocally against Obama. He told my brother-in-law that Homeland Security had an armed drill in his facility. My relative is prone to conspiracy theory thoughts, but that is pretty few steps from event to audience (and one more to this forum!)
I do see the Totalitarianism by bureaucrats in things like 1099′s, pharmacy laws, and over-reactions to things like bullying in schools and kids taking paper hand-guns and getting grilled.
Increasingly my friends are making business decisions based on the costs of complying with government regulations, and the need to be safe from law suits for perceived injustices from clients and employees.
There are many examples of abuse of power by business people. They make great headlines. But I could list dozens of examples of well intended laws creating problems for people trying to provide business services. The pendulum has just swung too far.
@ Scott
Excellent post! As a self proclaimed philosopher, I like it when people put me into a philosophical box from which there is virtually no escape. Regarding the basis for political arguments:
1. As a theist, I can’t talk my way out of this. It is my understanding that the founding fathers faced similar challenges and that is why this nation is founded upon deism instead of theism. The inalienable rights cited in the Declaration of Independence are born from arguments that certain spiritual realities are logical and therefore, self evident.
2. If I understand your point here, then I agree. One cannot remove the emotional component because nations are born out of revolutions and revolts are almost always emotionally driven.
3. I think you’ve nailed this one also. A person or movement or special interest can secretly get what it wants, when it uses a very real tragedy to blame the policy its wants to destroy. This is of course the rhetoric that masks the truth and snarls up the debate.
I am a bit more cynical than you perhaps when it comes down to both sides being for opportunity, equality and freedom. I mean they both talk a good game, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, the truth will come out. For example, the left makes the argument that legalized abortion is all about the rights of the woman. What appears to be closer to the truth is that they are concerned about over population of the planet and consequently don’t give a bowel movement about the rights of the unborn. But since that sounds a bit callous, they argue from a position that sounds more caring. On the other hand, the right argues from the point of view that business is boxed in by regulation so tightly they are unable to thrive. So they exploit the workforce that is easiest to exploit (like one overseas for example) until the regulations protecting the worker are relaxed enough so they can exploit the worker here also. As long as the rich get richer and the middle class shrinks I don’t think the pendulum has swung far enough.
As long as we have peace and the first amendment that allows us to discuss these matters, we can resolve them if we are forthcoming about our concerns. The black helicopters of the nineties are now replaced by the drones. The difference is now we have the Patriot Act and the NDAA and the AUMF coming at us like a freight train, while we sit on the tracks debating whether the country should be moving to the left or the right. I don’t think it matters if the freight train is coming from the left or its coming from the right.
@ scott…You continue to whine about the facts I post here but for some reason you lack the guts to dispute them….Maybe it’s because you can’t dispute them since the truth has a way of being undisputable..The Tea party is a racist group…that has been proven…The official version of 911 is bullshit…that has been proven…so what are you whinng about now…The truth or your lack of willingness to acknowledge it…??
@Truevoice
your “facts” are in your mind, try opening it and letting some light in.
re “whining” – yet another emotion laden slur without basis. I do find it difficult to discuss with you. I also find it difficult to discuss with my 4 year old granddaughter who has a slanted view on life also.
@ wes…I have to admit I had a real problem with the Patriot act and the re-signing of NDAA..Obama should have veoted the bill instread of addinf several pages of admendments that give him less power but does not remove that power from the next president who will no doubt be Hillary Clinton…However you keep ignoring the fact thast if your vote is suppress…It is harder for you to remove these politicians that write these crazy laws…The GOP introduce the Patriot Act and the revisions of the NDAA bill..What is really troubling is that it passed the Senate with a 98-0 vote..Now that may be a certain version of the bill but there doesn’t seem to be a cause for alarm from congress..Therfore Globalism is something conservatives want so how can they “get it right” if they introduce it and support it..??..I concede your point about NDAA but you cannot ignore the voter suppression or intense racism coming from the GOP….
@scott…Listen son…I have no problem with you saying my facts “are in your mind”…However I do have a problem with someone accusing me of something but lacks the courage to back up their words…
So….dispute what I’ve said with facts of your own…re you “man” enough to do that or are you just using your empty words as a weak attempt at a white flag…???
@Truevoice
listen old man: get a life. you have gotten us and me so far off topic on something so irrelevant to today’s issues that I had to laugh. See you next topic.
@ scott…In other words you can’t dispute what I posted..That’s cool..I accept the fact that you have conceded…
@ truevoice
Am not ignoring the fact that voter suppression will remove my ability to replace these people who are causing these problems. I acknowledge that logical line of thinking. However you seem to ignore the fact that a system that only allows me to choose from a pool of politicians who are bought and paid for BEFORE I cast my vote, that doesn’t give me any realistic hope.
You indicated to me that there are third party people available from which I can choose, and I must admit when it came to the president, I did just that. However because the majority of people who still bother to vote are sleeping to fox news and msnbc lullabies, my vote is neutralized by an electorate full of consenting adults. I divide the 99% who are getting screwed into four groups:
1. Those who can’t legally vote
2. Those who vote for third party candidates
3. Those who vote for dems and reps
4. Those who can vote and don’t bother
The first two groups are not only getting screwed, they are getting raped because they are powerless to stop it. The third group is getting screwed but since they are asking for it, they are the consenting adults. The last group is getting screwed and since they apparently don’t care who screws them, they are the “hoes”.
Regarding your perceived racism of the GOP, I admit that the treatment of Michael Steele didn’t pass the smell test, but things like that are nothing more than speculation on my part and not conclusive. I prefer to focus my attention on the things that are happening rather than the things that only appear to be happening. You continue to overlook the fact that both parties are bought and paid for so you can assert which bought and paid for party is the better of the two. When both parties are screwing 99% of the people, it doesn’t matter which party you choose because in the end we still get screwed… in the end.
I understand the fact that it seems like there are only two candidates to choose from , however there are independent candidates that have won as senators , congressmen , governors etc so a national third party candidate is possible…You can’t close your eyes to what’s going on because if you decide not to vote then you really have a limited voice…It is hard to fund and have a third party candidate out there but for reasons that we both may be afraid of , the tea party may do just that…Can you imagine the stupid far right extremists that a party of complete neo-cons would bring..The real sad thing is they will get enough support to cause decent republicans their house or senate seats…We have seen that already so a third party must be independent of democrats and republicans…
Let’s also get something straight right now…I don’t perceive anything..I merely state facts and I have posted several facts on this blog that prove without a shadow of a doubt the intense racism of the GOP….why do you continue to ignore these facts..??..White supremacist are running for office as republicans , white supremacist groups used the tea party rallies as recruiting staions, the GOP admitted voter suppression , the GOP’s main goal for the last 4 years was to make Obama a one-term president , the GOP senate set a record number of filibusters trying to block any bills that would help the country ..These are facts , not speculation…The democrats are not saints and neither is Obama but you and I both know that if McCain and Palin got in office the country would by in a depression and at war with Iran…Romney had the same economic advisers that Mcain and Bush had so there would be no change in the stupid economic policies or the massive bloodshed of another useless war…Also , can you imagine how annoying Sarah “the child is not my son” Palin would be as a vice president…We would have to listen to her stupid ass more than we do now and what we how now is too much…
You may be under the assumption that you are stating a fact, but until you get inside someone else’s mind so that you have undisputable evidence that what a person implies is what you think they mean by such an implication, you are going on pure speculation. When a person states “I don’t like you because of the color of your skin.” That is bigotry, plain and simple. When someone says “Black presidents are unacceptable.” That is racism, pure and simple. However when someone says “Our number one goal is to make him a one term president” and many people ASSUME the reason that person wants him to be a one term president is because he is black, then that is pure speculation based on a lot of common sense and not a fact based on empirical evidence.
All we have is perceptions. My perception is that no one is trying to put a statesman in charge so we can fix some of these problems. My perception is that people are trying surgically remove the worm from the apple when what we really need is another apple.
Campaign finance reform might stop the corruption, but until will do that, my PERCEPTION is nothing else will help.
@ truevoice
You raised an interesting point that I failed to address in my response. Maybe you can help me with this. You said that it is difficult to fund a candidate. I’m thinking that this is a myth that was true once upon a time, but now we have the internet. We don’t need tv and radio to get national exposure any more. I know there are a lot of people who don’t use the internet, but I think the majority do, and millions of like minded people can join together to back a candidate. Do you see any reason why this is not possible?
Until we get campaign finance reform to a point where politicians aren’t spending more time fund raising than governing, we won’t get the money out of politics. The politicians ain’t gonna do reform because they are making a killing and laughing all the way to the bank. A third party that is not based on “the best government money can buy” could force the established parties to reform or lose power. Otherwise things will never change.