Best Two Minutes of Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony

Watch this back-and-forth barrage between Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

  • Share
  • Read Later

At one point during Clinton’s two and a half hour testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Johnson (R-WI) asked why wasn’t a simple phone call made to the evacuees to determine the cause of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Clinton erupted, “The fact is we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” It was by far her most intriguing reaction of the day.

Whether or not the Benghazi attacks were spontaneously driven by an anti-Muslim video or an orchestrated terrorist attack has been a sticky issue for the Obama administration.  Romney tried to push Obama hard on Libya in the second presidential debate, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice felt obliged to pull her name from consideration to be Hillary’s successor after Republicans grew outraged that her Benghazi statements (which came from the White House) deeming the attack spontaneous were later found to be incomplete. So Johnson’s question was to be expected, but the anger in Hillary’s voice was not.

106 comments
weedwacker
weedwacker

Thank you wavejumper for your responses to that obvious Leftist Nazis (LN) MartyRogers and their ilk. I simply revel seeing these LNs being trumped by a better poster. You so rightly implied that these LNs never learn but I appreciate you enduring such banality to inform those of us who simply lack the time to uncover what the mainstream media so successfully hides. Keep on keeping on wavejumper – your abilities and support is appreciated more than you know. By the way, please post your background for the other bloggers - ever consider running for political office? 

MartyRogers
MartyRogers

the anger comes from the same bewilderment everybody else has. What the f&&^% difference it makes if it was an attack emerging from a protest or opportunist terrorist that invaded the consulate? this Johnson guy is so stupid he actually asked her why didn't they make a simple call to find out....call who? in the middle of an attack with the consulate on fire they are supposed to pick up the phone? are you serious? the answer to this ridiculous insistence has ZILCH to do with the dead americans and everything to do with politics for whichever was the method or process , knowing that answer here in the US wouldn't have helped those 4 souls one bit. Embassies especially in unstable countries are dangerous. Every single administration has had one major embassy attack since Reagan, when over 60 american soldiers died in Lebanon. THis is pure hypocrisy and a huge waste of taxpayers money and most people are getting just as angry as MS Clinton was when she hear theta moron Johnson bring it up yet again in a pathetic attempt to score political points. And for the record, what would be the motive for pretending it was a protest, when they knew sometime soon well before the election the facts would come in, as multiple agencies were involved? and take that risk for what? so Obama could say it was not Al Qaeda? he could say that anyway! it was not Al Qaeda. It was a bunch of Alqaeda wannabes which are springing everywhere in the middle east right now. Who would be stupid enough to think there are no problems left in the middle east? seriously. And finally, with the economy the way it is, the importance of other issues such as immigration, women;s rights etc to major voting blocks, who out there even thinks anybody voted based on Obama's credentials in foreign policy? all of the exit polls show foreign policy was less than 5% for their reason for voting. Everything about this story sounds ridiculous: 1) the phony outrage, 2) the idea that somehow this is the only time americans have died in a consulate or embassy, 3) the supposed Obama motive which would equate to a huge risk with little payoff. Isn't it muc more likely that the only conspiracy going on is the republicans trying to find any reason to damage this president? absurd beyond words.

mrmsjb12
mrmsjb12

great acting I really loved the tears kind of reminds you of bill telling about the sex  scandal scandal they both should get OSCARS for their acting jobs the stupid people in america just sucked it all up too. The fix is in for 2016 they both have four years to hatch up more B.S. stuff for the campaign. Maybe they will have BARRY HUSSAIN campaign for them also.

wavejumper
wavejumper

The best answer to Clinton rhetorically asking why the details of Benghazi matter "at this point" is that the facts indicate the Obama administration covered up events it knew to be true. We are not talking about bill Clinton's golf scores here. During the debates Obama’s own handlers admitted his greatest vulnerability was in foreign policy. As such it was critical to their strategy that with Bin laden’s death al Qaeda must be viewed by the public to have been all but obliterated. Any evidence or admission during the debates that Al Qaeda was more than alive, well and fully functioning all over the world would have severely weakened Obama’s claims of foreign policy success. Should we as Americans with the most advanced military in the world accept from our leaders the excuse that there was no way to preempt an attack by enhancing security even on that important date or intervene in that specific location within almost eight hours after the initial attack? Also, it seems striking what Clinton would have congress and the public actually believe about her non-involvement in issues surrounding the Benghazi attack. Hillary stated she was not involved in formulating the talking points. The top foreign policy adviser to the president is commenting on one of the most important foreign policy crisis in the president’s term and she’s not involved in formulating the response or what is told to the media or even who reports it (Why send an emissary such as Rice who even Obama said knows nothing – great choice)!? Clinton says she was never asked about the security issues when the accountability review board questioned her. Her response to congress was that she didn’t know anything about the security issues at the consulate. OK no problem – it’s not like your job or anything to know about security issues. Clinton stated lack of funding was a primary reason for security lapse. The fact that there wasn’t adequate security had absolutely nothing to do with lack of funding. It was the presidents expressed desire to maintain a light footprint in Libya so as not to offend the Arab world by thinking we were occupying Libya – despite our being there by UN resolution. Plain and simple political correctness was the primary reason we had inadequate security. Clinton’s most blinding failure was to not even pick up the phone and speak with members on the ground during the attack in any effort to better ascertain the situation. We all need to understand the greater ramifications of such thought and action or lack thereof. This is not just about Benghazi but speaks to a much larger and more dangerous future assuming such behavior is not questioned by congress and the public. Without demanding perfection lets at least expect and enforce a modicum of competence from our leaders whose most important obligations are to protect American life, limb and property wherever it happens to be. If we honestly cannot achieve this then we have no right occupying any country outside the US.

 

jmac
jmac

Last night on Frontline the Justice Department explained that we can't put any of the top notch bankers on trial because it might have a "ripple effect" and hurt the economy.  They cheated the American people with fraudulent lending and betting that their own loans would default,  bundled toxic loans and sold them in secret -  we bailed them out and no top dog is going to jail.  Why don't the Republicans go after the Justice Department?  Why aren't Republicans outraged that we almost went into a Great Depression and those at the top will walk?   If we moved Hillary over to Justice do you think we could get some action?  


grape_crush
grape_crush

> "What difference at this point does it make?"

Makes all the difference in the world, if your goal is to collect as many of the other tribe's scalps as you possibly can.

If your goal is to find out what happened, well, those questions have pretty much been answered, haven't they?


KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

"Once again, [Hillary] was helping the most powerful man in the world dodge accountability for scandalous behavior."

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

The GOP needs to stop pretending to care about this when they openly ignore the investigation results and every little tid-bit that is revealed about what did and did not happen.

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

Wasn't the best moment actually when Rand Paul said that if he had been president, he would have fired Hillary?

wavejumper
wavejumper

@weedwacker 

Thank you weedwacker. It’s great to see there are those out there who “get it”. For clarification I must say that I have some close relationships with those who may support leftist Nazis ideology but in no way think of themselves in those terms and would find such labels offensive. Having researched the subject extensively I believe that many otherwise well intentioned individuals fall victim to a society structured which  actually manifests and encourages such fear based reactionary world views. As such, I do not hold these individuals entirely accountable for their beliefs and feelings. This is the short answer as to why I endeavor mightily to maintain objectivity and refrain from what may be interpreted as offensive language. While I occasionally fail in this regard I have improved and in doing so noticed an elevated discourse in otherwise very touchy subject matter.. My primary intention is to illuminate pertinent facts and draw objective conclusions, hopefully allowing for a strengthening of societal ideals, morals and ethics. I believe this process is best started at the grassroots level. We can as a people learn to be rational and strengthen life in all areas but need someone who has taken the time and effort to outline a more scientifically based social philosophical foundation than is conventionally proffered. As regards political office I feel that for me and possibly many potential supporters it would be a death sentence – at least for the foreseeable future. I currently prefer to stay behind the scenes as much as possible. At heart I am an avid learner and educator much more than a politician. For these and many more reasons I could never support or represent any of the political platforms currently in place. My background is Nursing, design engineering and real estate development. Let’s all stay informed, be objective and engage in the good fight - it will be won. Hopefully, we’d all prefer to develop the knowledge and personal characteristics making such victory sooner rather than later.

 

wavejumper
wavejumper

@MartyRogers 

Sorry TrueBeliever, I guess your comment wasn’t so prescient after all. Regarding your response MartyRogers, it would have been much better for you and those you represent had you not responded. You miss the main point, indicate you are not schooled in any of the facts, are painfully emotional and, perhaps most glaringly, incapable of communicating using proper English. I only offer the following due to the possibility that others may benefit. So, if I have your attention, class is now in session: Anger is a fear based emotional response. What does Clinton have to fear if she had done everything in her power to avoid and/or respond to the attack? Bewilderment prompts questions, not normally anger, unless answers are being obviously evaded, which Clinton overtly did. Its remarkable how relatively restrained the congressmen remained considering the evasiveness they encountered– the congressmen are simply asking questions. While there are numerous details regarding the attack I will defer their research to the reader. However, to outline the situation on the ground during the attack the following is just some of what the Whitehouse knew: Just one hour after the seven plus-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site.  Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives or thwart the attack – if such paralysis wasn’t motivated by political correctness, what was the cause? You insult the intelligence of a congressman who was aware enough that the consulate was contacting the Whitehouse immediately upon attack (by phone and e-mail) but received no response from Clinton or anyone else from the Whitehouse. You fail to find such lack of response as, at least, curious? You also wrongly assume that immediately upon attack all the buildings and/or all communications devices were on fire and could not be accessed – it was only the main consulate that started burning about a half hour after the attack. None of the other buildings ever caught fire. Besides No phone call was ever made by Clinton – to anyone on the ground– even well after the attack – why not? With the proper response not only could lives have been saved but a proper message the terrorists would have understood been sent. While it is true that embassy’s have previously fallen under attack what makes this attack so heinous is that no response was made by the Whitehouse for nearly eight hours – why not? Regarding Obama’s motive to frame the attack as video motivated before the election should be obvious to any non-partisan – to increase his chances of winning a close election. Obama knew that most of his supporters would not be interested in any wrong doing after he won. The mainstream media was complicit by their tacit response to the situation – which Obama also knew in advance. Additionally those surrogates such as yourself would react predictably, emotionally and without facts in an attempt to scare away legitimate questioners. Perhaps the biggest reason could be explained simply by an inflated sense of his invulnerability or he just followed bad advice – in other words, poor judgment – the type of judgment that is now correctly (even if ineptly) being questioned by congress. Regarding the Al Qaeda wannabes what are your sources for this? Obama and Clinton are now both on the record stating how serious a threat Al Qaeda now is throughout the region - the starkest example is evidenced by their control of Mali. Besides, whether the terrorists are Al-Qaida or wannabes – what’s your point – that these groups just be ignored or responded to with less concern? Your assumption that people would believe there are no problems in the Middle East is unfounded. The main point is that those inclined to support Obama would view the death of Bin laden as rendering Al Qaeda critically weakened. If this was not the conclusion then why would Bin Laden’s death be such an important accomplishment as the entire mainstream media indicates? Obama did nothing to discourage such conclusions before the election – of course acting as if Al Qaeda was obliterated now, only weeks after the election would be silly - even for Obama. Again the media revealed very little in the way of foreign policy unrest before the election and is only now illuminating the results of al Qaeda actions which have been brewing internationally for months if not years. The fact that foreign policy ranks low on the publics radar is a major reason I am endeavoring to provide informative, factual and objective discourse such as this. To address your last three statements 1) Where’s the evidence that congressional questioning is phony, after all wasn’t Clinton questioned by both dems and repubs? 2) Who ever said that this was the only time Americans died in a consulate or embassy besides you? 3) How is asking our leaders public questions about the lack of competency in defending American soil in any way conspiratorial? And lastly, what about the damage this president has done and is doing to America, internationally and domestically – isn’t that an infinitely more salient question than falsely accusing anyone of trying to damage a supposedly innocent president – after all, how could a liberal president protected by a liberal Hollywood and media possibly be unfairly damaged by any republican? Class dismissed.

MartyRogers
MartyRogers

@wavejumper less than 5% of responders in exit polls identified foreign policy as the reason for their vote and nobody was stupid enough to believe that even getting rid of the top al qaeda officials, a huge accomplishment by the way, would magically vanish every little group out there that wants to be the next Al qaeda. Finally, why in the world would Obama take that silly risk when he knew darn well it would be a matter of days before the events would become clear? wouldn't he worry about all the people in the multiple agencies involved such as the CIA, the FBI, the State Department, the Libyans and for such a small gain? me think Rice so an opportunity to further her career by appearing in the talk shows and begged the CIA for talking points which they gave to her. I think the only weird thing here is Ms. Rice's ambition and the republican's thirst to score political points. 

TrueBeliever
TrueBeliever

@jmac The "nipple effect" does not hurt the economy.  We need more nipples!

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@KevinGroenhagen 

A better analogy can be drawn between the GOP's blowing this horribly out of proportion much like they did the Clinton affair too (except in this instance, nobody committed perjury of course).

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen 

Best for people that want us to disarm our presence in the world. You do know what he stands for politically right?

AfGuy
AfGuy

Definitely!  The probability of Rand Paul ever being elected President has to rank among the longest of "hypotheticals", so his being in a position to fire ANYBODY is way out there on the "proposterous and entertaining" scale.

wavejumper
wavejumper

@MartyRogers@wavejumper 

Any polling data showing no public interest is irrelevant to the issue of official incompetence or cover-up. While one certainly hopes no one is, let us say, partisan enough to believe Obama’s rhetoric that with Bin Laden’s death Al Qaeda has been extremely weakened this may, unfortunately, be an irrelevant point since no one seems to care - assuming your exit polling is accurate. I must say that your logic in stating that Bin Laden’s death was such a huge accomplishment seems extremely suspect juxtaposed with your implication his death does not significantly reduce Al Qaeda’s influence, or that no one cares about foreign policy – why then would his death represent such a huge deal?. Regarding Obama’s “silly risk”: for a complete response please consult my post of the previous day. Your assumption on Ambassador Rice’s motives for appearing on the talk shows has no basis in fact. At best her appearance again shows the poor judgment within this administration at all levels. The result of Rice’s poor judgment prevented her from attaining the sec of st position she was obviously slated for. Therefore, regardless assumed intentions her actions curtailed her career - not furthered it. More importantly, your assumptions also suspiciously ignore the overriding question as to why the CIA (are you saying it was only the CIA – do you know something we don’t – perhaps who in the CIA?) would give such fallacious talking points to whoever would parrot them. No one should think of ambition as weird - only judgment and action. Finally, you accuse only the republicans of a thirst to score political points without providing any evidence for such an assumption. Are you saying that the dems threw Clinton less rigorous or salient questions – and if so why were the dems there in the first place?

 

wavejumper
wavejumper

@TrueBeliever @wavejumper Your comment may be a prescient one TrueBeliever - at least for this forum. However, it is, hopefully, a tad early to write everyone off. 

jmac
jmac

@DonQuixotic @KevinGroenhagen ". . . out of proportion. . ."   Three different agencies investigated Vince Foster's death to see if Clinton killed him.  Empty briefcases were turned upside down, pumpkins were shot in back yards, and the result was Bill Clinton got a second term.  McCain saying there's a coverup is ludicrous after what Bush/Cheney got away with.  They have no shame.  Every time you think they can't get more ridiculous, they prove you wrong.  Democrats are lucky we still have the Groenhagens and Paulejbs of the Swamp to keep them in the gutter.  

forgottenlord
forgottenlord

@KevinGroenhagen

There's three different questions:

1) Why were Americans attacked?

2) What did the Administration know and when?

3) How can we prevent future attacks?

Clinton wants to focus on #3.  The 19 recommendations that were implemented were focused on #3.  The Obama Administration has prioritized addressing #3.

#1 is important, but in the end it's a one sentence answer - it doesn't require a massive hearing and it seems rather clear now what the answer is.  #2 is mostly politics and in comparison to #3, it's a relatively minor issue.

And what I have never understood is this: if the Obama administration was actually lying about the attack, why would they have?  It doesn't help them in any way, shape or form.  Four Americans are dead in an embassy and it doesn't matter whether they're Al Queda or some guy named Joe, it still is a failure to protect them.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@KevinGroenhagen @DonQuixotic 

I think there's been an investigation and we know everything we can know at this point (save of course as to what happened to information that passed through the intelligence community, but we won't find that out by grilling Hillary Clinton).  Everything else is moot and a desperate bid for political grandstanding.

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@AfGuy If an incompetent person with little experience such as Obama can be elected president, certainly a competent and experienced person like Rand Paul can be elected president.

HudsonValleyTim
HudsonValleyTim

I like this one the best, and apparently the Repubs are starting to appreciate it too.  Bobby Jindal apparently made reference to the GOP reputation for being stupid in his speech to the party's winter conference. 

HudsonValleyTim
HudsonValleyTim

Sorry so late to the party, but it bears repeating (since you go-deaf every time I ask you)...What would have happened to you if, as a member of a chain of command, you would have said whatever it was that you thought was true, regardless of your orders?  Either you were never in the millitary (because you know you would have been in for an ass-kicking), or you are parsing yourself to suit your wing-nut leanings?  I think the latter is much more likely than the former, but I wouldn't rule-out both options.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @DonQuixotic

The comment was regarding someone else's thinking, not mine, moron.

So it was someone elses thinking Dems want to divide the country into race and region and not what YOU think the Democrats want to do?

And you call me moron. Jesus. Kevin - you're AAA good at the whole DB name calling but you stink at basic logic.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen @DonQuixotic

So you're saying the African-American woman

Obama's Democrat Party wants to divide us all by race, region, income, etc.

Blind as a bat. For a guy who apparently cannot distinct between black and white according to your Marine training you sure know how to dog whistle.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@KevinGroenhagen @DonQuixotic

She was reading off intelligence given to her by the intelligence community.  Unless you're suggesting Susan Rice as an ambassador to the UN should be some kind of spy mastermind with fingers in the CIA's business, I don't understand why it's unreasonable for her to say what she did.

So you're saying the African-American woman wasn't bright enough to come to her own conclusions, which were obvious to anyone thinking American prior to her appearances on those five Sunday programs?

I didn't bring up race or call you racist, but clearly you want to make a statement about yourself here....

KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@DonQuixotic @KevinGroenhagen So you're saying the African-American woman wasn't bright enough to come to her own conclusions, which were obvious to anyone thinking American prior to her appearances on those five Sunday programs? And you moonbats say I'm a racist. Incredible!

HudsonValleyTim
HudsonValleyTim

...and if winged monkey flew out of my ass, I wouldn't need to drive a car home.  Just about as likely.

nflfoghorn
nflfoghorn

Ignorance can't be born - you have to work at it really really hard!

MementoMori
MementoMori

@KevinGroenhagen @DonQuixotic @MrObvious @Hot_pants Okay Kevin. Assuming you're a while male, what issue afflicting the white man would you like to have the Obama administration address? Something that only affects white men, please.

You should have plenty, considering how angry you seem to be.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @Hot_pants 

That would be news to me and my family. But then I don't really have to be worried about anything you think about me since most of it is the kind of fantasy BS you get from CSNnews.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @Hot_pants

You're simply a moron. It's no wonder that you're unemployment and can spend all day posting here.

Because we all work day jobs.

Don't think to hard Kevin. You might get a clue. Thinking is an endangered feature of the fossilized right.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @Hot_pants 

Gosh Kevin, that sounds horrible.

African Americans cant be men?

Americans Abroad can't be white and men?

Educators cant be white and men?


Jesus - don't think - just gulp it down. Stupid might taste bitter but you'll feel afraid and spastic afterwords. Worth the rush.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @Hot_pants

"whites" or "men" could fit into many of those categories.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @Hot_pants 

CNSnews.

For people who like crap spoonfed to them. Thanks but no thanks. I've had my share of nutbag 'news' for the year.


I bet you believe it because it's 'on the internet'. Seen any french models lately?

MrObvious
MrObvious

@DonQuixotic @KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @Hot_pants 

Kevin throws out a redundant lazy attack on 'libruls' and when someone calls it BS they're the cowards.

Kevin is such a mental basketcase. He doesn't even know anything about Rand Pauls foreign policy attitude but yet he rims his arse like Rand is the second coming of Ronald Reagan.

MrObvious
MrObvious

@KevinGroenhagen @MrObvious @Hot_pants

Big talk from an anonymous coward.

Take a drink -Unfortunately, Obama's Democrat Party wants to divide us all by race, region, income, etc.

Not big talk. It follows this stupid swill. Your're such a vacuous intellectual disaster. 


KevinGroenhagen
KevinGroenhagen

@Hot_pants I assure you that you're the prejudiced one here. I understand that people of all races can be incompetent. You apparently don't believe that. When I went through Marine Corps boot camp, my senior DI was a black man named White. He was highly competent and taught us that thee are no black Marines and no white Marines. There are only green Marines. That's the same type of attitude we should all have as Americans. Unfortunately, Obama's Democrat Party wants to divide us all by race, region, income, etc.

DonQuixotic
DonQuixotic

@KevinGroenhagen @AfGuy 

"Competent", "experienced" and "Rand Paul".  I think that's the first time those words have ever been used together in a sentence.

Hot_pants
Hot_pants

@KevinGroenhagen I assure you, that is just your prejudice speaking.