I am still digesting Hillary Clinton's testimony, and was able only to watch a portion of her House testimony. I think in the coming days, her testimony will be fully dissected. From what I have seen, here are some initial observations.
The Republican questioners did not do a good job of questioner her, and she benefited from the time passed before her testimony Unfortunately, we are not talking about trained interviewers or interrogators here, and it is pretty hard to accomplish anything with such short time limits on each person's questions. They were amateurs in a venture that required professionals. The Democrats, on the other hand, were sickening in their fawning. The gushing tributes to her great accomplishments as secretary of state were followed by softball questions. The talking point for them was that it wasn't the video; it was the lack of funding (Republican-controlled House of Representatives).
I had not been aware that the Accountability Review Board never interviewed her as part of their investigation.
She was, in her own words, "irrelevant". Wow.
She was asked if she had ever seen the cable from Ambassador Chris Stevens of August 16, 2012 pleading for more security. In her answer, Hillary exhibited that body language that I have become so accustomed to. The eyes go down and to the right. "Well, you know, uh......"
She is making it up.
It's called neuro-linguistics folks, and it's better than the polygraph.
Also duly noted is that Senator McCain wants to have the Benghazi survivors come to give their testimony. Remember them?
http://garyfouse.blogspot.com/2012/12/where-are-wounded-of-benghazi.html
What we witnessed today was what we witnessed with Eric Holder. Stonewall and lie. In the end, it doesn't matter because the public doesn't care and you have a majority in Congress who are your defenders.
What difference does it make at this point?
6 comments:
The Republicans did what they could with the shabby case they were trying to make. If they're such amateurs (first time I've heard Gary say THAT), they shouldn't be holding office at all.
Hillary Clinton set forth the facts firmly, parried the petty Republican temper tantrums professionally, and did an especially good job as quashing Senator Ron Johnson, a simpering idiot at best who bought his way into the senate.
As I recall Siarlys, Clinton became very emotional and just short of hysterical when see made her statement:
"I do care a lot" and "None of this was my fault" and "What difference at this point does it make?"
Check the video Siaryls, as the readers of this comment will.
Squid
As a matter of fact Squid, just as I got off the train at Union Station in Chicago, the video was played on the big screen in the waiting room. I question the characterization "just short of hysterical," but if she didn't become emotional, the GOP would have been all over her for not caring, not recognizing the great loss sustained. She ought to be a bit emotional about it.
The point about money was right on target. Legislators, state and federal, love to pass strict standards and mandates, but never want to pony up the cold hard cash to deliver, or to inspect and enforce. They need to put our money where their mouth is. (They don't spend their own money on it.)
Again, you need to look at the facts Siarlys. The budget for the State Department has increased over the past four years, over the Bush years as well. It is mismanagement of the funds, not that there is not eough funds. But what is larger, is the fact that Hillarty is using the old Saul Alinsky, "blame others" for your mistakes. Obama, who taught Saull Alinsky tactics, uses it all the time (Blame Bush, Blame the GOP). Remember, Hillary wrote her Masters thesis on Saul Alinsky's tactics. She is a master at Alinsky deception.
Squid
Put a one-month moratorium on those cocktail parties world-wide and you'll pay for the extra security needed at benghazi many times over.
You haven't offered any facts and figures Squid, just a bare allegation as to what they would add up to if you provided them.
It is probably true that the State Department budget has increased. But the department doesn't get to just spend an aggregate sum any way the Secretary and the President want to. Congress allocates money for designated purposes. It has to be spent for those purposes.
Unfortunately, one of the ways budgets increase is that almost everyone in congress slips in spending mandates for money that will somehow benefit their district, or a business in their district, or a campaign contributor that contracts with the state department...
But increased security in Benghazi may not have rated the same attention.
Now if there is a budget line for enhanced embassy and consulate security, which was left unspent, you might have a point -- depending on when it was allocated, and how it is authorized to be used.
Post a Comment