3 Incredibly Outrageous Evasions by Hillary Clinton About Benghazi

During a long day of testifying before House and Senate panels, outgoing Secretary of State - and presumptive Democratic Party candidate for the presidency in 2016 - Hillary Clinton batted away contentious questions from Republicans like Ted Williams at a Little League game. She also soaked up extreme adulation from Democrats (including a a not-so-coded call to run for president by Sen. Barbara Boxer, who said, "You will be missed, but I for one hope for not too long").

The scene reminded me of nothing so much as Oliver North's appearance before a joint Congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra back in the 1980s. Not because of anything Clinton said but the way that she carried herself and the ease with which she wrapped herself in the flag and tragedy to obscure the simple fact that she wasn't going to answer anything. North famously showed up to testify in a military uniform that had nothing to do with his day job of subverting the U.S. Constitution from the basement of the Reagan White House. Clinton couldn't repeat that fashion statement but she was able to pound the table and choke up at all the right moments to evade serious discussion not simply of major screw-ups, but major screw-ups that will go unaccounted for.

Three major evasions from her appearances yesterday include:

1. "I take responsiblity."

From a Fox News report of the Senate hearing:

During the opening of the hearing, Clinton said she has "no higher priority" than the security of her department's staff, and that she is committed to making the department "safer, stronger and more secure." 

"As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right," Clinton said, later choking up when describing how she greeted the families of the victims when the caskets were returned.    

Taking responsibility is the classic dodge in Washington, where pols assume the mantle of leadership and them promptly do nothing to address the situation for which they are in hot water. What does it mean to take responsiblity for the absolute breakdown of security at a consulate where your ambassador gets murdered (along with three others)? Judging from Clinton's subsequent actions, nothing other than showing up when the dead are brought home. Worse still is Clinton's misting up over the tragedy. That makes her a little too much like the kid who kills his parents and then asks the court to take mercy on him because he's now an orphan.

2. "1.43 million cables come to my office."

ABC News reporting from the House hearings:

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, asked Clinton this afternoon why her office had not responded to a notification from Stevens about potential dangers in Libya.

"Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention," Clinton calmly told the House Foreign Affairs Committee hours after her Senate testimony this morning. "I'm not aware of anyone within my office, within the secretary's office having seen that cable."

She added that "1.43 million cables come to my office. They're all addressed to me."

Come on, already. The question is plainly not whether Clinton is reading every goddamned communication addressed to her but whether she's got the right people in charge of assessing risk and making sure resources are apportioned accordingly. Tragically, the answer was no, especially given the fact that State had cut security in Benghazi despite attacks prior to the deadly 9/11 one! This just ain't no way to run things.

3. "What difference at this point does it make?"

From a CBS News account of a confrontation between Secretary Clinton and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.):

“We were misled that there were supposedly protests and an assault spraying out of that and it was easily obtained that it was not the fact the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said.

“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 and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton responded.

Clinton's statement may set a new standard for politically motivated evasions of basic truth and decency. Seriously: What difference does it make? Just for low-stakes starters, there's a guy in California who was put in jail basically because the Obama administration said his stupid, irrelevant video trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims" was to blame for anti-Americanism in Libya and beyond. President Obama went to the United Nations and bitch-slapped free expression in front of a global audience on the premise that "Innocence" was the cause of the attack on Benghazi. Our own U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, took to the talk shows to peddle a line that was either wilfully misleading or simply totally wrong (Rice was the admin's point person in early appearances about Benghazi partly because, as Clinton explained yesterday, she doesn't like doing Sunday morning shows!).

Contra Clinton, it makes a great deal of difference because understanding how this all happened is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen over and over and over again.

Congressional grillings of outgoing cabinet members are not the best forum to seek truth and justice and too many of the GOP inquisitors seem determined merely to score partisan points. Then again, the Obama adminstration, at least when it comes to Benghazi, hasn't done much to be the transparent change it says it wants in all areas of government. After a blistering Senate report on the situation found "systematic failures," essentially nothing happened (at least that we know about). Two minor staffers have been booted as a result of Clinton's taking of "responsibility."

Worse still: As Hillary Clinton leaves the high-stakes world of international intrigue, she's set to be replaced by John Kerry, who somehow manages to be an interventionist and supposedly informed by the nation's experience in Vietnam at the same time.

So things can - and likely will - only get worse.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    "What difference at this point does it make?”

    Hopefully that single sentence will end her chances of ever again living in the White House.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Walking into the house after work last night, that particular segment of her testimony was running on the TV. "What difference at this point does it make?" It makes a lot of difference that you and the rest of the administration lied and possibly failed to take action to save lives. That's the whole reason you're testifying before Congress.

    What is it, precisely, that she's taking responsibility for?

    I'm amazed that lefties so openly love the Clintons, who are as dishonest, corrupt, and, particularly in the case of the SoS, totally inept.

  • RBS||

    "who are as dishonest, corrupt, and, particularly in the case of the SoS, totally inept."

    I thought that's why they love them?

  • sarcasmic||

    You're surprised that people of the "It's not wrong if you can get away with it" attitude openly love the Clintons?

  • GILMORE||

    It makes a lot of difference that you and the rest of the administration lied and possibly failed to take action to save lives. That's the whole reason you're testifying before Congress.

    i feel like a broken record saying this, but again - i feel this focus on the admin *reaction* to events is narrow and mistaken in focus, and leaves aside the more fundamental questions of, "what was going on such that an ambassador and CIA personnel were in one of the most dangerous places in the ME on 9/11, ambushed in a 'secret' location by people who we'd recently been buying weapons from?..." it stinks to high heaven, and the focus on the (non) reaction by State gives them a pass on explaining the situation. i think they can too easily say "mistakes were made" and get by without owning the deeper problem = smuggling MANPADS and SA-7s to syria which would fall in the hands of exactly the radical jihadis we were trying to keep them from. its "fast and furious" meets "iran-contra" and everyone seems only to care whether hilary had enough security personnel on the op

  • Pro Libertate||

    I don't disagree, but my point isn't so much blame game as in dealing with an obvious cover-up. Once that's exposed, then figuring out why a cover-up was necessary is the next step.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Don't forget immoral. Ironic given how much leftist women talk about women's rights and respect.

    I don't get why the guy is some sort of hero to them. The thing is, his Presidency was so average yet we look back on it as if he deserves his face chisled on some rock. Fuck me.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Don't you love the way they claim that there's no such thing as a false rape charge unless the accused is Bill Clinton?

    I've always found Juanita Broaddrick far more credible than bubba the slut, probably because she hasn't been caught lying repeatedly on TV like he has.

    -jcr

  • Toolbag||

    So did Christopher Hitchens in No One Left To Lie To

  • Enough About Palin||

    "I'm amazed that lefties so openly love the Clintons, who are as dishonest, corrupt, and, particularly in the case of the SoS, totally inept."

    People of a similar ilk just naturally gravitate towards one another.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Fade in, camera shows a room full of reporters at a press conference clamoring to ask their question.

    Reporter 1: Mrs. Clinton, do you think you can handle the rigor of 4 years in the Oval Office?

    HRC: What difference, at this point, does it make?

    Reporter 2: Mrs. Clinton, what is your plan to cut the runaway spending of your former boss, president Obama?

    HRC: What difference, at this point, does it make?

    Reporter 3: Mrs Clinton, do you support drone strikes, suppression of the constitution, and outright lying to the American people?

    HRC: What difference, at this point, does it make?

    Voice-over: What difference indeed.

    Paid for by AnybodyButHillary.com

  • WTF||

    Of course the republicans will never have the balls to run that ad.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Who says the Republicans have to do it? If someone puts it on kickstarter, I'll kick in a couple hundred bucks.

    -jcr

  • sasob||

    Campaign sticker:

    Hillary Clinton - 2016
    "What difference does it make?"

  • ||

  • sasob||

    ?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's 3:00 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. But there is a phone in the White House and its ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote decides who will answer the call. Whether it's someone who knows the world's leader, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3:00 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?

    "Hello, this is President Clinton. What difference, at this point, does it make? [hangs up and goes back to sleep]"

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Meme generator is blocked for me at work, but I'm thinking a picture of Charles Manson at one of his parole hearings, with the caption "WHAT DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT DOES IT MAKE?"

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Or the mug shot of that crazy fucker who shot up the movie theater.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Or the Newtown shooter.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    I finally went with Monica Lewinsky.

  • Thum Says||

    Or Lance Armstrong, Teo Manti or Beyonce.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Contra Clinton, it makes a great deal of difference because understanding how this all happened is the first step to making sure it doesn't happen over and over and over again.

    And what really pisses me off is the fact that not one of the senators questioning her pointed that fact out. They let her make her big, bold emotional appeal that she cares about what really matters in this situation, and no one thought to call her out on her phony indignation and remind her that was the whole reason she was there that day.

  • Zeb||

    That really struck me too. That response was such obvious bullshit evasion, how did no one call her on it? Point out that we know it was a planned attack, not the result of spontaneous protest or some guys walking down the street randomly deciding to kill some Americans.

  • cryptarchy||

    Remember gentlemen, this is only theater. You actually think either side would seriously ask Clinton tough questions about what had happened. They will not because they are both on the same side

  • GILMORE||

    i think thats generally right.

    i think a) some senators knew what the scam was, and dont want to fess up for it either...and b) they've seen other high-ranking officials thrown under the bus over this, and know that any real attempt at expose could be professional suicide. i havent seen anyone willing to really get their hands dirty with this story

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    This is why I'm disappointed in Rand.

  • ||

    That's the part that really pisses me off too. It would be easy for anybody to respond by saying, "You're the one who covered it up so it obviously makes a difference, and we're trying to find out why." It's as if the whole thing was a stage to prop up Hillary without rebuke. I can't for the life of me figure out if Republicans are just stupid or in cahoots.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That makes her a little too much like the kid who kills his parents and then asks the court to take mercy on him because he's now an orphan.

    Holy shite.

    I didn't watch the hearings or even clips of the hearings, as my mind's eye could see the whole affair before it started. Grandstanding fucks in either chamber making speeches for the cameras instead of actually questioning the secretary. Republicans blindly blasting her and Democrats blindly praising her. If anyone who watched can tell me I'm wrong and that it wasn't an embarrassing farce, let me know, and I'll apologize to Congress.

  • R C Dean||

    Its like you watched the whole thing three times.

  • Blueman||

    "I'll apologize to Congress"

    No matter what, don't ever debase yourself in such a manner.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "I'll apologize to Congress"

    What difference, at this point, does it make?

  • John||

    What difference does it make now that I left Americans to die and then lied about it to help Big Daddy in the election? Yeah Hillary, what difference. Some clown was saying yesterday on the News how Hillary Clinton had a stellar record as SOS. Really? What has she accomplished? This is a woman who has fucked up every single thing she has ever touched going all the way back to the Rose Law Firm and Hillary care. She has never succeeded at anything other than being married to Bubba and winning a gimme Senate race. Talk about a poster child for fuck up and move up.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The difference is that analysis of a fuck-up can be useful in avoiding another in the future. Gillespie was right and that should have been the answer.

  • John||

    Of course there is a difference. And if she takes responsibility for the deaths of an entire embassy staff, she should retire in shame from public life. Instead it is, "I am responsible, so go fuck yourself as I continue on my merry way".

  • ||

    What she meant to say was, "The election is over and the American people wouldn't have held me or the president accountable anyway, so what difference at this point does it make?"

  • John||

    Which is another way of saying "fuck you that is why"

  • SugarFree||

    "What difference at this point does it make?” Nixon asked at a White House Press conference.

    "What difference at this point does it make?” Oliver North asked in Congressional testimony.

    "What difference at this point does it make?” Colin Powell asked when pressed on WMD in Iraq.

  • Tim||

    Sounds like you are writing a musical number for the Clinton Broadway Show.

  • SugarFree||

    Shh. I don't want a competing project to arise.

  • Pro Libertate||

    "What difference at this point does it make?” Adolf Hitler asked when pressed about why he slaughtered so many people.

  • Tim||

    You know who else delegitimized the discussion by making Hitler comparisons?

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    Everybody, ever?

  • Almanian.||

    Your mom?

    Oh, wait - that's Episiarch's line. Sorry!

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yeah, I went there, Hitler.

  • ||

  • Bruce Majors for Congress||

    She is a blonde.

  • Bobarian||

    When she says she's responsible, she means she's responsible for not holding anyone accountable (especially herself) for the administration's huge fuck-up.

  • Tim||

    A reminder that "Clinton" is the gold standard for bullshit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You know you want her as the next president, for the entertainment value alone.

  • Tim||

    Guilty. The stories of Bill throwing wild house parties while she's out globetrotting are worth it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    First Man Bill Clinton was photographed yesterday having sex on top of the White House while chatting on the phone with the president. Again.

    Must. . .resist. . .the. . .temptation. . .to. . .vote. . .for. . .entertainment. . .value. . .only.

  • John||

    Bubba would totally get his freak on back in the White House. As first man, there would be no way to keep the bimbos off of him. Even the Secret Service would be powerless.

    Yeah, that is pretty tempting.

  • Jan S.||

    You're all assuming Bubba can even get it up any more. He's gone vegan, and a severe B12/vitamin D deficiency isn't exactly conducive to peak sexual performance. And Hillary is probably hiding the cigars these days.

  • Pro Libertate||

    We have the technology.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "And Hillary is probably hiding the cigars these days."

    God I hope this isn't metaphor.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    And with that weight loss, I strongly suspect that he's back on the blow.

  • sasob||

    Perhaps he has cancer or some other wasting illness.

  • Mike M.||

    We were also told for about the last three months that she fell down or some rubbish and hit her head so hard that she was practically on death's doorstep. More total bullcrap from an administration that lies like it breathes.

  • ||

    Clinton greeting the families:

    Family member (crying): Why would anyone do something like this?

    Clinton (looking up from the 1.43 million "cables" on her Blackberry): What difference at this point does it make?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    She actually told one of the family members that they wouldn't rest until they got the guy that made the video that caused their son's death.

    She's a complete utter piece of shit.

  • sloopyinca||

    I thought it was Biden that said that.

  • RightNut||

    No, and this is not a joke, Biden asked one of the fathers if "your son always had balls as big as cue balls?". As the caskets went by....

  • ||

    If this isn't a real Biden quote, it's a pretty good fake one

  • John||

    I get 1.43 million cables a day. Yes, and your job is to know which of those cables is important and need action, you stupid bitch. She basically admitted that she was incompetent and unfit for the job.

  • RBS||

    Yeah, and her fans thought it was the greatest fucking thing ever.

  • ||

    They still do.

  • Brandon||

    She was busy wiring our good faith money to the Nigerian prince who had sent a cable earlier that morning offering to pay off our debt.

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Yeah, it's a little like me saying "do you realize I have to watch 55 kids in my daycare? I CAN'T feed them all!"

    Do. Your. Job.

    Liberals have a hard time with that. I seem to remember when the Bush administration used a similar tact after 9/11 given all the intelligence that came in, the libs didn't accept it.

  • Zeezrom||

    Oh yeah. I cannot wait to have this one in the WH.

  • Slammer||

    "You got a BJ from your intern?!"

    "What difference does it make, Hillary?"

  • Almanian.||

    "A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

    Hillary summed up a handful of centuries earlie. Willy, you prescient devil!

  • Sevo||

    "3. "What difference at this point does it make?""
    Only sleazy politicos get to 'put this behind us'; the rest of us actually have to pay the piper when we blow it.

  • Almanian.||

    Usually the piper pays YOU when you blow it....:)

  • waaminn||

    Now there is a dude that knows what time it is. Wow.

    www.Anon-Dis.tk

  • Almanian.||

    She's a man, man! AnonBot scores.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But Rand Paul wants to cut the State Department budget, so he shouldn't even be allowed to speak with someone as noble and important as Hillary!

  • RightNut||

    Fuck that Democratic lie. We have the biggest, most expensive military in the world, and they couldn't spare a few more people? We have the biggest and most expensive diplomatic operation in the world, and they couldn't more a few dollars around? How fucking stupid are people that they even stop and consider that utter bullshit?

  • RyanXXX||

    ISOLATIONIST!!!#!#@##!

  • Sosalty||

    The embassies in Europe had more security on 9/11 than mid-eastern hot spots.

  • ||

    Missing one tiny point, aren't you.

    State ASKED for more security and Congress (esp Rand Paul) adamantly opposed it and shot it down.

    Talk about shifting blame!

  • Bbennett||

    I suppose you missed the part where Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb testified that budget considerations played ZERO part in security staffing of the Libyan mission. That was right after she testified that she tracked the events in Benghazi in real time (Another Clinton lie).

    You must have also missed the revelation that the 16 man security detachment was pulled from the mission prior to the attack AGAINST the direct request of Amb. Stevens. The same 16 man detachment (a DoD asset) that was provided at ZERO cost to the State Department.

    But please, don't let facts get in your way.

  • Tim||

    It's good to be the King/Queen"

  • GILMORE||

    As opposed to using the Benghazi event to use as something to simply poke holes in political officials about whom we already know are useless shitbags, how about some use of the testimony to do a little fact-checking on the actual events themselves so that the narrative about the event doesn't simply become about 'political point scoring', and actually determining what the real details were, and having some questions answered in public about the admins gun running scheme to Syria?

    they - the CIA, abetted by State - to gather (buy and capture) weapons possessed by rebel groups they'd supported during the anti-Gaddafi campaign and smuggle them through turkey to Syrian groups and recruited jihadis to depose Assad. When the scheme blew up in their face, they cut and ran, and left people to die to cover it up. Let's make THAT the story to uncover... not how Hilary is a terrible incompetent cunt, which is frankly not news to anyone.

  • GILMORE||

    p.s. - the reason i think the senate inquiry fails to actually pursue the details of the event, its origins, and the motivation of the organization that planned and executed the attack, is because congress approved this weapons-smuggling operation (or at least knew about it), and more than one ass would get hung out to dry if it all came out. They prefer to play petty politics around it rather than bust the story wide open.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Gilmore, you keep digging at this and pretty soon you might start thinking that the islamist militants the US/NATO has been funding for decades sometimes go by the name "Al Qaeda".

    But that would be cra-a-a-a-a-a-azy talk.

  • GILMORE||

    the US/NATO has been funding for decades sometimes go by the name "Al Qaeda".

    But that would be cra-a-a-a-a-a-azy talk.

    uh, yeah, it would be, kinda. Because it would be stretching the definition of 'funding' and 'al qaeda' into utter meaninglessness.

    i personally think the terms 'al qaeda-affiliated' or 'al qaeda-inspired' to be utter newspeak bullshit used to paper over distinctions of a wide array of political and religious differences, and give americans the impression that a vast network of islamist jihadists are all working together on some master plan of world domination, lead by Al Q, which is nonsense. Al Q is in fact comparatively small, was never widely popular, and had no significant political clout or support anywhere in the middle east. Other older groups like Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, various splinter groups of palestinian refugees in syria/jordan, Algerian jihadist groups, etc have been far more influential in the region. Some of them actually may even now reference Al Q in their various guises, but have no financial/ideological or operational links whatsoever.

    As for funding, Al Q never got a red cent from anyone even in Afghanistan in the 80s, when money was sloshing around everywhere. Read "the looming tower". if you have a single example of US financing islamic terror groups, please share.

  • robc||

    Sen Paul asked about that, and she said she had no clue and would have to ask someone.

    Seriously, that was her answer.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Yes, I saw that part of it as well. Hillary was completely relaxed. She looked like she was having a good time, which is a little sickening. Congress is toothless and the Obama admin likes it that way.

  • GILMORE||

    Rand Paul: It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons, and what I would like to know is, the annex that was close by – were they involved with procuring, buying, selling weapons, and are these weapons being transfered to other countries? Any countries, Turkey included?

    Hillary Clinton: Well Senator, you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex. I will see what information is available…

    Rand Paul: You’re saying you don’t know?

    Hillary Clinton: I have no information on that

    Basically, "ask the CIA". Oh, wait! We fired the head guy there over this! I'm sure they'll be *sooper* forthcoming... if they can find anyone who hasn't already a) died mysteriously, b) been stationed in Murmansk, c) decided to spend more time with their families

    She should have excused herself and said ever since she fell and hit her head she can only remember the many successes of her career as a diplomat

  • GILMORE||

    "We have identified, disbanded and secured more than 5,000 MANPADS (Man-Portable Air Defense Systems), while thousands more have been destroyed during NATO bombing," Andrew Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs told a group of reporters.

    "However, if you ask my boss where they are, she will shrug and say, 'me a no speaka no eeengrish'"

    See, cause why WOULD the Secretary of State actually *know* the status of the objects which WERE THE ENTIRE FOCUS OF THE MISSION IN QUESTION IN THE REGION, the entire *raison d'etre* for Steven's presence there at the time... I mean, COME ON. That's asking a BIT MUCH, don't you think?? She's got a lot on her plate. Plus she hit her head!!

  • sasob||

    "What difference does it make?"

    From her point of view it probably doesn't make any difference now - afterall, her boss managed to get re-elected.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Two minor staffers have been booted as a result of Clinton's taking of "responsibility."

    She takes her job of blame shifting very seriously.

  • Jake W||

    "Sorry Bill I'll have to feel in your pockets later I've got this stupid hearing or whatever it is to go to. I think they're still on about that whole Benghazi thing."

  • Tonio||

    Also, "cables"? Really? Does the USDOS still maintain some type of telegram system? Hoping she means email messages, but she loses credibility for referring to them as "cables".

  • Pro Libertate||

    Pony Express messages?

  • John||

    They are called "Diplomatic Cables". And they are sent electronically. Basically, they are called that and segregated because gentleman do not read each other's mail. So it is supposed to prevent other countries from reading them.

    Cables is the proper term. But what she fails to mention is that she has a huge staff there to make sure that she does her job, which is to know what cables she needs to read and take action on.

  • John||

    BTW,

    A huge collection of such cables is what that little shit in Iraq gave to wikileaks.

  • John||

    Funny how such a feminists icon's two major accomplishments in life are taking the fall so powerful men are never held accountable for their mistakes. Hillary has always been the good little woman standing up for her man hasn't she?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Hilary is the absolute opposite of what any self-respecting woman would want to be. She's only in the position she's in because of her husband, and she uses tears to get out of trouble (remember the NH primary debates?)

  • Crackpot Press||

    Speaking of facts, the "guy in California" who was imprisoned was already on probation. He had probation violations and plead guilty. This would happen to anyone who suddenly became in the public eye and had a probation violation.

    Also, nice of you to put a pic of Oliver North and fail to mention he was in the center of a ring of folks who gave arms to the Iranians and Al Qaeda. You are right that Reagan took responsibility and then did nothing about it.

  • John||

    They guy in California was only brought up on a probation violation after the attack. He had made the movie months before, why wasn't he arrested then instead of immediately after he became a politically convenient scape goat?

    And the Iranians are not Al Quada dip shit. The Iranians are radical messianic Shia Muslims. Al Quada are sunis. They hate each other. And if we are talking about sending weapons, what about the weapons Clinton and the Village Idiot gave to the Al Quada members fighting in Libya? Does that Al Quada not count?

    Try again troll.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    He "suddenly became in the public eye" because of the administration's lies. Therefore, his jailing is due to the administration's lies. Next question.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    North had nothing to do with giving weapons to AQ. And no Americans died because of Oliver North's weapons sales to Iran.

    The arms given to the Afghani mujahadeen were done legally. Maybe you missed that Republican propagandist Aaron Sorkin's movie about it?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    But not the arms given to the KLA, the Libyan rebels or the Syrian rebels, all Al Qaeda, all serving US/NATO interests.

  • SCS||

    As Nick stated, of course "it makes a great deal of difference" in our understanding of the circumstances behind this action. It's disappointing, although far too unsurprising, to see a politician once again bypass the desire to identify the cause and root of a problem in their alleged dogged pursuit for the cure of symptoms. I understand that the symptoms are more salient, and therefore more easily representative of the general public's emotional and educational connection to the action, but it's an illogical choice if one truly desires to curb future tragedy.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    You know, the thing that galls me (amongst a lot of other things about this) is that she's still mischaracterizing the events that transpired. This wasn't "a protest" or "guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans". This was a planned and premeditated attack by an Al Qaeda affiliate. First they lied to preserve the lie that they had Al Qaeda on the run. Now they're lying to cover up their earlier lies.

  • John||

    The other question is just where did these folks get the weapons to attack us? The fact that the US was handing out weapons and aid to anyone and everyone during the civil war couldn't possibly resulted in some pretty nasty people being armed. Never!!

  • RyanXXX||

    Exactly. And we're kidding ourselves if we think something like this isn't gonna happen in Syria

    Though it does seem like we've backed off on that front. Mayhaps Obama is secretly hoping for an Assad victory so chaotic shit like this doesn't happen again?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Well, on that one, don't get me started. The entire imbroglio made no sense as foreign policy. Interfering with another nation's internal affairs is lousy policy. But, you might just be able to justify it if it adds to your national interests. But, what the hell national interest did we have in Libya? Qaddafi may have been a genuinely bad guy, but, as a national security threat, he had long been neutralized and had begun to pretty solid signs of accommodation. Backing an attempt to get rid of him by forces that includes some of the very insurgents we've been fighting in Iraq is both evil and stupid.

  • GILMORE||

    "...But, what the hell national interest did we have in Libya?"

    Well, I'll give you a hint:

    "What's black, sticky, and makes hippies crazy??"

    (*not hash)

  • sasob||

    Oil? But wasn't most Libyan oil going to Europe? Why the great concern on our part about Europe's oil supply and economy - did we take them to raise or something? Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't our involvement in Libya in the first place taken, if not at the behest of Ms. Clinton, then with her avid support?

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Bill, Libya had 140 tonnes of gold, and a central bank that was independent (of the Rothschilds and their ilk). Gaddaffi had made noises about a gold backed dinar for a trans-Africa currency. Can't have that. Check out Wesley Clarks statements on attacking 7 ME countries.

  • GILMORE||

    The other question is just where did these folks get the weapons to attack us? The fact that the US was handing out weapons and aid to anyone and everyone during the civil war couldn't possibly resulted in some pretty nasty people being armed. Never!!

    To be fair = the nation was awash with arms supplied by everyone and their grandma before they even waxed Gaddafi; and subsequent to his waxing, every militia looted the nation's armories bare, so adding our own weapons-shipment-snafus to the list of Horrible Shitty Stupid Criminally Incompetent Bad Ideas is really kind of weak tea

    I think if there's any point to take away from the disaster we created there, is that we have continued the policy of interventions which have done more harm than good so far

  • GILMORE||

    ...""the thing that galls me (amongst a lot of other things about this) is that she's still mischaracterizing the events that transpired. This wasn't "a protest" or "guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans".""

    a rhetorical device that politicians use all the time = create the impression the discussion is about something other than what you're being asked. She poses it as though the debate were the "protest or no protest?"-issue, when that's already been clearly resolved as a *no*. The question could be more accurately phrased as :

    "How could you ever have characterized something as 'spontaneous' when it was instantly apparent from the tactics, arms, signals intercepts, and on-the-ground reports themselves that this was a coordinated assault by professional militia??" Or "Why are you such a fucking lying liar??"

  • ||

    News flash Gilmore,

    There was NO live feed from Benghazi - not at Sate or any other dept.

    There WERE, however, virtually simultaneous protests over the video in numerous Muslim countries.

    Assuming this was one of them wasn't unreasonable. Clinton didn't propose at the hearings that it's how they still characterize this incident.

  • Bbennett||

    Amazingly, Charlene Lamb testified that she was able to track the events in Benghazi in real-time.

    Amazingly, there were security camera feeds that clearly showed no "mob".

    Amazingly, there were several survivors of the attack who were debriefed within hours of the attack.

    Amazingly, in the face of all these things, you buy into Clinton's lies.

    Looks pretty bad on you

  • GILMORE||

    uh, Bullshit?

    http://www.washingtontimes.com...../?page=all

    it exists

    they simply have claimed, 'they weren't watching it'

    which is one of those 'ignorance or incompetence' questions then. neither choice being acceptable. its the same thing that got alberto gonzales shitcanned, and should have resulted in criminal neglect charges against State Dept officials in this case.

  • RyanXXX||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....WrBQe92e8Q

    ^Some cunt High School teacher apparently made an assignment for the class asking them how they would "handle" Iran, and then launches into a bunch of propaganda about how they're the greatest threat of our age. When a girl objects that non-intervnetion isn't given as an option, the teacher cuts her off

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The U.S. Embassy in Cairo announced that it had canceled visa services for Wednesday.

    It also said in a statement that it "condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions."

    "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy," the statement said. "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

    So which was it? A planned terrorist attack? Or a mob outraged by a Youtube video?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Muslims were outraged about the YT video, it just had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.

  • TycheSD||

    Nick is right that no one (except Rand Paul, I guess) expected Hillary to have read every cable that comes to her attention, but that she should have had the right people in charge of assessing risk. Obviously, she didn't, and this was a major screw-up - really, serious negligence.

    But I can understand Hillary's exasperation with Republicans on the committee and elsewhere who focus almost exclusively on Susan Rice's statements about the Benghazi attack and how the country was "misled" about what happened. What they're really complaining about is that the Obama administration "got away with it" - meaning, they won reelection despite Fox News and other conservative media focusing on Benghazi almost nonstop. So, the focus on being "misled" is political, not an effort to "prevent this from happening again."

    I have never been a big Hillary fan, but I considered Hillary an excellent Secretary of State up until Benghazi. To me, it represents a lack of oversight of her agency and a certain carelessness that had tragic consequences. But her record should be judged in whole.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    ...Susan Rice's statements about the Benghazi attack and how the country was "misled" about what happened. What they're really complaining about is that the Obama administration "got away with it"

    So, where'd you pick up mind reading?

  • TycheSD||

    If people keep asking questions about Susan Rice and not about Charlene Lamb, they're not focusing on how to prevent something from happening again. They're pissed because the public wasn't upset enough about Benghazi to cause them to vote against Obama.

  • sasob||

    Perhaps if "the public wasn't upset enough," it was because of a coverup to prevent the truth from coming out - instigated for the purpose of winning an election.

  • TycheSD||

    Any cover up that may have existed, lasted maybe two weeks. But we still don't know for certain that the protests in Cairo did not influence the attackers in Benghazi.

  • GILMORE||

    utter nonsense. the target was a secret location which was attacked by a group who had *mortars sighted in* and a team of assaulters who'd obviously cased the area for some time and had specific objectives. this was known THE NIGHT of the operation. The 'cover up' is ongoing.

    when did any public official acknowledge the building was in fact a CIA operation, and had no diplomatic status whatsoever? Late November. When did any official admission come that the CIA op was exclusively a 'weapons gathering' mission? This month. When has any public official acknowledged the purpose of Steven's involvement in the Benghazi 'mission'? Never.

    When have you spent more than 10 seconds thinking about the facts?

  • Sosalty||

    "At this point. . ." Well Madam, it's been in our country's interest to curtail Iran from going nuclear and if our weapons are headed to Syria, we may someday have our personnel over there dieing from those weapons. You say our ambassador was over there discussing modernizing hospitals?

  • John||

    What positive did she ever do? Name three accomplishments as DOS.

  • Ronulanus||

    1. Covered Obama's ass.
    2. Made Russia even more hostile to America.
    3. Represents the "strong woman," or something.

  • MoreFreedom||

    She kept her family intact while her husband committed serial adultery and rape.
    She turned a $1000 into $100,000 in ten months due to her expertise in the cattle futures market
    She was able to remove files from Vince Foster's office after he died due to a gunshot wound.

  • Bruce Majors for Congress||

    I considered Alicia to be an excellent nanny up until she had her boyfriend over and he raped and strangled my baby.

  • GILMORE||

    TycheSD| 1.24.13 @ 1:28PM |#

    Nick is right that no one (except Rand Paul, I guess) expected Hillary to have read every cable that comes to her attention

    I get emails saying, "HELP. AL QAEDA TRYING TO KILL ME. SEND CHOPPER WITH SPECIAL FORCES ASAP", like, 4 times a day. Its gotten worse than those chain letters and the Nigerian prince who wants me to stash his wealth.

  • wanderlustmisfit||

    They have drones that can watch you wipe your ass.
    But, protect a consulate? Nah, let it happen, they say. The people need a reminder as to why we grope them. Speaking of which, says King Obama, have we bombed a mud-hut village full of children yet today?

  • TycheSD||

    You and everyone else commenting here are engaging in pure conjecture because you have no way of knowing what really happened. Anyone who thinks they know what happened are basing their information on reports from Fox News.

  • GILMORE||

    reductio ad ignorantum

    possibly the stupidest rhetorical tactic known to man

    We DO know the following:

    - There was no official state department presence in benghazi, nor was there an 'embassy', consulate, or State Department operation involving any joint US-Libyan relations. Despite this, the location was referred to as a 'consulate' for months.

    - the attacks took place instantly and swiftly and took the compound by surprise. There was no 'protest' of any kind. despite this, the admin spun a bullshit story there was, even though they had on-the-ground witnesses, comms, and video feeding to them live while the attack was ongoing.

    - the group that conducted the operation was identifiable as a local jihadist militia group that was known to intelligence, and were able to determine so via signals intercepts and witnesses within days of the event (the attackers even had fucking markings on their vehicles *identifying* themselves. (which some speculated may have been a ruse)

    - the attack was ongoing for 7 hours. despite this, no support outside the area was sent in. In fact, the closest SOCOM units who responded to the request for aid were ordered to "stand down", and the commanding officer relieved. This was known the day of the event, but not mentioned in the press until weeks/months later.

    and more. just because you are an ignoramus with your head up your ass, please do not insist the weather is currently dark, warm, and smells funny

  • ||

    Dear Fox viewer,

    Despite Hannity's completely fictional accounts to the contrary, there was NO live feed from Benghazi.

    That eliminates about 4/5 of your argument.

  • Bbennett||

    Dear Liberal US Journalist(s),
    Despite the Administration's fictional accounts to the contrary, there was NO Spontaneous mob in Benghazi. There was however, a coordinated, pre-planned attack against a US mission on the anniversary of Sep 11.

    Live video feed or not. Any thinking person KNEW within hours what happened and what did not. Debriefs of the survivors alone would have been enough to know.

    Funny how the Libyan government spelled it out correctly on the first day, yet we could (read: would) not.

    But really, what does it at this point matter?

  • GILMORE||

    ""That eliminates about 4/5 of your argument.""

    No, it doesnt

    as 4/5 of the points made were at least apparent and without doubt *the day after* the event. Which makes your bullshit assertion absolutely moot and meaningless. counter any point made above = i challenge you. show me i'm wrong. try. it would be amusing.

  • MoreFreedom||

    We know quite a bit about what happened in Benghazi. We also know we have no idea what happened with Obama, Clinton, and Panetta in DC the evening of the attacks.

    There is no conjecture that we don't know what happened in DC. What did our government employees do regarding this matter in DC? That they won't tell us tells us all we need to know. It tells us they'd rather risk Stevens and his colleagues lives, than allow the narrative that Al Qaeda is alive and well and attacking our consulates and risk Obama losing the election.

    Obama and Clinton let people die to ensure Obama's re-election. That's what happened. I say let Obama and Clinton prove it otherwise in the court of public opinion.

  • Ronulanus||

    You know it's hilarious when even Hillary's supporters can't name an actual accomplishment of hers since becoming SoS.

  • Enough About Palin||

    RESET BUTTON!!!11111!!!

  • TycheSD||

    She improved U.S. relations with every country she visited. She advanced the cause of women in developing countries.

    Name some achievements of Condi Rice.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    She improved U.S. relations with every country she visited.


    Name one country Hillary Clinton has improved U.S. relations with.

    She advanced the cause of women in developing countries.


    Name one country where women are better off because of something Hillary Clinton did.


    Name some achievements of Condi Rice.

    That might be relevant if you were talking to Republicans. "Boooooosh was worse" does not excuse the failures of the Democrats.

    Although, becoming a professor at Stanford and a concert-level pianist are more impressive than anything Hillary has ever done.

  • ucky||

    "she advanced the cause of women." lmao. priceless liberal blather, meaningless to the core. she flew around and took photo ops. when something real was on the line, her dept caved like a bunch of amateurs.

  • MoreFreedom||

    Hillary has been flying around the world dining on the finest foods in the lavish palaces with foreign officials, on our dime.

    In the meantime, she has no system to sort out the 1.43 million cables (does she really get cables or emails?) so that important ones are handled. She likely has any email from a State Dept. employee requesting something from her go directly to her junk mail, while she works on requests from those donating to her campaign cash fund.

    In the meantime, the State Dept. has failed miserably with Egypt, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other hotbeds of oppression. But nevermind, Hillary is working on her campaign.

  • ucky||

    sycophant suckup of the highest order. condi rice didn't preside over the massacre of diplomatic employees. funny how liberals just change the subject when they have no answer, even with death and blood on their hands. not surprised in the least.

  • T o n y||

    Was that consulate staffed by unborn babies? This is the most concern Republicans have shown for 4 human lives in recent memory.

  • TycheSD||

    Seriously! If Fox News hadn't hyped this up pre-election, this would have drawn about the same attention as most of the other attacks on U.S. embassies and other outposts that have occurred over the years - 11 of which occurred during Bush's presidency.

  • GILMORE||

    list the 11 dead ambassadors and the 11 coverups and 11 intentional blocking of any aid or support for the diplomats being attacked, please, and your point may have some validity

  • GILMORE||

    TycheSD| 1.24.13 @ 8:28PM |#

    Seriously! If Fox News hadn't hyped this up pre-election...

    Woodward and Bernstein are happy you care so much about free inquiry by the press.

  • hotsy totsy||

    In how many of those 11 attacks which occurred during Bush's presidency was the ambassador raped and killed, hmmmmm?

  • ucky||

    wow, how dumb are you. if this had happened under a republican admin, it would have been the outrage story of the year. i guess you can't see the vicious double standard, with your head plugged so far up there, huh?

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    No, but the collateral damage was 9-year-old children killed by neo-progressive drones. TONY, the reborn version of the Nazi concentration camp guard. TONY is right about one thing: the ONLY difference between bloody war-mongering neoprogressives (like TONY) and their neoconservative soul mates is the abortion issue. NOTHING else -- worship of the state is the ideal.

  • wanderlustmisfit||

    The Federal Government let Benghazi happen to remind all the pathetic Americans that the bad guys are still out to harm them so they should keep pulling their pants down at airports and let TSA agents randomly dig through their bags at bus stations.

  • MoreFreedom||

    The good news, is that prostate exams and mammograms are still free at the airport.

  • ||

    "I accept full responsibility for the attack on Bengazi. But not the blame. Let me explain the difference. People who are to blame lose their jobs. People who are responsible do not." - paraphrased from National Lampoon's White House Tapes.

  • ucky||

    this little miscreant weasel, arrogant impostor, she doesn't deserve to sweep floors in the halls of government. what difference does it make, you pompous hack? because the families of the dead americans would like to know if their deaths were because of your incompetence. and the american people would like to know if you do your job, or just fly around making stupid photo ops in as many countries as possible. you and your vile pandering suckups on the democrat side are an embarrassment to the nation.

  • MoreFreedom||

    "What difference does it make?"

    Does it make a difference when people who don't do their job are held accountable?

    Unlike in government, the free market severely disciplines those who don't deliver. In government, the rule is that one government employee never holds another accountable, so they are turn aren't held accountable for not doing their job (or worse, breaking the law and trampling on citizens).

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Under modern standards, Hillary will qualify for a Nobel Prize.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    She will compete with progressive icon and war profiteer Madeleine Albright, killer of half-million Iraqi children, for that one.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Out with one blood-stained, war-mongering Sec of State and in with another [Kerry]!

  • mahones22||

    "Just for low-stakes starters, there's a guy in California who was put in jail basically because the Obama administration said his stupid, irrelevant video trailer for "The Innocence of Muslims" was to blame for anti-Americanism in Libya and beyond."

    He was imprisoned for breaking the terms of his probation, which required him to stay off a computer for five years without the permission of his probation officer. He was on probation after pleading no contest to bank fraud involving ripping off social security numbers (one from a six year old). Out of all the unsupported, erroneous conclusions (Clinton hasn't done anything since Benghazi to improve security!), half-assed conjecture (she was obviously faking her tears!), and complete guesses passed off as logic (of course he's in jail because of that film!), this one surely takes the cake. You are normally better than this.

  • ||

    Fascinating that the two most ardent Clinton attackers hadn't even bothered to attend the lengthy briefing on Benghazi.

    This "hearing" was a shameful attempt by Republicans to take Clinton - quite possibly the best Secretary of State in US history -- down at least a few notches. By their own admission, should she decide to run in 2016 she's very likely to prove "unbeatable."

    As for McCain, I'll find his calls for accepting blame for Benghazi much more persuasive, if and when he ever accepts blame for choosing such a lame and potentially dangerous running mate in Palin, that he made losing the White House inevitable.

  • Bbennett||

    You: "[Clinton is] quite possibly the best Secretary of State in US history"

    Me: Based on what?

  • ygsrf||

    NFL,NBA,2013 Fashion kickoff for u

  • dunce||

    There is little truth in her. There is nothing incredible about her evasions, they are her regular practice, honesty from her would be astounding.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement