Clinton’s State deputies testify: “We have to do better”

posted at 1:01 pm on December 20, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not make it in to testify in front of a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday morning, sending a couple of her deputies in to do so instead. The State officials assured the committee that the department is working to quickly implement the recommendations made by the Accountability Review Board’s report on the “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi:

Deputy Secretary of State William Burns told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday that the State Department has “already begun to fix” the security lapses that allowed the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya to succeed.

Burns told the committee that a harsh report issued Tuesday by the Accountability Review Board appointed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to investigate the attack “takes a clear-eyed look at serious, systemic problems. Problems which are unacceptable. Problems for which – as Secretary Clinton has said — we take responsibility.”

Burns was testifying in place of Clinton who has been out of the public eye for several days due to illness and a concussion she suffered after fainting recently.

The State Department may very well be making the changes and security additions the report recommended, but that will not be enough to excuse Clinton from testifying, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee is saying that she will need to come in testify before the Obama administration’s leadership changes, meaning sometime in mid-January:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will testify in January before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen told CNN on Wednesday. …

Ros-Lehtinen issued a statement saying, “We still don’t have information from the Obama Administration on what went so tragically wrong in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four patriotic Americans. We have been combing through classified and unclassified documents and have tough questions about State Department threat assessments and decision-making on Benghazi. This requires a public appearance by the Secretary of State herself. Other cabinet secretaries involved should also be held publicly accountable.”

A date has not yet been set for the mid-January testimony, Ros-Lehtinen said Wednesday, but said Clinton’s adviser Cheryl Mills told her the secretary would not be traveling and would be available.

And a good thing, too; as “harsh” as the ARB report may have been, it did not actually hold anyone directly accountable for the security failures and it did not answer any questions about the Obama administration’s subsequent handling of the situation. As Sen. Inhofe pointed out today, whoever it was who decided to change the Benghazi-related talking points from terrorism to a stupid YouTube video, is still a relative mystery. Via the WFB:

Well, if it is true that Obama, Clinton, and high-level officials knew immediately this was a likely terrorist attack performed by heavily armed militants, why did the State Department and White House’s narrative shift more towards the video after the fact?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama and Hillary have blood on their hands.

Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi, officially and unofficially, on the anniv. of 9/11?

Therein lies the answer to all that happened in Benghazi.

Ask the question until you get the answer.

Schadenfreude on December 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM

why did the State Department and White House’s narrative shift more towards the video after the fact?

ELECTION TIME
been chanting al quaeda is dead, gm is alive…

if the lsm actually did their jobs, this man would not have been re-elected

cmsinaz on December 20, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Harry Truman, 1945: “The buck stops here”.
Hillary Clinton, 1998: “Will that buck ever stop?!”
Nancy Pelosi, Nov 2010: “What the buck?!”
Hillary Clinton, 2012: “The buck stops with someone else.”

Archivarix on December 20, 2012 at 1:06 PM

boehner and mcconnel should be calling for hillary’s head 24/7. that would preclude any run for 2016.

fact is they likely expect her to win and trying to get on her good side.

renalin on December 20, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Clean house at Foggy Bottom, starting at the very top.

Christien on December 20, 2012 at 1:09 PM

Someone changed it… Senator here’s what I would say… Insert lies, deceptions and spin…

Personally, I think it was the EPA who cut those remarks out… Dig enough, and the EPA is at the bottom of everything… o_O

SWalker on December 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM

“We have to do better”

Yeah, well, I’d say that they’ve done a pretty good job, so far, of covering up obama’s and Hillary’s LIES and acts of TREASON, but yes – they must do better on the future.

Pork-Chop on December 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM

(fix)

… IN the future.

Pork-Chop on December 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM

who decided to change the Benghazi-related talking points from terrorism to a stupid YouTube video, is still a relative mystery.

I don’t know who but I can guess why – Because this administrations first instinct is to lie. Lie lie lie, then we’ll fix it later when no one is paying attention.

multiuseless on December 20, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Wonder if the odd makers in Vegas are dealing with ‘if or if not’ hill WILL testify? Another hurt someplace so she can’t?
L

letget on December 20, 2012 at 1:16 PM

Who ordered the stand down? When will someone get around to questioning those 30 people who escaped? Where are they?

JPeterman on December 20, 2012 at 1:16 PM

‘Have to do better’? No, you have to HANG.

rayra on December 20, 2012 at 1:18 PM

This is beginning to make me dizzy and my head hurts…

d1carter on December 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The State Department may very well be making the changes and security additions the report recommended, but that will not be enough to excuse Clinton from testifying, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee is saying that she will need to come in testify before the Obama administration’s leadership changes, meaning sometime in mid-January

I would expect Hillary suffers a second concussion right about then.

Bitter Clinger on December 20, 2012 at 1:24 PM

A date has not yet been set for the mid-January testimony, Ros-Lehtinen said Wednesday, but said Clinton’s adviser Cheryl Mills told her the secretary would not be traveling and would be available.

Because she’ll be out of office then, and no longer have access to classified information. Thus she’ll fall back on “I really can’t comment on that, as I don’t have the notes, Senator, which you know are classified and I don’t have access to.”

How convenient. Just like finding her Rose Law firm records sitting on a table in the White House a day after the Statute of Limitations had run out.

rbj on December 20, 2012 at 1:25 PM

This is beginning to make me dizzy and my head hurts…

d1carter on December 20, 2012 at 1:19 PM

that is their entire strategy, so pop a couple Dramamine and Loid your Girns…

SWalker on December 20, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Hillary: “My bad!”

/

Ward Cleaver on December 20, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Gee, is Hillary expecting another baby?

Deano1952 on December 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Are these band of liars under oath?

Mr. Arrogant on December 20, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Bubba stumped non-stop for O, including the key note spot @ the DNC. It’s payback time for Hillary 2016. Hillary will never testify or answer any question about Benghazi. O will never mention her name in relation to Benghazi and no one will ever ask him about it

drivingtheview on December 20, 2012 at 1:32 PM

brave brave Hillary Clinton

que the coconuts…

DanMan on December 20, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Why are we wasting time on this charade. Pubs. just go through the motions to put on a good show. They NEVER get to the truth and NEVER hold anyone accountable and NEVER punish anyone. It’s all a show and we lap it up like lap dogs. The Pub party should be dead. It has accomplished absolutely nothing in furthering the conservative agenda or ideology. In short, Pubs. suck! If they can’t defeat an avowed card carrying Communsit/Marxist/Hate America candidate, they will never again occupy the WH.

they lie on December 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Well, if it is true that Obama, Clinton, and high-level officials knew immediately this was a likely terrorist attack performed by heavily armed militants, why did the State Department and White House’s narrative shift more towards the video after the fact?

I don’t care the reasons why. It was was not just incorrect, it was purposely and willfully incorrect and we should know who authorized the changes and who made the changes because they mislead the public. People, well intentioned or not, who screw up like that are just as unqualified as the ones who follow their directions and they should resign or be removed from office, too.

Dusty on December 20, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Well, if it is true that Obama, Clinton, and high-level officials knew immediately this was a likely terrorist attack performed by heavily armed militants, why did the State Department and White House’s narrative shift more towards the video after the fact?

The video guy also said that Obama called it “terrorism” when in fact, as the Obama-Romney debate controversy pointed up, Obama DIDN’T call it “terrorism” in his speech. He mentioned “terrorism” in general. That’s an important point. So when the witness is lying right out of the box, I have to suspect his testimony.

Actually he might have hedged his words to match Obama hedging his words. I’ll have to go back and transcribe word for word the testimony.

Paul-Cincy on December 20, 2012 at 2:09 PM

This was the verbatim testimony from the video:

“President Obama spoke to an act of terror”

WTF is that supposed to mean.

Anyway, Inhofe’s question was “who changed the talking points”. Did he get anything like a reply?

Paul-Cincy on December 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM

Hillary will never testify or answer any question about Benghazi. O will never mention her name in relation to Benghazi and no one will ever ask him about it

drivingtheview on December 20, 2012 at 1:32 PM

One thing you’ve got to understand. The testimony this week is all for show. The real testimony happened in closed session. Clinton has absented herself from that too but she never really was going to be nailed for her role in the whole incident. They’ve fired some lower level career bureaucrats and that will be the end of it.

I also think that she might try and run for President in 2016 but I’m not convinced she is electable. She’s turned into an old tired and ugly hag. She’d get her clock cleaned in the primaries by Michelle Obama (and don’t think this is the only time that the idea of Mooch running will come up).

Happy Nomad on December 20, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I’ll tell you why the talking points were changed. Because the Obama admin wanted to blame our Free Speech rights, our First Amendment rights, for the killings, because he doesn’t like free speech. He doesn’t like it when we speak out against Islam, because it hurts people’s feelings, even some of his blood relatives, and his deceased stepfather, and all those who listen to the Islamic call to prayer and think it’s the most beautiful sound on earth. That’s why. I wish someone would just come out and say it.

Paul-Cincy on December 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Anyway, Inhofe’s question was “who changed the talking points”. Did he get anything like a reply?

Paul-Cincy on December 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM

He did. Apparently “Intelligence” changed the talking points. Happy to have cleared that up for ya.

Happy Nomad on December 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

[Paul-Cincy on December 20, 2012 at 2:11 PM]

Yeah, he got a reply, but he didn’t answer the question you note.

I think he gave an answer to Infofe’s question “do you care”, too. The roundabout answer was, ‘Yes, which is why we are not going to tell you.’

Dusty on December 20, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Obama wanted to continue his meme that Muslims were not to blame, America was. Pure and simple.

pat on December 20, 2012 at 2:21 PM

“…why did the State Department and White House’s narrative shift more towards the video after the fact?”

Backside camouflage!

Another Drew on December 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Why was the Ambassador in Benghazi? Who was the “Turkish” diplomat he was meeting? Where are the survivors and what do they know?

Mason on December 20, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Why isn’t any Senator asking why the Ambassador was running a gun running operation in Libya? This was not a consulate..All of Washington is in anti-gun mode so why not talk about another illegal gun running operation?

sadsushi on December 20, 2012 at 2:37 PM

This is such BS from State. We don’t care how long it too State to figure it out. It was the SOB that gave the order to stand down. That’s the one we want and we know the only person who could give that order.

BetseyRoss on December 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Just wait until Senator Kerry is appointed to be the Secretary of State. It is just going to get worse. As for Hillary she still can be subpoenaed and should be.

SC.Charlie on December 20, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Thatcher had poise and grace, her cuckoldness Clinton merely is old and nasty.

trl on December 20, 2012 at 3:17 PM

PUT HILLARY’S ARSE IN JAIL FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH A SUBPOENA!

When Pro Football players (or anyone else) gets a concussion they are taken to a doctor – when Hillary clinton gets a concussion she goes home / into seclussion without seeing a doctor (in an attempt to avoid testifying before Congress about Benghazi)!

Pieceing together what was reported:

We Know Ambassador Stevens’ people requested additional Security in Benghazi after 2 (TWO) previous TERRORIST attacks against them / their compound. We know at least 3 requests (3-4) were made & all were DENIED…neither did Obama/Hillary pull them out of Benghazi.

It was reported Hillary explained it was OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY TO MAINTAIN A LOW PROFILE after the ovwerthrow of Qadaffi & the start up of the new government. HILLARY SAID IT WAS BECAUSE OF THAT OBAMA POLICY THAT NO ADDITIONAL SECURITY WAS APPROVED!

We KNOW Stevens reported that Al Qaeda flags were beginning to be flown over the new Libyan govt buildings, that at least 10 new TERRORIST Training Camps had been started up in the weeks prior to the attack on 9/11/12, & we KNOW Stevens warned that they would NEVER SURVIVE a 3rd coordinated attack – AGAIN the request for more security was DENIED…and no attempt was made to pull them out!

We KNOW the CIA said they were in constant contact with the SEALs who responded to the attack on 9/11/12 until the time of their deaths, that they fought & used tactics which demonstrated they fully expected help to arrive (tactics, to include lasing mortar positions, & by some of their calls made)

We KNOW the CIA sent immediate messages – AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ATTACK – TO THE WHITE HOUSE WAR ROOM & STATE DEPARTMENT informing them of the attack & that it was DEFINITELY AN ACT OF TERRORISM! We KNOW someone in the White House MODIFIED – CHANGED – the wording of those messages, ELIMINATING ANY REFERENCE TO ‘TERRORISM’! We KNOW the WH, Obama, & Hillary LIED about every aspect of this attack, from the ‘video’ to the messages sent by the CIA, that Obama sought to prevent any facts coming out or to at least delay any investigation into this until after the election!

We KNOW General Ham, the AFRICOM Commander in charge of the Libyan area & who was stationed at Sigonella Air Base where several Spec Ops teams were also stationed, received the call for help from Libya …that Spec Ops response Teams (2hrs away from the attack that lasted over 6 hrs) were prepping to rspond, & that they received the ORDER from this Administration to ‘STAND DOWN’ – thereby BETRAYING/ABANDONING Stevens & the Americans under attack. We KNOW Ham voiced his intent to IGNORE that command & was immediately RELIEVED OF DUTY!

We KNOW Obama/Hillary/Rice never mentioned any of this until it leaked out, that they instead have LIED, maniulated reports/evidence, & now Hillary has FAKED AN INJURY IN ORDER TO GET OUT OF TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS!

THIS SCANDAL IS FAR WORSE THAN FAST & FURIOUS, FAR WORSE THAN THE AUTO BAILOUT PENSION SCANDAL…EVEN FAR WORSE THAN WATERGATE! HILLARY AT THE VERY LEAST SHOULD BE FIRED IN DISGRACE & IMO THIS EVEN REACHES A LEVEL WORTHY OF PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT!

easyt65 on December 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Remember The Jugeared One’s righteous indignation during the second debate?

Remember the undoing of Romney by the inwarranted intervention by moderator Crowley?

Obviously the media wasn’t about to interrupt the false narrative that Al Qaeda is decimated. They were already resurgent, and there is no way in hell that Ojesus and his minions did not know this. No way.

There was plenty of evidence for the media as well, but they chose to ignore it publicly.

Treasonous bastards are the media flunkies of the Ojesus junta.

hillbillyjim on December 20, 2012 at 3:41 PM

hillbillyjim on December 20, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Oops. Er, inwarranted s/b unwarranted, of course.

I blame Bush.

hillbillyjim on December 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM

The ARB report is intended to give the Obama Administration version of what might have gone wrong. On the bright side, it’s a good starting point for a Congressional investigation.

Once you realize the whole point of the report is to sell a particular version of what happened, you can really use it properly.

Start by asking “Who are they trying to protect?” Which is another way of saying, “Who does the report NOT blame.”

Then look for the parts of the narrative left unfollowed, as in, “Is there more to this story?”

Then question conclusions that seem a little hasty or ill-founded.

Finally, for every question you dig up from all this, demand an answer from Hillary Clinton directly.

If nothing else, the flood of “I do not recall” answers will be entertaining.

tom on December 20, 2012 at 4:48 PM

…Because the Obama admin wanted to blame our Free Speech rights, our First Amendment rights, for the killings, because he doesn’t like free speech. …

Paul-Cincy on December 20, 2012 at 2:16 PM

This was my first reaction when the administration and, by extension, the LSM started blaming some video and apologizing for it. “WTF?” is all my simple mind kept screaming.

freedomfirst on December 20, 2012 at 4:57 PM

What is true? Hillary Clinton is a coward and a disgrace. She is the one who should resign and hang her head in shame. I would expect that from an honorable person, but apparently she has no shame nor honor.

scalleywag on December 20, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Those four resignations made for some splashy headlines for a day, but that’s about it. Officials said some of those who resigned may have the option of being reassigned to other duties.

lynncgb on December 20, 2012 at 7:57 PM

..go to jail…NOW!

KOOLAID2 on December 20, 2012 at 10:46 PM