Hillary Clinton

Hillary Is Full of It But Republicans Are Worse: On This, Maureen Dowd & Ron Paul Agree.

The liberal New York Times columnist and the libertarian ex-congressman are right to focus on failed Libya policy writ large.

|

Courtesy of the past.

If press accounts are any indication, Hillary Clinton walked away from last week's highly anticipated House hearings on Benghazi like the Ramones walking away from Vince Lombardi High at the end of Rock and Roll High School. That is to say, totally triumphant and unscathed while hapless Republicans blew themselves up with their own dynamite. Again. For like the 1000th time. "Hillary Wins Again," goes a representative headline.

Of course, the elite press is largely in the tank for Hillary, especially now that super-savior Joe Biden isn't running and top dogs in the legacy media realize that Bernie Sanders isn't really a socialist (he just wants to tax people a lot more and give away more free shit that might make it tougher for them to pay for their kids to go to fancy private schools).

But there's a lot of truth to the idea that the former First Lady, senator, and Secretary of State came out looking pretty good. She got close but didn't have any great spazz-out moments or sound-bitable breakdowns (a la "what difference does it make?" from earlier hearings).

But it's also wrong to say that we learned nothing new, either. At the very least, as Anthony L. Fisher noted here last Thursday, we saw unimpeachable evidence that Clinton was bullshitting like a pro when she claimed that the YouTube video "Innocence of Muslims" had anything to do with the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Here are State Department notes of a September 12, 2012 call between Secretary Clinton and Egyptian Prime Minister Kandil:

State Dept.

That's not a small thing to learn, especially after Clinton, President Obama, and then-United Nations Amb. Susan Rice all explicitly and repeatedly blamed Benghazi precisely on a spontaneous demonstration sparked by "Innocence of Muslims." Worse still, they all called for various sorts of limits on free speech so as not to offend Muslims around the globe whom, it turns out, weren't moved to violence by the vid in the first place.

And yet, for all that, even Hillary-loving liberals seem to want Clinton to get her comeuppance. Here's Maureen Dowd, writing in The New York Times:

It is not the terrain of [Rep. Trey] Gowdy's lame committee, but it is legitimate to examine Clinton's record in the Middle East.

As a senator, she made a political vote to let W. invade Iraq. As much homework as she did to get ready for the Libya committee, she chose not to do her homework on Iraq in 2002 — neglecting to read the sketchy National Intelligence Estimate. She didn't want to seem like a hippie flower girl flashing a peace sign after 9/11.

Then she urged President Obama to help topple Muammar el-Qaddafi without heeding the painful lesson of Iraq — that if America went into another nebulously defined mission, there would have to be a good plan to prevent the vacuum of power being filled by militant Islamic terrorists.

Since she was, as her aide Jake Sullivan put it, "the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya," one of the Furies, along with Samantha Power and Susan Rice, who had pushed for a military intervention on humanitarian grounds, Hillary needed to stay on top of it….

When you are the Valkyrie who engineers the intervention, you can't then say it is beneath you to pay attention to the ludicrously negligent security for your handpicked choice for ambassador in a lawless country full of assassinations and jihadist training camps.

In other words, forget about the specifics of Benghazi for a second. The real question is much larger and its answers speak poorly of Clinton, Obama, and U.S. foreign policy in Libya.

If instead of obsessively fixating on a tragic but ultimately second-order question—did Secretary Clinton blow the security detail at the U.S. consulate in a way that led to the first field death of an ambassador in more than three decades?—the Republicans had started discussing larger foreign-policy questions, we might actually be having a productive conversation about America's role in the world.

Dowd's insight in shared by former Rep. Ron Paul, who writes

I would call these Congressional hearings "too much, too late."…

Four years after the US-led overthrow of the Libyan government – which left the country a wasteland controlled by competing Islamist gangs and militias – the committee wants to know whether Hillary Clinton had enough guards at the facility in Benghazi on the night of the attack? The most important thing to look into about Libya is Hillary Clinton's e-mails or management style while Secretary of State?

Why no House Committee hearing before President Obama launched his war on Libya? Why no vote on whether to authorize the use of force? Why no hearing after the President violated the Constitution by sending the military into Libya with UN authorization rather than Congressional authorization? There are Constitutional tools available to Congress when a president takes the country to war without a declaration or authorization. At the time, President Obama claimed he did not need authorization from Congress because the US was not engaged in "hostilities." It didn't pass the laugh test, but Congress did next to nothing about it.

Paul notes that he and former Rep. Dennis Kucinich tried to get a vote invoking the War Powers Resolution regarding Obama's illegal authorization of force in Libya. It wasn't Hillary Clinton or any Democrat that scuttled that vote, of course. It was the outgoing Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner. And a ton of hawkish Republicans. When Clinton defended having a U.S. consulate in a "war zone" in Libya, Paul asks why Libya was still in flames a year after liberation?

Why was Libya still a war zone? Because the US intervention left Libya in far worse shape than it was under Gaddafi. We don't need to endorse Gaddafi to recognize that today's Libya, controlled by al-Qaeda and ISIS militias, is far worse off – and more of a threat to the US – than it was before the bombs started falling.

Whole thing here.

Of course, having an actual discussion about foreign policy doesn't quite raise partisan hackles the way that potential KOs against Hillary does, right? And what is the Republican policy on the sort of half-assed, unconstitutional military action supported by Clinton anyway? Obviously, the Party of Lincoln tends to be against that sort of thing when a Democrat is in the White House, but they also want to accused Obama of being so soft they had to vote more money to the Pentagon than he asked for. 

So there are at least two revelations that came to light around the latest Benghazi hearings. First, absolute evidence that Clinton was dissembling when she and other people in the Obama administration insisted that the attack on Benghazi was anything other than a planned action. That we kinda-sorta knew but let's keep the record absolutely straight going forward. Second—and alas, this isn't really new or fresh—the United States, despite spending almost the entire 21st century fighting two major wars, a bunch of minor wars, and declaring global war on terrorism, isn't yet ready for a real discussion about the role we should be playing in the very world we are helping to engulf in flames.

Advertisement

NEXT: Chris Christie Claims Black Lives Matter Want Murder of Police, John Kerry in Israel, Comet Lovejoy Releases Alcohol: A.M. Links

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.

  1. Your not kidding.

    1. Real shoddy transcribing. Just pure crap.

    2. My not kidding is busy.

  2. She got close but didn’t have any great spazz-out moments or sound-bitable breakdowns (a la “what difference does it make?” from earlier hearings).

    As long as she didn’t tell the committee that she was noways tired, the Fourth Estate was going to declare victory.

    1. She really would have shtupped into that one…

      1. Subtlety is wasted on you lot. – Abraham Lincoln

  3. Of course, having an actual discussion about foreign policy doesn’t quite raise partisan hackles the way that potential KOs against Hillary does, right? And what is the Republican policy on the sort of half-assed, unconstitutional military action supported by Clinton anyway? Obviously, the Party of Lincoln tends to be against that sort of thing when a Democrat is in the White House, but they also want to accused Obama of being so soft they had to vote more money to the Pentagon than he asked for.

    Well they generally get congressional approval for their immoral conflicts.

    1. Also the point of the inquiry is to focus on one particular instance of criminal negligence, if they were to focus on the big picture they would never ever get past the investigation phase because the level of waste, malfeasance, fraud/corruption and general incompetence is so complete there would need to be whole dedicated libraries to catalog the total clusterfuck that is this administration’s foreign policy.

    2. Since the Republicans might have supported the Libyan intervention makes them much worse than Hillary, who dreamed the entire thing up and made it happen.

      1. There’s plenty of blame to go around but Clinton and to a lesser extent Obama deserve the lion’s share.

        1. Not the Lion’s share, all of it. They didn’t ask for Congressional Authorization. The entire intervention was their idea and their responsibility alone.

          1. “Not the Lion’s share, all of it. The entire intervention was their idea and their responsibility alone”

            While I don’t doubt that the US contribution is/was the most important one, and the do/do-not decision often lies with whether the US will agree to participate….

            … it was a NATO led operation, and France and the UK were the ostensible “point people”. Sarkozy was the one screaming “Gaddafi must go” in the early days, and there was strong support from a dozen other European countries.

            Its also notable that European oil companies have billions tied up in Libya. As noted previously, while the US was involved very little (if at all) w/ oil from Iraq, Libya was Europe’s #1 most significant nearby petro-state-partner….

            this isn’t to diminish the support that Obama/Hillary provided for the action, but the idea that it was “their idea and their responsibility alone” seems a bizarre claim to make considering the significant role the EU countries played.

            1. I look at it like this. Hillary and Obama are like a little kid. When the kid does something wrong they need to be held accountable. The houses of Congress are like the parents in this analogy. The parents are now responsible for their shitty parenting by letting the child get away with poor behavior.

              We’ve all been there. A kid is being a terror and the parents are ignoring it. Our political system …

  4. The fact that Hillary advocated for a half assed intervention that made things worse in Libya may be more important fact in the long run but it doesn’t mean the fact that she also fucked up and got an American Ambassador and three other Americans killed and then lied about it later isn’t also important.

    In addition, the First Amendment is likely more important to Americans than the state of Libya, which was screwed up in the first place. And Hillary didn’t just lie about the attack, she blamed it on a video which caused Obama’s DOJ to revoke the maker of the video’s probation on very superiors grounds and the administration to start a drive to limit speech. That is a big deal an arguably much worse than intervening in Libya.

    Yet, Nick wants us to believe that the Republicans are not just wrong but “worse” than Hillary because they used their Congressional oversight power to make Hillary answer for the lives of four Americans she sent into harms way and for lying about the cause of the attack and using it as an excuse to chill free speech in the US instead of grandstanding about how bad it was to bomb Libya. Really?

    1. John, I think Nick is saying the Heffalumps are more militant than Hillarity and just could not bring themselves to question her f-up of Libya since they were all gung-ho as well. So instead they focus on this one specific f-up.

      …the Republicans had started discussing larger foreign-policy questions, we might actually be having a productive conversation about America’s role in the world.

      This is not what the R’s want.

      1. That is nonsense. The point of the hearing was to find out what the hell happened in Bengazi and why the administration lied about it. That is a perfectly legitimate set of questions. Nick seems to be saying that the Republicans were wrong for pursuing them instead of having a hearing about the intervention in general. That is complete horse shit. There are plenty of other forums to discuss US foreign policy in general and there is nothing wrong with having hearings about this particular fuck up.

        1. The point of the hearing was to find out what the hell happened in Bengazi and why the administration lied about it.

          I’m not so sure that was the point of having Hillary on the stand. Surely they knew that she wasn’t going to say anything helpful to the investigation.

          1. Sure she wasn’t. But people guilty of incompetence and wrong doing rarely do say anything helpful. That fact, however, doesn’t mean you don’t call them to account and at least give them a chance to explain themselves.

            Hillary basically got up there and claimed complete incompetence. If we had a sane political culture in Washington, that would be a big deal. Instead, Washington is inhabited with people like Nick who seem to think that incompetence and lying are no big deal whenever talking about such gets in the way of scoring whatever bigger points they want.

            Think about this article for a second. Nick is condemning the Republicans for partisan grandstanding because they talked about Hillary’s fuckups rather than partisan grandstanding about Nick’s nonintervention pony. Nick isn’t anymore interested in getting to the truth than he claims Republicans are. He is just pissed they didn’t grandstand about what he wanted them to.

            1. Grandstanding all around. I’m just suggesting that it is both a legitimate investigation and an opportunity for some Republican grandstanding and that having Hillary testify was probably a bit more the latter.

              1. I don’t see how you could have investigated this without having her testify. If they had not, they would have opened them up to the legitimate claim that they were not interested in the truth and never gave Hillary a fair chance to explain herself.

                1. You are probably right. But it’s absurd. It’s not as if she doesn’t have all the opportunity in the world to talk about whatever she wants to. She seems to have been specifically avoiding talking about it in public.

                2. If they had not, they would have opened them up to the legitimate claim that they were not interested in the truth and never gave Hillary a fair chance to explain herself.

                  Since the media’s in the tank for Shrillary they’re probably fucked no matter what.

              2. Well, that might be the case if not for the fact that Hillary explicitly asked that the hearing be public instead of private.

            2. Washington is inhabited with people like Nick who seem to think that incompetence and lying are no big deal

              Maybe people in Washington are just so accustomed to lying and incompetence that it doesn’t even register anymore. We’re all used to working in the private sector, where they actually expect results and being a complete fuck up can still occasionally get people fired. In government you can be a complete fuck up and odds are you’ll still be enployed, maybe even promoted.

              1. Sadly, you can be that in the private sector too. You just have to work for an organization big enough to cover for your incompetence. Corporate America is not necessarily any more sane than government.

                There is something to your point, however. I think people in Washington are so steeped in politics that they have forgotten that there are actual functions of government and it matters whether those things are done well.

  5. I agree that the fundamental issue is overall foreign policy, but the administration lying about what happened to one of our embassies for political gain is abhorrent. The lying and secrecy of the federal government is how it gets away with the ludicrous foreign policy, NSA snooping, murder-droning, devaluation of the currency, etc. If the gov’t were forthright, I would think that it would be much less able to violate people’s core constitutional rights.

    Or maybe I’m giving people too much credit. Maybe we’re all happy to have our constitutional rights shit on, as long as we can pretend that our votes matter or something.

    1. They administration used their own fuck up to go after their political opponents and anyone who criticized Islam. That is a pretty big deal and worth Congress looking into.

    2. Or maybe I’m giving people too much credit. Maybe we’re all happy to have our constitutional rights shit on, as long as we can pretend that our votes matter or something.

      Well, since the 2016 election cycle has totally failed to summon any kind of much-anticipated ‘Libertarian Moment’, Nick’s desperate optimism has been trying to warm up to the Prog side.

  6. In other words, forget about the specifics of Benghazi for a second. The real question is much larger and its answers speak poorly of Clinton, Obama, and U.S. foreign policy in Libya.

    This is the exact same thing that Sen. Rand Paul told the Outnumbered chicks on Fox News last Friday: that more than pointing out the mistakes of Benghazi and the subsequent cover-up, people should also seriously question the policy that led to the toppling of Qaddafi ?a dictator and a tyrant who, nevertheless, posed no threat to U.S. interests? which lightened up the powder keg that is that region. That same policy that both el se?or presidente and his secretary of State Hill-Rod, pursued without pondering the consequences.

  7. But Mexican that is a complete falacy. Why does the need to discuss the larger intervention preclude discussing Hillary’s fuckups? Especially given the vile attack on the First Amendment that resulted?

    If Rand Paul wants to have hearings into the intervention in general, he is a Senator what is stopping him from having them? The need for those hearings should not effectively make discussing Hillary’s role and behavior regarding Bengazi effectively off limits, which is what Nick and apparently Paul seem to be saying.

  8. Good take. I run in a few more Republican circles elsewhere on the internet, and the partisan “Oh what a liar, look at her arrogant face” stuff from that community was actually more annoying than the media’s over-the-top fellation of her performance.

    To my untrained eye, Clinton’s obvious, continuous lying about how she treated the “Innocence of Muslims” film was also the only serious score of the day for Republicans, and that’s coming from a pretty serious Clinton hater. Otherwise, we just got a bunch of nitpicking and an overly thorough painting of the fine line between “we should definitely stay in Libya” and “we should definitely stay in Libya and agree to all requests for more security in Libya”.

    1. So it is nitpicking to ask the Secretary of State how it is that she is so out of touch with the department she is supposed to be running, she never got 600 requests for better security at Bengazi? It is nitpicking to ask her how a US ambassador to a war zone did not have her personal email address and had no way to contact her but Sid Blumenthal did?

      That is not nitpicking. That is legitimate Congressional oversight of absolute managerial incompetence.

      1. I agree with you on this. 100%.

  9. I heard on the radio that Clinton and her minions had a debate over which video to blame. They initially wanted to use a video from a pastor in Georgia, since it was obscure, but they eventually switched to the other because they could stick him in jail for something.

    link

  10. The whole “Hillary Wins” idea gives the game away – Hillary’s contention is that this is nothing but a partisan political witch hunt, the GOP (some of them anyway) contend that this is an investigation to get to the bottom of what exactly happened in Benghazi, why and how it happened, and – most importantly – how to prevent it from happening again. Claiming that “Hillary Won” means you’re buying into the narrative that this is just a political points-scoring game. It’s as if one side is playing football and the other is playing baseball and you’re going to claim one side won based on how many homeruns they hit. Well, that’s a fore-ordained victory if only one side is even trying to hit homeruns.

    (With that being said, I have no doubt that for most of the GOP this is in fact a partisan political witch hunt because they really don’t give a shit what sort of disasters happen as long as they can score points by blaming it on the other side. Same goes for the Dems. Better that millions suffer and die rather than have to admit that a policy of the other side worked to prevent millions from suffering and dying.)

    1. So what if it is a partisan which hunt? Since when is incompetence and malfeasance okay or excusable because it is the subject of a partisan which hunt? If the witch is real, there is nothing wrong with a witch hunt.

      1. That’s more or less what I’m trying to say above. Of course it’s political and they are trying to get Hillary. It’s also a legitimate and important subject to look into.

        1. Watergate was a partisan which hunt. I guess Nick thinks that wasn’t legitimate either.

      2. If there were any chance at all that they would find a smoking gun or that Hillary et al would face any kind of consequences for their behavior maybe. But since everyone knew going in that they wouldn’t get anything to stick, this is all partisan kabuki theater to distract from the real issues with America’s foreign policy.

        1. If you don’t consider rank incompetence to be a big deal, then you are right. Hillary was never going to admit to malfeasance. To avoid doing so, however, she admitted to rank incompetence. Only in the Alice in Wonderland that is our current political culture, is that not a big deal.

          Hillary got up and under oath admitted to being completely incompetent as a DOS. And somehow that doesn’t matter because she did not admit to being a felon. That is insane.

          1. You should really try reading comments before you respond to them.

            1. Or maybe you should. You say it was all just show. My response is that it wasn’t show. Hillary admitted to being completely incompetent. That is not show. That is important and our political culture is insane not to consider it so.

              How is that not responding to your point?

              1. Because my point is that there would be no consequences for Hillary or anybody in the Obama Administration. It doesn’t matter if they got her to admits she put on a burqa and personally led the attack on the consulate, she won’t get so much as a toothless congressional sanction.

                The whole point of the inquiry is to hurt her in the election, and it won’t even accomplish that. So why bother investigating into incompetence or malice if you don’t intend to hold anyone accountable for it?

                1. First, we don’t know there will be no consequences. Second, even if there are not, since when is that a reason not to tell the truth or pursue the truth?

                  And Hillary is no longer Secretary of State. She is not in office. So, what do you want Congress to do? Shoot her? The only consequence she can face is losing the election in 2016. Time will tell how that works out but I don’t think this helped her any.

                  You and Nick would be bitching no matter what the Republicans did. If they had no investigated, you would be on here saying how they let her off and don’t care. They investigate and you are on here whining about they grandstand and how pointless it is.

                  This is what Congress does. They have hearings and people in the executive branch have to explain themselves. It is up to the public to judge them and hold them accountable via an election. If you think Hillary is going to walk and don’t like it, blame the electorate not the Republicans.

                  I don’t see what your point is beyond you hate Republicans or maybe since Hillary’s supporters really like her no one should ever even attempt to hold her accountable or make her explain anything under oath.

                  1. So, what do you want Congress to do? Shoot her?

                    It would be nice if they brought back the custom of dueling…

                  2. “First, we don’t know there will be no consequences.”

                    No I think we do. It is a rarity if ever that a current or former major player in government is held accountable for their actions through some sort of punishment. At best this could’ve helped to defeat her politically, but considering the media’s “All Hail!” response to her “performance” I have my doubts that this will hurt her.

                    “Second, even if there are not, since when is that a reason not to tell the truth or pursue the truth?”

                    I agree with you on this, which is why I’m all in favor of partisan bickering and so-called “witch hunts.” Just as long as we all realize that this probably won’t amount to anything real. I mean we’re expecting one head of the two headed serpent to hold its other head accountable. Never gonna happen. The Obama Administration isn’t going to hold her accountable for obvious reasons and the Republicans won’t do it because they want the same sort of political response to their fuck ups with no actual consequences when they win the Presidency again.

          2. Hillary got up and under oath admitted to being completely incompetent as a DOS.

            Well, I don’t know of too many people who would be a competent Disk Operating System. /kidding

        2. And let me ask you this Hugh, the Iran Contra hearings were never going to get Oliver North to admit he did anything wrong much less that Reagan knew about it. And North electrified the country with his testimony.

          Given your opinion on this, do you think the Democrats were wrong and in fact worse than North to have investigated the matter? By Nick’s logic they were. And that is nonsense.

          1. Democrats weren’t wrong for investigating Iran Contra nor are Republicans wrong for investigating Benghazi. But much like the Iran-Contra investigation did little to restrain the future Presidents from taking such a cavalier approach to the rule of law this current investigation will likely have similar effect. And if no one is actually held to account for what happened in Benghazi and the lies told by this administration then at best this investigation can be described as worthwhile “kabuki theater.” This is particularly true if Hillary Clinton continues to benefit politically.

      3. So what if it is a partisan which hunt?

        Two thoughts:

        (1) It should be a bipartisan witch hunt, and the Dems should be shamed for not participating.

        (2) Witch hunts aren’t always and everywhere bad. Sometimes, there’s a witch who needs hunting.

  11. Republicans are worse because they didn’t turn Hillary’s trial into a discussion about interventionism? This is why Reason is known for the greatest minds on foreign policy matters

    1. And the irony of Nick demanding the Republicans give their policy on these kinds of things when Reason has never once articulated any kind of coherent policy beyond objecting to any intervention done anywhere for any reason burns more than just a bit.

  12. “The real question is much larger and its answers speak poorly of Clinton, Obama, and U.S. foreign policy in Libya.”

    I’ll bet 50+ percent of the people in this country don’t even know what Libya/Benghazi are. 1/2 of the rest are liberals who are like spouses who believes their husbands really loves them when he’s drunk and beating them – ignoring reality cause it’s too uncomfortable to face the truth. Of the last 25% – maybe half are bored with this. And the few people who are still up on it are dreaming if they think government will hold its own accountable.
    Expanding the “conversation” to broader US foreign policy will not/has not gotten much media coverage and would get even less than the Benghazi “hearings”.
    She claims she takes “responsibility” – well this drip of torment is her punishment.
    Rand Paul is yesterday’s news – last year’s news. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was a fiction.

  13. It’s not as though this is an either or thing. You can impanel a committee to investigate this issue and impanel another to look into the broader issues Nick raised here. Get Rand Paul involved, this is in his wheelhouse. Not looking into the latter does not invalidate the former.

  14. I’m just gonna keep drinking. I think that’s my best option at this point…

    1. +1 Picked the Wrong Time to Stop Sniffing Glue

  15. So let me get this straight: failing to hold hearings about an counterproductive, illegal military intervention in Libya is worse than actually initiating said intervention.

  16. Why do I get the impression someone is looking for justification for voting D again?

    Post. Racial. America.

    I wonder if Nick has any money. I have some excellent swamp land I could sell him. Oh, and a bridge too.

    1. The Libertarian Argument for Hillary?

      1. You know it is coming. The only question is which Reason staffer will write it. I doubt it will be Nick. My money would be on Chapman or Suderman.

        1. Isn’t Chapman technically not a “reason staffer”? I thought he actually writes for a Chicago newspaper (The Sun?). Although why reason publishes his shit I don’t know. Maybe because he’s the closest thing in the real world to the mythical “left libertarian”?

          1. Now that you say that, you are right. He is not a reason staffer. They will publish a “Libertarian case for Hillary” article. They might use a non staffer like Chapman to write it. But it will get published. In every election since 2004, Reason has published a “the Libertarian case for the Democratic nominee” article. I can’t see why 2016 will be any different.

            1. Show me the Pro-Obama 2012 article, i need a refresher

                1. Is that guest-article supposed to be more-significant of the Reason’s Official Editorial View …

                  …than this guest-article, which pitches “The Libertarian Case for Mitt Romney“?

                  because the actual editor of the magazine wrote, “The Libertarian Case for Gary Johnson” in that same issue. So many libertarian cases! I don’t know what to think.

                  I’m taking a wild guess someone else at the magazine wrote, “The Libertarian Case for Getting Drunk and Not Voting”

                  1. I think they’ll do a “Libertarian case for..” both Clinton and Trump, if for no other reason than comment-bait. Also, I want Robby to write the Trump article so he can include lots of qualifiers.

        2. A whole bunch of employees are going to vote for Hillary and lie about it.

          Fakers gonna fake. It’s what they do.

          1. Why? I see the benefit in lying about it, but what’s the benefit of voting for her? Their votes won’t matter. Especially not in NY, CA or MA.

    2. “Again”? When did Nick last vote D?

    3. I have some excellent swamp land I could sell him.

      Does this swamp have the strongest castle in all of England on it?

  17. Hillary Is Full of It But Republicans Are Worse: On This, Maureen Dowd & Ron Paul Agree.

    Eh, I’d say they’re about the same. It’s giant shitbags all the way down.

  18. It wasn’t Hillary Clinton or any Democrat that scuttled that vote, of course.

    This is incorrect. A vote happened, it was a free vote. Here’s the rollcall on House Concurrent Resolution 51 “Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Froces from Libya.”

    Republicans voted against 87-144 (8 NV), but Democrats voted against 61-121 (11 NV). Basically tied, but if anything Democrats were “even worse,” largely because a Democratic President was involved. I grant that with a Republican President you’d see a lopsided vote, but I don’t see how you can conclude from this that the Republicans were worse when there’s a Democratic President, especially a hawk like Hillary.

  19. I’ve said it before…

    The only hay to be made over Benghazi, was:

    a. The completely unconstitutional way it was initiated and disregard for the War Powers resolution.

    Which, of course, Republicans didn’t care about because Republicans like being in a constant state of war, with or without actual justification or an obtainable objective. Republicans are complicit.

    b. The coverup wrt the video, which was, of course, a blatant lie to take the focus off of the administration’s foreign policy just prior to the presidential foreign policy debate.

    And the time to strike there was immediately to catch Obama in a lie on national teeeveee. But, of course, Romney and the rest of the chicken shit Republicans didn’t press because of some stupid-ass misplaced notion of not criticizing a sitting president during time of war.

    The stupid party deserves everything it gets. The Dems have played them like a harp because they have no fucking principles. They actually want their illegal, unwinnable, perpetual war so attacking how it’s run rather than if it should be run is interpreted for what it is. A pathetic attempt to smear their political opponents to win the next election. If it was anything else, they’d have done something 4 fucking years ago.

    1. a. that’s conflating “Benghazi” (2012) with the libyan intervention (2011). they are 2 different things.

      b. there were lies/deceptions/misconduct other than “the video”. not that it really matters, but you seem to be presenting this as though it were the sine qua non of the cover-up.

      You have said twice that the “Only” thing anyone should be concerned about benghazi … is some chickenshit stuff about misrepresentations to the press.

      The CIA in Libya was involved with the ‘at the time un-acknowledged and un-approved’ shipment of weapons to Syrian rebels. Chris Stevens played a role because he’d been instrumental helping arm the Libyan rebels that ousted Gaddafi.

      There wouldn’t be any reason for cover-ups if there weren’t something worth covering up. You can repeatedly insist that its all unimportant and insignificant; and politically, it probably is. But the fact is that the real source of this ‘scandal’ is closer to Iran/Contra than it is to the Lewinski Affair – i.e., where the real crime was just “lying” about some underlying chickenshit stuff.

      1. a. Fair enough. I should have said Libya, but it goes to our involvement there to begin with.

        b. More chaff. Your own citation:

        the report concluded that the committee “found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the [intelligence community] shipped arms to Syria.”

        Again, Republicans throwing conspiracy theories. Claiming the report is a lie without providing any direct evidence to that effect. Even if it’s absolutely true, they can never prove it and they sound like morons for trying.

        The video lie, however was incontrovertible fact. It was perpetrated for the sole purpose of getting them past the foreign policy debate. The Republicans had them, and let them go.

        And GILMORE, let’s be clear to what I said:

        The only hay to be made over Benghazi, was:

        The administration may well have been involved in 69 sketchy activities wrt Libya. But if you can’t prove any of it, don’t bother attempting to make it an issue because you just look like a politician.

        1. Er…

          The only hay to be made over Benghazi, was:

  20. I find former Congressman Paul’s ideas interesting. Does he have a newsletter to which I may subscribe?

  21. Hillary loving liberals like Maureen Dowd? Nick, you gotta read the NYT once in a while. MoDo hates Hillary and never misses a chance to go on the attack against Hillary.

  22. Suggesting that Republicans, who support reckless incompetent interventions, are worse than the Democrats (who also support reckless interventions) because said party won’t hold an investigation that is critical of such interventions makes no sense. Why would they? Neither party cares to have this discussion, so I fail to see how one is worse than the other.

    On a similar vein I remember when the Democrats held their own “partisan witch hunts”/ hearings into the Bush Administration when they won control of Congress. I don’t remember any of those hearings focusing on overall abuse of government power, nor interventionism.

    It’s all BS and both sides play the game well with little consequence for either party.

  23. Another retarded Gillespie column. No Nick, it is not appropriate to turn these hearings into a wider foreign policy discussion.

  24. i come down on the side of appreciating the hearings, even if they’re mostly for show. the media wasn’t going to give any push back on benghazi, so at least the gop will. their main problem is they merely caught the administration in a lie, and the american people are used to that, so you won’t get them worked up about it, even if i and a lot of others view this as above and beyond.

    the worst of the hearing is hillary’s continued suggestion, with her body language, that questioning her about anything is somehow beneath her. that’s what i saw when i watched. problem is, her fans will chalk that up to thinking the committee is simply on a witch hunt, etc.

    the most ridiculous thing was the idea that if hillary didn’t commit ritualistic suicide or something, that she’d be “the winner”….which inevitably makes us all losers in the end.

  25. State buying those Facebook ‘Likes’ seems like genius now.

  26. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    …………………. http://www.4cyberworks.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.