home

Secretary of State's Appearance Before Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Clown show this morning. A highlight:

More clowns this afternoon as the Secretary of State appears before the House Foreign Relations Committee.

Hilarity ensues here.

< Execution, Indonesian Style: Tied to a Wooden Cross and Shot | Google Report on Increase in Law Enforcement Requests for Data >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    One thing for certain (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    While Rand Paul tried to project himself into a seat in the Oval Office, what he really showed was that he thinks Hillary would keep him away from any shot at that dream for another 12 years.

    he's getting ahead of himself (none / 0) (#3)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:23:01 PM EST
    what an arrogant twit.

    Parent
    I hereby call upon the Republican Party ... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    ... to disband. That was a disgraceful display this morning.

    Sen. Rand Paul showed everyone today why he should NEVER be taken seriously as a prospective presidential candidate, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Dark Side of the Moon) was simply embarrassing to watch.

    Secretary Clinton has more moxie, spine and brass than both GOP congressional caucuses put together twice over. Good for her for putting them in their place.

    they can't throw her (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:35:01 PM EST
    and they can't keep up with her.  It's amusing to watch.
    She's back on now and doing just as well as this morning.


    Parent
    In whatever room (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:34:58 PM EST
    Hilary Clinton enters, she's the smartest person in the room.

    Parent
    And the most informed (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:32:06 AM EST
    just the amount of stuff (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:51:25 AM EST
    she has in her head that she can talk about with intelligence is daunting. I can't imagine the delusion it takes for Rand Paul to think he would ever be in a position to fire her from a job.

    Parent
    yeah, and did you see (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 04:22:56 PM EST
    how she ripped off the names of about a dozen other godforsaken, unpronounceable countries that are also smoldering hot-spots getting ready to explode? As if Benghazi was the only volatile location on earth, and the place she should have spent every waking minute handling.


    Parent
    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    I would have loved to have seen her turn the tables and start questioning them.

    Parent
    It just shows how out of touch they are (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:00:54 PM EST
    I mean, have they really not been paying attention to all of her previous interactions with them when they have tried to one-up her? Are they really so delusional they thought this would go well?

    Parent
    One word: (none / 0) (#11)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:11:20 PM EST
    Yes.

    Parent
    There's a saying that applies... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:39:34 PM EST
    "Never bullsh*t a bullsh*tter."

    Parent
    how does that (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:54:22 AM EST
    apply here?

    Parent
    Clinton is a better politician... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:59:28 AM EST
    than the GOP clown show...which means she can out bullsh*t the GOP clown show.  Out spin 'em.  Fool more of the people more of the time.

    Parent
    It should always (none / 0) (#24)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:36:23 PM EST
    be remembered that Conservatism is a childish ideology based on fantasy and wishful thinking.

    Parent
    Ahem. "Senator Sunspots" (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:01:54 AM EST
    is our preferred term, here in our little blue corner of the red state that elected him -- despite the evidence of his idiocy on climate change, and many other matters.

    Can we all say pfffft, yet again, to the national Dem Party that did not heed our warnings as to what was going down in Wisconsin and desperate need for help?  But nooooo, even with the evidence of not only "Senator Sunspots" but also "Perp Walker" (psssst: another aide went to prison yesterday), still we were told that it is a "progressive state."  

    And so, the recall was lost, as well.

    And Johnson's seat is a sinecure, since the Repubs' redistricting.

    And in the new legislative session, what is coming is even uglier. . . .

    Pfffft.

    Parent

    I just wish more Dems (4.00 / 1) (#16)
    by brodie on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:10:41 PM EST
    would be that feisty, and in the moment, when it counts.

    Especially going up against a bunch of Rs who didn't vote to approve requested security funds for State.

    I also noticed Hillary had a bit of the Claire McCaskill look today.

    Parent

    IMO having anything a bit of (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:10:41 AM EST
    Claire McCaskill is not a plus. My sweet Claire is an inspiration on what not to be as a politician.

    Parent
    Ron Johnson (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    thinks a "simple phone call" would have done the trick -- given us all the intelligence that was needed to figure out who was attacking and why. Yeah. In the middle of the chaos, a simple phone call is gonna get through to embassy people -- who have been attacked, and who are not intelligence professionals -- and we could get the scoop!

    I think Mr. Johnson may have watched a few too many episodes of The Man From Uncle, and believes these things can all be wrapped up in one hour.

    What a dunce. He exemplifies the limits of GOP brain power.

    Hillary must be so looking forward to not (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:59:13 PM EST
    having to engage with these nimrods. What a relief to not have to pretend in any way that anything that comes out of the mouths of Rand Paul and Ron Johnson and their pals is deserving of anything more than a snort of disbelief at the level of vacuousness in the collective GOP brain.

    Watching the Republicans on both the Senate and House committees go up against Hillary makes it so very clear that they are punching way above their weight. And they are apparently a bit punch-drunk from the effort.

    As I was listening to her, I couldn't (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    help but think that in her head, she was saying "you moron" (or worse) in response to a great deal of what she was hearing from these nitwits.  As in..."with all due respect (you moron), we were dealing with the dead and wounded..."

    Or maybe she tries really, really hard NOT to think those kinds of words, lest she inadvertently speak them aloud.  She came kind of close when she went off on Ron Johnson...he would have deserved it, too.

    I can't even believe we pay these people; I need a check-box on my tax return for "not one penny of my taxes is to be used to pay members of Congress."

    Parent

    She was very good at (none / 0) (#13)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:37:53 PM EST
    injecting facts in her answers to rebut the talking points tossed her way.

    She kept asking the Senators to "read the ARB."   Apparently they had not.

    Impressive testimony.

    Parent

    The funny thing is (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:58:10 PM EST
    They kept proclaiming that she was faking a concussion because she didn't want to testify.  Then she was faking a blood clot.

    As if she's ever backed down from dealing with these nitwits.

    Parent

    The only thing she was faking was (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:41:27 PM EST
    the serious look on her face when listening to those buffoons, while underneath she was counting backward from 100, trying to keep from breaking out in projectile belly laughter.


    Parent
    No No NO!!!!! (none / 0) (#44)
    by nycstray on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:55:23 PM EST
    haven't you heard?! She was faking her emotion to dodge answering the questions . . . ::eyes roll back and pop outta head::

    The R's really like to put their a$$es on stage . . .

    Parent

    don't blame those guys.. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    they're just so used to women who have to fake it..

    Parent
    In suggesting Senators read the ARB (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:53:19 PM EST
    she may be under the mistaken assumption that these people can actually read.  It's amazing who the electorate will actually vote into office.

    Parent
    Oh, please! (none / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:14:40 PM EST
    Don't confuse Republicans with facts when they have an ideological point to pound home to their talk radio audiences.
    ;-D

    Parent
    Dealing with my own mico-level (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    idiots this week. She is an inspiration.

    You must be hanging out ... (none / 0) (#33)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:47:45 PM EST
    ... at our state capitol this afternoon. The new chair of the House Committee on Tourism held his very first public hearing this morning, and I swear, the guy doesn't even try to hide the fact that he's looks completely disengaged and bored stiff while listening to the testimony. I was just embarrassed for him.

    He even tried to give the bum's rush to the director of the Dept. of Business & Economic Development, telling him, "Okay, that's enough, you really need to wrap it up now." I'm sorry, but you don't cut off a gubernatorially appointed department head in the middle of his testimony and summarily order him to "wrap it up now."

    He doesn't think that sort of impertinence will get back to the governor? Because I can guarantee him that I've already informed the Speaker about it, and can further assure him that his attitude and demeanor is a pretty good way to ensure that he soon becomes the former chair of the House Committee on Tourism.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Stupidity without borders (none / 0) (#82)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    OMG. Rand Paul (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:17:55 PM EST
    I just watched the video of Clinton's exchange with Rand Paul. I applaud her for sitting there mostly silent while he prattled on and on in his filibustery, narcissistic fashion. What a hateful,  manipulative, deceitful, non-stop talking a$$. And yet, he must really think he has a shot at the presidency. Go figure.


    Andy Borowitz puts it in context for you (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 09:40:02 PM EST
    yahoo! (none / 0) (#47)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 09:52:03 PM EST
    another Borowitz booster.

    Parent
    I actually don't generally think he's that funny (none / 0) (#48)
    by Peter G on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:01:29 PM EST
    but he hit the nail on the head this time.

    Parent
    Hillary Benghazi Toon (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Zorba on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:13:12 PM EST
    From Democratic Underground.  Link.

    OMG! LOL! Classic! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 07:11:28 PM EST
    Excellent (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:30:54 PM EST
    Yes! (none / 0) (#19)
    by Angel on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 04:44:21 PM EST
    I am (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lentinel on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    obviously in the minority here, but I remember that for many days I was led to believe that there were riots in Libya that resulted in the deaths of the embassy workers - and that they were caused by a video that defamed Muhammad.

    The producer of the video was identified.
    He went into hiding.

    This was in fact, not the case.

    Personally, I don't know how the media could have let a story that had no basis in fact fly for so long.

    At the moment I cannot blame our government for the misinformation. But someone, somewhere was fabricating something.

    Ultimately it may not matter, as Secty Clinton said, what caused the deaths of those embassy personnel - although I will admit that for me, it does matter.

    But how a story such as the defamation video - with its religious war connotations - was allowed to float for so long and with such definition feeds right into my sense that the people running the show can tell us absolutely whatever they want, and we will buy it.

    Not exactly sure what all the crwoing is about (2.33 / 3) (#22)
    by Slado on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:14:18 PM EST
    4 Americans dead by State Department incompetence.

    We know the dead ambassador asked for more security and the State Department did not provide it.

    Hillary's State Department screwed up.  She is not to blame entirely for the tragedy but she is not a "hero" either.

    This administration along with State put out a false story and stalled until the MSM got bored with the story.

    Now here we are and Hillary looks good?

    Take of the blue colored glasses.

    Apparently being a democrat (especially Hillary) affords you the luxury of having your constituents ignore how bad a job you do and ignore the lies you tell trying to cover it up.  

    Interesting.

    Parent

    Maybe Repbulicans thought (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    that Hillary's concussion gave them the advantage...

    Didn't work, did it?

    Parent

    Is that you Rand Paul? (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    There is no crowing over the horrible loss of life. There is crowing that the SofState is being attacked in a very unprofessional manner for the sake of Republican political posturing and responding with some true zest.They had their whips and knives out today. Life is not a picnic and $hit happens. Really really bad stuff. She is right in saying, we need to find out what went wrong and try and correct it for the future. In reading her responses she warned of some  20 other possible diplomatic accidents waiting to happen. Maybe these jerks should be more concerned about this problem and why they cut the budget than why didn't you phone. Every day there is misinformation being reported. Sometimes the smoke must clear before we really get the entire story.

    Parent
    The Repubs may have made some forward (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by christinep on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:54:28 PM EST
    movement , Slado., in that y'all express such hand-wringing concern over the tragic loss of 4 lives at the dangerous Benghazi mission.  Perhaps, as Senator Durbin suggested today, you might have time now to hold hearings on the 4,000+ deaths occasioned by the Iraq War and the precipitant knowingly longtime false info disseminated about the so-called "weapons of mass destruction.". I wonder.

    My thanks to Secretary Clinton for her determined, dedicated follow-up to the tragic incident in Benghazi.

    My disdain for the ugly & failed attempt at positioning from the junior from Kentucky, Rand Paul.

    Parent

    You might appreciate the always (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:40:38 AM EST
    spot-on take by Charlie Pierce:

    Thus, when Madame Secretary finally had enough of the penny-ante cheap shots of Ron Johnson, the Tea Party fave-rave for whom Wisconsin exchanged Russ Feingold -- and thank you again, cheeseheads, for that -- last seen begging the president to leave him just the rags of his freedom, she wasn't just defending herself. She was demanding that somebody take the deaths of four Americans seriously as something more than a partisan cudgel, a pet conspiracy theory, or means through which to litigate the last election.

    [snip]

    Not content with putting Johnson on a committee where he is less qualified to appear than he would be pitching long relief for the Brewers, the Republicans also gave a seat to Senator Aqua Buddha, who demonstrated the essential gravitas that has marked his entire career. Young Rand said that he would have fired the Secretary had he been president because this was the "worst tragedy since 9/11." Senators whose committee chairs no longer have training-wheels pointed out that the meretricious case for war in Iraq was pretty damned tragic, too. Paul, of course, is a second-generation charlatan whose stated purpose in life is to defund large portions of the national government, most definitely including the State Department. Perhaps the Secretary should have told him that, henceforward, we will rely on the power of the Free Market to guard our embassies. Or, conversely, she could have called him a pipsqueak and told him to run for president on his own time.

    [snip]

    Let us be honest. Rand Paul is on that committee because he wants to run for president, This is also true of Marco Rubio. Ron Johnson is on that committee because somebody forgot to lock the cracker box. This is what Republican foreign policy is today -- a place to posture, to raise money, and to flog your political future with the honored dead.

    No one is saying we shouldn't find out what happened - something clearly went wrong.  I don't presume to know who thought it would be a good idea to send Susan Rice out to the Sunday shows instead, of, I don't know, addressing it in a way that limited the participation of media and political figures all gaming the situation for maximum effect, and guaranteeing that it would become a political football, but it was a terrible idea.

    Was there a way not to make this a political issue?  Maybe not completely, but to my mind, if they didn't know what happened, the last thing they should have been doing is handing a bunch of dimwit talking heads and their equally dim "guests" an opportunity to speculate about the speculation that someone sent Susan Rice out to offer them.

    Our government had to know at the time that it happened that they were looking at a sh!tshow; as well as Clinton is handling herself in these hearings, it has to be said that overall, the decisions made in the aftermath did nothing to keep that sh!tshow at some kind of manageable level.  Is that on her, on the president, on the intelligence personnel, all of the above?  Well, yeah - it happened on their watch.  To their credit, they haven't shied away from taking responsibility or being accountable, but let's not be too proud of how well we're now closing the barn door, considering how far the horses have galloped away from it.

    But let's also not kid ourselves that these Republicans are in any way serious about getting to the truth of Benghazi; they're not.  They are desperate for credibility, horrified to be playing from behind, and thanks to the Insane Clown Posse that is the Tea Party, doomed to fail in their quest to be taken seriously.

    Parent

    I doubt (none / 0) (#59)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:27:37 AM EST
    that Slado is in a position to "have time now to hold hearings on the 4,000+ deaths occasioned by the Iraq War and the precipitant knowingly longtime false info disseminated about the so-called "weapons of mass destruction.""

    But there are committees in congress, and members of the executive branch, who have the time.

    Do you see any movement in that direction? I don't.


    Parent

    Maybe you could help then, lentinel (none / 0) (#69)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:14:59 AM EST
    How (none / 0) (#91)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:17:55 PM EST
    can I help?

    Parent
    ahhhh (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 07:34:23 AM EST
    the he-man Hillary Haters club is alive and well.
    Did you watch the hearings?  Did you listen to her with the idea that she might just be telling the truth or did you assume from the start that she would be lying because she's Hillary Clinton, wife of the evil DLC Bill Clinton and his rib of course?
    I think she made it pretty clear that the situation was much more complicated than what you state.

    You know what people are happy about?  They are happy that Clinton stood up to a lot of posers in the republican party who are already running against her imaginary Presidential run of 2016.

    Parent

    Slado, please answer me this: (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Towanda on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:21:48 PM EST
    When someone prefaces their comments -- states at the very start -- with the following:

    "Let me tell you the best information we have at present."

    What does that mean to you?  

    Parent

    Republicans were angry they (4.33 / 6) (#25)
    by MKS on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:48:00 PM EST
    could not make Benghazi a campaign issue during the 2012 campaign, so they thought they would get a do-over at Hillary's expense???

    What were they thinking?  Hillary actually knows the facts.....

    Was there this much hullabaloo when more than hundred Marines were killed in Lebanon under Reagan?

    If only the Republicans could have been one-tenth as exercised about the failures of the Bush administration to heed the warning that "Bin Laden determined to Strike in U.S."    No, not concerend about that all.   You know, W kept us safe without a single terrorist attack.

    Parent

    BS (4.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Yman on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    This administration along with State put out a false story and stalled until the MSM got bored with the story.

    ...


    Apparently being a democrat (especially Hillary) affords you the luxury of having your constituents ignore how bad a job you do and ignore the lies you tell trying to cover it up.  

    The only "lies" are the ridiculous claims in your post.


    Parent

    4 Americans are dead (none / 0) (#30)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:06:20 PM EST
    because that is the risk of the job they did.  I guess you would like it if I brought a bunch of police with me to stay in your living room?

    Parent
    WTF is the matter with you? (none / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:13:25 PM EST
    Slado: "This administration along with State put out a false story and stalled until the MSM got bored with the story."

    That story certainly wasn't false at the time it was first offered, being based as it was on the latest available information. These types of situations are fluid, and don't simply remain static in perpetuity. Real life is not a Chuck Norris movie.

    While you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, Slado, that doesn't give you carte blanche to manufacture your own "facts" and smear public servants like Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice at will.

    In fact, you're too lazy to even make it up. You just pulled it down off of the talk radio shelf, and regurgitated it in this thread like Linda Blair's projectile vomiting in The Exorcist.

    And then you and your fellow wingbats have the chutzpah to wonder aloud why your party's in the schitter with one hand on the flush handle, as far as the public's concerned.

    Well, it's because you guys are too busy projecting your insecurities and disrespect upon others to ever be bothered to actually listen to them.

    It's because you debate and argue the issues with all the wisdom and maturity of eighth graders who've broken into their parents' liquor cabinet and guzzled the entire contents from a Cuervo bottle.

    It's because you've become serial bull$H!+ artists who are too enamored with the view to notice or care that you've managed to shove your own heads up your own a$$es.

    It's because you guys are quite obviously incapable of recognizing the truth if you saw it, even when lit up in 6 ft.-tall flashing neon letters and planted in your front yard facing the living room window.

    It's because you guys were given your shot at governance, and not only did you fail spectacularly, you totalled the U.S. economy in the process -- and four years later, we're still trying to clean up the mess you guys created.

    That's why. And as most thinking Americans observed today in that Senate hearing, your guys' day has come and gone, and it will no doubt stay that way for the foreseeable future, if we have anything to say about it.

    Parent

    The story was false (1.33 / 3) (#78)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:44:59 AM EST
    It was believable at first.

    Then not so much.

    I maintain that the Administration and State pushed the story long after they realized it was false because they didn't want to admit they screwed up.

    We now all know they did .   The people onsite wanted better security.   The State Department turned them down.

    Terrorists then killed the ambassador.

    Who screwed up?

    It is painfully obvious that the majority of Americans don't care enough or don't want to admit who screwed up to do anything about it.

    If liberals choose not to care to protect their team then we can all move along.

    I just find it fascinating that not only will liberals ignore reality they will cheer along when Hillary screams and yells to deflect her obvious failures.

    Yet another example of facts not mattering.  The only then that seems to matter these days is if an R or a D is placed next to your name.


    Parent

    Oopsie! You're forgetting something... (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    Congress refused extra security funding for the embassy:

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

    On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

    "Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have...15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you're in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things."

    D'oh!

    Parent

    What a crock (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:28:52 PM EST
    I maintain that the Administration and State pushed the story long after they realized it was false because they didn't want to admit they screwed up.

    We now all know they did .   The people onsite wanted better security.   The State Department turned them down.

    Terrorists then killed the ambassador.

    Who screwed up?

     It is painfully obvious that the majority of Americans don't care enough or don't want to admit who screwed up to do anything about it.

    If liberals choose not to care to protect their team then we can all move along.

    I just find it fascinating that not only will liberals ignore reality they will cheer along when Hillary screams and yells to deflect her obvious failures.

    Yet another example of facts not mattering.  The only then that seems to matter these days is if an R or a D is placed next to your name.

    We already have the answer to that question - it was four State Department officials who were specified in the report of the independant commission and have been placed on leave.  HC has accepted responsibility as the SOS, although she was not involved in the decisions regarding Benghazi security measures.  The reason people are "cheering" is because of feeble attempts by the Republicans (and their cheerleaders such as yourself) who are extremely transparent in their attempts to use the tragedy as a political football, but fumbling badly (and repeatedly) in the process.

    Hope that clears it up for ya ...

    BTW - Since you're obviously concerned about slanted/partisan responses, could you point out where you've criticized Republicans for denying funding for diplomatic security?  Or is it just that you conservatives "choose not to care to protect their team then we can all move along"?

    Parent

    apparently I have you wrong (none / 0) (#64)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:02:54 AM EST
    and you are not a lefty Clinton hater, but a righty Clinton hater.  Same thing.

    Parent
    Considering that that same video... (none / 0) (#32)
    by unitron on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 06:39:09 PM EST
    ...had resulted in riots in other Muslim countries right around that same time, it's understandable people might have thought the Libyan riots were due to the same cause and not immediately realized that what happened in Benghazi was pre-planned separately and that the timing was either co-incedental or the planners were flexible and grabbed an opportunity when they saw it.

    Wasn't there concurrent rioting in Tripoli?

    Parent

    Flashing Red (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by IrishGerard on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:40:01 PM EST
    The Senate Report on Benghazi seems to be the most comprehensive report available to the public and I think it may answer your question.

    Finding 9. Although the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi was recognized as a terrorist attack by the Intelligence Community and personnel at the Department of State from the beginning, Administration officials were inconsistent in stating publicly that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack.

    Recommendation: When terrorists attack our country, either at home or abroad, Administration officials should speak clearly and consistently about what has happened. While specific details and a full accounting cannot be provided until the government has completed its investigation, the fact that a terrorist attack occurred must be communicated with clarity.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#54)
    by JDM in NYC on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 12:06:05 AM EST
    While specific details and a full accounting cannot be provided until the government has completed its investigation, the fact that a terrorist attack occurred must be communicated with clarity.

    Why?

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:24:47 AM EST
    The public has a right to know.
    Perhaps an antiquated notion in today's heavily moderated democracy, but I still believe in it.

    Parent
    the person who was (none / 0) (#65)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:12:17 AM EST
    incorrectly reporting the attacks as a possible result of rioting was Susan Rice, the administration's spokesperson.
    Clinton had more sense than to go on TV and lie.  Susan Rice was doing damage control before the election and I think she was thrown under the bus. Just my opinion.

    Parent
    Sounds (none / 0) (#75)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    right.

    The "under the bus" routine rings a bell.

    Parent

    Ah (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:38:01 AM EST
    Susan Rice had much bigger problems than Benghzai, so you could be right - she was the perfect person to "take the fall", because she was never really going to be SoS.  Of course, the administartion could have come up with a much more plausible story than "The attacks were the result of a video and massive protests."

    Parent
    Terrorism has become a magic word (none / 0) (#88)
    by JDM in NYC on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:52:54 PM EST
    Here is what Susan Rice said on Meet The Press (from Bob Somerby):

    Well, let me tell you the best information we have at present. First of all, there is an FBI investigation, which is ongoing, and we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today, our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo--almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.

    What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode.

    Obviously, that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation, and the president has been very clear--we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

    Here's part of what she said to Bob Schieffer (who later lied about what she said when she interviewed McCain):

    SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?

    RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean, I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself, I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.

    It is true that she did not use the magic word "terrorism." It is true that she referred to a "spontaneous" demonstration.
    BUT she also clearly differentiated the "opportunistic extremist elements" from the demonstrators. She does not say that the attack arose from the demonstration itself. She refers to the attackers as possibly being part of "al Qaeda itself." And she is emphatic about this being an initial assessment, one that is not "definitive"

    So again I'll ask why it's not enough to say that the attack was carried out by extremists with heavy weapons, who might be al Qaeda; why it's misleading or covering up if the word "terrorism" is not used?

    And of course Obama called it a terrorist attack several times the following day.

    Parent

    When I said "she interviewed McCain," (none / 0) (#89)
    by JDM in NYC on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    I of course meant "he (Schieffer) interviewed McCain."

    Parent
    Ws that the same ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 06:51:17 AM EST
    Although the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi was recognized as a terrorist attack by the Intelligence Community and personnel at the Department of State from the beginning, Administration officials were inconsistent in stating publicly that the deaths in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack.

    ... intelligence community that provided the talking points that Rice relied on when she made her "inconsistent" comments?

    Parent

    Please don't feed the wingbats. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:23:15 PM EST
    Especially the ones who probably couldn't find Libya on a map of the world, let along know where the city of Tripoli is located.

    Parent
    Oops. Never mind. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:30:52 PM EST
    You were responding to lentinel, and not Slado. When subthreads get long, it sometimes gets hard to keep track of who said what to whom.

    Parent
    A "parent" ly so (none / 0) (#70)
    by DFLer on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:20:15 AM EST
      n/t

    Parent
    Nice cheap shot (none / 0) (#79)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:47:06 AM EST
    People can't have another opinion unless their stupid?

    Parent
    Is it really your opinion (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    or is it this the Heritage Foundation-Fox-talk radio script thats come down the pipeline..

    Because no public conservative in this country seems to have a different "opinion" about, or interpretation of, the events in Benghazi..

    How is that even possible with free-thinking, educated adults?

    Almost as if adhering to this uniformly adversarial response were some litmus test of conservative loyalty in the war against "liberalism"..

    Parent

    While these asshats (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:08:11 PM EST
    Were trying to play float a witch, House Republicans were shooting our herds again.

    Leahy attempted to remedy embassy funding shortfalls with old Iraq cash that was left laying around.  With what has gone down in Algeria, every embassy is on alert now too....but....nope, House Republicans once again deny State funds to secure embassies.  Money just laying around doing nothing.

    It gets no airtime though unless someone dies now I guess.  It is lose/lose with Republicans.  They have really lost their minds.  Why doesn't what they did get any play though?  Why am I stuck watching them attempt to unsuccessfully play float a witch while the real bad guys in the House are burning down the next consulate?

    Glad she's hitting back at these a$$hats. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Angel on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    Hillary 2016!

    What Amazes (none / 0) (#15)
    by vicndabx on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:47:59 PM EST
    is the callousness of many of these congress people who believe we can just roll up to a foreign country w/an armed force whenever the need arises.

    Best question of the day IMO came from CT's junior senator on realistic expectations w/r/t foreign policy and the region.

    Rand Paul backtracks... (none / 0) (#34)
    by shoephone on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 07:04:21 PM EST
    In the hearing, he castigated Clinton by saying the Benghazi attack was the second worst thing to happen to this country. 9-11, or in his words, "the original 9-11," was the number one worst. But, now that he's getting villified all over the media for his nuttiness, he is backtracking. He now says our incursion into Iraq was the second worst thing to happen to this country. Maybe his daddy had a talk with him.

    It (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:17:16 AM EST
    seems that I am somewhat nutty as well, but I for one am glad that someone in government, some elected official, declares that the war in Iraq, Bush and Cheney's use of our country's economic and human resources for a personal agenda,  was a horrible thing to have happened to our country.

    No one will say it.

    Bush should be in prison.

    Parent

    Rand Paul is nutty and A LIAR (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 11:24:12 AM EST
    His backtrack statements mean nothing. He only said them because he was called out for being the nutty guy during the hearing and claiming Benghazi was like 9-11. His newer statement that our Iraq invasion outpaces Benghazi is not the voice of an intelligent person talking, it's the voice of THE LIAR, trying to cover his a$$ after making a public fool of himself.

    Everything Rand Paul says and does is a reflection of his narcissism, period.

    Parent

    Kentucky must be so proud right now. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by womanwarrior on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:47:54 PM EST
    He and Mitch look like the result of too much inbreeding.  Now can some one tell me what is with John McCain?

    Parent
    What is with John McCain is that he (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by caseyOR on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 09:11:28 PM EST
    lost the 2008 election.

    I doubt McCain will ever forgive the American people for not electing him. His resentment shows in just about everything he says and does.

    Parent

    casey OR (none / 0) (#71)
    by DFLer on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:28:05 AM EST
    Darn. Sometimes when I rate a comment (in this case a five originally) and I don't click my mouse outside the site box, if I go scrolling away blithely, the scroll wheel will cycle through the rating numbers, an occurrence to which I am by then oblivious, and leave an unintended lower rating in error.

    Correcting here.

    Parent

    Speaking (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by lentinel on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 05:22:07 AM EST
    of inbreeding, have you seen this?
    It is a collection of images in which our previous chief executive's visage is compared to that of a primate. Unflattering to the primate in my opinion.

    Bush

    Parent

    yeah, saw that a long time ago (2.00 / 1) (#66)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:26:25 AM EST
    on DU.  I thought it was very funny.
    Thank God no one did the same thing with Obama, we'd have a never ending rending of garments and gnashing of teeth over the racism of it all.  There would probably have to be senate hearings.

    Parent
    Yeah sure is (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:29:44 PM EST
    strange that people would take the modern reiteration of a long time racist trope to be racist. Its just like when you burn a cross to celeberate Jesus's love and people assume you hate black people.

    Parent
    kind of missed the point didn't ya? (2.00 / 1) (#93)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 08:55:04 PM EST
    sooner or later when equality happens people are going to have to accept it.  You don't get to be president and still claim how racism has held you back.  The comparison of bush and monkeys was offensive.  I found it funny because at the time (and still) I despise the man for what he did in the 2000 election.  He took an office he was not entitled to and he almost broke the country in the process.  
    Yes obviously there is still racism in this country, but the point is, it has nearly zero effect on Obama.  He is NOT a victim and all the guilty white liberals need to stop acting as if he were.

    Parent
    Clearly, it is you who missed the point, (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 10:34:57 PM EST
    by a mile. Who called Obama a "victim"? Nobody 'cept you, in all your sarcastic glory. What commenters have noted is that Obama has absolutely been the recipient of some particularly virulent racism--in words and images. Do you want to deny that? Go ahead. While you're at it, please tell us all about the birthers.

    Pretty funny that the same person railing against "he-man Hillary Haters" refuses to acknowledge the continual racist cr*p that has been thrown against the president.

    Selective outrage must be fun!!

    What do you do for a second act?

    Parent

    A bit of disingenuity here? (none / 0) (#72)
    by christinep on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:30:37 AM EST
    So...can't let it slide by.  Of course the persistent oops-I-didn't-mean-that-wink, wink cartoonish characterizations of this President as a vine-swinging primate that appeared throughout the first term were blatently racist.  It is time to let it go.

    Parent
    jeez (none / 0) (#94)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 09:07:01 PM EST
    I don't know where you go digging, but I never saw any of that.  From what I see, a black man was elected President of the USA twice.  He's not a victim.

    Parent
    Correct: The President is no victim (none / 0) (#97)
    by christinep on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 12:15:04 AM EST
    Some cartoon-shuffling detractors tried to make him one, but they failed miserably.

    Parent
    Target may be a better word (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 08:26:02 AM EST
    I personally have no problem with the word 'victim' either. If I get hit by a car and I survive I am still a victim of an auto crash. It does not matter that Obama ultimately prevails.

    Parent
    Unless it is (none / 0) (#99)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 01:37:01 PM EST
    Politically expedient to be one.

    Parent
    Tragically, (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 08:51:49 PM EST
    they probably are.

    Parent
    So it Benghazi the 3rd worst? (none / 0) (#83)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 01:19:05 PM EST
    It would not be hard to argue that one either.

    Parent