Benghazi and Hillary

Just flipped on the TV to see Hillary going ballistic after a question about why they gave false talking points to Rice. I was actually a little embarrassed for her as she looked like she was having a meltdown. Not exactly the cool demeanor I'd expect from a possible president. Reminded me of someone on this board lol

It matters why information was passed on the way it does because it tells us if those in charge understand the threats we face and whether or not an administration is willing to lie to the voting public for political reasons.

Yet.....while the Republicans on the committee claim they are seeking the truth of the situation, it is quite obvious they have already decided what that truth is and will badger anyone who claims differently. Why bother with the hearings if they are only window dressing to showcase their upcoming political leaders. I have seen no indication that they are willing to listen to any version but their own.

archer wrote: Yet.....while the Republicans on the committee claim they are seeking the truth of the situation, it is quite obvious they have already decided what that truth is and will badger anyone who claims differently. Why bother with the hearings if they are only window dressing to showcase their upcoming political leaders. I have seen no indication that they are willing to listen to any version but their own.

Can you point out a specific place in the proceedings where they had already decided what the truth was?

It looks like Rand Paul is really giving it to Hilary, but it was good to see her take responsibility. So many in this current administration duck it.

...she is really looking old. Maybe it is the glasses.

I did see her duck responsibility in the respect that much of the information was NOT supposedly passed on to her and that most of the responsibility for failure laid at the deputy sec of state.
How does one know what the committee actually thinks? The committee is frustrated at the lack of candor and would like to resolve it.

frogger wrote: I did see her duck responsibility in the respect that much of the information was NOT supposedly passed on to her and that most of the responsibility for failure laid at the deputy sec of state.
How does one know what the committee actually thinks? The committee is frustrated at the lack of candor and would like to resolve it.

Actually, I have been surprised at the amount of candor......it would have been very easy to cite national security issues and not even attended these hearings (which, in my opinion, are sounding more like a witch hunt or a kangaroo court). Too bad we don't have much precedent for this type of hearing....I don't recall months of hearings on previous embassy attacks under other presidents.

Clinton at one point said that she had not seen requests from U.S. officials in Libya seeking additional security.

"Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables ... I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable," Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky told Clinton

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... SM20130123

There are "4 dead americans", to quote Mrs Clinton and an administration who may not be taking our national security where Al Quaida is concerned as seriously as they should. It is sort of important to get it right. Forgive some of us for placing those issues at a level of importance they deserve. When did asking people to do their job and be transparent in doing so become a with hunt?

PERHAPS it might be helpful to read the WSJ........Nov.2,2012 edition. I get the PRINT edition,so you might want to peruse the
article entiltled WSJ: STATE DEPT.AND CIA HAD SECRET,BOTHCHED DEAL FOR BENGHAZI SECURITY......

"The CIA is said to have been the DOMINANT U.S. presence in Bengahzi,where it had a "symbiotic" relationship with the State dept.
consulate that served as cover for its' staff. "THE STATE DEPARTMENT BELIEVED IT HAD A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CIA TO
PROVIDE BACKUP SECURITY",the Journal says,"altho a congressional investigator said it now appears the CIA DIDN'T HAVE THE SAME
UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ITS SEC. RESPONSIBILITIES."


Read the rest of the article,it was a FUBAR from the get-go. NO ONE sealed the deal in writing and the loosey- goosey security
created the now infamous incident. THERE IS MORE THAN ENOUGH BLAME TO GO AROUND.......(Clinton is collateral damage,as was
Rice)

frogger wrote:

Clinton at one point said that she had not seen requests from U.S. officials in Libya seeking additional security.

"Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables ... I would have relieved you of your post. I think it's inexcusable," Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky told Clinton

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/ ... SM20130123

There are "4 dead americans", to quote Mrs Clinton and an administration who may not be taking our national security where Al Quaida is concerned as seriously as they should. It is sort of important to get it right. Forgive some of us for placing those issues at a level of importance they deserve. When did asking people to do their job and be transparent in doing so become a with hunt?

When the questions have been asked, and answered, and yet those doing the questioning will not take for an answer that which does not meet their preconceived truth.