#BENGHAZI: Interim Progress Report Published; Clinton Lied.

The Interim Progress report on the attacks in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was published today. You can read the full report via The Hill.  The write up of the report by The Hill hits the nail on the head in the title, GOP Benghazi Report Blames Clinton.

The 46-page report accused Clinton — a possible White House contender in 2016 — of seeking to cover up failures by the State Department that could have contributed to the attack last year that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

The report, compiled by five House panels after a seven-month investigation, said Clinton approved reductions in security levels prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, contradicting Clinton’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 23.

“Senior State Department officials knew that the threat environment in Benghazi was high and that the Benghazi compound was vulnerable and unable to withstand an attack, yet the Department continued to systematically withdraw security personnel,” the report states.

“Repeated requests for additional security were denied at the highest levels of the State Department,” it said. “For example, an April 2012 State Department cable bearing Secretary Hillary Clinton’s signature acknowledged then-Ambassador [Gene] Cretz’s formal request for additional security assets but ordered the withdrawal of security elements to proceed as planned.”

There’s more, read the whole thing.

Maggie’s Notebook cuts to the chase, highlighting Hillary Clinton indeed did see the cables requesting more security and that it would appear she lied in her testimony about them.

One of the huge questions, among so many huge questions, has been why Benghazi did not have sufficient security after specifically requesting more at least several times. Now we know the answer. Secretary of Hillary Clinton not only saw the request from Benghazi, she signed the request and then denied it. My second question is who, if anyone, told former SEALs Woods and Dohoerty to “stand down.” If it’s there, I missed it. I outlined some things from the report that I found especially interesting. Read the report in full here.

PULLOUT QUOTE:

PAGE 7: However, in a cable signed by Secretary Clinton in April 2012, the State Department settled on a plan to scale back security assets for the U.S. Mission in Libya, including Benghazi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An ongoing Congressional investigation across five House Committees concerning the events surrounding the September 11, 2012, terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya has made several determinations to date, including:

● Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.

 ● In the days following the attacks, White House and senior State Department officials altered accurate talking points drafted by the Intelligence Community in order to protect the State Department.

● Contrary to Administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information. Concern for classified information is never mentioned in email traffic among senior Administration officials.

These preliminary findings illustrate the need for continued examination and oversight by the five House Committees. The Committees will continue to review who exactly was responsible for the failure to respond to the repeated requests for more security and for the effort to cover up the nature of the attacks, so that appropriate officials will be held accountable.

Maggie does a very thorough run down of the report and of prior related testimony and timelines. Clinton also tried to blame funding for the lack of security, an item that was debunked in the beginning and re-iterated in the report. Read the whole article.

Clinton’s full testimony; relevant testimony to the cables roughly begins at the 1:35:30 mark:

 

But… what difference does it make?

It makes a big difference.

Reliable Sources: CNN's Kurtz Faults CNN's, NBC's Boston Bombing Coverage
Resident Admits Tsarnaev's Hate For US is Typical in Cambridge
  • Wild_Willie

    IT’s a vast right wing conspiracy! That will be the lefts position. But all the GOP has to do is continually bring up the names of those killed and say “it matters”. ww

    • jim_m

      all the GOP has to do is continually bring up the names of those killed and say “it matters”

      But it doesn’t to the left and that is the point. Dead individuals mean nothing. They are “suboptimal” to coin a phrase. People are only meaningful when they are part of a larger group.

      The dead children in Newtown were significant not just because there were a lot of them, but because they could be positioned as part of a larger group of “dead children”.

      The left is out there chanting, “Do it for the childrens’ sake!” and “if one child’s life is saved it is worth it!” They don’t give a rat’s ass about the individual lives. Individual lives are merely an abstraction. The group membership is the reality.

      NO one on the left is going to give a damn if you say that Tyrone woods, Glenn Doherty, Sean Smith and Chris Stevens died there. They see them all as belonging to the group of dead white men, a group that by definition doesn’t matter.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        “The group membership is the reality.”

        And groupthink is all important. Thus the emotive force behind the ‘If one child’s life is saved, it is worth it.’ – you’re not supposed to THINK about it, you’re supposed to FEEL it. To accept it as a truism without even questioning it.

        Large construction projects budget deaths into their figuring, because they know there’s going to be accidents. It’s a fact of life. Nobody’s suggesting we mandate a 5mph speed on the interstates, because it ‘might save even one life’ – it would, but it wouldn’t be worth the other associated costs.

        Children are precious – but they’re not of infinite value. Nobody is. Spend millions or billions on legislation and programs that MIGHT save one life?

        You think for a second and you realize that it makes no logical sense. Emotional, surely – it tugs at the soul. But in reality… you have to weigh costs vs benefits for everything you do.

      • Hank_M

        It really is amazing to hear the party of abortion out there
        “chanting, “Do it for the childrens’ sake!”

      • Commander_Chico

        What about the thousands killed in Bush’s foolish war in Iraq? Do they matter?

        • jim_m

          More have died under obama, but you don’t really care how many people die as long as you can find a use for their dead bodies to advance your political agenda.

          • Commander_Chico

            More died in Iraq under Obama? You better check that number.

          • jim_m

            Fine Afghanistan then. Regardless, more US military have died in all theaters under obama than under Bush. Deal with it. You don’t give a damn how many die as long as you can use it to advance your agenda.

          • Commander_Chico

            Also false. Much more US military died under Bush, figures here: http://icasualties.org/

            Crediting all of 2009′s casualties to Obama, you get 4852 under Bush vs. 1835 under Obama.

            Jim, are these just blatant lies you threw out, or is your mindset so warped you really believed it?

          • jim_m

            OK then, we lost more under Bush fighting and actually winning a war in Iraq. Under Obama we are losing more than double the rate of men in Afghanistan while he is losing that war for us. Plus I doubt that you complained while Clinton was sacrificing 7500 men in combat in Bosnia and Somalia.

            One thing I was unequivocally correct in. You don’t give a damn how many die as long as they support your agenda. Millions can die in service to your left wing agenda and that is OK with you. But not one can die in support of anything else that you won’t make a complaint of it.

            And none of this changes the fact that you are truther.

          • Commander_Chico

            7500 were killed in combat in Bosnia and Somalia under Clinton? I missed that.

            I remember one guy getting killed by a mine in Bosnia, and of course the 18 killed in Black Hawk Down, when were the other 7481 “sacrificed?”

            And what exactly did the United States “win” in Iraq?

            You really are losing it, no grasp of simple facts, or you’re just a bullshitter getting his jollies in his cubicle.

          • Jwb10001

            Way more died in Iraq under Sadaam but what the hell who cares about them, they are not useful for your political side, right?

          • Abu Nudnik

            It’s a numbers game to you. Who is more evil. Whose evil can be justified. You have no moral center.

          • twmon9816

            He’s right, maybe you should check your numbers.

        • Jwb10001

          And that has exactly what to do with Clinton and Obama etal lying their asses off about Bengazi?

        • Abu Nudnik

          Two wrongs always make a right to the left.

          Obama and Clinton willfully left an ambassador to die to save their butts. They lied about the nature of the attack. They knew the truth and purposely spoke contrary to the truth to protect their deluded and stupid foreign policy before an election. Bush, in sharp contradistinction, did what he thought was right, not to protect his butt but for his country. He believed that outflanking Iran was imperative and hence the Iraqi invasion. There is no proof that he lied. I can think of 4 players off the top of my head who had a reason to screw up intel prior to the attack: 1) The royal family of Iran, 2) Saddam himself (to keep Iran on their toes) 3) Saddams’ crazy sons 4) Iraqi Scientists to save their jobs and necks…. Being wrong and lying are not the same thing.

      • twmon9816

        Just “bumps” in the road.

  • herddog505

    Well, I hope that nobody is counting on the feckless, worthless, gutless, brainless pack of thieves, cheats and liars that we call “Congress” to hold anybody accountable.

    What difference does it make, indeed.

  • jim_m

    4 dead, white, male Americans.

    Can you name any 4 characteristics of a person that the left cares less about? The only thing the left wants more of with regard to white, male Americans IS dead.

    • Abu Nudnik

      It’s not about color. It’s about the demise of confidence in America. It’s about callousness. Men under their command were murdered and all they did was cover it up so their lack of care wouldn’t hurt them acquire and hold on to power. These aren’t men and women. They are something between earth and hell. They are half-man half-beasts. They have no morals.

  • Hank_M

    “The report, compiled by five House panels…”

    That right there is why the media will ignore or bury this.

    And did we really need a report to tell us that Hillary is a dishonest political hack?

  • Joe_Miller

    Wasn’t it the President who said, during the BP oil spill, that it’s important to find out who’s responsible so that you know “whose ass to kick?”

  • GarandFan

    The left will claim “it’s political”. But blaming Bush for 9/11 was correct.

    Must be that liberal “nuance”.

    • Commander_Chico

      In both cases – 9/11 and Benghazi – there were warnings which were not acted upon. A lot more died on 9/11, and they were not people already getting danger pay. Whose “nuance?”

      • GarandFan

        Oh, yeah. “Not acted on”. Would that have been because of Jamie Gorlecki? BTW, she’s still employed by the Obama Administration.

        • Commander_Chico

          I am talking about the August 2011 Presidential Briefing – titled Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

          • GarandFan

            Yeah. IRRC, but rather short on the Who, What, When, Where.

            But once again, your pin head misses the point. Anyone in the MSM screaming about Hillary! and her failure to act on requests from her Ambassador for added security?

            No. Besides, what difference does it make?

          • Commander_Chico

            What are you talking about? The August 2011 briefing specifically mentioned Al Qaeda using hijacked aircraft.

          • GarandFan

            “What are you talking about?”

            The stupidity becomes you. And matches your reading comprehension.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Willful ignorance is the more provable charge.

          • Abu Nudnik

            Did anyone really think it would work before it did? Don’t forget, they get a lot of such briefings and Al Qaeda made all kinds of threats.

            Besides, this topic is not about 9/11, 2001. Again you are comparing one atrocity to the other to excuse one, one failure of intel to excuse another which was far worse. The Bush administration may have known there were threats but the Obama administration knew their people were being attacked and did nothing to help, told operatives who might have saved them to stand down and, after finding out that very evening that Ansar-Al-Sharia claimed responsibility for the attacks, lied for weeks about a “spontaneous demonstration” caused by an Islamophobic video.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Not actionable as it did not list target or perpetrators, whereas the perpetrators in this case were identified.

            So much for the accuracy of the soi disant cognoscenti.

          • jim_m

            There should be a standing rule about tolerating truthers here.

          • Jwb10001

            Unlike Bengazi at least we knew what the potential target was and had specific requests for help preventing it.

          • Harmon

            And where was the actionable intelligence? With Benghazi they had specifics. Jerk.

          • jim_m

            Truther dumbass. The briefing did not hold specifics as to when or where or anything that would have been clear about 9/11 but obama had an ongoing attack on the consulate that made it pretty damn clear what was going on.

            There is no infamy you will not ignore if it is on obama’s watch. There is nothing so small that could have happened under Bush that you will not compare it to the worst crimes against humanity.

            You are an utter fraud. You claim to not support obama but you make every excuse for his incompetence and his betrayal of America and its people.

          • retired.military

            And if Bush had done anything the left would have screamed bloody murder that he had no justification. Once again Chico wants it both ways.

            BTW that same report mentioned over 70 active FBI investigations into alleged Bin Laden activities and followers.

            Another thing mentioned in the report was that Bin Laden was trying to hijack planes. Not slam them into buildings. Typically hijackers had the plane’s pilot fly the plane to their destination. Rarely did they have a pilot amongst the hijackers.

            Of course Chico doesn’t mention these inconvenient facts. It doesn’t fit his liberal mime.

          • herddog505

            Now, now. OF COURSE Bush should have known that AQ was plotting to fly aircraft into buildings in Sept, 2001, and he should have locked down every airport in country and rounded up every Muslim as a result. I mean, how much clearer did the intel have to be? Why, we had no idea that AQ was out to get us! And terrorists had NEVER hijacked aircraft before!

            /sarc

          • Commander_Chico

            Fact remains, Bush did nothing. Hey, warning airlines to step up security and locking cockpit doors would have made a difference, right?

          • herddog505

            Fact is, you despise Bush and, as a result, he MUST be guilty. You’ve repeatedly waved this PDB about as if it is proof-positive that Bush knew or should have know PRECISELY what was going to happen on 9-11-01, more than a year after the PDB was written. Therefore, with the benefit of hindsight, you get to claim that Bush was incompetent, a liar, or both.

            I also say that, had Bush taken the sorts of steps you mention – which are sensible IF one really knows what’s going on – then he would have been pilloried as an alarmist and a racist.

            By the way: if stepped-up security and locked cockpit doors were such obvious steps, why had they NOT been done prior to 2001? After all, aircraft hijackings were hardly unknown. Could it be that there was a collective decision AROUND THE WORLD that, since hijackers had been interested in taking hostages, that the greatest danger lay in RESISTING them? That to attempt to thwart the hijackers once on the aircraft put the aircraft and passengers at MORE risk? The answer, of course, is yes:

            The FAA had a security mission to protect the users of commercial air transportation against terrorism and other criminal acts. In the years before 9/11, the FAA perceived sabotage as a greater threat to aviation than hijacking. First, no domestic hijacking had occurred in a decade. Second, the commercial aviation system was perceived as more vulnerable to explosives than to weapons such as firearms. Finally, explosives were perceived as deadlier than hijacking and therefore of greater consequence. In 1996, a presidential commission on aviation safety and security chaired by Vice President Al Gore reinforced the prevailing concern about sabotage and explosives on aircraft. The Gore Commission also flagged, as a new danger, the possibility of attack by surface-to-air missiles. Its 1997 final report did not discuss the possibility of suicide hijackings.

            The final layer, security on board commercial aircraft, was not designed to counter suicide hijackings. The FAA-approved “Common Strategy” had been elaborated over decades of experience with scores of hijackings, beginning in the 1960s. It taught flight crews that the best way to deal with hijackers was to accommodate their demands, get the plane to land safely, and then let law enforcement or the military handle the situation. According to the FAA, the record had shown that the longer a hijacking persisted, the more likely it was to end peacefully. The strategy operated on the fundamental assumption that hijackers issue negotiable demands (most often for asylum or the release of prisoners) and that, as one FAA official put it, “suicide wasn’t in the game plan” of hijackers. FAA training material provided no guidance for flight crews should violence occur.

            This prevailing Common Strategy of cooperation and nonconfrontation meant that even a hardened cockpit door would have made little difference in a hijacking. As the chairman of the Security Committee of the Air Line Pilots Association observed when proposals were made in early 2001 to install reinforced cockpit doors in commercial aircraft, “Even if you make a vault out of the door, if they have a noose around my flight attendant’s neck, I’m going to open the door.” Prior to 9/11, FAA regulations mandated that cockpit doors permit ready access into and out of the cockpit in the event of an emergency. Even so, rules implemented in the 1960s required air crews to keep the cockpit door closed and locked in flight. This requirement was not always observed or vigorously enforced.

            In the absence of any recent aviation security incident and without “specific and credible” evidence of a plot directed at civil aviation, the FAA’s leadership focused elsewhere, including on operational concerns and the ever-present issue of safety. FAA Administrator Garvey recalled that “every day in 2001 was like the day before Thanksgiving.” Heeding calls for improved air service, Congress concentrated its efforts on a “passenger bill of rights,” to improve capacity, efficiency, and customer satisfaction in the aviation system. There was no focus on terrorism.* [emphasis mine - hd505]

            It’s an easy thing to indulge in Monday-morning quarterbacking. I could, if I chose, plausibly blame Algore: HE SHOULD HAVE KNOW THAT TERRORISTS WOULD BE WILLING TO KILL THEMSELVES!!!!. I could make similar claims about other disasters in our history: The Japanese fleet would have been blasted to smithereens a thousand miles from Hawaii; there would have been no Cuban communist government to accept Soviet missiles; Major Anderson would have been backed up by an entire fleet.

            But, just as it is silly to insist that Admiral Kimmel, President Eisenhower, or President Lincoln “SHOULD HAVE KNOWN!”, it’s equally silly to insist that Bush should have.

            ====

            (*) http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch3.htm

          • Commander_Chico

            Isn’t “the benefit of hindsight” what you were talking about wrt to Benghazi?

            Those killed were not ordinary citizens going about their lives in NYC, but diplomats and CIA contractors getting mucho dinero in danger pay.

            When you get danger pay, it means there is “danger.” If there is a “tip of the spear” in diplomacy and espionage, these guys were at it. They all had the highest security clearances and were aware of all of the warnings. Did they evacuate?

            Shit goes wrong in these places, not just Benghazi, of course, but in Iraq, Afghanistan, Beirut, Sudan, Egypt, and other places.

            All you can argue that the “warnings” should have resulted in the Benghazi mission getting 100% of whatever they were asking for in security, but in a world of limited resources, that is not always possible, and for all we know might have resulted in more deaths.

            In contrast to the right-wing silence about the thousands of servicemembers killed in the wars, the hypocrisy is nauseating.

          • herddog505

            Oh, please spare us the usual rant about “silence” over the men killed and wounded in Iraq and A-stan. Unlike you lefties, we didn’t keep a ghoulish, gleeful score every time one of them was killed, nor did we urge them to frag their officers, compare their killers with Minutemen, or accuse them a la Jean-Francois Kerry of being murderers. If you want to pick a bone with people who don’t honor and respect (and mourn) our servicemen, I suggest you take it up with Ward Churchill, Fat Mikey, and Barry (he of “troops just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”).

            And I must say that you’ve got your nerve to claim that Ambassador Stevens and the others somehow signed up for what they got. They were murdered by terrorists in a country nominally, if not our ally, then at least not our enemy. Further – and most important – Stevens WARNED that an attack was brewing. Unlike the PDB that you keep waving around, Stevens had specifics. He asked for more security and was turned down. He and the others fought for (as I recall) HOURS waiting for help that not only never came, but was never even sent.

            You’ve made exuses for Barry right along. These men died… and all you can seem to do is shrug your shoulders, claim they got danger pay (serves ‘em right, eh?), claim that anybody who wants to know why is a hypocrite, and rant about Bush some more. Oh, and I almost forgot: you managed to blame Israel (!!!).

            Bush should have, with the benefit of the certain knowledge that he should have got from… well… somewhere… put armored cockpit doors on aircraft and THAT would have stoped 9-11, but sending a few dozen extra Marines to Benghazi… oh, that probably would have done no good. Why, MORE people might have been hurt (yeah: terrorists stupid enough to go up against cocked-and-locked US Marines).

            Nothing to see here. Move along.

            Bah.

          • Commander_Chico

            So many strawmen in that piece, I don’t know where to begin.

            First what you say Stevens said and what he actually said are probably two different things. When I see the (secret) cables then we can talk about the issue.

            Yeah, he waited for “hours.” I’ve gone through the EUCOM order of battle on that issue so many times it’s not funny.

            You think a “few dozen extra Marines” is no big deal. Believe me, Marines and the Marine Security Guard Force are stretched thin.

            Do you think that the US military overseas is like your local police or fire department, only minutes away for any problem anywhere in the world?

          • herddog505

            Yeah, it’s funny how we’re not seeing those top secret cables, or being allowed to hear testimony from survivors and other people on his staff. Instead, we’re asked, “What different does it make?”

            As to what the US military can and can’t do, I wouldn’t expect them to get a company of paratroopers to any random spot in the world in thirty minutes or less. What I WOULD expect is that the embassy in a violent, unstable country like Libya would have more Marines than the embassy in Austria. I would also expect that, when the ambassador tells State that trouble’s brewing, they would reinforce his security detail and perhaps have additional forces nearby ready to go, not tell him to do his best with what he has and update his will.

            But please continue to back your boy: he can do no wrong in your eyes, and anybody who says different is a hypocrite and a tool of TEH OLIGARCHY.

          • Abu Nudnik

            They KNEW Ansar-al-Sharia claimed responsibility on 9.11.12 and lied FOR WEEKS about it.

          • Jwb10001

            Are you serious? There was plenty of foresight in Bengazi. In fact if you pay any attention at all you’d know that there were requests, specific requests, for improved security. These were not some vague AQ wants us dead communications. They were specific and actionable. The State Dept ignored these requests 4 Americans are dead. You’re just a political hack there’s nothing Obama can do that you won’t find a way to defend or deflect.

          • Abu Nudnik

            They LEFT HIM TO DIE WHEN THE ATTACK WAS HAPPENING!

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            And leave us not forget the gorelick “wall of seperation” which prevented the disparate intelligence and law enforcement agencies from bringing all the pieces of the puzzle together.

          • Commander_Chico

            You fool, this has nothing to do with any wall between foreign intelligence and domestic law enforcement.

            This was all foreign intelligence and security information. As Chief of Mission, Chris Stevens had full SCI access to everything.

          • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

            Ha Ha!

            I was talking about his 9/11 Trooferism.

          • Jwb10001

            So you admit they had intelligence that Stevens had access to this intelligence and security information, assessing this he asked for increased security because there was a threat and the Obama team did nothing? So fact remains OBAMA did nothing, not only did they ignore the intelligence they ignored the actual attack, seeming all standing by with their thumbs in their collective asses not knowing what to do except watch as Stevens and the others died. This is what you are currently defending as appropriate action on the part of the executive branch? What a worthless POS you are.

          • Abu Nudnik

            Blaming Bush for Obama and Clinton’s letting their ambassador die in the streets of Benghazi and then knowingly and purposefully lying about the nature of the attack for weeks after they knew that Ansar-al-Sharia took responsibility.

            He didn’t know til 4AM. Uh-huh. But he continued to lie for weeks about it.

          • Jwb10001

            No kidding they actually had information that AQ was determined to attack us?

          • herddog505

            Yeah: who knew?

      • Abu Nudnik

        In the evening of 9/11 2012, the white house knew that Ansar-Al-Sharia claimed responsibility. Yet for weeks they pretended it was a protest gone out of control to save their political butts.

  • IsShe?

    Did Hillary Misspeak on Bosnia? If she said she was under heavy attack, when it was light attacks when she landed in Bosnia, that would be a misspeak. But CBS News found NOTHING.

    So, did Hillary lie about Bosnia? Is she telling the truth about Benghazi?

    • http://ladyliberty1885.com/ LadyLiberty1885

      Her testimony is in the video and the signed cables were verified by the committee. She lied.

    • jim_m

      “Misspeak” Noun – What a leftist admits to when caught in a deliberate and outright lie.

    • Hank_M

      Hillary mis-spoke about her Bosnia adventure.
      She mis-signed the Bengahzi cables.
      She mis-led and mis-remembered years ago about the Rose Law Firm records.
      And if she’s ever elected President, she’ll be the second biggest mis-take ever to inhabit the White House.

  • JayWills

    Wow, two words you hardly ever see together, “Clinton” and “lied.”

    • http://www.outsidethebeltway.com rodney dill

      Especially when the words ‘cigar’ and ‘sex’ aren’t also used.

  • MartinLandauCalrissian

    Hillary has no positive accomplishments for her whole life that weren’t handed to her free of charge by others.

    • jim_m

      Don’t you mean obama?

      • http://wizbangblog.com/author/rodney-graves/ Rodney G. Graves

        Yes. [as in both a and b].

      • westcoastwiser

        And don’t forget the House drunk Sam Ervin during the Nixon hearings.

    • herddog505

      That’s not true. She rolled over and acted like a doormat for her horndog husband all on her own. That took effort, right? And this IS considered an accomplishment by lefties: it has been the basis of her political career, it apparently being the sign of a Strong Woman(TM) to be an active participant in her own public humiliation.

      • Hank_M

        Well, she did all that for a greater cause, keeping Bill in office.
        So yes, the left truly admires this strong feminist.

  • 914

    She learned from the best! Barry and Billy! So, what difference indeed.

  • sshiell

    “CLINTON LIED!”
    So you expected anything different from a Clinton?

  • Paul Hooson

    The wheels seemed the fall off the last few months of Hillary Clinton when she was the Secretary Of State. Her meltdown showdown with the senators was the worst as well. She seemed as good as any Secretary Of State under either a Democrat or Republican president until her last few months, then any magic quickly vanished. She now leaves these last few months as a huge campaign liability should she decide to run for president in 2016, proving that she can produce a very uneven mix of both good and bad results. That should concern any voter.

    • herddog505

      When were the wheels ever ON the Hilladbeast’s tenure as SecState???? She started with the whole “Reset Button” embarrassment, then spent years doing not much of anything until she engineered us bombing Libya for some reason and then ignorning warnings about Benghazi.

      Really: name one thing she did well during her tenure in office.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      ” That should concern any voter.”

      Results aren’t important. Seriously.

      Look at Obama’s record. There wasn’t a single success anyone could point at that showed he was ready for the Presidency. His time in the Senate was spent campaigning for President. His record in the Illinois Senate’s pretty much opaque – there’s nothing to see, move along, ignore all the rumors and failures. His record in the private sector seems to involve a lot of money spent for no measurable result.

      If HE could get elected, then Hillary’s damn near a combination of George Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt.

      Well, one thing Obama’s got that Hillary doesn’t is a charisma that can lead otherwise sensible people to completely forget he’s incompetent at governing and leadership. And it’s so powerful he managed to get re-elected, despite having done pretty much nothing but dig a deeper hole for our country’s economy and foreign policy.

      Personally, I think political dynasties are very bad ideas. It tends to perpetuate the same ideologies and ideas, and doesn’t allow for innovation.

      And right now, innovative ideas are about the only way I see us getting out of the mess we’re in.

  • Brian_Richard_Allen

    …. Report Published; Clinton Lied ….

    And in other every-bit-as-startling news, the Sun rose in the east, today.

    As in: Give me a flaming break, if a recidivist, treasonous, lying, looting, thieving, mass-murdering, co-serial-raping Missus and Mr Billy-Bubbah Blythe’s (“Cli’ton”) mouth is moving, there are only lies issuing from it.

  • Vagabond661

    Oil spills, Dogs on the roof, sipping from a bottle of water and tax returns – all need to be reported on!!

    Benghazi, Fast & Furious, murderous abortion doctor and underage prostitutes in the DR – Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

    • herddog505

      We’re getting a taste of what it was like to live in nazi Germany or the USSR. And the sad thing is, that our Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda are all volunteers.

  • Abu Nudnik

    They knew at 6:30 9/11/12 that Ansar al Sharia claimed credit for the attack and lied about it to save their political skins. They lied to sell their wrongheaded notion that coddling enemies makes them love us. They lied to hide how poorly their foreign policy failed.

    They lied to hide how they left their ambassador to die.

    The question of how many were protecting is a red-herring. Anyone can be wrong. But to lie to protect your political bacon is not just being wrong. Lying under oath is not just being wrong.

    The president didn’t know until 4AM because there’s no phone on Air Force One? because he has no cell phone? Because the death of the ambassador WASN’T IMPORTANT? Ok. We’ll go with that one.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE