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: [email protected]
Twitter: @adrakontaidis & @talkrealdebate
