Quotes of the day
posted at 9:16 pm on February 1, 2013 by Allahpundit
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is leaving office with a slap at critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. She told The Associated Press that critics of the administration’s handling of the attack don’t live in an “evidence-based world,” and their refusal to “accept the facts” is unfortunate and regrettable for the political system.
In her last one-on-one interview before she steps down on Friday, Clinton told the AP that the attack in Benghazi was the low point of her time as America’s top diplomat. But she suggested that the furor over the assault would not affect whether she runs for president in 2016.
For all of Clinton’s personal prestige and tireless work ethic, most of the administration’s foreign policy accomplishments — the wind-down of two wars, the Osama bin Laden killing, the Libya intervention — were the product of a group decision-making process, with Obama undeniably at the head of the table and equal weight given to players like U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, Defense secretaries Bob Gates and Leon Panetta, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Vice President Joe Biden, a Clinton admirer who own gaze is firmly fixed on 2016…
“I can see the parallels” between her struggles in 2008 campaign and her performance at State, says Kori Schake, senior foreign policy adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign.
“Ask her assistant secretaries at gunpoint, ‘tell me honestly what her top three priorities have been’ — I don’t think they could answer,” says Schake.
Hume, on “The O’Reilly Factor”:
“It’s not easy to be a great Secretary of State. Foreign policy is really the province of the president; the Secretary of State is the person who is his emissary… She’s worked very hard, travelled all over the world, 112 countries — but the list of achievements that can be attributed to her is not long, and it’s not major. How well has the reset with Russia worked out? How are things between Arab and Israelis, closer to peace than before? How about Iran, North Korea, their nuclear weapons program? Have they been retarded, held-back, halted? No, I don’t think so. So you look around for a Clinton doctrine… a new way of thinking… I would say not. And what about major treaties? … Was she involved in negotiations that led to any major treaties? The answer to all those questions appears to be no.”
“She’s coming away with a stellar reputation that seems to have put her almost above criticism,” Aaron David Miller, a former diplomat peace negotiator, said to Paul Richter, of the Los Angeles Times. “But you can’t say that she’s really led on any of the big issues for this administration or made a major mark on high strategy.” A former diplomat who served in the Obama Administration told Richter, “If you go down the line, it’s tough to see what’s happened in world politics over the last four years that wouldn’t have happened without her. So, it’s tough to see how she gets into that category of truly great, transformational secretaries, like Acheson and Marshall.”
It’s hard to quibble with that assessment. Marshall gave his name to an economic-recovery plan for war-torn Europe. Acheson laid down the Cold War policy of containment and helped create NATO. Adams helped conceive the Monroe Doctrine, which defined Central and South America as part of the U.S. sphere of influence. Kissinger pioneered détente with the Soviets, instigated a rapprochement with the Chinese, and did much else besides (by no means all of it estimable). By contrast, Hillary’s signature achievements look like small beer.
She’s received almost nothing but praise for her tenure as Secretary of State, which neatly elides over the massive fecal tornado engulfing the world from Mali to Islamabad, the Arab Spring’s descent into something that looks more ugly by the day, and the coming festivities in Afghanistan when we close up shop there in 2014. Other than that, Mrs. Clinton, how did you enjoy the play?…
The media loves consistency and narrative, but they also love the shock of the new. They love the prospect of another Obama, who electrifies their fantasy lives in a way that Hillary never quite did. Oh, she’s entirely preferable to any Republican in their minds, but 2008 should have been a cautionary tale for those who are today declaring her inevitability. No, there probably won’t be another Obama, but there may well be someone and something else that captures attention…
Hillary Clinton, though beloved by the Acela Corridor, in reality has a kind of fuzzy brand image right now. Name ID is necessary, but not sufficient, and unfortunately for her, there isn’t a single, defining philosophical principle by which she can be identified, and part of the predicate of a future Hillary run is that Obama’s brand and her association with it will be a political asset…
Hillary 2016 is a pleasant little parlor game, but there’s many a slip twixt the cup and the lip between now and the next inauguration.
PPP’s newest Texas poll finds that, at least for now, Hillary Clinton could win the state in 2016. This follows on the heels of a survey last month where we found she would have a decent chance of winning Kentucky if she makes another White House bid.
50% of Texas voters have a favorable opinion of Clinton to 43% with a negative one. She’s universally well liked by Democrats (91/5) and a majority of independents view her positively as well (52/41). She holds narrow leads in hypothetical match ups with Marco Rubio (46/45) and Chris Christie (45/43) and a wider one in a contest against Rick Perry (50/42).
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that she is “not inclined” to run for president in 2016 but left the door open for what is widely considered her likely return to politics after she steps down as secretary of state.
“I’m not thinking about anything like that right now,” Clinton smilingly told a questioner. “I am looking forward to finishing up my tenure as secretary of state and then catching up on about 20 years of sleep deprivation.”
Clinton … has shown that women can wield official power and can do so with moral force equal to, and in some ways greater than, men. Mrs. Roosevelt did this, too, both through her influence on her husband, and with her own clout in the public square. She continued on, many people forget, as an important figure long after she left the White House, playing a key role in the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and leading the reformers’ wing of the Democratic Party in the 1950s and early 1960s.
For Columbia historian Alan Brinkley, it’s a close call, but: “I do think that as a woman in government and politics, Clinton probably has been the most important woman in American politics—and may become more so. She was probably the second-most important person in the White House during Bill Clinton’s presidency. She was one of the most important senators during the Bush years. And she has been one of the most powerful secretaries of state since Dulles.”…
[I]n upstate New York, away from the city’s bumptious glare, even when she was giving so-so speeches, I observed something else powerful going on. It was the look in women’s eyes, and especially in their daughters’ eyes, when they met her; waiting for hours, at a skating rink in Elmira I think it was, or a minor-league ballpark in Jamestown. How nervous they were, even overwhelmed, to meet her. How patient she was with every one of them, every last one of them, working those rope lines for hours and hours, posing for pictures, signing autographs—even obligingly signing some of those idiotic attack books, by Laura Ingraham and Peggy Noonan and so forth, if that’s what people shoved under her, always smiling, smiling…
But even if that doesn’t happen, she has been one of the most remarkable Americans of our time. In the 20 years she’s been on the stage, the country has gone from wondering whether women could handle the toughest jobs to knowing they can. That is a huge cultural change—barriers that were a given for most people a generation ago are just completely socially unacceptable now, and thousands more women know they can aim for the top. No one is more responsible for that change than Hillary Clinton.
Via Mediaite.
Related Posts:
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
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
ERIC HOLDER TO MEDIA, AMERICA:
Yesterday, on the way into Congress to answer questions, he was asked if he had any intention of appointing a special prosecutor/counsel for Benghazi…and he replied, “No” as he breezed by & into the building.
To rub salt in the wounds of outraged America, Obama announced the IRS Scandal is for all intents & purposes over because he has taken swift, strict action BY ALLOWING THE HEAD OF THE IRS TO STEP DOWN/RETIRE…LIKE HE WAS GOING TO DO ANYWAY (LIKE hILLARY ALREADY DID)!
And in regards to Benghazi, not only was no one fired, but it is being reported that RICE IS GOING TO BE PROMOTED after lying her arse off & the #2 Diplomat in Libya got demoted & given a lowly desk job for questioning Rice’s & this administration’s lies about Benghazi!
Obama/Holer’s Final Message on the Scandals:
“$u@K It, America! Forward…”
easyt65 on May 16, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Stylistic changes.
Happy Nomad on May 16, 2013 at 8:40 AM
Roh roh Scooby.
hillsoftx on May 16, 2013 at 8:41 AM
But where are the emails from 9/12 and 9/13? That’s the big question.
ButterflyDragon on May 16, 2013 at 8:43 AM
Gop overreaching.. there is no there there….
Lib mantra
cmsinaz on May 16, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Why did they take out alQaeda references to keep from influencing the FBI investigation if it was the FBI saying it was AlQaeda?
Sounds like a made up explanation to me.
Also, did they really just start working on these 3 days after the attack?
MayBee on May 16, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Most transparent administration ever.
socalcon on May 16, 2013 at 8:47 AM
Let’s remember something here. If you are an investigator, analyst, or even a historian you would find only part of the picture from these e-mails. There were phonecalls. There were meetings including that political strategy meeting over the talking points on the Saturday before Susan Rice lied her ass off. There were discussions with the campaign people.
In short, e-mails are great but they are hardly the full story or context.
Happy Nomad on May 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM
…fixed (:->)
KOOLAID2 on May 16, 2013 at 8:48 AM
The lsm is going to do everything they can to make these emails backfire on the gop
cmsinaz on May 16, 2013 at 8:50 AM
The Weekly Standard has done a better job than anyone covering Benghazi;
Money quote;
Marcus Traianus on May 16, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Didn’t Ansar al Sharia take credit for the attack even before it was finished?
I remember a U.K. news network printing that on 9/12 and Hillary was questioned about this and she said that “we can’t take every group that claims credit seriously”
Or something like that.
Electrongod on May 16, 2013 at 8:52 AM
The gop straw men will be in full force for dear leader at the presser…. what more do they want… waaaaa
cmsinaz on May 16, 2013 at 8:52 AM
Nixon — 18 minutes of missing recordings.
Dear Leader — 67 hours of missing emails.
farsighted on May 16, 2013 at 8:53 AM
…I wonder IF the FBI ever did make it to Bengahzi…to Investigate?… weeks later?…oh?…just because they said they did?
KOOLAID2 on May 16, 2013 at 8:54 AM
Round and round the Lies go…where they stop, nobody knows..
..my bet is on the Weekend Janitor at the Smithsonian…
Yeah, he did it!!!
This collection of crooked Kooks is Hall of Fame, even the
Psychos at Bellevue at watching these guys and thinking
“Wow, I could’ve been in Government!”
ToddPA on May 16, 2013 at 8:55 AM
The important thing is that we got the perpetrators of the attack. /
BKeyser on May 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM
Obama will be only be lying today at his Presser, when his lips are moving.
kingsjester on May 16, 2013 at 8:57 AM
I want to know more about the “Libyans tried to save Ambassador Stevens by bringing him t the hospital” talking point. That came out the next morning, and was used by both Obama and Hillary. Yet we didn’t rally know that, although we did know someone had brought him to a terrorism-linked hospital.
So they surely suspected terrorist involvement more than they knew anyone tried to save him. Who came up with that?
MayBee on May 16, 2013 at 8:58 AM
How accurate is this factoid? Is the reason this much BS’ing waste of time was spent developing these talking points because members of Congress needed to know what to talk about in front of cameras?
And what the members of Congress got was a lot of nothing because of the Administration’s paranoia that members of Congress might criticize the Administration on their response to the death of four American’s on the 11th anniversary of 9/11?
Yeah, there was a turf war alright — between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch and the Legislative branch hadn’t even been told the Executive branch had declared one.
Dusty on May 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM
I pretty sure they never left little Vegas in Tripoli.
/
Electrongod on May 16, 2013 at 8:59 AM
Ultimately, the emails reveal that there was no cover up, despite continued accusations from the right. The protests are staring to sound very foolish and strictly partisan.
The untimely death of a US ambassador left in Benganzi without adequate protection should be the real fight here. Someone in CIA and FBI wanted to let an investigation unfold before pinning the attacks to a specific organization? So what, giving credit to specific terrorists only helps boost their image and fundraising capabilities. Why the right is pursuing this petty and trivial line of attack is really hard to comprehend.
bayam on May 16, 2013 at 9:00 AM
No special prosecutor for Benghazi per holder
cmsinaz on May 16, 2013 at 9:01 AM
The Regime should have no credibility. Even though the ‘smoking gun’ of the 9-11 to 9-13 emails are still hidden, sufficient evidence supports the appointment of Independent Prosecutor for EACH scandal.
socalcon on May 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Why you are a Functioning human being, Science has yet to
figure out
ToddPA on May 16, 2013 at 9:03 AM
IF that were the case, some of those emails would reference decisions made during those phone calls or other communications. This so-called scandal around disclosure has zero factual basis now that these emails have been released but you probably know that anyway.
bayam on May 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM
“I know NOTHING…I don wanna know NOTHING….I don wan anywan to know NOTHING…
easyt65 on May 16, 2013 at 9:04 AM
Moron. The emails merely show the elimination of facts. As with all crimes, the coverup follows.
Honestly, how stupid are you?
socalcon on May 16, 2013 at 9:05 AM
Which would mean that the editing and revisions of the talking points were politically motivated. They did not want to tell Republican legislators what they knew because, horrors of horrors, they might in turn tell the American people.
That’s an obvious attempt to hide facts from the American people for purely political reasons.
farsighted on May 16, 2013 at 9:06 AM
Yeah, no cover up of the fact that it was a terrorist attack and not a protest. *eye roll*
These emails only cover the discussion around how to try and hide the fact this was a terrorist attack. There are more. Of course these emails only cover some of the stupidity going on in this administration after the attack. We still know next to nothing about what the White House and State were doing during the attack.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 9:07 AM
Looked to me like there was a whole intragency committee cleared by the WH involved on the talking points evolution…coordinated by Ben & Jake.
Of course the critical communications before…during and immediately after attack are missing 8 months later.
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 9:07 AM
Because Dog Eater and Killary knew that a majority of the nation are dolts as proven by the last election, so they winged it and went for broke. How many lefties DIDN’T fall the youtube excuse can be counted on 7-fingered hand of Joy Behar.
Bishop on May 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Without the emails from 9-11 to 9-13, no conclusion may be draw as to whether or not a cover-up plan of action had ALREADY been agreed upon.
Independent Prosecutor. NOW.
socalcon on May 16, 2013 at 9:08 AM
Ft. Hood = Workplace Violence
Benghazi = Spontaneous Protest over youtube video
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM
You’re extremely close to the real reason there. Now just relate it to Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.
Nicely done and thanks.
rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Not to mention we do not know what is in the emails written in the 67 hours prior to these. Apparently one has seen those emails.
farsighted on May 16, 2013 at 9:10 AM
You know what’s funny? Instead of paying attention to the facts we get this borderline retarded analysis about what “would” be in the emails. Give me a break. If any of us who aren’t brain dead leftists offered this kind of analysis we would be laughed at, and rightly so.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM
As the realization hits them that no one is buying Obama’s explanations concerning these scandals, watch out for our Trolls to become more and more deperately unhinged.
kingsjester on May 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Yeah…uh…you’ll want to read the remarks ol’ Killary made at the funeral for those men she abandoned in Benghazi.
Concentrate on the words of hers: “We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with.”
Seriously you need to stop being a shill for these people. If they would turn their backs on an ambassador and two Navy SEAL’s they sure as hell would leave your ass to swing in the breeze too.
Bishop on May 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Maybe the missing e-mails show both incompetents (Il Duce & Killary) triangulating with It depends on what is is… Bill Clinton
I mean…at this point why not?
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM
Wait, you’ve got me mixed up with someone else! I shouldn’t be getting on this train! Wait! I’m one of you! I’m one of yooouuu!!! WAAIIIT!!! PLEASE WAIT!!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!”
rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 9:14 AM
The press will never ask about the you tube video
cmsinaz on May 16, 2013 at 9:15 AM
So let’s have the entire communications record, everything, then we can figure out if you’re correct on your assumptions.
Who gave the stand down order and why. What were 20+ CIA agents doing at our Libyan consulate. Why did we have an almost unprotected consulate in a nation enduring a fresh civil war instigated by the United States.
This email string is just a snippet of what happened that night, but of course people like you will point to what isn’t there and say “See, nothing happened.”
Bishop on May 16, 2013 at 9:17 AM
OTOH, perhaps it would gladly martyr itself for Dear Leader and the Glorious Cause.
Rather than just bravely, and anonymously, combat the forces of evil on HA on his behalf.
farsighted on May 16, 2013 at 9:17 AM
Yepper wca
cmsinaz on May 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM
If the video reference is not in the notes passed around by everyone, then either Obama or Hillary must have added it on their own after everyone had commented.
albill on May 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM
In response to your childish ‘analysis’ and claims that the emails aren’t a generally complete record of the talking points discussion.
As Ed and others have quoted:
The release also showed that the CIA, and not the State Department, made the decision to scrub references to al Qaeda, al Qaeda linked groups, and prior terrorist attacks in the region.
bayam on May 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM
Let’s not forget…
Where are the e-mails from the first 48 hours?
Chris of Rights on May 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM
It lives in Canada.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 9:19 AM
How many lefty Canadian trolls do we have? I now count two.
farsighted on May 16, 2013 at 9:22 AM
What did you do, poke your eyes out when you came to this in Ed’s post?
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 9:23 AM
Note how Obama secretly snatching reporters phone records results in Jay Clown Carney getting slapped with some of the hardest hitting reporter questions in the five years of the obama administration.
Amazing what you can find when journolists finally stop acting like in kind contributors to the obama campaign, and actually start doing their jobs.
Cavalry on May 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM
Today we visit another exciting episode of:
Leftist Time machine!!
Tune in as Bayman explains:
“It’s obvious these nasty Republicans would rather blame Senator
Kennedy for this woman’s untimely death, than the Black
Olsmobile, which was responsible.”
ToddPA on May 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM
This is progress- you actually understand that the Americans killed is the real scandal, not whether the talking points described the attackers as Islamic extremists or terrorist.
bayam on May 16, 2013 at 9:26 AM
Ahhhh…that explains things. She comes here to freely rant because Canadians can get arrested for speaking their minds up north.
Bishop on May 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM
If you believe the entire scope of the conversation was 100 pages of emails, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
ButterflyDragon on May 16, 2013 at 9:27 AM
What these events are proving is that Pravda, Izvestia, and Tass didn’t do their jobs. On Benghazi, this was all about Fox News making a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe if they could have made the IRS story into a Republican thing, they would have done that too, but it left Cincinnati too soon for that to happen.
It wasn’t until the AP’s ox was gored that they started to get a little excited. When you take a step back and see how they’ve been played these past 5 years, you have to wonder if Obama could have won re-election with an adversarial press.
bflat879 on May 16, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Yeah, c’mon, bishop. Weren’t you informed about the one-scandal limit rule?
rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 9:30 AM
It used to be that the most difficult thing about lying was remembering every lie you told so you didn’t get caught in your lies. But, that was a different time when lying was taboo and shame was an actual feeling. Conscience’s now have been seared to the point where it doesn’t mean anything to be caught lying. There is no remorse. There is no shame. The only feeling these people feel anymore is regret at getting caught. Now it’s “Oh well, no big deal. Life goes on”.
I used to trust the government but along came the Obama administration and his left-wing enablers. The things perpetrated by our government, things one would never have dreamed could happen in this country, happened. Hope and Change! It’s now Chaos and Despair.
iamsaved on May 16, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Sorry, Chuck, the issue isn’t the nomenclature of the attackers, it’s the motive for the attack. Americans aren’t aghast at this because some leftist fool called a terrorist a “protestor”, it’s that the administration said the assault on our embassy was a spontaneous demonstration over a video when they KNEW that very night it was a coordinated attack.
So we can start with Question 1: Why would Killary and Bark continue to assert even weeks later that a simple YT vid was the driver for an attack on a U.S. consulate. What were they then and now trying to hide?
Bishop on May 16, 2013 at 9:33 AM
I don’t wonder about that at all.
There is no doubt in my mind he would not have been re-elected if the MSM treated him the way they would have treated a Republican incumbent with the same record on the economy, the debt, the deficit, and unemployment.
Case in point, the election of 1992.
farsighted on May 16, 2013 at 9:34 AM
Poor thing, when your heard the news of an attack in Libya by Islamic extremists, described as ‘terrorist’ by the WH the next day, you were then later shocked to hear about an al Qaeda connection?
bayam on May 16, 2013 at 9:34 AM
You finish reading Ed’s entire post yet?
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM
The more important question is what were the CIA and FBI trying to hide? Why did they redact information about the identities of the perpetrators? Come on, you can do better- come up with a conspiracy theory.
bayam on May 16, 2013 at 9:36 AM
Why does this brayam person constantly defend the Marxist in Chief? He Doesn’t Even Live Here. So sick of these commie trolls.
BeachBum on May 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 9:38 AM
Hey Brayam, why don’t you pay attention to what’s happening in your Own country?
BeachBum on May 16, 2013 at 9:39 AM
As Comrade Trotsky constantly pointed out, The Cause is an International Cause.
farsighted on May 16, 2013 at 9:40 AM
Is the lying idiot troll dizzy from all that spinning.
That is what the American people really want to know.
cozmo on May 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Smells like Bill doesn’t it?
I wonder if He’ll charge in to save the day with another finger waggin’ splaination…
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 9:52 AM
The pathetic little twit won’t be back. He was caught not reading Ed’s entire post and so he missed this part:
The pr!ck isn’t interested in the truth.
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 9:55 AM
Who created the Youtube video lie..?
d1carter on May 16, 2013 at 9:56 AM
So far we have Hicks saying Killary sorta kinda pressured Amb. Stevens to squareup Benghazi before her planned celebrity Smart Power tour…
We also have a lot of missing weapons in the immediate region that turn up in the oddest places at the oddest times…Kinda like Fast & Furious
workingclass artist on May 16, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Please ignore all those videos of Obama and Hillary telling the American people that rioters armed with automatic weapons and RPGs were just upset over an obscure video put out by an individual the previous year. Who are you going to believe? …my obvious braying-points or your own lying eyes? Let me tell you what you should believe….
dominigan on May 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM
…when they say you are “dumber than sh!t”…
I wonder if sh!t is offended?
KOOLAID2 on May 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM
Not to mention what she told the parents and widows of the slain, how they were going to do whatever was necessary to bring the video’s producer to justice.
As to your cautionary advice, I suspect this particular troll’s ass has been swinging in the breeze for years anyway…
TXUS on May 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM
I don’t know, maybe a complete issuance of all related documents and communications logs would answer this question for us, yes?
Odd how you manage to agree with everyone else while trying to defend these thugs. You do realize you just entered some interesting questions into the case file that shoot down your own argument that everything has been fully explained?
Bishop on May 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM
Free speech in Canada is so f’d up that a website like HA could not exist in Canada. They have nowhere else to go.
Kind of like unemployed people from California moving to Texas.
slickwillie2001 on May 16, 2013 at 10:00 AM
You also have the early symptoms of NYT Disease: “I didn’t read it on the front page of the NYT therefore it didn’t happen.”
Bishop on May 16, 2013 at 10:01 AM
You really are a moron.
They were forced to keep making changes because State didn’t like the product yet.
Obviously, you’ve never worked in a hierarchal system like this. The higher ups don’t need to make changes, they can just keep saying no.
The bottom line is that Susan Rice specifically said that the intelligence pointed to a video. That was wrong, and it was a lie that should have been corrected immediately.
The problem was that Obama’s reelection was hanging in the balance. Everyone needed to make Libya seem like a big success. The truth got in the way of that so a lie was perpetuated.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 10:03 AM
You mean, the two organizations that both report up through the Executive branch to Obama? What did he know and when did he know it? When you run your organization like the mob, you investigate them the same way. Thanks for agreeing with me…. start with the underlings and work your way up to the head criminal! Great idea!
dominigan on May 16, 2013 at 10:06 AM
It wasn’t described that way at all – LIAR.
Obama even admitted on 60 Minutes that he wouldn’t characterize it was terrorist until they knew more. This is incredibly ironic, because he was fine characterizing it as a protest DESPITE knowing more.
It’s absolutely amazing that you continue to try to defend this.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 10:07 AM
Remember how Hillary testified & said it was THE INTEL COMMUNITY that was responsible for the majority for the CIA report re-writes? Yeah, well, those emails now prove that the State Department was a major player….
If they do not bring Hillary Clinton back to testify before Congress again, to hammer the cr@p out of her over her 1st time testifying, then this is a farce! Washington needs to give up trying to protect Hillary’s 2016 run because after this the only thing she should be running for is Lead Rep for Cell Block D on the Prison Council!
easyt65 on May 16, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Anybody heard from David Patreus..? David Patreus where are you..?
d1carter on May 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Focus People.
If the talking points were changed atleast 12 times before Rice’s talks, when did Obama get briefed?
Which iteration was he told, and how was he able to kepe the points straight?
I know whenever I’ve been involved in a procedure analysis, my boss, and my boss’ boss have been breathing down our necks wanting an answer, and nobody even died, or created an international situation.
Wouldn’t Obama want to have the answer without the meetings, or at least be involved in the meeting? Every executive I’ve known does.
gonnjos on May 16, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Obama wants to have his cake & eat it, too…..
Weeks later he appeared before the U.N. & went on & on about the Benghazi violence & that d@mn video! In an interview on 24 October, more than a month later he was asked if the attack was a terrorist attack & Obama said it was too early to tell because the investigation was still on-going.
Face it, the @$$ lied/covered-up Benghazi to save his re-election chance, the same way he hid the IRS scandal that had been going on/known about/investigated since 2010 as well as the AP Wire-Tap scandal…
And Hillary put her 2016 election chance above the lives / truth about Benghazi…after this she shouldn’t be allowed to run for the position of pooper-scooper following a column of horses in the Macy’s parade!
easyt65 on May 16, 2013 at 10:15 AM
Any competent executive would, as you pointed out, but this rat-eared bastard has never even run a lemonade stand so I can easily see him saying, “Oh, you all get together and handle this, I’ve got a tee time to meet.”
However, he knows enough that should he actually get involved in the handling of a crisis or in its handling in the aftermath, that he won’t be able to point the finger of blame later.
TXUS on May 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM
WHAT. DIFFERENCE. DOES. IT. MAKE.
-Hildawg
JackForce on May 16, 2013 at 10:23 AM
The CIA stated under oath that it sent several cables declaring the attack that had started about an hour previously directly to the WHITE HOUSE WAR ROOM & to the State Department. Now why in the h#ll would the CIA send these cables to the WH War Room if they did not know Obama was most probably there monitoring the situation — not just Benghazi but the fact that 20 (TWENTY) Embassies that day were being attacked/overrun throughout the Middle East?! Hillary said she never knew what was going on but thanks to the Hearing the other week we know the #2 Ambassador in Libya spoke to Hillary / the State Dept to let them know what was going on Immediately.
Both of these leaders are lying their arses off because they KNEW what was going on within hours of the attack beginning!
And, if in some miraculous way Obama’s/Hillary’s stories turn out to be true *whch we know it is NOT in regards to Hillary) – if 20 Embassies are being attacked throughout the Middle East, attacked by terrorists – the Embassies being overrun, ransacked, burned & American lives are in jeopardy – & the President & the Secretary of State CAN’T BE FOUND to brief what is going on, aren’t monitoring the situation…AT ANY TIME DURING THE ATTACK IN BENGHAZI THAT TOOK APPROX 12 HOURS FROM START TO FINISH, then both o them need to be IMPEACHED & punished to the full extent of the law for dereliction of duty, criminal incompetence that put lives in jeopardy & cost Americans their lives, that puts this nation’s national security in jeopardy!
Both of these losers argued they were the most qualified to answer a ’3am phone call’; yet, when 20 Embassies were being attacked/overrun, Americans were in jeopardy, Benghazi was ablaze, the 1st Ambassador to be killed in over 30 years was being dragged through the street, & other Americans were being betrayed/abandoned by an order to responding rescue personnel to STAND DOWN…these 2 refused to answer the continuosly ringing phone….for approx 12 (TWELVE) HOURS!
When was Obama briefed? He knew within an hour of the Benghazi attack starting up that it was happening, just as he knew numerous Embassies throughout the Middle East were being attacked on the Anniversary of 9/11…and he turned his back on every single one of those Americans in peril, his only thought being his re-election!
easyt65 on May 16, 2013 at 10:29 AM
Wow, you’re extremely bad at this.
We already knew that, of course, but still. Go back and read it again and see if you can find your problem.
Hint: It starts with “There” and ends with “is only one scandal”.
Congratulations on not fleeing the thread yet, btw.
Well, maybe you haven’t fled. Hard to say. Par for the course for you, though, isn’t it?
rogerb on May 16, 2013 at 10:32 AM
I’ll invoke the Holder Rule and say “I don’t know”.
Bishop on May 16, 2013 at 10:34 AM
The Ass-Maggot knows that, he’s just trying to fill the thread with his usual bullshit.
slickwillie2001 on May 16, 2013 at 10:48 AM
It’s amazing that he tried to toss out such blatant lies as if they wouldn’t be immediately countered.
blink on May 16, 2013 at 10:55 AM
What you tube video? Crickets
Lsm
Arrrgghh
cmsinaz on May 16, 2013 at 11:05 AM
Why is the gun running angle not being discussed on Hot Air at all? Glenn Beck is all over it on the radio this morning.
Lunker on May 16, 2013 at 11:16 AM
You call ‘unequivocal’ a line that includes “they are pursuing that theory“?
Regardless, even the most favorable (to your theory )reading of that bit doesn’t in any way settle or even move forward your case. The reason Politco, Tapper, Karl don’t mention this detail is because they are rightly working from a comprehensive reading of the docs and emails.
verbaluce on May 16, 2013 at 11:22 AM
Establishing once again that liberals have no sense of irony. It’s the protests that are “foolish and strictly partisan,” not these pathetic excuses for incompetence and negligence on a scale so staggering that it looks deliberate.
The talking points are important because it shows the coverup. The State department was trying to cover up how they left these people to die. The Obama administration was trying to cover up how Al Quaeda wasn’t quite so “on the run” as they had been claiming right before the election.
After the Obama administration leaving people to die in Benghazi, using the IRS to silence dissent, seizing phone records of journalists, spying on the House, and soliciting “voluntary” donations from regulated health care corporations to organizations to help implement Obamacare, it is indeed “foolish and strictly partisan” to defend the White House. At this point, they deserve no benefit of the doubt. At this point, we should be investigating whether Obama himself was involved in deciding to let the people in Benghazi die, encouraging the IRS to target his political enemies, asking DOJ to target journalists, and telling Sebelius to “lean on” the corporations she was regulating for donations.
There Goes the Neighborhood on May 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Are you somehow claiming that Rice’s comments on five morning shows were accurate?
blink on May 16, 2013 at 11:26 AM
That’s what the CIA said Slow Joe.
And what would that “comprehensive reading” be?
NotCoach on May 16, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »