Hilary Clinton Testifies Before Congress on the Benghazi Terrorist Attack
Secretary Hilary Clinton testified before Congress on behalf of the Benghazi consulate attack. The testimony came months after the tragic event in which U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed by a terrorist group. Secretary Clinton initially was going to testify late December, but unfortunately suffered a concussion after fainting from a stomach virus. A couple of weeks ago it was revealed that her injury was more serious than first publicly announced.
Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) criticized the Secretary over the administration’s handling the aftermath of the attack. He accuses the administration of not being transparent to the American people.
Secretary Clinton said “what difference, at this point, does it make?” why it happened.
Senator Rand Paul (R-Kent.) criticized Clinton for not reading the cables asking for added security for the Libyan embassy.
Sen. Paul said he finds it inexcusable that she didn’t read the Libyan cables.
My take:
First, I think it was pretty ridiculous that some Republicans had accused the Secretary of falsifying her concussion. She had always maintained she would testify. Why would it matter if she did it a couple of weeks later?
Secretary Clinton does not take responsibility for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday morning talk shows, yet takes “full responsibility” for the lack of preventing the attack. The American people should know why we were told information that was either incomplete or false. Ambassador Rice, as well as other administration officials, blamed the attack on a “spontaneous protest” from an anti-Muslim video. They said that the attack unequivocally was not a terrorist attack. Why say that if you aren’t sure or are still investigating the matter?
As for Senator Paul’s comments, I agree that it’s not absurd to expect Secretary Clinton to have had some knowledge of the security requests to our Libyan embassy. Parts of Libya harbor terrorists. Many think it’s a haven for terrorists. It’s a failure of her undersecretaries that she wasn’t informed of the matter that is if you believe she had no knowledge of them.
I don’t expect her to read every one of the thousands she receives. I’m disappointed we still don’t know why the administration for weeks expressed a scenario that wasn’t true. Overall, I think Secretary Clinton has done a great job, with the exception of this of course. I don’t think she should have been fired though. Something I find interesting is that the administration fires some security personnel over the failure to prevent the attack, yet then assigns them to other government positions.
What do you think of Secretary Clinton’s comments?
Are you satisfied with her answers?
*Additional posts on the Benghazi attack:
Eric Nordstrom says security requests were ignored
Documents proved added security was denied
CIA timeline refutes the report of soldiers being told to “stand down” during the Benghazi attack
Email: realtalkdebate2012@gmail.com
Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate
7 responses to “Hilary Clinton Testifies Before Congress on the Benghazi Terrorist Attack”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - January 25, 2013
- - May 8, 2013
- - August 16, 2015
Leave a comment
Paper Blog
Real Talk 
I think as far as the administration’s public explanations of what happened, the administration should have made sure everyone was on the same page as far as how they’re going to approach these Sunday morning talk shows on what happened.
It’s not an excuse but reality that as reports develop and are analyzed over time, the context will change. It’s also not an excuse but reality that when it happened, EVERYONE and their mother demanded to know why and immediately. EVERYONE. It’s kind of the same conundrum news outlets find themselves in when news breaks and it’s an ongoing story that develops over hours. You want to be the first to tell, but don’t want to simply wind up being the first to get it completely wrong.
The administration and Susan Rice should have measured their answers and added an important corollary – “based on our current intelligence.” That would have clarified in five words that whatever they’re saying now might not be wholly accurate as tomorrow’s report is updated. It might be unsatisfactory and seen as an “out” by some people, but at least it might’ve provided for a thread that linked the statements coming out of D.C. and it could’ve been defended as a constantly-updating report. Instead, the administration managed a clusterfuck in this regard.
That’s exactly my problem.
I think the aftermath was very poorly handled. We know that within 24 hrs they knew it was a terrorist attack.
I still don’t know why the administration would say that the attack was unequivocally not a terrorist attack but from a spontaneous protest from a film. Why were we told this?
Although I clearly don’t like the film, he does have the freedom of speech. Why is he still in jail? Did he so something else?
According to the judge in the case, he wasn’t arrested, charged or sentenced because of the film – he apparently violated some conditions of his probation, and admitted to doing so when in court.
Ok thanks..wonder why it took them this long for them to charge him on these unrelated charges.
I did remember he did something that was against his probation.