Chris Matthews on Hillary Clinton’s “performance” yesterday during the Benghazi hearing:
“Venturing forth in unprotected waters today, she showed how not to be defensive, how not to sweat [and] also how to exhibit humanity and yes, compassion. Even when the witnesses are looking desperately — those people around her — to target her weaknesses. Again, it was a magnificent display of smarts, I think, guts definitely and caring. She looked every bit like a person who could run for president, run well, win big and serve confidently. What a day it’s been for the progressive side of American politics. What a great week it’s been and it’s only Wednesday.”
What a day it is when the leader of the State Department tell’s the country that it doesn’t matter if they mislead the American people. What a day it is when a rehearsed performance is just so awesome but the failures of the State Department to protect our Ambassador is ignored.
And you know what….it did make a damn difference. CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson:
It makes a difference.
— Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) January 23, 2013
WaPo’s Erik Wemple:
No matter your view of the media’s role in Benghazi; no matter your take on whether U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice leveled with the country on the Sept. 16 talk shows; no matter your view of Fox News’s Benghazi campaign, it surely does make a difference whether it was “because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans.” It makes a difference to the media, the public, the government, everyone.
Clinton’s dismissal of the impetus behind the attack also stands in stark contrast to nearly everything senior officials of the Obama administration said publicly about it in the days that followed, including both the president and Clinton herself — that is, when the administration was blaming the attack on a YouTube video. In opening remarks for a strategic dialogue with Morocco — video below — which occurred four days after the Benghazi attack, Clinton said, “There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms.”
The idea that the cause of the attack should now take a backseat to other concerns seems all too convenient.
You know what else matters? The answer to the following question asked by Senator Rand Paul:
Is the United States involved with an procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?
Her answer? “I don’t know” and “you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the Annex.”
So four months after the attack we are to assume that no one in the State Department bothered to find out if the Annex was running weapons?
There is a way to find out tho.
Bring in the man who did lead the Department who ran the Annex, David Petraeus, and ask him under oath if the Annex ran weapons and if they did, was Clinton told this fact.
There was a reason why the Administration went head first into the lie that the attack was about a video. Was that reason the fact that they wanted to divert attention away from a gun running operation to Syrian rebels?