In Hillary Clinton’s opening statement at today’s Benghazi hearing, she began by extolling the virtues of Ambassador Chris Stevens and explaining why he wanted to serve in Libya and why he was in Benghazi taking risks with his life. In Clinton’s estimation, it’s critical that our diplomatic staff be engaged in dangerous places and willing to put their lives on the line in order to talk to people.
She then went right for the throat by bringing up the attacks on our personnel in Beirut during the Reagan administration that killed over 250 people. She also mentioned other attacks on our diplomatic corp that took place during the administrations of her husband and George W. Bush. In other words, why is this particular attack the focus of such obsessive attention?
She then talked about the 29 recommendations she received as Secretary of State from the Accountability Review Board (ARB) on how to improve our diplomatic safety and claimed that every one of them was on the way to implementation by the time she stepped down.
She then talked about how proud she had been to serve as Secretary and said “We should debate on the basis of respect, not fear.”
She called on the committee to be worthy of people’s trust and wrapped up.
At that point, Chairman Trey Gowdy kind of complained about how long she had taken to speak and recognized Rep. Peter Roskam of Illinois.
Clinton’s first response was to defend our decision to get involved in Libya. She talked about the intensity with which our European and Arab allies requested our intervention and said that we didn’t initially say ‘yes’ but conducted significant research before coming to a decision.
Roskum, interestingly, questioned Clinton’s judgment in advocating intervention, and especially in using the State Department’s diplomats to conduct what was essentially a coup. He accused her of “convincing” the president to intervene over the advice of other advisors like Vice-President Joe Biden and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
Clinton responded that she didn’t agree to go ahead with the coup until after she had consulted extensively with our allies. She mentioned that the Arab League had agreed to our intervention and that the first planes to fly were French planes.
Roskum told her she was underselling herself and that she had not only overcome internal dissent within the State Department and prevailed upon the president to intervene, but she had actually convinced the Russians to go along with a UN Resolution (that the Russians would later regret).
Clinton agreed that she had done these things but reiterated that it was what our allies wanted us to do and that it was ultimately the president’s decision.
What this line of questioning, while interesting, has to do with Benghazi is not obvious. What it has to do with Hillary’s presidential campaign is glaringly obvious.
Roskum finished up by correctly pointing out that Libya today is a disaster.
It was then Elijah Cummings’ turn (again), and he decided to discuss the Accountability Review Board (ARB) led by Ambassador Pickering. In other words, they’re going to discuss the only thing that matters, which is how to prevent a recurrence of an attack like Benghazi on our diplomatic staff.
Cummings then played a clip of Darrell Issa lying on cable television about Clinton denying requests for extra security in Benghazi. In truth, that decision was made without Clinton’s knowledge or input, as all previous investigations have already concluded.
Clinton clarified that all State Department cables carry a stamp with the secretary’s signature, so a signature stamp doesn’t indicate that she has seen something. She claimed that the State Department didn’t have enough money appropriated for their security requirements and so naturally they had to make decisions about priorities.
Only a couple of hours in but so far she is demonstrating a huge range of knowledge, something that none of the Rep could even hope to demonstrate. No matter what I think of Clinton, this is impressive and have to think, so far, that she’s gaining ground big time.
Worth contrasting her answer to Benghazi to Dubya’s answer to 9/11.
You remember – he would meet with the committee only in private, with Daddy Cheney there to answer for him, and no notes or recordings were allowed.
Holy fuck. I cannot even begin to imagine how the GOP and “centrist” (guffaw guffaw) pundits would react if a Democrat tried that. For Dubya they just pretended it didn’t happen.
Difference is that Clinton and the State Dept didn’t hide and had no reason to hide anything about the attack on the State Dept compound in Benghazi. Amb Stevens established the compound and had more experience and knowledge of the area than any other State Dept employee.
“The Annex,” where Doherty and Woods were killed, wasn’t under the jurisdiction of Clinton or the State Dept.
A few days before the debate, I pooh-poohed notions that Clinton was a war-monger. Her remarks about Iran, coupled with her call for a no-fly zone, opened my eyes. That she was the force in the Administration behind US intervention in Libya is consistent with this. I think that’s actually the most important thing made clear by this, though it, like most of what this committee does, is irrelevant to the nominal purpose of the committee. Yes, it’s done to hurt Clinton, but, unlike the committee generally, it’s a fair shot.
Republicans never seem to get it that with a Clinton, it’s best to stop when you’re ahead. But once again they plow forward into the zone of unfairness and badgering over minutia that becomes too complex and/or convoluted in their attempt to strike a mortal blow. That’s when the public tunes out and Clinton gets a sympathy polling bounce.
Obama understood that in the 2008 election and Sanders appears to get that as well.
McCarthy spilling the beabs was a huge stroke of luck for HRC. There is no way the narrative would be anything near as favorable if he hadnt given the media permission to question the committee itself.
Its different because it resulted in the death of our ambassador. What would Rome do if you killed its ambassador? It would go in and make you regret you ever had that idea. I wish we could do that. (I kniw its a bad idea.) Ambassadors are sacred.
Anyhow doesthat justify the GOP obsession? No. Not in the slightest. We’ve known the relevant facts for years. Im not voting for HRC but fuck you republicans.
Ambassadors are not sacred to non-state actors. They have no ambassadors to retaliate against (or send a strong note of protest).
That’s why the Wild West response is so dysfunctional and plays into terrorist movement politics.
Practically, covert operations of states are equivalent to non-state actors unless exposed.
The US is receiving the results of 70 years of duplicitous diplomacy and toppling a succession of heads of state. And there were folks in Libya who actually liked and benefited from Gadhafi’s government enough to align themselves with those non-state actors.
Absolutely correct, while I’d like to line people up and start shooting I completely oppose it as a matter of policy.
Did Roskum point out that Libya is a disaster today solely because of the United States, and the Obama administration?
Because it is — you must push any notion of intra-Libyan violence, or popular disaffection with the Gaddafi regime pre-Obama far from your minds.
That’s just misinformation. Not sure if it’s from NATO, or the EU, or the ECB, or Mossad. But it never happened.
Hillary cannot come out and say that we went into Libya at France’s request because the election of Marine Le Pen, an Islamaphobic candidate was unacceptable to the US and Sarkozy saw intervention as his best chance to survive the upcoming election. She can’t come out and say that.
Nor can she say that the CIA wanted to push off of the toppling of Gadhafi to topple Assad and that the people who attacked what was a strong CIA station knew it was a CIA station, knew what it was doing, and saw the assassination of the Ambassador as tit-for-tat for drone assassinations. She can’t come out and say that.
Nor can she say the obvious. Ambassador Stevens was the one in-country responsible for due diligence relative to the security of facilities. For a variety of reasons, she cannot come out and say that.
Which is to say that the GOP caucus on the committee knows that she cannot come out and say a lot of details that would be exculpatory of her actions. And that if she did, they could attack her either for betraying secrecy or being insensitive to a dead man’s family.
Betting that the GOP members have been busy scrubbing their emails sent each other about strategy.
Unfortunately for Boehner/Ryan/GOP, Trey Gowdy refuses to stay under the bus.
This is essentially a campaign ad for Clinton.
The loser is Sanders, in a way.
It depends on how he uses this event in his own campaign.
The primary campaign is really about who is the best to totally legitimize the Republican Party and its ideological underpinnings in 2016 in the way that the Nixon and Reagan campaigns did to the New Deal. Attacking each other personally diverts from that. The issue here is Republican overreach of power in a way not seen since Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy’s red scare fishing expeditions that cowed the Democrats for a decade.
though…. We’ll be having a lot of Clinton-derangement-syndrome-related news and events over the next four years.
It’s been 10 hours now. Waiting for the orange jumpsuit and hood to be brought out and the electrical generator. Removing the witness’s chair.
Again, I say that someone needs to review the convictions that Gowdy obtained as a prosecutor.
Although I would relish witnessing similar treatment of Dick Cheney and the entire chain of command from his office to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
A friend of mine had to interact once with him when working with the public defenders’ office in South Carolina while he was in law school. He met with Gowdy one time. He tried to get Gowdy to agree to life no parole for a crime the guy very likely did not commit, but didn’t think he’d win (AA, murder). Gowdy said, and I quote, “I can’t run for Congress making plea deals with accused murderers.” Gowdy wanted the death penalty. Election season and all…
The average voter isn’t going to consume the actual hearing the way political addicts do. They’ll take in the spin from their trusted news source of choice. On average, voters will devote five minutes of precious time to thinking about this, then forget all about it a month from now.
Now that Ryan is about to secure the Speakership, the looming debt ceiling crisis might even make voters forget about the hearing even sooner.
Probably. I suspect she’ll get a few really good commercials out of it. And I’ve heard from several political addicts who had doubts about her before, and don’t now.
Ahhhh, the power of the media!!!
AG
You are right and wrong.
About the general election, mostly right. There are so few fence sitters these days that it almost doesn’t seem worth it to analyze how they will jump. The most you can say about these are that it won’t hurt her.
However, for the “progressives” whose dislike and disdain border on derangement? This helps. This might blunt the left attacks that are going to come if it becomes clear that Bernie probably won’t be measuring the WH for new curtains.
More to the point, it solidifies support from folks not already on board, but very interested who have been waiting to see if the predicted Hillary meltdown occurs. Doesn’t look like one is coming.
But its still early.
What’s the word for those that expect a different result from doing the same thing again?
Bizarre to me that I never seem to hear Clinton supporters praising Wall St banksters, increasing income and wealth inequality, and all the US promulgated havoc and destruction in the ME, and aren’t even as concerned as Gore was in 2000 about global environmental destruction. Seems to me that those that are hunky-dory with all of that would want to get in the fast lane with all of that.
Yeah, Marie. I hear you. You really are making me feel all warm and fuzzy toward your position. Yup, semi-personal attacks on me really get me to feeling real good about the position of the attacker.
Good on ‘ya!
Funny how those that sling around comments like this:
Get all huffy when a person they’ve labeled as “deranged” responds by pointing out the irrationality of the mud-slinger.
I’ve had a lot of experience with being called deranged, and for the strangest reason, when all the facts are in and accepted as true, only I and like-minded souls never have to resort to using a “temporary derangement” excuse for getting it wrong.