Patterico's Pontifications

1/23/2013

Hillary Clinton Testifies – Open Thread

Filed under: General — JD @ 7:29 am

[Guest post by JD]

She lost her marbles under questioning from Sen. Johnson of WI.

Discuss.

— JD

199 Comments

  1. This is kind of nauseating.

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:31 am

  2. These Senators are only asking her tough questions because she’s a woman. Or something.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (ac7139) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:35 am

  3. It does’t matter what happened or whether there was a protest or who did it or why! People are dead! And we need to find them and find out what happened!!!!

    Comment by MayBee (b27ea0) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:35 am

  4. Is she under oath. If so, I didn’t see it and I was specifically looking for it.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:37 am

  5. Has anyone asked her about the video and her vow to have them jailed?

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:39 am

  6. they’re after me lucky charms hillary is saying

    Comment by happyfeet (ce327d) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:40 am

  7. Watching the video of her testimony is upsetting to me. I think it is causing me to want to riot protest. Or whatever. But this time, I think I’ll leave my anti-aircraft missiles at home. That’s because I don’t have enough time to arrange the logistics for 15 of my friends to help me carry the missiles to the site of my planned spontaneous riot protest.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (ac7139) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:47 am

  8. John McCain is asking tough questions. He’s making a show of taking her on.

    She’s talkin’ back but she ain’t answerin’ squat.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:55 am

  9. Dick Durbin is disgusting

    Comment by JD (b63a52) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:55 am

  10. Turbin Durbin thinks it’s all Bush’s fault.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:56 am

  11. Now I see why Senator Durbin’s friends call him “Dick,” rather than Richard.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (ac7139) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:10 am

  12. So far, Democrat Senators have only been interested in running out the clock, lobbying for more money, tossing soft balls, and kissing Hillary’s duplicitous ass.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:11 am

  13. Rand Paul I heart you more than beans today

    if you were a representative boehner would take every last one of your committees away

    Comment by happyfeet (ce327d) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:18 am

  14. I like this pointing out the Iraq war business, while Hillary voted for the Iraq war and her husband believed they had WMD.

    Comment by MayBee (b27ea0) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:21 am

  15. Rand Paul asks why she didn’t see the cables and says she’s ultimately responsible. Hillary says she isn’t taking responsibility responsibility.

    Comment by MayBee (b27ea0) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:23 am

  16. Hillary’s wearing her green colors today to show solidarity with Team Muhammad.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:23 am

  17. Did Hillary say the government employment rules are that failure of leadership does not equal failure of duty?

    Comment by MayBee (b27ea0) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:27 am

  18. those flag-draped caskets

    brb i need a tissue

    Comment by happyfeet (ce327d) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:35 am

  19. Rehearsed crying? Check.

    Rehearsed table-pounding “How DARE You, Senator?” Check.

    Stonewalling, filibustering? Check.

    Comment by Mitch (341ca0) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:40 am

  20. time for a flash poll showing the american people are behind her

    Comment by happyfeet (ce327d) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:42 am

  21. I thought she seemed pretty faux-flabbergasted on the question about arms being shipped out of Libya to Turkey.

    Comment by MayBee (b27ea0) — 1/23/2013 @ 8:46 am

  22. So, after an internal investigation and months of hiding SOS Hillary finally speaks about Benghazi. She is put on the “hot seat” to explain what happened and what did not happen. There is no new info provided, there are no answers or admissions or mea culpas. What did you all expect?

    Comment by elissa (3c4b57) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:00 am

  23. She’s put on a show of showing up, but this puts paid to her ever running for President.

    She’s retired now.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:02 am

  24. that’s no way to talk about the next president of the united states Mr. SPQR

    Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:06 am

  25. Barack may not have been ready to handle that proverbial 3AM phone call, but Hillary does not appear to have even been prepared to handle questions about voice messages that were left for her when she was out on an early afternoon lunch break.

    Good grief, Charlie Brown.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (ac7139) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:12 am

  26. john kerry couldn’t have gotten away with flag draped coffin sniffles

    Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:21 am

  27. She’s put on a show of showing up, but this puts paid to her ever running for President.

    She’s retired now.

    Come on SPQR, the Clintons are the undead of the political world. Hillary will write an “it’s not my fault” memoir which will be published in 2014, followed by a “here’s what we have to do to get America back on track” mini-tome in 2015. She’ll do extensive nationwide book tours for both — focusing on key delegate states like California and New York — all the while insisting that she is not a candidate in 2016. Meanwhile, the Clinton machine will be oiling up and starting to work the system, allegedly without any authorization from HRC. By Labor Day 2015 the media will be full of reports of a “draft Hillary” movement among Democrats who don’t think Biden, Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, Russ Feingold, Tammy Duckworth, Sandra Fluke, Whoopi Goldberg, or Julia are emerging as decent candidates. She will react with real surprise when she finishes either first or second (or maybe third) in Iowa and New Hampshire, and will suddenly have a huge rally in downtown Manhattan at some site from which Susan B. Anthony or Bella Abzug once spoke, and she’ll announce that yes, ok, twist her arm, she’s running for President in 2016.

    Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:23 am

  28. Turkey? Turkeys? Thanksgiving’s over! She knows nothing about turkeys, nothing at all, she’s not some little lady staying home baking turkeys for her man. Not even pot pies, no siree Bob!

    Ain’t none of them sneaky illegal turkeys lurkin’ around here! This is a turkey-free zone. We don’t even talk turkey.

    And, don’t even hint about disturbing Vincent Foster’s shade, or bringing up Bill’s tax deductible underwear, or any of that old Whitewater stuff, or Travelgate, or Filegate, or the murder of 86 people at Waco. What difference could any of that make now?

    Let’s focus. We have another international gun running scandal and the death of 4 Americans to cover up.

    And, no Monica jokes!

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:24 am

  29. i think what happened today of mostest significance is that soon very soon Rand Paul will find himself wearing a shirt with a target printed on the back as he scurries from bush to bush looking for the one-armed man

    Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:37 am

  30. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts
    – uh, that won’t work
    If the law is on your side, pound the law
    – hmm, don’t think so
    If you don’t have the facts or the law, pound the table
    – there we go!!!

    Not that the public pays attention, but didn’t she contradict herself by essentially saying who cares what happened when we need to find out what happened??

    This was the Senate, isn’t she going to be before Issa and the House (please, please, please)?

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:45 am

  31. Hillary Clinton: What difference, at this point, does it make? Imagine the response if Bush had said this about 9-11 or Iraq.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:54 am

  32. Note that Clinton and the liberal, mainstream media refer to the video excuse as:

    “Talking Points.”

    Funny because that phrase is very pejorative as in: “You are just repeating your party’s talking points.”

    So Mrs. Clinton is subtlety admitting it was all BS anyways.

    Comment by AZ Bob (7d2a2c) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:55 am

  33. that’s no way to talk about the next president of the united states Mr. SPQR.”

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:57 am

  34. JVW, that’s difficult to do but its even more difficult to do when there is video of Hillary acting as stupid as she did today. Cut that up and run it as a commercial.

    She knows she’s done.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/23/2013 @ 9:58 am

  35. Did the treasonous republican hacks ask about Gen Hamm and Admiral Gaouette and the reasons for reassignment?

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:00 am

  36. Sen. McCain point blank said something to the effect of, “Your testimony is not adequate” or some such. It is nice when he is on the right side.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:05 am

  37. 9. JD, That is Senator Richardnoggin Dirtbag to you.

    Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:24 am

  38. Nothing to see here — move along.

    Forward!

    Meh. What’re ya gonna do?

    What’s done is done.

    You can’t un-ring a bell.

    Hey, uh, ya know, that scapegoat really is a scumbag; so, it isn’t like he didn’t deserve to be punished for something.

    Well yeah, ‘technically’ the U.N. Ambassador works for the State Department, but when the nameless, formless, amorphous “intelligence community” tells you what to say . . .

    Comment by Icy (157b9f) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:37 am

  39. Fox News has a web page that seems to collect links or something about the testimony but doesn’t seem to be what it’s name says it is:

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/tag/clinton-benghazi-testimony-video/

    Does anyone know where a transcript or video might be found?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:40 am

  40. 9-11 Fox seems to have chosen to feature the Dick Durbin questioning (11:46 am)

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/23/hillary-clinton-calls-out-gop-controlled-house-for-blocking-access-to-funds-to-enhance-state-dept-security-abroad/

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:45 am

  41. More from Fox:

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/23/explosive-qa-clinton-asks-what-difference-does-it-make-if-benghazi-attack-happened-as-result-of-protest/

    Clinton responded forcefully to Johnson, “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans! 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? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

    Getting the answer as to how it went down, or how and why the public information released was so wrong, has nothing to do with figuring out what happened. (because they already figured it out, but it’s sooper secret. Note the escape clause “at this point”)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:55 am

  42. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-skewers-clinton-on-benghazi-if-i-were-president-i-would-have-relieved-you-of-your-post/

    (She said she didn’t read the cables. Next question should be: Who normally reads cables? Any cables? Who alerts people to problems that may need action?)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:57 am

  43. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/23/video-hillary-clinton-chokes-up-talking-about-amb-chris-stevens-other-americans-killed-in-libya/

    It’s personal. But she never read his cables? Or only the important ones?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:00 am

  44. Brief Fox News timeline (key dates)

    http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/22/benghazi-timeline-hillary-clinton-to-testify-before-congress-on-benghazi-attack/

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:02 am

  45. Bill’s a much smoother liar.

    Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:20 am

  46. Hillary now bloviating at House Committee hearing and still not under oath.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:20 am

  47. Hillary Clinton: What difference, at this point, does it make? Imagine the response if Bush had said this about 9-11 or Iraq.

    Hillary didn’t say “What difference, at this point, does it make” with respect to the deaths in Benghazi. She said it with respect to a (rather stupid) question regarding whether or not the nature of the attack was mischaracterized in the media at one point. Her response was that her goal was finding out the cause, bringing the wrongdoers to justice, and taking steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again, and the rest is trivia.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:23 am

  48. I know what she said it about, Kman, but I’ll be more precise.

    Imagine the response if Bush had said this about how the terrorists got access to the planes on 9-11 or whether Saddam was trying to buy WMD for Iraq. You can insert a number of other questions regarding 9-11 or Iraq and it would be the same.

    My point is when it comes to events that impact American diplomacy and/or security, we need to ask questions and get answers in order to understand the events and how to avoid them. Unless, of course, we have a Democratic President.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:28 am

  49. She said it with respect to a (rather stupid) question regarding whether or not the nature of the attack was mischaracterized in the media at one point.

    The question was about the media?

    Comment by Gerald A (f26857) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:30 am

  50. Furthermore, how can we understand what caused Benghazi without knowing the details, Kman?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:30 am

  51. Furthermore, how can we understand what caused Benghazi without knowing the details, Kman?

    When it comes to making sure this doesn’t happen again — i.e., making sure we have adequate security at our embassies — how relevant is it that the Benghazi attack was sparked by (a) a Youtube video or (b) some other outrage against the American imperialists?

    I suggest that the answer makes no difference. The security was inadequate in a very dangerous and volatile region of the world. That should not have happened. Period.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:37 am

  52. The question was about the media?

    It was about the relationship of the state department with the media — specifically, why the details of the attack weren’t released to the media sooner.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:39 am

  53. She said it with respect to a (rather stupid) question regarding whether or not the nature of the attack was mischaracterized in the media at one point ….

    Do you ever tire of your overt rewriting of recent history?

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:39 am

  54. Yeah, that’s just great, Kman — “Who cares if we lied about it? I promise, we were simultaneously making the most diligent of efforts to discover the truth. For reals!”

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:39 am

  55. Don’t you think it’s important to gather all the facts when you are trying to resolve a contract dispute, handle litigation, etc.? Why should it be any different in diplomacy or security?

    That’s especially important when part of the government’s responsibility is informing the public, and it can’t do that without knowing all the facts. We’re not hiring them to be our overlords.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:40 am

  56. Hillary Clinton acknowledges she asked Chris Hughes to go to Benghazi, his requests for effective security assets were denied, cries from Americans under attack on 9/11 went unanswered, and all we got from Hillary and the Obama Administration was an orchestrated fabrication about a video tape.

    They were lying then and she’s lying now and everyone knows it.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:40 am

  57. MSNBC is now reporting that Hillary mistakenly sent the 3 team security detail to India that Stevens had requested and Rand Paul made mention of in his opening statement.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGZ5v7cnyq0

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:40 am

  58. It was about the relationship of the state department with the media — specifically, why the details of the attack weren’t released to the media sooner.

    Or why they were lied about.

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:40 am

  59. Stevens

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:41 am

  60. Actually, she eviscerated the teabagger Sen. Johnson and put him in his place.

    Comment by Dad (c03711) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:43 am

  61. 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? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.”

    As I said previously and DRJ reiterates, if the answer to the bold part is that important to them, then the answer to the first part will be included. Her statement is either self-contradictory in logic, I believe, or was attempted theatrics to put off the line of questioning.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:45 am

  62. eviscerated is when you take a knife to somebody and slice em up to where their guts plop all over the floor and they’re left to slowly bleed out over the course of a few hours

    it’s crazy painful

    I can’t believe she did that what a whore

    Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:45 am

  63. I suggest that the answer makes no difference. The security was inadequate in a very dangerous and volatile region of the world. That should not have happened. Period.
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:37 am

    – It truly is a sad day when the truth is seen as being TMI.

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:46 am

  64. This is d.c. doing it’s finest dick swinging rodeo.
    And were buying! Cheers folks as I raise my mug of coffee.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:47 am

  65. scott,

    When did Hillary say she sent a security team to India? She visited India in May 2012 — did it have anything to do with that?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:47 am

  66. If Benghazi were Newtown, the Republicans on this committee would be asking why the initial reports said there were two shooters, and that the killer had a bullet-proof vest.

    Hillary’s point was that those kind of issues are not the issue (much as some Republicans would like it to be) — that is, they make no difference. The issue, as far as she is concerned, is that it happened at all. She’s right.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:48 am

  67. Comment by Dad (c03711) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:43 am

    Only if you are impressed by rudeness and loud volume.
    I imagine you think Pontious Pilate put Jesus in his place, too.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:48 am

  68. Actually, she eviscerated the teabagger Sen. Johnson and put him in his place.
    Comment by Dad (c03711) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:43 am

    – And that, folks, concludes today’s Dad Hominem attack.

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:49 am

  69. Kman:

    If Benghazi were Newtown, the Republicans on this committee would be asking why the initial reports said there were two shooters, and that the killer had a bullet-proof vest.

    Yes, I would. I have many other questions, too, but I would want to know if/when officials leak incorrect information and why the media gets so many things wrong. Don’t you, and wouldn’t you want the same thing if Fox News were our only media?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:51 am

  70. Kman,

    If you think the fact about what happened in Benghazi isn’t the issue, then you shouldn’t care about who leaked Valerie Plame’s name or whether Saddam wanted WMDs. Those are trivia by your standards here.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:52 am

  71. Kman, there are many issues. Whether there was deliberate deceit by the WH was once the interest of the public (um, that Watergate thing) and should still be.

    I don’t know if you really believe Hillary’s antics, or just think we are too stupid to have our own opinion of the obvious.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:54 am

  72. If Benghazi were Newtown, the Republicans on this committee would be asking why the initial reports said there were two shooters, and that the killer had a bullet-proof vest.
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:48 am

    – Congratulations! This is your best kiwis-to-raisins comparison since the last time you played pocket pool.

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:56 am

  73. If you think the fact about what happened in Benghazi isn’t the issue…

    I never said that. I said the initial mistaken reports about what happened in Benghazi aren’t the issue.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:56 am

  74. “Dad” is so cute with his hohophobic slurs.

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:56 am

  75. Where WAS the outrage?

    Comment by Dad (c03711) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:57 am

  76. DRJ, it didn’t really matter who leaked Plame’s name, as they found a way to demonize someone in the Bush administration who didn’t do it anyway… ;-)

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:58 am

  77. I don’t know if you really believe Hillary’s antics, or just think we are too stupid to have our own opinion of the obvious.

    If there was “obvious” wrongdoing (as opposed to speculation and wishful thinking), nobody needs to hear Hillary’s testimony. If it is so obvious, why aren’t there indictments or moves to censure or some other form of incrimination?

    Or could it be that this is nothing more than a witch hunt? Hmmmmm?

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:00 pm

  78. I still don’t understand if Rice’s Sunday comments was meant to provide cover for the State Dept ineptitude’s or if she was covering for an administration that knew and approved gun running to Syrian rebels. Or both.

    I think the administration tried to get out in front of this story with the constant lying, but realized that the coverup required a fairly significant fish to fry once the story started developing legs. Hence Hillary’s neck was required on the chopping block.

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:01 pm

  79. I said the initial mistaken reports about what happened in Benghazi aren’t the issue.
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:56 am

    We agree. The (one specific) issue is the persistence of mistaken reports hours, days, and weeks after the original reports were known to be false.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:01 pm

  80. Went shopping instead.

    Love the sexy librarian black glasses, though. Reminds me of Portlandia (where the 90s went to retire) where all the cool hipster chicks wear black glasses.

    Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:02 pm

  81. If Benghazi were Newtown, the Republicans on this committee would be asking why the initial reports said there were two shooters, and that the killer had a bullet-proof vest.

    Or why the left claims he used an assault rifle.

    Kmart endorses the accept responsibility but not blame game they play in DC. He doesn’t care that the Admin told outright lies to cover up this travesty. He doesn’t care that the most basic of information about this is still being covered up.

    See Charyl Atkisson

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:04 pm

  82. If it is so obvious, why aren’t there indictments or moves to censure or some other form of incrimination?
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013

    If it’s so obvious that hassan shot and killed all of those people, why is there a trial?
    That was my last comment to you, Kman, unless I think of something I think is really brilliant or entertaining to say.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:04 pm

  83. This is already been reported in New Zealand as an “evil republican” type story.

    The correspondent on the radio this mornging stated that it took 4 days (yes really) before the administration started calling it a terrorist attack.

    Comment by scrubone (e7e0ea) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:05 pm

  84. DRJ,

    Jesting.

    Rand Paul makes mention that the State Dept sent 3 comedians to India, But low and behold, were unable to address Stevens security concerns nor find the time to even respond back to him

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:05 pm

  85. Hillary really enjoyed patting herself on the back for how awesome she was after the fact.

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:05 pm

  86. 42. http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-skewers-clinton-on-benghazi-if-i-were-president-i-would-have-relieved-you-of-your-post/

    (She said she didn’t read the cables. Next question should be: Who normally reads cables? Any cables? Who alerts people to problems that may need action?)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (976d9e) — 1/23/2013 @ 10:57 am

    Who reads the cables? Who warns people about problems?

    Some guy working for a temp agency in Shenyang, China.

    Hillary! outsources SecState job to China, watches cat videos

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:12 pm

  87. The only thing more predictable than the crap that comes out of the mouth of Little-Dickie Turbin, are the piles that kmart leaves here.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:12 pm

  88. Ok, I changed part of that headline. But I think it fits the spirit of the age.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:13 pm

  89. When Hillary asked Chris Stevens to go to Benghazi he went, but when he asked for security she was too busy to read his requests.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:14 pm

  90. There is nothing too vile that can be said about the performance of this SecState.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:15 pm

  91. The question I want answered is; was Stevens running guns out of the safe house with the admins approval and were they landing in the hands of AQ in Syria.

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:15 pm

  92. I feel like I’m up to the challenge Mr. askeptic

    Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:16 pm

  93. Or could it be that this is nothing more than a witch hunt?
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:00 pm

    – I think they found one.

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:16 pm

  94. #91, the answer is yes.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:18 pm

  95. These words will haunt her-

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    Comment by Bugg (ba4ca9) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:28 pm

  96. Another Yes! for #91.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:32 pm

  97. 73. …I said the initial mistaken reports about what happened in Benghazi aren’t the issue.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 11:56 am

    Actually, they very much are. The ostensible purpose of today’s exercise, or rather the entire investigation and not just the Congressional oversight, is to determine what went wrong and to learn lessons from it to do what’s in our power to make sure it doesn’t happen again.

    Unless you enjoy the sight of American bodies being dragged around by mobs. To Mogadishu we can now add Benghazi.

    One of the first things that went wrong and, as Doc in Philly points out, stayed wrong was the administration went into arse covering mode. Their first instinct was to protect the President’s campaign.

    They went so far to advance this false meme that they bought TV time in Pakistan to apologize for the stupid video that caused no riot in Benghazi. The riot they knew didn’t happen as it wasn’t happening as State’s Diplomatic Security operations center was monitoring (in that alternate universe uninhabited by Obamabots) what was happening.

    I’m going to avoid exploring how the administration lied to the American people for days that there was no evidence the attack on the Benghazi diplomatic-whatever-the-word-is-for-farcically-transparent-diplomatic-cover-for-a-CIA-operation (my nod to Sammy who gives me hell whenever I use the wrong term for whatever the hell State categorizes that Benghazi villa they were renting).

    I’m going to avoid exploring how the DoS’s knee-jerk arse-covering response contributed to more, not less, future Benghazis somewhat defeating the purpose of today’s exercise.

    Are you so braindead, Kmart, that you don’t see the administration’s eagerness to seize on the flimsiest excuse that the attack on the Benghazi whatever grew out of a spontaneous whatever and was thus impossible to foresee or prepare for is exactly the problem?

    If I were a Senator I’d have gone all R. Lee Ermey on Hillary!’s worthless butt. Either she’s an idiot or she’s insulting all of us.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:36 pm

  98. ropelight,

    Then it’s a presidential coverup.

    The only way the D’s would sacrifice Hillary’s presidential aspirations would be to protect a sitting D president.

    The time lapse between the firefight and having boots on the ground to investigate was significant enough to allow Libyan rebels the time necessary to empty the weapons cache at the safe house and rid the complex of any meaningful evidence.

    I can’t wait for Woodward and Bernstein to start diggin’ into that story.

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:38 pm

  99. Heck of a job, Hillary;

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/ny-times-benghazi-killers-murdered-us-citizens-in-algeria-too/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:46 pm

  100. 90. There is nothing too vile that can be said about the performance of this SecState.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:15 pm

    But it won’t be said. Not on US television anyhow. They’ll be selling the notion that Hillary!!!! is the smartest SecState we’ve ever had.

    I went to Home Depot. They don’t have a bucket big enough for me to vomit in.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 12:56 pm

  101. One of the first things that went wrong and, as Doc in Philly points out, stayed wrong was the administration went into arse covering mode…

    Well, it seems you have a very different set of priorities. To me, “what went wrong” is that four people died — four people who should have had adequate security.

    That’s far more damning than any real or imagined lapses in State Department’s public relations and media outreach. To expect that the State Department had marshaled all the facts, and then perpetrated a “lie” about them, all with the first few days, is silly. And not even the true “scandal” here.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:01 pm

  102. It takes a village to find out what Hillary knew, and when she knew it.

    Unfortunately, Hillary didn’t know anything, and she still doesn’t.
    But we already knew that !

    Comment by Elephant Stone (c6909b) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:04 pm

  103. They pulled the SSG despite the myriad pleadings, by Ambassador Stevens, they relied on the Feb 17th
    Martyrs Brigade, then they told the team to stand down, there are no words for this skullduggery and craven malpractice,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:06 pm

  104. Nobody said that 4 dead Americans was not a problem. As Sen. Rand said, hillary +/- others should have heard other Fleetwood mac song, “Go on your Way”, instead of underlings being shifted around to make it look like something was done.

    No matter what aspect you want to divert attention to on Benghazi, Kman, all points are losers for this admin and the way they handled it.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:11 pm

  105. http://twitchy.com/2013/01/23/cbs-sharyl-attkisson-after-hillarys-disgraceful-benghazi-testimony-it-makes-a-difference/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:14 pm

  106. Quit with the faux f***ing outrage, Kmart.

    Defending this indefensible lie by using four dead Americans as cover is despicable.

    I’m one of the Americans this despicable Administration lied about. Remember, Kmart, when Panetta said the “rule” is we don’t send people into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on? Bulls***! We send people into harm’s way to find out what’s going on.

    So your cheap little rhetorical tricks are going to play no better then Hillary!’s table pounding antics did today. There are people in this world who know better than you, and quit pretending there aren’t.

    To expect that the State Department had marshaled all the facts, and then perpetrated a “lie” about them, all with the first few days, is silly. And not even the true “scandal” here.

    Kf***tard, why then did PR mouthpiece Carney announce to the world that the one thing we knew about Benghazi was that it had nothing to do with the Obama administration and its policies? That there was no evidence it was a terrorist attack?

    Note to Kmart: I do not expect much from you. I do not expect an honest answer. But thanks for playing. Please continue.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:14 pm

  107. Well, it seems you have a very different set of priorities. To me, “what went wrong” is that four people died — four people who should have had adequate security.

    But of course the ‘tude that led to their deaths shouldn’t be examined. The same ‘tude that was evident as the administration scrambled to cover its arse in the immediate aftermath.

    Oh, that’s a good one, Kmart.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:20 pm

  108. Your friggin’ priorities, pure as the driven snow. Just like Hillary!!’s.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:21 pm

  109. #98, scott, you’re correct, it’s a cover-up alright and it originates in Obama’s White House. Barack Obama and his closest advisers are the only ones capable of ordering our armed rescue forces to stand-down.

    Obama claims he authorized any and all efforts to save Ambassador Stevens and his staff, but since nothing was done someone in high office countermanded Obama’s order or the order was never given in the first place.

    So, contrary to Obama’s initial posturing, nothing was done because Obama never authorized the use of force to save American lives.

    Comment by ropelight (aae05a) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:22 pm

  110. No matter what aspect you want to divert attention to on Benghazi, Kman, all points are losers for this admin and the way they handled it.

    Total agreement, MD. The proof is that 4 people are dead, and their deaths were preventable.

    Quit with the faux f***ing outrage, Kmart.

    I’m not outraged, Steve. I just think that people looking for a Watergate-type cover-up are barking up the wrong tree, and looking foolish.

    why then did PR mouthpiece Carney announce to the world that the one thing we knew about Benghazi was that it had nothing to do with the Obama administration and its policies? That there was no evidence it was a terrorist attack?

    He didn’t say that. He said there was no evidence (at the time he said it) that there was no evidence it was a pre-planned attack. OBVIOUSLY, it was a terrorist attack (the only other alternative being that the embassy was hit with RPGs by mistake). The only question was whether it was done more-or-less on-the-fly or if it had been weeks/months in preparation. And Hillary’s point, with which I agree, is that that distinction makes no difference — EITHER WAY, the consulate was under-secure and it was a security mess-up for which the State Department is culpable.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:33 pm

  111. Does anyone else find Kmart’s dissembling not only unconvincing but insulting to any life form that’s not single-celled?

    Raise your hands.

    Keep it up, Kmart. Just keep it up. That’s all I ask.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:38 pm

  112. It is unfortunate that the one person in the WH and outside the Oval Office who needs to be questioned, won’t be questioned, as Congress cannot compel testimony from him:
    Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor.

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:40 pm

  113. Does anyone else find Kmart’s dissembling not only unconvincing but insulting to any life form that’s not single-celled?

    What’s “dissembling”? Carney never denied it was a terrorist attack. He only said he didn’t know if it was pre-planned or not. It’s the right-wing media that it equating “terrorist” with “pre-planned”. Compare this Breitbart headline to what Carney actually said. That’s “dissembling” for ya!

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:43 pm

  114. Except for the continuing escalation of attacks, that had forced all the Western consulates in the area, to leave, yes it was all accidental

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:46 pm

  115. Shorter Hillary: The buck stops with me, but I didn’t do it.

    Short-bus Kman: You can’t blame them for lying, because they didn’t know what was going on.

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:46 pm

  116. He said there was no evidence (at the time he said it) that there was no evidence it was a pre-planned attack.

    Fortunately one of the demonstrable lies this adminitration has committed.

    But again it goes to the argument Hillary! was advancing that NO ONE could have predicted this.

    It’s b***s*** and it’s obvious b***s*** but if it helps Kmart sleep at night I guess Kmart’s cool with it.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:47 pm

  117. than any real or imagined lapses in State Department’s public relations and media outreach

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    He said there was no evidence (at the time he said it) that there was no evidence it was a pre-planned attack.

    Given what we do know from Benghazi prior to the attack, this was demonstrably false at the time he said it.

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:48 pm

  118. What’s “dissembling”? Carney never denied it was a terrorist attack. He only said he didn’t know if it was pre-planned or not.

    I rest my case.

    Comment by Steve57 (4c041b) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:50 pm

  119. Ms Atkissons questions remain unanswered.

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:54 pm

  120. Given what we do know from Benghazi prior to the attack, this was demonstrably false at the time he said it.

    Really? What did we “know” from Benghazi at the time that proved conclusively this was a pre-planned (as opposed to a relatively spontaneous) attack on the embassy?

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:54 pm

  121. It’s the right-wing media that it equating “terrorist” with “pre-planned”.
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:43 pm

    – Be sure to use Patterico’s Amazon widget to order Kman’s latest
    non-fiction opus:
    “Is That An RPG In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Dying To Kill Me?: The Deadliest Spontaneous Terror Attacks Of All Time”

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:59 pm

  122. Steve– Single cells ARE insulted by K-Man’s arguments. Just wanted to clear that up.

    Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:03 pm

  123. Really? What did we “know” from Benghazi at the time that proved conclusively this was a pre-planned (as opposed to a relatively spontaneous) attack on the embassy?

    Your ignorance, while profound, is not a substitute for honest debate.

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:03 pm

  124. “Relatively spontaneous” … with enough “relativity” Kman thinks he’s Einstein.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:04 pm

  125. The families of the four dead Americans in Benghazi, some of whom might have been saved had there been adequate security– or had a timely rescue mission been launched, must be absolutely beside themselves watching her testify today. There are many situations where blatant partisanship is expected, and a few situations where blatant partisanship is not only inappropriate but beyond the pale. What I’m hearing from Kman and from my blue senator and from Ms Clinton is beyond the pale. How do these people live with themselves?

    Comment by elissa (3c4b57) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:04 pm

  126. “Is That An RPG In Your Pocket, Or Are You Just Dying To Kill Me?: The Deadliest Spontaneous Terror Attacks Of All Time”

    Fort Hood, maybe.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:10 pm

  127. JD at #126:

    And your comment is no substitute for an answer to my question.

    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:12 pm

  128. What the president has ‘dubbed a work place accident,’

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:12 pm

  129. Really? What did we “know” from Benghazi at the time that proved conclusively this was a pre-planned (as opposed to a relatively spontaneous) attack on the embassy?

    K-Man thinks our intelligence community should “know” things. With quotation marks.

    Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:13 pm

  130. Kman,

    Who were you rooting for in WW2 ?

    Comment by Elephant Stone (c6909b) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:18 pm

  131. “Mockmood, where are you going?”

    “I’m on my way to protest outside the American embassy, Kamelick. Would you care to join me?”

    “Certainly. But first, how about we stop at our secret,
    not-affiliated-with-any-known-terror-group cache of military-grade weapons and pick up some party favors?”

    “Sounds like fun. This event is gonna be a real blast!”

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:21 pm

  132. 110. …, Kman, all points are losers for this admin and the way they handled it.
    [MD in Philly]
    Total agreement, MD….
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 1:33 pm

    Now that we have that decided, next topic please.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:32 pm

  133. Kmart willfully is playing ignorant, or is just that ignorant. Regardless, we do know that the people on the ground in Benghazi warned of attacks, requested additional security, and one even noted that he hoped they might live thru the night, before the attacks ever happened.

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:48 pm

  134. Fort Hood, maybe.
    Comment by Kman (5576bf) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:10 pm

    – There is NO evidence that anyone that ever went on a shooting spree did not plan it ahead of time.

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:50 pm

  135. As I recall, Hasan, wrote a powerpoint presentation on the need for jihad.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 2:58 pm

  136. “And Hillary’s point, with which I agree, is that that distinction makes no difference — EITHER WAY”

    Kman – You left out her “at this point” clause. Administration officials lied to the American people, apologized to the Muslim world for a video made in America, and have stalled, obfuscated, and refused to discuss in detail what actually happened to cause the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Scores of questions remain unanswered, but Hillary wants to avoid them with a breezy “at this point” they don’t matter as if that should satisfy people.

    No dice.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2013 @ 3:27 pm

  137. Kman – Congress decides whether the questions matter, not Hillary. That is their oversight role.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2013 @ 3:30 pm

  138. I am still grateful today that based upon the latest reports Al Qaeda is still dead or on the run and has not been getting upset about any videos made in the U.S., not that that makes any difference at this point.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/23/2013 @ 3:34 pm

  139. I loved the part where Hillary blamed the dead ambassador for dying

    Comment by EPWJ (c5f1fc) — 1/23/2013 @ 3:37 pm

  140. Yah, Hasan “spontaneously” carried a sidearm onto base contrary to regulations.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/23/2013 @ 3:38 pm

  141. reminded me of that old bumber sticker first hillary then gennifer and now us.

    If bill hadnt gotten the cover of Ross Perot – this ambassador may have been alive today

    Comment by EPWJ (c5f1fc) — 1/23/2013 @ 3:39 pm

  142. 140.Yah, Hasan “spontaneously” carried a sidearm onto base contrary to regulations.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 1/23/2013 @ 3:38 pm

    Interesting that a large magazine capacity ban wasnt sought in the Hasan case when he used 20 and 30 round mags

    Comment by EPWJ (c5f1fc) — 1/23/2013 @ 3:45 pm

  143. So the WH flatly states they will have no further comment on Benghazi except to say “There’s an ongoing investigation”. They will scour the Earth to apprehend the perpetrators but it simply doesn’t matter what they were thinking.

    I have this uneasy feeling they’re covering something up.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:02 pm

  144. Hillary referred to the film Argo in explaining one of her points. I find that interesting but I’m not sure why. On the one hand, it strikes me as smart to use pop culture to communicate ideas to the public but, on the other, it seems like a sign of intellectual decay to use pop culture to convey important ideas.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:06 pm

  145. Yes, gary, we have a better chance of hearing the full story behind Fast & Furious than another word about Benghazi. Which means we won’t hear about either.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:07 pm

  146. 144. “it strikes me as smart to use pop culture to communicate ideas to the public but, on the other, it seems like a sign of intellectual decay to use pop culture to convey important ideas”

    Yeah, I know what you mean. I started out a Philosophy major and my counsellor was winner of the guilds Man of the Year award, an expert on Wittgenstein. I didn’t really get Wittgenstein at the time.

    Now that I know that subject and more, like Hill before the TV cameras, I when considering intractable problems, confounding antinomies am prone to say with her, “Oh what the hell, let ‘em droop.”

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:14 pm

  147. I think, considering Stevens’ last official act was receiving a Turkish envoy, the Ambassador was the go between for Ogabe and Syrian Al Qaeda. The nature of their business unloading war surplus to the Syrian insurgency.

    Ogabe was told by Panetta and Donilon to lose the white guy.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:19 pm

  148. DRJ – no doubt the MFM is done with this. Just like Fast a d Furious.

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:19 pm

  149. I think not all, but many people might have actually forgiven the confusion and misinformation put out by the admin in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 Benghazi attack had there been some honest answers and accountability today. But now, it is the end of January and following an allegedly intense “investigation” she still doesn’t know what happened. But gosh darn it she sure is trying to find out so it never happens again?

    That position insults on so many levels. The evening news shows desperately tried to help her. Hey, the poor thing was just recently flat on her back with a concussion and yet here she is in front of a hostile congress showing both spunk and deep emotion. Bleech.

    An excellent spokeswoman from the American Enterprise Institute (Danielle somebody) said this evening on PBS, “there was lots of sound and fury in congress today, but disappointingly precious few answers.”

    Comment by elissa (3c4b57) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:31 pm

  150. DRJ – no doubt the MFM is done with this. Just like Fast a d Furious.

    JD (and DRJ) — the MFM was done with this (Benghazi) as of September 12, 2012. Surely you recall their admonition to Romney and the GOP to avoid “politicizing” the situation.

    Comment by JVW (4826a9) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:33 pm

  151. JVW – True. Very true. But this gives them a final point of closure. Investigation! Testimony! Meanies!

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:38 pm

  152. gary gulrud,

    There’s plenty to question but, if Stevens is shipping arms to AQ in Syria, then what beef does AQ in Libya have with that transaction that’s egregious enough to assassinate Stevens?

    Hadn’t Stevens shown he was willing to play ball with AQ? What suddenly made him expendable to AQ?

    Unless AQ in Libya viewed the arms as theirs and calculated that Stevens was trying to level the playing field in Libya between the fever swamp Islamists and moderates by ridding the country of too may weapons.

    U.S. foreign policy in the ME appears to be the overthrow of secular governments and replacing them with Islamic theocracies. If this is intended or the unintended consequences of our interventions, then this is completely nutty.

    I’m trying to determine motive.

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:47 pm

  153. Today, Hillary Clinton had enough smoke blown up her ass to float the Hindenburg.

    Oh… the insanity

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (6fa307) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:04 pm

  154. scott–do you think the congressional questioners –both Dem and Repub. know full well (or have a pretty good idea) what was going on with Stevens and the CIA in Benghazi, and just like Obama and Clinton are participating in a charade or a political play? Or do you think the secret really is a secret? Secrets are hard to keep in Washington.

    At least it is now abundantly clear that the “investigation” was and is a ploy –merely a place holder to buy time with the media and the public.

    Comment by elissa (3c4b57) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:07 pm

  155. It’s wonderful how courageous she was to sit there and DO HER JOB.

    Comment by Icy (dc406a) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:16 pm

  156. Considering exactly who her audience members were, it seems condescending that Hillary assumed they did not understand the functions and needs of Marines at our embassies. That she uses a pop culture reference might indicate that they are less savvy than we would strike>think hope they would be. This is after all, the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

    “Marine security guards, as you know, are very much a presence on more than 150 of our posts,” Clinton said, in response to a question about Marine securing embassies around the world. “And in order to give them the facilities and support they need–they need a Marine house. They need to be very close to the embassy. Because as — if you saw the recent movie Argo, you saw the Marines in there destroying classified material when the mob was outside in Tehran.”

    Comment by Dana (292dcf) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:17 pm

  157. Meh. they are less savvy than we would think hope they would be.

    Comment by Dana (292dcf) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:18 pm

  158. They will scour the Earth to apprehend the perpetrators but it simply doesn’t matter what they were thinking.
    I have this uneasy feeling they’re covering something up.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:02 pm

    I bet they won’t rest until they find the killers, just like OJ.

    Wittgenwho?

    Hewitt, while admitting he is not a trial lawyer but does do a lot of interviews, did some critique of how questioning should go to maximum effectiveness. He suggested that the House repubs give all of their time to Cruz and let him go after her full tilt.

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:22 pm

  159. You know there’s something odd in this account, since we found out that Al Harzi is connected to AQ’s Iraqi branch, and through him, the Syrian jihadists;

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/23/hillary-gets-heated-at-benghazi-hearings.html

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:29 pm

  160. elissa,

    To buy time for what exactly?

    Be concise.

    Yes, I believe we’ll agree that the American people will soon forget Benghazi.

    But ultimately what is Obama after for Muslims in the ME?

    ….and how does Israel fit into those plans?

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:33 pm

  161. scott–
    hey bub, I’m asking you the questions :)

    You raised some interesting issues in your #152. I was hoping you might be persuaded to elaborate further

    Comment by elissa (3c4b57) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:45 pm

  162. The coverage of Sen. Johnson’s questioning of Hillary Clinton has focused on her impassioned “What difference, at this point, does it make?” response, and I agree that was interesting. (By the way, I don’t agree with those who think she’s not still interested in being President. Seeing this response convinces me she’s still playing the “vast right wing conspiracy card,” which is something the Clintons always do when they are running for office. It’s their version of Obama’s race card.)

    However, the really interesting part to me was when Johnson asked her why the Department of State didn’t simply call its evacuated employees and asked them what happened. His point was that the government, and especially Susan Rice in her Sunday interviews 5 days after the attack, could have provided reliable information if the State Department had simply asked its employees for information.

    Hillary’s response? The evacuated State Department employees were being interviewed by the FBI, and the Department of State didn’t want to intervene. Thus, once again, the Democrats are treating terrorism and matters of national security as criminal law matters. But events like this aren’t criminal law matters.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:49 pm

  163. Republicans continue to bumble even when handed important issues on a silver platter. It’s growing more evident each day that this is just one big charade. We are fooked.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (6fa307) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:51 pm

  164. Her excuse is of course, bunkum, to be charitable, that report commissioned by the LOC, for the Pentagon, from entirely open sources, is like a road map, of all the Salafi milieu in North Africa,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 5:54 pm

  165. hillary looked like she could use a bath I thought and some degreaser for that head

    Comment by happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:01 pm

  166. I don’t think we should assume Al Qaeda and/or the Libyans had a problem with Stevens so they killed him. Even if that’s what happened, it doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t like Stevens and were trying to get rid of him. It could also have been their very dramatic and effective way of sending a message to the Obama Administration.

    Of course, we’d know for sure if we could have listened in on this meeting between Hillary and the Libyan Ambassador to the US that took place 2 days after the attack. Here is the Press Release regarding their appearance together to recognize Ramadan. It focuses on the Libyans’ need for more support from the US, especially in the area of security. Hillary Clinton mentioned that in her comments today, too.

    I assume the Libyans had been asking for more assistance with security for awhile, and I wonder if the Obama Administration had refused because it didn’t want to get more troops involved. If so, wouldn’t Ambassador Stevens’ death send a message that Obama had to send more help and push him to do just that?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:08 pm

  167. PS — Everything I’ve seen indicates the Libyans pulled back their security in Benghazi and that left Stevens’ and the consulate exposed. I don’t necessarily think the Libyans were involved in and wanted Stevens to die. But they may have stood aside and done nothing when others tried to hurt him.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:11 pm

  168. ==Hillary’s response: The evacuated State Department employees were being interviewed by the FBI, and the Department of State didn’t want to intervene==

    DRJ- I think a more honest answer from Hil would have been something like, “The evacuated State Department employees were being interviewed and fed their lines by the CIA– and the Department of State was ordered from the top of the White House not to intervene.”

    Comment by elissa (3c4b57) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:12 pm

  169. Ms Atkisson’s questions remain unanswered. About Benghazi. And Fast and Furious.

    Has even one intrepid reporter found even one evacuee from Benghazi?

    Comment by JD (4fbbe6) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:26 pm

  170. elissa,

    Alright ma’am.

    Recently I’ve given thought as to why the SSG group was pulled and the request for additional security forces fell on deaf ears.

    What if the admin felt comfortable with the very limited number of men attached to the annex knowing that they could keep the arms shipments under wraps and away from public consumption? ie nobody from the group would run to the press telling where the bodies were buried nor writing a tell-all book.

    The reason? If you added a few 20 year old marines into the mix some might come to conclusion that those arms were being transported to a Turkish vessel and Syria was right across the border. In other words there might be some talk.

    So the fewer the better.

    The same holds true for a rescue mission. If a C 130 arrives and does it’s thing on the enemy and the choppers are brought into to evac the survivors and the wounded, maybe someone in that rescue mission sees too much. Maybe the CO makes a command decision to secure the annex, pick-up the paperwork, computers and other things that they believe is intel which shouldn’t fall into the enemies hand?

    I’m not there yet, but I’ve often wondered if Obama didn’t pull the trigger because he felt there was just too many cooks in the kitchen? Too many secrets within the annex that would cripple his reelection bid if they were brought to the attention of the American public.

    I don’t know, maybe I’m reading too many Vince Flynn books.

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:34 pm

  171. I agree, scott.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:47 pm

  172. It would have been awkward to order a military response, a week after they had declared ‘AQ dead and GM alive’ no, they do move somewhat in Yemen, but that’s pretty much out of the way.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:50 pm

  173. JD — Here is a video with Rand Paul’s statement and Hillary Clinton’s very legalistic response.

    scott — Note that Paul specifically asked Hillary if the US was involved in shipping arms to Turkey via Libya. Basically, she refused to answer and directed him to the CIA.

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 1/23/2013 @ 6:53 pm

  174. DRJ,

    When Hillary gives that look of shock and incredulousness at Paul’s question, it just shows she’s spent hours in front of a mirror rehearsing that expression.

    It’s pure bullshit.

    To get at the truth someone in the press has to work around the edges and attempt to find anyone willing to talk and someone high up willing to corroborate.

    Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:24 pm

  175. A need to cover up dirty secret arms shipments suggests a reason for the admin’s failure to rescue, for their almost immediate desperate and visually silly attempt to change the subject to an amateur video –and helps explain the choice of Susan Rice to appear on the Sunday shows even though she was not involved in any material way and was not a logical person to be speaking on Benghazi. They needed someone ambitious and loyal to Obama to do the initial lying via rigid talking points. Susan’s the girl!

    By the tenor of the questioning earlier today I am relatively sure Rand Paul, McCain and probably others on both sides if the aisle do know exactly what happened.

    Comment by elissa (3c4b57) — 1/23/2013 @ 7:28 pm

  176. 152. ‘AQ’ is just a blanket term these days. There is no supranational coordination of cells.

    A couple of days prior, AQ in Libya, promised reprisal for our dusting their Libyan AQ hero of the Libyan liberation in Pakistan, Whozzit(sic) al Libi.

    Walid Shoebat at his website briefly had a subtexted translation of the Consulate attack video when the ex-Seal counterattack began. “We’re here from Mursi, don’t shoot”.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:39 am

  177. 170. “Maybe the CO makes a command decision to secure the annex, pick-up the paperwork, computers and other things that they believe is intel which shouldn’t fall into the enemies hand?”

    Except the ‘paperwork’ was strewn about the site 3 weeks later after the FBI finally visted the site.

    Where you go wrong is assuming the Ogabe admin is on our side. Not that they’re pro-Muslim, just antiAmerican.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:48 am

  178. 158. Ludwig Wittgenstein, perhaps you jest.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein

    As always, wiki is merely a locus of departure.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:57 am

  179. 175. Indeed. ‘As long as the US suffers’, as tho they’re redistributionists without a positive cause. Curry favor with no one, let no faction succeed consistently, no direction in policy be discernable, just f*ck it up.

    Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/24/2013 @ 2:02 am

  180. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/24/2013

    No/Yes. I didn’t know the name but I was also making the comment somewhat in jest.
    While I enjoy thinking in fundamental principles, which is philosophy I guess, my formal education in it was one intro class, one class in “Contemporary Moral Issues”, and one 500 level class in philos of religion- so the only names I recognize are older of foundational importance, those who were my professors, Plantinga, and Kreeft (and C.S. Lewis if you count him).

    Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 1/24/2013 @ 10:30 am

  181. someone in the press has to work around the edges and attempt to find anyone willing to talk and someone high up willing to corroborate

    You’re talking about our MSM?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/24/2013 @ 10:41 am

  182. C-Span page with some links to video highlights:

    http://www.c-span.org/Events/Sec-of-State-Clinton-to-Testify-on-US-Consulate-Attack-in-Benghazi/10737437475-1/

    Video Playlist:

    * Senate Foreign Relations Cmte. Hearing
    * Sec. Clinton on Her Activities on 9/11/2012
    * Sec. Clinton on Her Involvement in Diplomatic Security Decisions
    * Sec. Clinton on Ambassador Rice Talking Points
    * Senate Hearing on Benghazi (Dec. 20, 2012)

    Related Resources:

    * Hearing Details
    Senate Foreign Rel. Cmte.
    * Clinton defends her handling of Benghazi attack in testimony
    Reuters
    * Independent Panel’s Benghazi Report
    * Sec. Clinton’s Opening Statement

    I have so far not found any written transcript.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (728434) — 1/24/2013 @ 11:48 am

  183. Comment by scott (b8618e) — 1/23/2013 @ 4:47 pm

    There’s plenty to question but, if Stevens is shipping arms to AQ in Syria, then what beef does AQ in Libya have with that transaction that’s egregious enough to assassinate Stevens?

    He wasn’t shipping – on Obama’s instructions, he was trying to prevent the shipping, especially of man carried missiles that could shootdown a commercial airliner.

    It was useless dealing with Saudi Arabia or Qatar, but he was interceding with Turkey, where the arms were going first, and was perhaps having some success.

    His last act had been to meet with a Turkish official in Benghazi (described in some sources as the Ambassador, but apparently someone else)

    Hadn’t Stevens shown he was willing to play ball with AQ? What suddenly made him expendable to AQ?

    He wasn’t playing ball, and in fact was possibly having some success is getting the arms at least carefully selected in Turkey.

    I’m trying to determine motive.

    Now what I suspect is that Saudi intelligence – which is connected to the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, and is now run by the man who probably shot and killed Vincent Foster, * planned the attack in Benghazi down to the last detail, including the murder of Stevens, and also including of course, preparing the video to try to convince key officials that the attack was not pre-planned because nobody in Benghazi had heard of the video the day before.

    * after that Prince Bandar quickly arranged a meeting at the White House with President Clinton and Sandy Burglar and persuaded Clinton to protect him. Clinton told him to move the body into nearby Ft. Marcy Park, which would create federal jurisdiction. Hillary knows he whole story, of course.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (728434) — 1/24/2013 @ 12:08 pm

  184. Comment by gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:39 am

    A couple of days prior, AQ in Libya, promised reprisal for our dusting their Libyan AQ hero of the Libyan liberation in Pakistan, Whozzit(sic) al Libi.

    There’s a whole lot of red herrings here. The video, wanting to free Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman, revenge for the death of al-Libi, and who knows if there any others only maybe known to intelligence agencies, but I suspect the real reason was that Stevens was doing his job too well..and they wanted to get the CIA people out of there too.

    Who? Saudi Arabia and /or Qatar.

    Walid Shoebat at his website briefly had a subtexted translation of the Consulate attack video when the ex-Seal counterattack began. “We’re here from Mursi, don’t shoot”

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (728434) — 1/24/2013 @ 12:19 pm

  185. on Obama’s instructions, he was trying to prevent the shipping

    and you have that memo, Sammy?

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:00 pm

  186. They can do more than ‘walk and chew gum’ at the same time, they’ve wanted the Sheikh back since 1997, the cover story in the first PDB were the hijackings for exchanging him, (December ’98) the proximate cause was the death of Faraj al Libi nee
    Qaid, and that of Atiyah some months after UBL’s passing,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:04 pm

  187. “He wasn’t shipping – on Obama’s instructions, he was trying to prevent the shipping, especially of man carried missiles that could shootdown a commercial airliner.”

    Sammy – Is that a normal Ambassadorial duty, especially when the weapons are in the hands of radical Islamists?

    Do you have any links explaining the purpose of the meeting between Stevens and the Turks or any explanation of why he exposed himself to visiting Benghazi other than the BS cover story of the hospital dedication?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:13 pm

  188. Sammy is demonstrating his specialty on this thread:
    Ass Pulls!

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:20 pm

  189. 187. “He wasn’t shipping – on Obama’s instructions, he was trying to prevent the shipping, especially of man carried missiles that could shoot down a commercial airliner.”

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:13 pm

    Sammy – Is that a normal Ambassadorial duty,

    It has long been established that the Ambassador is the superior of the CIA station chief, so yes, he can get involved..he might get involved if the CIA was not succeeding..bring a message that the relations between turkey (or Qatar?) and the united states might be affected.

    especially when the weapons are in the hands of radical Islamists?

    He wasn’t dealing with Islamcists – he was dealing with representatives of the Libyan government (who in theory owned the weapons) and foreign governments like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.

    The weapons were actually often in the possession of militias and were being bought by Qatar and Saudi Arabia for shipment to Syria through Turkey.

    Do you have any links explaining the purpose of the meeting between Stevens and the Turks

    I don’t think so but I remember something about a theory about what was going on.

    Maybe this but it’s behind a paywall:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578062842929673074.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet#articleTabs_comments

    Here’s from ABC News:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/glen-doherty-navy-seal-killed-libya-intel-mission/story?id=17229037

    By LEE FERRAN (@leeferran)
    Sept. 13, 2012

    One of the Americans killed alongside Ambassador Christopher Stevens in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya Tuesday told ABC News before his death that he was working with the State Department on an intelligence mission to round up dangerous weapons in the war-torn nation.

    In an interview with ABC News last month, Glen Doherty, a 42-year-old former Navy SEAL who worked as a contractor with the State Department, said he personally went into the field to track down so-called MANPADS, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, and destroy them. After the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, the State Department launched a mission to round up thousands of MANPADS that may have been looted from military installations across the country. U.S. officials previously told ABC News they were concerned the MANPADS could fall into the hands of terrorists, creating a threat to commercial airliners.

    Now the thing is, they were being bouyght up by Qatar apparently, and/or Saudi Arabiua and being sent to Turkey. I saw something about a ship that gone to Turkey from Benghazi.

    Here’s an idea that they were trying to buy back weapons:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2953578/posts

    or any explanation of why he exposed himself to visiting Benghazi other than the BS cover story of the hospital dedication?

    If that’s BS cover, it has to do with intervening directly with Turkish officials – trying to stop a ship from leaving with weapons – or getting Turkey to agree to inspect them I never saw a link explaining that meeting with the Turkish official.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:30 pm

  190. “The weapons were actually often in the possession of militias”

    Sammy – OK, you’re just making it up as you go along again. Now, who were these militias?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:52 pm

  191. “If that’s BS cover, it has to do with intervening directly with Turkish officials”

    Sammy – Wait, Stevens intervened in the affairs of a foreign country? Why haven’t we heard about this?

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:53 pm

  192. Actually this puts the matter in perspective;

    http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/qatar-leaks-business-foreign-affairs

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/24/2013 @ 2:24 pm

  193. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2013 @ 1:53 pm

    Stevens intervened in the affairs of a foreign country?

    This is not internal affairs. This is foreign policy. Unless you mean the affairs of Libya.

    Why haven’t we heard about this?

    It’s secret, bit anyway we have.

    Ah – here we are:

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/24/2013 @ 4:17 pm

  194. 187 Daleyrocks: Do you have any links explaining the purpose of the meeting between Stevens and the Turks?

    Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador’s Benghazi visit?

    By Catherine Herridge, Pamela Browne Published October 25, 2012 FoxNews.com

    A mysterious Libyan ship — reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels — may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Fox News has learned.

    Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means “The Victory,” was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun — 35 miles from the Syrian border — on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.

    On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.

    Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

    When asked to comment, a State Department spokeswoman dismissed the idea, saying Stevens was there for diplomatic meetings, and to attend the opening of a cultural center.

    A congressional source also cautioned against drawing premature conclusions about the consulate attack and the movement of weapons from Libya to Syria via Turkey — noting they may in fact be two separate and distinct events. But the source acknowledged the timing and the meeting between the Turkish diplomat and Stevens was “unusual.”

    According to an initial Sept. 14 report by the Times of London, Al Entisar was carrying 400 tons of cargo. Some of it was humanitarian, but also reportedly weapons, described by the report as the largest consignment of weapons headed for Syria’s rebels on the frontlines.

    “This is the Libyan ship … which is basically carrying weapons that are found in Libya,” said Walid Phares, a Fox News Middle East and terrorism analyst. “So the ship came all the way up to Iskenderun in Turkey. Now from the information that is available, there was aid material, but there were also weapons, a lot of weapons.”

    The cargo reportedly included surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles, RPG’s and Russian-designed shoulder-launched missiles known as MANPADS.

    The ship’s Libyan captain told the Times of London that “I can only talk about the medicine and humanitarian aid” for the Syrian rebels. It was reported there was a fight about the weapons and who got what “between the free Syrian Army and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/#ixzz2IwTDVfcu

    The Moslem Brotherhood being the attackers.

    Now this one has Stevens approving all of this. But the U.S. has been against the Syrian rebels getting missiles. At that time they were still trusting Qatar as to whom to help, and the U.S. refused to arm any rebels themselves, but they didn’t want certain kinds of weapons to go to Syria.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/24/2013 @ 4:26 pm

  195. This website claims Stevens was supposed to send weapons, rather than prevent weapons from being sent:

    http://azconservative.org/2012/10/24/benghazi-obamas-middle-east-fast-furious-scandal/

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/24/2013 @ 4:27 pm

  196. http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10

    The official position is that the US has refused to allow heavy weapons into Syria.

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10#ixzz2IwVHh0Pn

    More:

    In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, “met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey” in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.

    Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship “carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey.” The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.

    Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi’s stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.

    The ship’s captain was “a Libyan from Benghazi and the head of an organization called the Libyan National Council for Relief and Support,” which was presumably established by the new government.

    That means that Ambassador Stevens had only one person—Belhadj—between himself and the Benghazi man who brought heavy weapons to Syria.

    Furthermore, we know that jihadists are the best fighters in the Syrian opposition, but where did they come from?

    Last week The Telegraph reported that a FSA commander called them “Libyans” when he explained that the FSA doesn’t “want these extremist people here.”

    And if the new Libyan government was sending seasoned Islamic fighters and 400 tons of heavy weapons to Syria through a port in southern Turkey—a deal brokered by Stevens’ primary Libyan contact during the Libyan revolution—then the governments of Turkey and the U.S. surely knew about it.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/24/2013 @ 4:31 pm

  197. Syrian rebels squabble over weapons as biggest shipload arrives from Libya

    A lot of article behind pay wall

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/24/2013 @ 4:43 pm

  198. “Now this one has Stevens approving all of this. But the U.S. has been against the Syrian rebels getting missiles.”

    Sammy – And of course we know Obama would never lie to us.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/24/2013 @ 5:48 pm

  199. Glen Doherty told ABC News he was involved in trying to destroy Manpads (not send them to Turkey for use in Syria)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (728434) — 1/24/2013 @ 5:57 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4408 secs.