She was, he says, passionate in her insistence that it was a reaction to the Mohammed movie YouTube video, not an act of terror. Which is interesting for lots of reasons, starting with the fact that no less than Carter Ham said it was clear within hours that it was terrorism. “Top intelligence officials” told NBC News the same thing. Why was Hillary telling Congress one thing if the counterterror brain trust was saying something else privately?
But wait — Kinzinger says Hillary told them this just two days after the attack. Maybe word hadn’t gotten over to State from the CIA by then about what really happened. Maybe it was an innocent mistake.
Or maybe not:
Nick Merrill, a Clinton aide, provided the following statement to The Hill on the condition that it be run in its entirety.
“Here are the facts: on September 20th, 2012, nine days after the attack – not two as he falsely stated – Secretary Clinton was part of two large briefings held for the benefit of all 535 Members of Congress. Hundreds of House members were present for their session, and more than 90 Senators attended theirs. On January 23rd, 2013, she testified publicly before both the Senate and House. Those are the only two times Adam Kinzinger would have been within a mile of her.
“So we are to believe that he woke up today, 10 months and 27 days later, and suddenly remembered he heard something that 434 other people somehow missed? Not so much. What happened this morning was nothing short of brazen deceit.”
The news hadn’t made it over to State nine days later, huh? It had made it to the White House: On September 20, 2012, Jay Carney abandoned the dopey “YouTube video” explanation and confirmed for reporters that, yes, it was terrorism. But just because the timeline’s damning for Hillary doesn’t mean that she said what Kinzinger claims she said. If he’s mentioning this for the first time only now, 11 months later, maybe he really is guilty of “brazen deceit.”
Or maybe not:
Kinzinger actually addressed this point with Secretary Clinton when she testified about Benghazi before the House, back on January 23:
KINZINGER: When you briefed us, you said unequivocally this was a result of a video. I remember in fact, you got pretty upset when somebody suggested this was a terror attack. This was our briefing that we had. But we find out now it wasn’t a video, it was this terrorist attack.
He raised this point with Hillary herself, at a House hearing, just three months after the alleged yelling incident occurred. And she didn’t deny it happened; follow the last link and read Jim Geraghty’s transcript. She claimed that her earlier remarks about the YouTube video weren’t about Benghazi but rather about the other protests around the region on 9/11/12, like the one at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. You believe her, don’t you? She and her spokesman have obviously been completely above board on all of this.
In other news, Michelle Obama thinks America might be ready for its first woman president.