Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

It used to be said that Bill Clinton’s support was a mile wide and an inch deep. Lest anyon think that that’s true with Hillary, this should put that to rest:

A Hillary Clinton donor who serves as dean of the University of Arkansas libraries has banned the Washington Free Beacon from the school’s special collections archives, after the news outlet published revealing stories about Hillary Clinton based on documents available at the university library.

The ban came days after the Free Beacon ran a story about Clinton’s 1975 defense of a child rapist that drew from audio recordings available at the University of Arkansas library’s special collections archives.

However, the ban was not mentioned in a June 16 email to this reporter from Steve Voorhies, manager of media relations at the university.

I’m betting Hillary didn’t have to contact Dean Voorhies to stop the Washington Free Beacon’s investigation. I’m betting he’s trained well enough to do that without Hillary contacting him.

The important thing is that the WFB article exposes Hillary as someone who didn’t hesitate in destroying an innocent person, then gloating about it afterwards:

The Taylor case was a minor episode in the lengthy career of Clinton, who writes in Living History, before moving on to other topics, that the trial inspired her co-founding of the first rape crisis hotline in Fayetteville.

Clinton and her supporters highlight her decades of advocacy on behalf of women and children, from her legal work at the Children’s Defense Fund to her women’s rights initiatives at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

This part especially bothers me:

Clinton and her supporters highlight her decades of advocacy on behalf of women and children…

That’s irrelevant. That’s like the liberals looking the other way to Ted Kennedy’s and Christopher Dodd’s waitress sandwich:

Those to the manner born who’ve been in trouble, Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd, for instance, who participated in the famous “waitress sandwich” at La Brasserie in 1985, while their dates were in the bathroom, have tended to get out of it by claiming that their boyish high jinks had simply gotten out of hand.

Hillary is as disgusting as Ted Kennedy or Christopher Dodd.

When Clinton returned to Arkansas, she said she gave the prosecutor a clipping of the New York forensic investigator’s “Who’s Who.” “I handed it to Gibson, and I said, ‘Well this guy’s ready to come up from New York to prevent this miscarriage of justice,’” said Clinton, breaking into laughter. “So we were gonna plea bargain,” she continued.

When she went before Judge Cummings to present the plea, he asked her to leave the room while he interrogated her client, she said. “I said, ‘Judge I can’t leave the room, I’m his lawyer,’” said Clinton, laughing. “He said, ‘I know but I don’t want to talk about this in front of you.’” “So that was Maupin [Cummings], we had a lot of fun with Maupin,” Clinton added.

Hillary’s laughter is inappropriate in this situation. Laughing that she was about to get a rapist off with a year in jail is exceptionally odd behavior for a supposed child advocate. It’s one thing to zealously represent her client. It’s another to laugh about the outcome.

If there was ever a doubt that Hillary was as despicable as Bill, her laughing at getting a rapist a reduced sentence after he raped a 12-year-old girl ends that debate. Hillary’s laughter suggests that she didn’t care about the 12-year-old’s rape. She couldn’t have cared.

Hillary is a reprehensible, disgusting person. This nation needs a person of integrity inhabiting the Oval Office. We don’t need someone who laughs while a thug gets off after raping a 12-year-old.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Even before Jonathan Last’s newsletter, people knew that Hillary wasn’t helping herself. Last’s newsletter just highlights Hillary’s missteps:

By just about every account, her book is uninteresting and unreflective, a carefully contrived piece of positioning. Yet instead of owning that, she insisted at an event that she was “done with being really careful about what to say.” And that was before uttering inanities about how “the American political system is the most difficult, even brutal, in the world.” (She might look at Egypt, for instance. Or Venezuela. Or China. Or Greece. Or Russia. Or any country where instability and chaos is the norm and the children of former presidents aren’t given $600,000 sinecures from independent_”independent”?_media conglomerates.)

I wrote this article last night to highlight Hillary’s unforced mistakes from her interview with Bret Baier and Greta van Susteren. Here’s the first of Hillary’s unforced errors:

Ms. van Susteren asked Hillary if she would’ve traded the Taliban 5 for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Secretary Clinton replied that she had worked on a different deal to free Sgt. Bergdahl. When Ms. van Susteren said that people were shocked that Hillary said the Taliban 5 didn’t pose a threat to Americans, Hillary replied that “As long as they’re in Qatar, they don’t post a threat to Americans.” Van Susteren replied, saying “Well, bin Laden was never in the United States.”

Hillary knew this question was coming. What’s interesting is that Hillary used the Obama administration’s chanting points rather than distance herself from that disaster. It’s one thing to be loyal. It’s another to walk the plank for the Obama administration on one of their biggest, and most recent, foreign policy disasters.

If there’s anything we’ve learned about the Clintons throughout the years, it’s that they’re loyal to themselves. They aren’t even loyal to each other. Hillary isn’t stupid. That begs this question: Why would Hillary stay loyal to the Democrats’ chanting points? The only explanation that makes sense is that she’s buttering up Obama’s base supporters.

The anti-war doves are President Obama’s political base love the thought of closing Gitmo. Was Hillary making a play for President Obama’s base?

Whatever the reason, the truth is that she’s helping the Biden campaign through her book tour. If she wants to be president, she needs to stop granting interviews to serious news organizations because she’s doing terribly in those interviews.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Joe Lisbon’s LTE is typical progressive chanting points stuff. Lisbon apparently put little thought into his LTE because it’s reciting the same stuff for the gazillionth time. Here’s the opening of his LTE:

Republican opposition to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, has become an embarrassment for the GOP, and conservatives seeking political advantage need to fire up their donor base for fundraising.

Thsi is of the same tone as saying this is a political witch hunt, that there’s been a gazillion investigations into Benghazi, that there’s nothing new to learn. If they kept it pithy, they’d say it’s time to move onto something the American people cared about.

First, the “Republican base” is fired up and then some. It’s been fired up for over a year. Poll after poll shows how the GOP is on the right side of the enthusiasm gap. That’s why professional political predictors like Charlie Cook, Michael Barone and Larry Sabato think Republicans will have another strong election cycle.

Right after the 2012 elections, Nancy Pelosi started talking about retaking the majority in the House. From time to time, you’d hear those mumblings resurface. Then came the IRS scandal, the DOJ spying on reporters scandal and the VA Hospital scandal. That’s in addition to the Benghazi scandal.

If you’re going to write an LTE, you shouldn’t put this BS in it:

The GOP says there is a coverup of internal discussions of whether to call the attack “terror” or “terrorism” because the White House did not want to admit al-Qaida was behind the attack. Except, of course, nobody has shown al-Qaida was behind it, nor have they claimed credit.

There’a huge problem with that statement. Within the first 24 hours of the start of the attack, the Libyan president said that Ansar al-Shariah, an affialiate of al-Qa’ida, had taken credit for the precision terrorist attack.

Forgive me but the Libyan president is definitely a somebody.

Gen. Robert Lovell testified that it was clear it was a terrorist attack:

Lovell said that as intelligence was streaming into command, it became “quickly evident” to AFRICOM that terrorists, namely Ansar al-Sharia, were behind the attack.

“What we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action,” he said. “This was no demonstration gone terribly awry.”

In other words, the spin coming from Jay Carney and Susan Rice was BS from the earliest moments of the attack.

This Republican kangaroo court’s purpose is just to make misleading or false political headlines about Clinton and Obama. I doubt there is a Fox News Channel viewer who even recalls that Benghazi occurred in the wake of Cairo. There were eight demonstrations on the same day at other U.S. embassies, 40 worldwide in major cities — which, at one point, were thought to be about an Internet video.

As someone who watches Fox News, I know that the military should’ve been put on high alert on 9/10 Egyptian time because the Blind Sheikh’s son announced that he was going to attempt to take the Cairo embassy staff hostage, then barter those hostages to get his father, the planner of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, released.

Not only do Fox News viewers know about the other demonstrations but they know that there never were any protests outside the Benghazi compound. We know that because of Gen. Lovell’s testimony and Greg Hicks’ dramatic testimony. This statement is disgusting but predictable:

No one inside the Fox bubble cares about the millions spent on the 54 repeal votes on Obamacare, or the millions spent on closing down the government, or that Mitt Romney on the day of the attack was grandstanding about Benghazi for political advantage before he had the facts of what happened.

Mitt Romney’s statement, the one which he’s accused of grandstanding about, was a reaction to the administration’s statement:

“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims, as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.”

Jay Carney repeatedly took to the podium, saying that intelligence was still coming in. Later, Carney said that the administration’s story changed as that intel came in. Apparently, Mr. Lisbon doesn’t think the administration was grandstanding when it issued a statement about the video within an hour of the start of the Cairo protests.

We know that President Obama thought this wasn’t a big deal because he never went to the White House Situation Room that night. We don’t know whether he received hourly updates as the terrorist attack continued. That isn’t to say he didn’t. It’s just that we don’t have proof of President Obama receiving updates.

Lisbon is a political hack who does what he’s told. This closing paragraph is proof of that:

At this point, anyone who is flogging this as a scandal has BDDS, Benghazi Delusional Derangement Syndrome. The only way to keep these shenanigans from happening is to vote Republicans out of office.

Shame on Mr. Lisbon for reading the Democrats’ chanting points rather than thinking for himself.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Byron York’s article explains in wonderful detail why Republicans are skeptical of Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi obfuscations. Here’s the key part of Hillary’s testimony from York’s article:

But some lawmakers on Capitol Hill got the chance. In an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013, Clinton testified under oath that she did not see the cable.

“That cable did not come to my attention,” Clinton said. “I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant-secretary level, where the Accountability Review Board placed responsibility.”

What struck some Republicans as odd, and still does, is that Clinton nonetheless knew about the conditions that prompted the Aug. 16 cable. “I was aware of certain incidents at our facility and the attack on the British diplomat,” she testified. “I was briefed on steps taken to repair the breach in the perimeter wall after the June bombing. …”

Clinton also testified she was “engaged” in what she called the “issues related to the deteriorating threat environment, particularly in Libya.”

It’s implausible for Hillary to say that she got detailed security briefings on the Benghazi facility, then say she didn’t know about Christopher Stevens’ August 16th cable. This testimony makes Hillary’s testimony totally implausible:

In an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, both former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey testified they knew about it.

“You were aware that Ambassador Stevens — of his cable that said that the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack, is that right?” asked Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte.

“Correct,” said Panetta.

Turning to Dempsey, Ayotte said, “General, you had said that you previously were aware of that?” “Yes, I was aware of the communication back to the State Department,” Dempsey answered.

Hillary cited the fact that “1.43 million cables a year come to the State Department” and that they’re “all addressed to me” before saying that they don’t all make it to her desk.

I don’t doubt that there’s a screening process involved with these cables. Undoubtedly, they’re prioritized so she isn’t deluged with cables. It’s inconceivable, though, that a cable from the US ambassador in Libya talking about the deteriorating security conditions and increasing terrorist threats wouldn’t have gotten Hillary’s attention.

That’s the type of communication that should’ve screamed ‘Urgent…highest priority.’

The ARB affixed blame on mid-level State Department officials for not bringing this cable to Hillary’s attention. That’s either BS or it’s proof that Hillary ran the most disfunctional State Department operation in recent history.

Neither speaks well of her qualifications to be the next commander-in-chief.

Finally, it’s one thing to have mid-level State Department personnel to hire security teams for the various diplomatic outposts. It’s quite another to have mid-level State Department personnel to make security policy decisions for those diplomatic installations.

Either way, Hillary’s story doesn’t add up. That’s why the investigation must continue.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to Sam Stein’s article for the Huffington Post, Hillary has already answered questions that Trey Gowdy wants to ask her. Specifically, Hillary has said why the State Department hadn’t abandoned Benghazi:

But I was also engaged, and I think this is what Deputy Secretary Burns was referring to, in the issues related to the deteriorating threat environment, particularly in Libya. There were other places across the region. We were also watching to try to see what we could do to support the Libyan government to improve the overall stability of their country to deal with the many militias. We have many programs and actions that we were working on. I had a number of conversations with leading Libyan officials. I went to Libya in October of 2011. In fact, shortly before the attack on Benghazi we approved Libya for substantial funding from a joint State/DOD account for border security, CT capabilities and WMD efforts.

Earlier in her testimony, Hillary said that she’d been fully briefed on Benghazi’s deteriorating security situation. Combine that information with this information and another important question jumps to mind. Here’s the specific question: Given the fact that Hillary had been briefed on Benghazi’s deteriorating security and given that Hillary said that the administration was working to “improve the overall stability” in Libya, why wasn’t Africom prepared to respond to a crisis on the anniversary of 9/11?

Here’s another important question that hasn’t been answered: Did Leon Panetta pre-position and alert troops prior to the anniversary of 9/11? If not, why not? If he didn’t pre-position and alert troops, was it because President Obama told him not to?

I’d love knowing which programs the administration implemented prior to the ambassador’s assassination. Did they reflect the Obama campaign’s rhetoric of al-Qa’ida being on the run? Did they reflect the reality of the “deteriorating threat environment”?

Finally, shouldn’t the fact that the administration knew of a “deteriorating threat environment” have instructed them to question the story that the terrorist attack started as a protest that turned violent? The first question I’d have in that situation would be why the administration, including Susan Rice, didn’t immediately think this was a pre-planned terrorist attack.

Hillary’s testimony raises more questions than it answered.

This transcript from Sunday’s Fox News Sundays shows how Chris Wallace caught Xavier Becerra’s spin. Here’s a perfect example of that:

WALLACE: Congressman Becerra, you have been talking about the committee as a kangaroo court, your words. First of all, how do you know that before it even begins meeting? And do you really believe that all the questions about Benghazi have been answered?

HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS CHAIRMAN XAVIER BECERRA, D-CALIF.: Well, what leads us to believe it could be a kangaroo court or a smokescreen from having to deal with the real issues Americans want to deal with like job creation and so forth, is that we’ve done these investigations some seven times, five of the investigations coming out of five of the House Republican committees.

Rep. Becerra’s logic is that the Select Committee on Benghazi is a kangaroo court because Republicans won’t change the subject to the topics Democrats prefer talking about. Wallace called Becerra and the Democrats out for this spin because Democrats want people to be prejudiced against the committee before the committee has met.

This exchange is telling:

WALLACE: Let me ask you a question and maybe you can answer it for me. Where was the president? And what did he do the night of the attack?

BECERRA: I believe the president was at the White House and he was in communication with some of the folks with his administration in and around time of the attacks.

Becerra insisted earlier that we knew everything we needed to know because there’d been in his words, 7 different investigations. Clearly, those investigations weren’t proficient because the best Becerra could do when asked about President Obama’s actions during the terrorist attack was say what he believed, not what he knew. That’s rather instructive. Compare Becerra’s answer with Chairman Gowdy’s reply:

WALLACE: Do you — do you know, Congressman Gowdy, where the president was and what he was doing during the seven hours of the attack?

GOWDY: No, sir, I do not. Nor do I know what communication if any he had with Secretary of State Clinton, nor can I tell you why we were still in Benghazi despite the fact that there was an escalation in violence in the months leading up, nor do I know whether or not the president called any of our allies in the region and said, can you get any assets to Benghazi? We’re under attack. I have more questions than answers despite the fact that committees of Congress have looked at this attack for 19 months now.

Chairman Gowdy’s honest response highlights the important things we still don’t know about the Obama administration’s decisions. Still, no exchange caught Rep. Becerra than this one:

WALLACE: Wait. Wait. You keep pointing to that. We didn’t find out. and they have subpoenaed all the State Department documents — excuse me, sir — they had subpoenaed all the State Department documents, and it took until last week for the administration finally to release the Ben Rhodes e-mail in which two days before Susan Rice appeared on this show, he was suggesting that she’d say that it was because of the video, not because of a policy failure.

BECERRA: You got juiced (ph). You know that that email shows nothing new. It simply — WALLACE: I don’t agree with that. I think it shows something dramatically new. It shows that despite what the White House — it shows despite what the White House has been saying for the last year and a half, it shows that inside the White House, they were telling Susan Rice what to say.

That’s what I’d call a classic slapdown. Saying that the email didn’t showing anything new is Democrat spin. Saying that the email showed “something dramatically new” is the truth. This ‘closing argument’ by Chairman Gowdy must’ve stung, too:

GOWDY: Yes, which is exactly why I said I will never and have never sent out any fund-raising literature trying to raise money in the grief and tragedy of four dead Americans. I have asked my colleagues to follow suit.

But my friends and colleague Tommy Cotton from Arkansas did a magnificent job on the House floor of pointing out the duplicity and hypocrisy of Democrats all of a sudden concluding that certain things are above politics. They raise money on Sandy Hook. They raise money on Katrina. They raise money on Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, for me, I will not raise money on Benghazi just like I never raised money using crime victims when I was a prosecutor and I’ve asked my colleagues to follow suit. But it would be helpful, it would be helpful if our colleagues on other side of the aisle did not have selective amnesia when it comes to what’s appropriate to raise money off of and what is not.

After watching that closing argument, I’m reminded of G. Gordon Liddy’s comment that he “wouldn’t fight a battle of wits with an unarmed man.” Clearly, Becerra was outmatched against Chairman Gowdy.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

The select committee tasked with finding out what happened in Benghazi is an intellectual mismatch. On one side, you’ve got MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-Calif.) On the other side is Rep. Trey Gowdy, (R-SC). While it’s a mismatch in terms of intellectual heft, it wouldn’t improve if the sides were evenly matched. Chairman Gowdy would still win the debate.

Make no mistake about this. Chuck Todd didn’t attempt to hide his bias:

CHUCK TODD: Congressman Gowdy, you’ve heard that Nancy Pelosi would like it to be an even number on the select committee. Obviously some Democrats are even talking about boycotting it. But if you’ve got the House Democratic leader already willing to negotiate on the size of the committee, why not take her up on it? Why not–doesn’t it help the credibility of your investigation if it is truly an even split between the two parties?

TREY GOWDY: Well Chuck, do you challenge the credibility of the Senate Judiciary Committee because it’s certainly not evenly split? Neither is the House Judiciary.

TODD: Well this is different though. This is a select committee and select committees are different. Look I know what the previous history is. I understand that, but my point is–don’t you want to — this has a whiff of politics to it. To some people more than a whiff. Don’t you agree that if you accept her terms you actually get more credibility, which I assume is something you’d want.

It’s sad that Todd bought into Ms. Pelosi’s gimmick, though it isn’t surprising. Democrats will consistently criticize the work of this committee because they want people distracted from the fact that
President Obama and Hillary Clinton couldn’t be found while the terrorist attack was happening. Democrats certainly don’t want people to notice that the Obama administration didn’t properly deploy the military prior to the anniversary of 9/11.

Finally, Democrats can’t afford to have it get out that President Obama and Secretary Clinton ignored Christopher Stevens’ urgent cables asking for more security. If people notice that, they’ll know that Hillary isn’t qualified to be the next commander-in-chief.

The early signals from Chairman Gowdy indicate that there won’t be lots of open hearings for the committee. Instead, it sounds like the committee’s work will focus on getting important documents from the administration, then deposing witnesses based on the information they get from the administration.

I’m betting that most of the reporters covering Chairman Gowdy’s press conference could answer Chairman Gowdy’s questions:

Chairman Gowdy’s last statement has some bite to it. The media deserve every bit of it.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Jane Mayer’s post is filled with leftist propaganda. Check this BS out:

Ever since militant jihadists killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador, in an attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in that remote Libyan town two years ago, House Republicans have kept up a drumbeat of insinuation. They have already devoted thirteen hearings, twenty-five thousand pages of documents, and fifty briefings to the topic, which have turned up nothing unexpected. Kerry’s predecessor, Hillary Clinton, has already accepted responsibility for the tragedy, and the State Department has issued a critical independent report on diplomatic security, resulting in the dismissal of four employees.

First, Hillary hasn’t admitted that she saw the urgent cables from Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya who was needlessly murdered. She still insists that she never saw any of Christopher Stevens’ urgent cables.

If Hillary won’t admit that Christopher Stevens’ urgent cables reached her, she couldn’t have “accepted responsibility” for her failures.

Second, Hillary hasn’t said where she was while the firefight was raging. The only thing we know about what she did during the attack is that she issued a statement about the anti-Islamic video triggering “protests” that led to Christopher Stevens’ assassination.

Third, the only things we know about President Obama’s whereabouts during the attack are that he never went to the the White House Situation Room and he was in the Oval Office for a briefing with Leon Panetta around 5:00 pm ET.

Contrary to Ms. Mayer’s statement, not knowing where the top 2 national security officials were during the terrorist attack is, to use Joe Biden’s language, a big effing deal. Saying that the hearings haven’t “turned up anything unexpected” is an outright lie.

Fourth, calling the ARB report an “independent report” is whitewashing. It certainly wasn’t a thorough investigation. Mostly, it was a sloppily-put-together report that insinuated, as Charles Krauthammer put it, that the State Department building caused the deaths of Christopher Stevens.

Further, the chanting points that the administration has given the various committees thousands of documents is insulting. If the Obama administration was so forthcoming with pertinent information, why did the committees just hear last week about the Ben Rhodes email instructing Susan Rice to lie about what triggered the Benghazi terrorist attack?

Testimony by Brig. Gen. Robert Lovell, USAF Ret., the chief intelligence officer for AFRICOM during the attack, said that AFRICOM knew almost instantly that this was a pre-planned, precision military operation conducted by terrorists. Further, AFRICOM knew that the military operation didn’t happen after protests turned violent.

In short, most of the things that the Obama administration told the various committees has either been proven unreliable, to put it politely, or they’ve been proven to be outright lies.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kirsten Powers column is devastating to Democrats attempting to paint the Republicans’ investigation into the Benghazi terrorist attack:

“Diversion, subterfuge, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. …Why aren’t we talking about something else?” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi complained last week.

Here’s why: An e-mail has surfaced from a deputy national security adviser to Susan Rice on how to characterize the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on Sunday news programs. He advised Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., that her primary goal was to “underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy.” The e-mail was redacted when the most-transparent-administration-in-history provided Benghazi documents to Congress earlier, but was found through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Democrats have criticized the Benghazi investigation because it’s been a disaster from start to finish. There isn’t a part of this story that casts President Obama or Hillary Clinton in a positive light.

First, the State Department looks terrible because they ignored Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi. This wasn’t a systemic failure, as the Accountability Review Board’s report said. This disaster happened because Hillary Clinton’s leadership was missing throughout this disaster.

Next, the Obama administration’s national security team looks terrible because they didn’t pre-position the military so they could’ve responded to terrorist attacks, which they knew were imminent.

Third, the Obama administration’s political team looks terrible because Ben Rhodes’ email highlights the fact that their first priority was hiding the disaster. Their first priority wasn’t to admit that theirajor mistake got 4 American patriots needlessly murdered.

Fourth, the “most-transparent-administration-in-history” kept lying for weeks after the initial pre-planned terrorist attack.

Democrats are furious that the House will hold a vote to create a select committee to investigate the administration’s response to the attack in Libya that left four Americans dead. They know this won’t end well.

That’s the understatement of the year.

Last week, Fox News’ Bret Baier asked former national security spokesman Tommy Vietor how the administration came up with its video tale. Vietor replied that there were “guys quoted in newspapers saying (the video is why) they were there.” So much for operating on the best intelligence.

D-u-u-u-d-e, that’s too much BS. That flimsy story shouldn’t be believed.

White House officials brought this House investigation on themselves. They could have avoided it by simply telling the truth. Unfortunately, that was too much to ask.

Dishonest people deserve to be investigated when their actions get people killed.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In this short 95-second video, Brit Hume utterly demolishes Jane Harman’s attempt to explain away the Benghazi talking points from Ben Rhodes:

Here’s the transcript of Hume’s exchange with Harman:

HARMAN: I would call that an intelligence failure. And, by the way, this was an intelligence failure. But it wasn’t a conspiracy. And there aren’t aliens in Area 51 and Vince Foster wasn’t murdered. And it’s time to move on and focus on the real problems in Libya and other problems that affect the —

(CROSSTALK)

BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: You’re right, there wasn’t a conspiracy in the United States to mount the Benghazi attack. The question — that’s not the question. The question was whether in the aftermath of the attack, when the administration sent its U.N. ambassador out to explain it to everybody, and she did so falsely, that there wasn’t a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used?
I’m not talking about the CIA talking points. I’m talking about the talking points used on that program that day which were monumentally misleading and were — and have since been shown to be false and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of.
HARMAN: All right. And my answer to that is no, there wasn’t a conspiracy. They didn’t turn out to be accurate.
HUME: Well, how did it happen? Well, how did it happen?
HARMAN: I think that people made at the time their best guess at the facts.
HUME: Wait a minute. But where did the idea that the video had anything to do with Benghazi come from?
HARMAN: Where did it come from?
HUME: Yes?
HARMAN: I think it came from people who weren’t sure about it.
HUME: Well, can you identify anybody? Can you identify any CIA information? Can you identify any source?
WALLACE: Ben Rhodes talked about the video or the movie five times in this memo. Only five times.
HARMAN: I — my view is, having been around at the time, that this not deliberately misleading. It turned out to be wrong but it was not deliberately misleading.

Harman looks foolish in this exchange because she’s spinning the administration’s chanting points. Responding to Hume’s question of how the anti-Islam video became part of Ambassador Rice’s, Harman said “I think that people made at the time their best guess at the facts.”

That’s stunning. Harman essentially admitted that the administration was making this stuff up. Harman essentially admitted that they weren’t relying on hardcopy intel from Libya from US intelligence assets stationed in Libya.

There’s more to this than just not telling the truth that Sunday morning after the terrorist attack that killed 4 American patriots. It’s that the story was used repeatedly by President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Jay Carney in a variety of settings.

Harman’s saying that this was just a case of people making “at the time their best guess at the facts” isn’t sufficient. The reality is that this administration, if they can be believed, repeatedly relied on people making “at the time their best guess at the facts.”

Saying that’s an implausable explanation is understatement.

With Benghazi, there isn’t a clever twist like in the movies. What happened in the aftermath of the terrorist attack in Benghazi is that the administration lied through its teeth so it didn’t look utterly incompetent heading into the final stretch of the campaign.

Finally, Brig. Gen. Lovell testified this week that he watched events unfold in real time and that there wasn’t a protest about an anti-Islamic video. Compare that with the fact that hours after the attack, Hillary issued a statement blaming the anti-Islamic video starting a protest that suddenly turned violent.

If I’m forced to choose which person to trust, I’ll trust the chief intelligence officer for Africom over the politically-motivated Secretary of State 100% of the time.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,