Hillary Clinton will be testifying on 23-Jan-2013 about her knowledge of the horrific Benghazi terror attack on September 11th, which claimed the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, computer expert Sean Smith, and Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
There are still many unanswered questions, despite President Obama's vow to "put forward every bit of information that we have," as reported by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS.
Tennessee Senator Bob Corker spoke on Fox's "America's Newsroom," where he told Bill Hemmer the questions that he would like to ask the soon-to-be former Secretary of State. Sen. Corker described the situation in Libya after the attack, as he visited the site personally. He said that he was able to see the "shock" on the Americans faces that were still in Libya at that time, and went on to describe how the people there did not feel "supported" by the federal government. The Senator indicated that the "focus" will be on "internal accountabilities".
It is not enough.
If this author was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the focus would be not only on the sickening bungling of the security situation in Benghazi prior to the attack, it would also focus on why the consulate was not secured after the attack (destroying valuable evidence), questions regarding the "stand down" order that the murdered Navy Seals disobeyed, who specifically said that the terrorist attack was a "spontaneous protest" resulting from an anti-Muslim YouTube video (a lie that persisted for weeks), who, specifically, changed UN Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points to deliberately remove references to al Qaeda and terrorism, and importantly, what happened to the survivors of the Benghazi attack? It was reported that there were 20-30 people flown out of Benghazi. Where are they? What happened to them?
While Corker's appearance is helpful, his statement was not nearly specific enough. After some vague generalities, Hemmer asked pointedly whether there will be a focus on what Clinton knew about the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi before the attack and was she "in on the decision-making". Corker confirmed that this will indeed be a pivotal part of the testimony. The Senator also went on to say that "we had people there from the Defense Department that had been assigned...at no charge to the State Department, and they were sent away in mid-August." Corker, a true politician, is clearly more interested in his own career than finding out what happened on September 11th.
Corker noted that the administration was "spiking the ball" on al-Qaeda and clearly the terrorist organization is still very prevalent, as can be attested to in Mali and Algeria, where three American hostages, Victor Lynn Lovelady, Gordon Lee Rowan and Frederick Buttaccio, were just killed. In Algeria, seven Americans survived, but they will not be named by the State Department due to so-called "privacy considerations."
Senator Corker's interview, overall, was extremely disappointing. His focus is clearly on fixing the State Department. While a noble goal, Hillary Clinton's testimony should bring to light questions about specifics of the Benghazi attack. Changes to policy can be discussed later. The Senator, who has just been confirmed as a "ranking member" of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for the 113th Congress, said that so far, he believes Clinton has been "forthcoming" and that he expected no "bombshells". Perhaps, given Corker's new prominent role on the committee, he is hesitant to make waves. Based on his interview, he will not be pressing Ms. Clinton for anything other than a lunch date.
Kerry Picker from Breitbart.com reported that Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R- UT) is perplexed by the lack of information about the survivors of the attack. He said:
"My understanding is that we still have some people in the hospital. I'd like to visit with them and wish them nothing but the best but the State Department has seen it unfit for me to know who those people are—or even how many there are."
If all of the members are as bland as Corker, one can anticipate that no tough questions will be asked.
Photo Source: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite via BigStory
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 88
I will revise and expand my comment in case what i meant about there being no cover-up was not clear. If you check the record of statements made first by Obama and later by Susan Rice and now Clinton it should be clear this was so.
Rand Paul suggesting Clinton be fired was irresponsible and showed his incompetence. Clinton made clear there was no cover-up and that she accepted responsibility. Generals that screwed up and lied in Iraq and Afghanistan (including General Petraeus) and those in the Bush Administration who lied and screwed up were not fired or charged with crimes.
The political charade of the day's two hearings on Clinton's handling of the State Department was disgusting.
The classified version of the official review on the events in Libya made clear the problem the US had and has to deal with, as Clinton pointed out to the Congress and how to improve it. Paul and other members had had access to it, but it seemed they hadn't read or understood it. We don't know yet what happened and haven't yet identified the actors.
The situation for our embassies has been dangerous for many decades and Benghazi was nothing new. We were warned of the embassy bombings in Africa for many months before it happened, for one of many examples.
The Vienna Conventions relating to providing embassy securiity have limited all governments' options since WWII. The Congress has avoided addressing this situation through facing and passing legislation to deal with it since WWII; and it has not funded the State Department adequately for many years. Nixon saw to cutting funds to it severely to shift power to the White House and following administrations have not done much better. We spend, by Congress choice, more on the military band!
The ignorance and apathy of citizens bears responsibility for its government's actions.
You mention George W. Bush, and say he and others lied. What, specifically, did they lie about?
If you check the record of statements made first by Obama and later by Susan Rice and now Clinton it should be clear this was so. Clear that what is so...? No cover up? If that is your position, I would like for you to consider one of many disparities.
CBS News reported that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), headed by Obama Appointee James Clapper, removed specific references to terrorism from the "unclassified talking points" on the Benghazi terror attack given to Ambassador Rice with the "agreement of the CIA and FBI."
The stated purpose for cutting the information was because the link to terrorism was deemed too "tenuous" to make public, "because there was not strong confidence in the person providing the intelligence." Neither the official who made this claim, nor the "person providing the intelligence" were named.
As you probably know, David Petraeus gave a statement about Benghazi. He specifically mentions that the CIA agreed to cut terrorism references from the report. But he indicated, as reported by the linked article above, that "classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the U.S. consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack, but the administration withheld the suspected role of al Qaeda affiliates to avoid tipping them off." So which was it, Clarke? Did they not "trust" the source, or did they do it because they wanted to avoid tipping off al Qaeda? Was Petreaus lying? Either way, neither of those stated purposes jives with what Hillary Clinton said, that they were simply going by what they knew at the time.
The situation for our embassies has been dangerous for many decades and Benghazi was nothing new. There is a big glaring difference. The officials in Benghazi repeatedly asked for help and were turned down.
The lack of security at Benghazi had nothing to do with funding. Interestingly, right around the time that security was being denied to the officials in Libya, other U.S. embassies were given funds for creating "green" initiatives, as reported by the Washington Times.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Oh? What cover-up? "Accepted responsibility" for WHAT? HOW did she "accept responsibility," exactly???
The same old same old - you repeat stuff that ignores and distorts the actual statements by Obama,Rice,Clinton and others. You deny this and repeat the spin and hypocrisy. Fox News' model: repeat lies again and again and people will believe them. Almost everything you have posted on this page is spun and usually with the added accusation that someone else has not explained what you said wasn't true. Youhave no more credibility than a Rush Limbaugh.
John McCain knows very well he is lying and spinning to serve his own personal agendas, which is shameful and dishonorable, but of course it "sells" to the many confused, frightened and ignorant in a polarized, divided nation.
One of them just a few days before the trial the instigator of the fraud suddenly went all Alzheimer’s and the judge threw his case out on the grounds that it would serve no purpose to prosecute a man who was clearly suffering from the incurable Alzheimer’s disease. two months later when the trial of the others came to an end and they were jailed he was back behind his desk trying to find other ways to defraud the public laughing his head of at how he had got away with it.
Wonder if Hillary knows him and has took a few lessons from him, it would have been about the time when both the Clingons were in England long before Clingon became President.
If she was she will testify something like this.
Mrs Clingon.
Yes.
Do you remember the Benghazi incident?
Pardon?
The Benghazi incident last year Mrs Clingon do you remember it.
Benghazi!!!!! who is Benghazi cant recall anyone called Benghazi has my husband been up to his old tricks with the cigars again?
Sheesh.
My heads hurting can I go now please?
enough said hey guys.
It was a Hillary Clinton gushfest, complete with congress bashing and requests for more money. It was sickening, but not surprising. The format was absolutely ridiculous - she had no time to meaningfully answer any questions. And most of the five minutes allocated was used by most of the members to gush all over her.
So this is how it went:
Hello, Secretary of State Clinton: You are the most magnificent woman in the entire world, I hope that you will live forever and do you believe that these people are bothering you about those people who died - after all they knew what they were getting into, right? - and really, it is Congress' fault, as they would not allow any funding for the security of Benghazi, no matter that many have come forward and said funding had nothing to do with the security problems there. And of course you had no idea that the Americans in Benghazi were repeatedly pleading for more security - not money, but security - why would that have ever come to your attention? Why would the events leading up to the terrorist attack, Western targets were dropping like flies, the previous attacks including flyers left at the consulate promising further attacks or the fact it was September 11th give your dept. any indication that maybe something would happen? The Navy Seals were told to stand down so it was really their fault they got killed. Mrs. Clinton, thank you so much for your devoted service. Hopefully we can do lunch sometime. That stupid nasty congress! Oh, my five minutes is up! Call me!
To clarify, somewhat: Clarke M. Jan 24, 2013, 2:28pm EST
Your sources are at best partial . I have learned from your previous posts on the history of the UK's actions regarding Libya and other countries, since at least as early as the 70's, that you have personal experience but a lot of incorrect, false information - although it may conform to "official versions" the UK provides to the public.
Renee will believe anything but you are a bit ideological , British flavor, when it concerns "foreigners."
Its probably to late now but if they really wanted to get at the truth of the matter Congress could have done what they did when they got George Galloway to testify before them, as soon as he landed on U.S they summoned him to appear before them. At least three of the lads who were out there that night have had a holiday in the U.S since that night immigration would have know who they are and what they do for a living it will be on their passports of what country's they have visited ding dong bells should have rang Libya!!!!!the day they arrive the day they left ding dong bells still ringing!!! . Guess what they have to say does not fit well with what the official version is.
I have said I understand you speak from a lot of experience, recently in Libya but I think you will appreciate my perspective, based on a lot of experience, too. My comment that I think the Obama report the day after the attack, Rice appearing on 5 Sunday talk shows, the later State Department accounting (classified and unclassified versions) that Clinton referred to in the hearings were consistent and, most important, demonstrated that the US to allies and enemies and the American people is acting with authority and intelligence. The Benghazi attacks were no surprise, and it may well be that it is still not clear who carried them out ( on the consulate and later on the CIA safe house). The actors may be identified and punished, as Obama promised.
I have lost many friends to kidnappings, assassinations, wars and revolutions since the 60's - Athens, Tehran,Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, Jordan, Israel etc. Libya was no surprise, anymore than the embassy bombings in Africa or 9/11 in my native New York City were a surprise. Many were to some degree avoidable, but good intelligence is often not listened to and acted upon. 9/11 was in one sense a predictable operation (and a symbolic target) since the bombing in 1993 of the Twin Towers. I think Ariel Sharon was probably telling the truth when he said Israel several Arab agents who had infiltrated terrorist groups and they were tracking the muscle Saudi pilots abroad and the US since 2000 and reporting this to the US and to Putin. Intensive training in Boeing airliners is only possible by those who have worked for Boeing - it is proprietary, guarded knowledge . Private CIA airfields have Boeing airliners for practice. The pilots were sponsored by a private Saudi company (Saudi Aviation) in California, brought there in 2000; but monthly checks to support them came from the Saudi embassy in Washington. The whole tale about bin Laden and al-Qaeda was made up after 9/11, it seems. The FBI claims he was responsible for the African embassy bombings, but could never get evidence he was involved in 9/11. It was a classic operation in any case, involving different players .
Benghazi was certainly predictable. The Ambassadorial post was considered a suicide mission by Smith's colleagues at State. But he had been involved with principal European, American officials as well as Libyan groups before the revolution against Ghadaffi and wanted to serve the US and help form a new government. The lack of security was part of the situation in Libya: there were local reasons, but there were also systemic ones that relate to foreign embassies because of the Vienna Conventions that Congress has failed to address and pass legislation about regarding the US position on the conventions for many decades. Security is generally the provenance of the host country not the guest country. In some US embassies, as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan the State Department hires many private contractors for security. It is not the job of the CIA to provide security for diplomats. The Pentagon had no military near or available to go to Libya at the time, which it often does (and should) have in most regions.
The politicizing of Benghazi was not in the US interest , in fact was detrimental to our interest and the behavior of those like McCain was self-serving and irresponsible. I am not a partisan, but I think Clinton made the critics seem cheap, as they were.
Most incidents like Benghazi don't become public knowledge. The American public knows little about the 1979 Iranian occupation of the US embassy - the second occupation, the first several months before was brief - and the ensuing hostage tale. The film Argo plays to the popular wish for entertainment. Academics and analysts who tell certain facts about it risk their careers, so the leave parts out in what they say or write. Business as usual.
Boeing basically leases its planes to airlines and it maintains,repairs and upgrades them for airlines, using stored ones for parts etc.
Finally, Graham, we can agree that all governments lie and that is a necessary part of governing ? We trust leaders to keep what they do secret for good reasons, sometimes wisely, sometimes unwisely. I saw Nixon and Kissinger shut out the State Department and as a result many experienced diplomats and analysts take early retirement because they were kept in the dark, ignored and couldn't do their work: The White House acted independently without regard for State . Funds were cut to State and it ceased to attract the best people. Following administrations let the quality of State decline. Collin Powell did work to address this as Secretary of State. So has Hillary. Secretary Gates faced a similar situation with the Pentagon. He would have fired most if he could have, and he wasn't shy about saying so. He was a Cold Warrior, but he recognized the world had changed since the breakup of the Soviet Union and the US position in it. Obama represented change, but Congress is owned by private interests who serve their selfish interests not the nation's. I am disappointed in Obama in a number of ways but the behavior of Congress, the corporate-owned media, lobbies, think-tanks, and many in the Republican party over Benghazi has been harmful to the nation as well as dishonest. There is nothing wrong with speaking of screw-ups, but the distortion of what Obama, and other government representatives and agencies have said publically is not defensible.
Renee is a poster child for this behavior. She feels I have insulted her, but she hasn't really addressed what I've said. As I have replied to her:
Renee,
The same old same old - you repeat stuff that ignores and distorts the actual statements by Obama,Rice,Clinton and others. You deny this and repeat the spin and hypocrisy. Fox News' model: repeat lies again and again and people will believe them. Almost everything you have posted on this page is spun and usually with the added accusation that someone else has not explained what you said wasn't true. Youhave no more credibility than a Rush Limbaugh.
John McCain knows very well he is lying and spinning to serve his own personal agendas, which is shameful and dishonorable, but of course it "sells" to the many confused, frightened and ignorant in a polarized, divided nation.
And as I replied to you....
Clarke, What did I "distort"? I gave you quotes. How can I "spin" quotes? What, specifically, is John McCain lying about? You say I "distort," yet you are all about vague accusations of "lying".
Obama represented change, but Congress is owned by private interests who serve their selfish interests not the nation's
Clarke, back up these ridiculous statements. And who paid for the inauguration? Who got the most "green stimulus" money?
Americans had been killed in Libya for several years. Ambassador Stevens knew the situation in Benghazi: he could have chosen to go to Tripoli at any time he felt there was reason to expect trouble and so, possibly, lessened the danger of an attack on the consulate by doing so. There were separate attacks: on the separate CIA station, not managed by the State Department, and on the consulate.
See: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981842908#cid-1688849892033481
"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined with U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and the influential Office of Multilateral and Human Rights Director Samantha Power to argue for airstrikes against Libya. Their advice triggered an abrupt shift in U.S. policy, overturning more cautious administrations' counselors."
"The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities."
http://braley.house.gov/press-release/braley-presses-pentagon-ending-breakfast-troops-serving-afghanistan
I bet that woman Clinton shovels her free breakfast down her neck along with her best buddy the President while watching real time footage from drones. What a shower of **** if this is true.
McCain dishonored his oath to serve the the US and he betrayed us .He also lied knowingly in doing so. The record is clear.
He pushed for intervention in Libya,now Syria. He serves the corporate military-industrial interests and the neocons. as do others in the Congress and the Pentagon. The damage done to US stature and influence during the Bush years which may take many years to repair was immensely profitable for McCain's supporters.
I made clear how McCain lied and he did so deliberately. It stands as a disgraceful part of his record.
Compared to out of touch people like McCain, whose service to the wealthy interests that seek personal gain at the expense of the people's and nation's welfare, Obama is the preferable. He has also presented a vision of the real changes that the US must work to make to prosper.
I am disappointed in some of his choices and failure to keep some promises. As a leader I see Obama has isolated himself from being open to intelligent advice by experienced and knowledgeable people. This has the risk of going beyond mental laziness,"overconfidence", and narcissism. Even the press who ask fair questions are denied access to the White House, so they don't.
I deplore how he has dealt with education, basically expanding the Bush "No child left behind policy" which has already shown to not work. Obama's wrong policy has long term, very bad consequences. This is because of his failure to learn about the situation and new options to choose and support.
This, however, I would like for you to explain, "whose service to the wealthy interests that seek personal gain at the expense of the people's and nation's welfare"
If you actually study the record of the statements and actions made first by Obama and later by Susan Rice and now Clinton it should be clear they were accurate and appropriate - which the promised official investigation later confirmed.
The behavior of those like McCain threatened our welfare as well as deliberately distorting what Obama and other spokespeople said. This is called dereliction of duty in some services, but in the case of a Senator there are terms which are much harsher that are apt.
We need to be able to pursue our commitments and aims in Libya and elsewhere, whether they are the wisest ones or not at present - that is the responsibility of the government to determine over time with the participation of all its branches.
Because if that is the case, I agree entirely.
NO, Clarke, the statements and actions were anything by "accurate and appropriate". WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY WERE. This is not ME, this is CBS news taking. The White House has NEVER shared that information, despite repeated requests. EVERYTHING I can tell you is confirmed - I did not make it up, yet you continually blame JOHN MCCAIN, but give no specifics. I appreciate your engaged discussion with me, Clarke, but you need to offer more than vague references to "lying" and how it is the fault of rich people.
Renee,
You are talking mostly nonsense, a mix of false reading of the official statements I referred and quoted media and political stuff . If you do not understand the shameful nature of McCain's behavior, I am appalled.
I do not know if the wealthy clique who supported Romney, but had tried to persuade Petraeus to run against Obama and regularly paid him to speak at conservative foundations like Heritage had any part in a rumoured "coup" which was supported by a clique of generals, to have an incident like Benghazi in order to have Obama lose the election (similar to the failed coup against FDR involving wealthy tycoons and the military.) The ouster of seven generals and other military after the election may not have been specifically related to such a plot. Petraeus covered his rear in his testimony about Benghazi, as he was skilled in doing, having skillfully represented his failures in Iraq and Afghanistan as successes to the media and Congress.
(failed coup against FDR involving wealthy tycoons and the military) seriously?
Thanks for your interest.
Why should I expect anything else from Billy Boy's wife, who couldn't tell the truth either. They are all peas in a pod, LIARS!
And her, cough cough, diplomatic illness has given her the perfect out, and she will claim amnesia and that she doesn't remember.
BULL-S--T!
1. Why the consulate was not secured after the attack?
2. Why was the "stand down" order issued?
3. Who specifically said that the terrorist attack was a "spontaneous protest"?
4. Who, specifically, changed UN Ambassador Susan Rice's talking points?
5. What happened to the survivors of the Benghazi attack?
But there are a more questions:
1. Why isn’t the media pressing for answers to these questions?
2. Have any of them submitted a FOIA request?
3. Would they cover it the same way had this happened under the Bush Administration?
4. Or are they too busy covering the critically important stories about Manti Te’o and did Beyonce lip-sync the national anthem?
5. Are there any real Journalists left in the Washington Press Corps? (pronounced KOR Mr. President)
Great Post.
Gutfeld pretty much nailed it too!
http://youtu.be/V2vMUHpAdwo
Neither McCain nor Paul nor Rubio, nor anyone else in Washington, gives a good God Damn about what happened in Benghazi, or to those Americans.
I don't mean to burst bubbles...just a cautionary reminder of where we are. You are looking intently at the Trees for answers...while the Forest speaks loudly.
It was just another made-for-TV, Washington kabuki dance.
If Mcain, Paul, or Rubio actually follow up and demand answers, I might change my mind.
It is painfully obvious, and apparent. Not a one of them asked the pertinent questions; "WHAT, exactly, happened, and WHY?" Instead, they wasted our time, and theirs, grandstanding and speechifying...
They Truly do take us for the idiots that they take us for.
We are being had...
That is to be expected I guess.
But it would backfire if the media did their job and exposed this farce.
But it should not be...
1.) It was a Hillary lovefest
2.) The ridiculous format left no time for her to answer questions
3.) Opportunity used to bash Congress
4.) Opportunity used to demand more money
I agree with you both.
It was a pathetic display of non-questions and non-answers, and the "media," even some of the Conservative Media, licked it up like so much Whipped Cream, as you have said. And, not a single straight answer from Clinton. THEY let her skate and slide like a Child at the Winter Park.
"What difference does it make?" Are you freaking kidding me???
Nikita, they really do quite think we are morons...ALL of us.
It was merely another example of D.C. Theatre...for to shut up the People. But hardly to our benefit...
"What difference does it make?" My head just about exploded.
Jo Jo is pretty smart...
Jo Jo watched the entire cover-up unfold, in real time, switching back and forth between Fox and CNN and lamestream to compare the coverage...
Jo Jo listened to Susan Rice LIE THROUGH HER TEETH on five Sunday News shows, trying to sell the "spontanious riot" story when everyone in the ENTIRE KNOWN UNIVERSE had the truth available to them...
Jo Jo instantly grasped the significance of the difference between a "spontanious riot" and a "terrorist attack" on the election...
Jo Jo instantly grasped the reason and significance of the cover-up...
1. We didn't have terrorism under control as Obama claimed...and...
2. The Prez is a freakin' liar...
Pretty simple...
Democrat stonewall technique...
Deny truth for as long as possible...And, then,
Call people who are continuing to attempt to find it stupid and petty...
Use emotionalism and hyperbole as much as possible...
Go on to next lie...
She actually linked the development of the new terrorist state in Nortn Mali (which Jo Jo calls alQiadastan) with the terrorist militias in Libya that killed the ambassador. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to link those militias with the rebels that Obama armed during the Libyan civil war...
In short, Obama is now going to have to deal with very well armed, financed and organized al Qiada terrorists in Mali with his new "al Qiada is finished, no boots on the ground" strategy when it will be clear that they are there as a result of his own stupid acts a year ago and a few drone strikes won't fix it...
Tee Hee...if it weren't so serious, it would be laughable...