The appearance of Sec. Clinton before the House’s committee on the attack on the U. S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya confirmed several things:
- Sec. Clinton is a highly experienced political operative. For the most part she was poised and controlled in her responses, most of which had clearly been prepared and rehearsed.
- Sec. Clinton is a liar. She has lied about public business for decades; if elected president she’ll continue to lie. This has already been discounted both by her supporters and her detractors.
- Politicians do things for political reasons. Both the Republicans on the committee and the Democrats on the committee have political motivations. I’d rate the Republicans slightly worse: the Democrats on the committee are only defending Sec. Clinton because the Republicans are attacking her. But only slightly.
IMO it’s time to move on from this whole sorry incident. There’s nothing to be gained from perseveration on it.
The dot points I find all true. Not so much the conclusion to move on. That seems a bit cavalier. The Obama Administration and their willing accomplice at State obviously perpetrated a grotesquely deceitful campaign of “video obfuscation” to preserve a campaign driven political narrative on Libya and terrorism, while the bodies were still warm.
Not the first time, or last, but if we expect to do anything but encourage similar behavior in the future I’d let them marinade in their own stench. Forget the politics, what signal does it send to military or civil service types to sweep it under the rug? Anyone expect any hope of change in IRS behavior given a similar “our political game is bigger than you peasants” result with Lerner or Koskinen?
The problem is that the investigation doesn’t seem to be discouraging the Obama Administration but does seem to be giving investigations a bad name. Iit’s probably already accomplished as much as can be expected. From the standpoint of electoral politics, as suggested above everybody has already made up their minds. There are no undecideds in the case of Sec. Clinton.
Sec. Clinton’s testimony before the committee will be scrutinized minutely and compared with her previous statements. If she’s contradicted herself in sworn testimony, she’ll be in trouble. I don’t see anything more to be accomplished.
“the Democrats on the committee are only defending Sec. Clinton because the Republicans are attacking her. But only slightly.”
I think rather than defend Sec. Clinton it would show more authentic honesty to seek the truth surrounding this “sorry incident,” including where President Obama was on the evening of this fatal attack. He seems to have disappeared, bent more on shielding his reputation and false rhetoric, in lieu of facing a presidential election in less than 60 days.
Yes, the deliberate administrative foot dragging and Clintonian obfuscation, for three years, has created a tiresome expose of congressional and bureaucratic dysfunction. Nonetheless, however muddled the Benghazi scenario appears to be, there remains the stubborn reality that an ambassador died, along with three others, after some 600 requests were made for more security. The reasons behind this attack, immediately given by the WH and SOS, were lies that were repeated weeks following the attack. IMO, this merits the continued scrutiny being exerted, and Ms. Clinton and her underlings should be held accountable for more than a lip-service apology, shrug of their shoulders, and the dems circling their protective wagons around Ms. Clinton for purposes of buffering their own from yet another democratic presidential run.
What would have happened if people had simply moved on from Watergate?
We’ve also learned something we already knew. Legislators do not know how to ask questions, they do oratory under the guise of inquisition. All of the political incentives were to force Clinton to talk.
Dennis Kucinich attacked Hillary for regime-changing, the real issue about Benghazi, but he is an actual anti-Elitist and I’m not sure the same applies to Sanders.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/20/bernie-and-hillary-the-sheepdog-and-the-she-wolf-in-vegas/
“The most remembered line of the debate was Bernie’s statement that “the American people are sick and tired of hearing about [Hillary Clinton’s] damn e-mails.†Here Sanders further demonstrated his sheepdog commitment to the dollar-drenched and neoliberal party of Robert Rubin, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and the arch-neoliberal Barack Obama. A left candidate who was serious about defeating the Clinton machine would hardly be in the business of helping provide Hillary cover on her criminal and classically neoliberal use of a private corporate e-mail server for public sector (the State Department no less) communications. “
“The Obama Administration and their willing accomplice at State obviously perpetrated a grotesquely deceitful campaign of “video obfuscation†to preserve a campaign driven political narrative on Libya and terrorism, while the bodies were still warm.”
Except that every other investigation including the prior GOP lead investigation has found that to not be true. Not even remotely. They didn’t find anything this time either to support that. Of course it never made sense since the GOP intel members see the same reports, and they would have had to keep it going for nearly two months until the election. Makes a good story for the deluded right though.
“The reasons behind this attack, immediately given by the WH and SOS, were lies that were repeated”
Nope. They were the official findings of the CIA and the intel community. For reference, please see the House Intel report which I have linked to below. However, you could be correct. It si certainly possible that the House Republicans are all in on the plot to protect Clinton also.
http://intelligence.house.gov/investigative-report-terrorist-attacks-us-facilities-benghazi-libya-september-11-12-2012
Steve
Steve, investigation?? Seriously?? Just watch and listen to the tapes of the interviews and speeches, and compare to the testimony of what they knew and when. It’s not rocket science.
I don’t think there’s much point in more “investigation.” I think the Congressional committee investigation has pretty clearly morphed into a political witch hunt. I say this as someone who is decidedly not a fan of Hillary Clinton.
The government already made a lot of major changes to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
” I think the Congressional committee investigation has pretty clearly morphed into a political witch hunt. ”
Morphed??? See, Benghazi Biopsy: A Comprehensive Guide to One of America’s Worst Political Outrages
@sam
Bullshit, and double bullshit. The youngsters might have forgotten, but I have not: Whitewater and the Clintons.
An investigation into a real estate deal that occurred before President Clinton was elected or even began campaigning led to him being impeached over a blowjob, and I do not want to hear any bullshit about him lying about a blowjob that had nothing to do with the investigation. Let me repeat, nothing to do with the investigation. An investigation that was bullshit from the start.