Benghazi committee more than political theater — Daily Mail Editorial

Slate reported, “Hillary Clinton Has Won the Benghazi Hearing”. While it’s tempting to chuckle at this relic of a bygone era shedding all pretense of impartiality, Rather’s substance-free ode to Hillary’s performance is demoralizingly representative of the broader media’s reaction.

Gowdy’s committee isn’t investigating Benghazi; it’s investigating Hillary Clinton. Nearly universally ignored or glossed over in this coverage is the significant revelation that Sec.

That is clearly more encouraging news than whatever fresh-baked takes are wafting across Twitter, but the mechanism behind the outpouring of support isn’t an unalloyed gift.

In 1972, President Nixon’s reelection campaign wiretapped the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

This is the Obama White house. The administration instead immediately presented the attack as a spontaneous mob backlash to an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

Clinton told Jordan the State Department was still trying to figure out what happened at the time the statements were issued. She repeated the charge in a speech the next day. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Thus: Clinton’s fustian about “an very bad Internet video that we had nothing to do with”.

Todd: We tallied up 68 total questions to Secretary Clinton [from Democrats] 16 of them, at best, could we call challenging.

We have been deprived of a great television spectacle, Bill O’Reilly questioning Hillary Clinton on Benghazi, either in person or in just devising the line of questioning.

That was just two days before Clinton, in cold-blooded disgrace, looked Charles Woods in the eye and said, “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son”.

I read your “Turkey” on the House Benghazi probe. As it was, chief inquisitor Trey Gowdy, R-South Carolina, could only grumble on “Meet the Press” that Clinton’s testimony lacked “wholeness and completeness”, by which he seemed to mean she failed to make a case against herself. In the constricted American political system, a voter only gets two real choices for president, so it all depends now on who the Republicans put up against her. Will it be a carnival barker or a serious candidate?

An example: One congresswoman had a list of Secretary Clinton’s top staff people who might have attended a meeting right after the tragedy.

But Gowdy knew. A couple of minutes later, he announced: “I’ll tell you what: If you think you’ve heard about Sidney Blumenthal so far, wait until the second round”.

Then she urged President Barack Obama to help topple Moammar Gadhafi without heeding the painful lesson of Iraq – that if America went into another nebulously defined mission, there would have to be a good plan to prevent the vacuum of power being filled by militant Islamic terrorists.

Subsequent investigations, however, revealed that the attacks were carried out by Ahmed Abu Khattala, leader of Ansur al-Sharia, a Salafist Islamist group that rose to prominence after the ouster of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in 2011.

The e-mail Roskam quoted was written by Stephen Mull, who as executive secretary of the State Department, coordinated internal operations. Obama and Clinton needed camouflage for the catastrophic failure of their policy.

Nothing to do with the film. “It was a planned attack – not a protest”. His biggest mistake was failing to foresee the dynamics of the hearing: It was always likely that Clinton, not the committee, would dominate the room.

This year, all the committee’s Democrats decried the hearing as a waste of time and a squandering of taxpayer money. “Quite the opposite. It was invaluable, for the clarity provided by those three emails alone”. Let’s fixate on her facial expressions and above-the-fray “poise”.

Unsurprisingly, the hearing yielded no new information about the attacks.

It’s interesting that Trump – who is very quick to taunt and insult members of his own party on personal grounds – would be so charitable towards Hillary and damning toward the Republican-led committee. Those many interactions were juxtaposed with the acknowledgement that Clinton’s “dear friend” Amb. In other words, an infamously unscrupulous political operative had unfettered access to the Secretary to State, through which he routinely passed along unvetted intelligence and promoted his business interests in Libya, yet critical pleadings from the U.S. ambassador in that volatile and unsafe country never made it to her desk. Blumenthal has been a Clinton hatchet-man for years, and he has an unsavory reputation. Surely a few of these developments could at least be seen as newsworthy blemishes on Hillary’s epic trouncing of the Benghazi conspiracist knuckle-draggers, no? If a woman gets angry, she is shrill and volatile.