WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered fiery rejoinders Wednesday to Republican critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the deadly attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi, facing off with lawmakers who included potential 2016 presidential rivals.
At times emotional and frequently combative, Clinton rejected GOP suggestions in two congressional hearings that the administration tried to mislead the country about the Sept. 11 attack that killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans. She insisted the State Department is moving swiftly and aggressively to strengthen security at diplomatic posts worldwide.
Comments
The issue, Ms. Clinton, is that on the day after the attack the President called it a terrorist attack (that's what he told us in the 2nd debate) and five days later Ms. Rice is stating it was a spontaneous demonstration. Who was lying? Rice or Obama?
This comment has been removed.
Ms. Rice did not say spontaneous demonstrators killed the Ambassado as you imply. She said that, based on what she was told, a spontaneous demonstration occured and was used as a pretext by militants for the attack. Those are two very different situations.
I think they sent Rice out as a trail run for a nomination with talking points she was not comfortable with. To me, this isn't a Watergate style coverup. To make it more is a distraction at a time when other issues in the Mideast are far more pressing. Provide better security at Consulates, particularly in countries like Libya, and provide better talking points to the Administrations Spokespeople. Then move on.
Thank you, Madam Secretary, fantastic job. Having to repair the horrific damage done to the United States' reputation around the world by Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, and all the rest of the NeoCon dead-enders, has to have been a herculean task. Now, finally, we are moving in the right direction.
As for Senator McCain, a sad end to a long, terrific career of public service, obviously still bitter about losing in 2008, he should have retired then with his great reputation in place.
Wow, now I know where all the Kool-Aid went.
This comment has been removed.
When you throw someone (Rice) to the Lions to keep Obama and Hillary out of harms way, don't act surprised when they eat her.
Also, what difference does it make? Oh I don't know, maybe so that it doesn't happen again? The Ambassador's family may want to know why the contradictions and why calls for more security where ignored. So stop acting arrogant and angry and just answer the questions Madame Secretary.
Yes, unbelievable, huh? What does it matter if we understand the series of mistakes that contributed to the first death of an ambassador since the 70's ?
What difference does it make? How about who wins the 3 presidentail debates and possibly who wins the 2012 election? Hillary LIEd not to coverup State Dept mistakes, but to save Barack Obama's reelection.
The responsibility stops at the top, if Secretary of State did not know security was lacking of lax at an embassy, she should have made it her business to know.
The Secretary of State is in command.
The 'top' can't possibly know what occurs throughout an agency like the US State Department, any more than a huge corporation's chairman of the board knows day-to-day operations at any of their sites.
Further, there's a delicate balance between having a US embassy be accessible to the members of that host community/country, and in minimizing barriers between that community and the embassy. A 'fortress' in their midst will not gain the favor of that host community.
I doubt that Ambassador Stevens would have had things any other way. These brave men and women serve with honor, and they know the dangers that they may encounter.
Enough obfuscation that papers like the Globe can run with headlines like
Clinton challenges GOP focus on Rice commentsrather than tragic, historical failure in leadership at State confirmed.
Hopefully this will dash any of Hilly's dreams of running for Prez in 2016.
HistoryIsJustThat - If the Globe, NYTimes, MSNBC and CNN are still around to cover her tracks like they did for The O and Elizabeth Warren, she still has a chance.
I wonder if ABC, NBC and CBS will even cover it tonight
They will "cover" it by showing her "vehemently" chastising congress, and being all "Fiesty". Remember, these days it is never about what actually happened, but rather if someone is now "rude" when asking questions. It becomes all about the process.
This comment has been removed.
after the election, comments and this testimoney dont make much difference. however what difference does it make might have been different meaning if these hearings happened in october. rice did in fact lie, whether on purpose or not. if not, then she should have been less definitive or not go on all tv stations saying otherwise that day...
Hilary Clinton: "What difference does it make?"
WOW! Of course it makes no difference to her, she is not dead. She was not lied to. In her mind, "We, the people" are not entitled to know the truth, if it doesn't suit The Chosen One's agenda, or her's.
Don't I recall something about The Chosen One saying he would have the most "Transparent" government in history? About the only thing transparent is it's willingness to cover up and lie to the American people.
What a show, Hilary getting all indignant and "fiesty", ooohhhh, puuuuuleeeeeze.
I think I heard a few tears too. She's unbelievable.
Administration Propaganda says "An exasperated Hillary Clinton said "What difference does it make?" How about who was going to win the 2012 election, Hillary?...... And the Globe and the AP KNOW that Hillary, just like Barack Obama FEIGNS anger when asked a tough question. terrorism. " AP says "She challenged the GOP focus on Rice’s comments, which were based on intelligence talking points" And who says that Rices's comments were based on "Intelligence talking points"? The State Department's own "Investigation" of itself? MUCH more likely was that Rice was given POLITICAL talking points, probably from Valerie Jarrett or David Axlerod.
‘‘The fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?’’ a clearly exasperated and angry Clinton told Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis." AP forgot to include that Clinton also started crying too, which was expected by all present. Expect some more crying at the House hearings.
And here's a piece that the Globe and the AP "Forgot " to include:
Washington (CNN) – More than four years after suspending her 2008 presidential bid, now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has finally paid off her campaign debt.
Clinton's presidential organization spent the final day of 2012 paying down the remaining debt, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission late Tuesday."
Isn't that an AMAZING COINCIDENCE that Hillary's campaign debt is completely paid off just before she goes before Congress? The Democratic Senators didn't ask her any tough questions and Dick Durbin even tried to blame the missing WMD's in Iraq.
And as another blogger noted the Globe's headline " a FEISTY" Hillary Clinton is meant to obfuscate the seriousness of these hearings (although only Republicans take the hearings seriously).
Yeah, right, nothing like the sight of a bunch of old, crotchety, white men ganging up on The Most Admired Women in America. Good luck with that strategy. You might as well concede the 2016 Presidential race right now.
This comment has been removed.
Well the spin commentors are out there parroting FOX, "What difference does it make." Did you folks watch the proceedings? She was exactly right, "at this point what difference does it make/" Referring to what someone said in this case "Rice" back on some show. It makes not difference. What matters is what happened and that was the point of the ARB, read the unclassified report and they don't even know exactly why what happened, happened. Terrorists? Seems pretty clear. But why that remains unclear and is what in fact does not matter.
Did "we the people" in fact get lied too. Uh, well no. The day Rice spoke on Meet the Press said based on the information she had, (which she got from CIA), she stated she understood it to be "spontaneous", but that does not describe whether terrorist or planned and in fact we don't know today if it was planned.
I would also point out one other non-political thing. The American people are not always entitled to know what happened at the time it happens. Noone said we were entering Cambodia when we entered Cambodia, some things fall under intelligence and others fall under military matters. But in the end to the partisans of either party facts on the ground don't matter.
Usually in agreeemnt with you, but I don't believe the points in question are irrelevant. The secretary said she had no knowledge of the problem because she depends on the crew under her to decide what comes to her attention. Obviuosly there is a failure here and to remedy it all the details have to be brought to light. Hilary knows this and has instituted changes, she also knows the best defense is a good offence. She's not afraid of these guys.
As one who spent many years in and out of government just as with the military there is a chain of command. Not everything filters to the top and for rather obvious reasons. Ms. Clinton said in today's hearing that a new position has been created to address the failures that took place in Benghazi. But it seems to me most of the issues were answered and reflected in the ARB.
You can find that at:
http://www.cfr.org/libya/accountability-review-board-report-unclassified-benghazi-embassy-attack-december-2012/p29691
What difference does it make? 4 people died and Clinton lied.
This comment has been removed.
Don't make accusations without proof.
AP says "At times emotional and frequently combative, Clinton rejected GOP suggestions in two congressional hearings that the administration tried to mislead the country about the Sept. 11 attack that killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans. She insisted the State Department is moving swiftly and aggressively to strengthen security at diplomatic posts worldwide"..Hillary Clinton "rejected" GOP suggestions.. but did she provide any PROOF?? Of course not? Did she provide the hundreds of e-mails that were sent to and from State dept officials during and after the attack? Of course not. Did she explain why the administration has not provided the manes of anyone of the 20 Benghazi survivors and allowed them to be interviewed? Of course not. Sounds like they are HIDING something, doesn't it? And why are the 4 State Dept. employees who were supposedly "fired" after the State Dept report was published, STILL on the government payroll? ..Usually people who refuse to testify before Congress plead the 5th Amendment to avoid prosecution for contempt of Congress. Hillary just has contempt for Congress...Her claim of responsibility is phony. And when Hillary said "What difference does it make? ...............The Ambassador asked for military help and his request was denied. Also Hillary claimed to have not seen any cables. Either Hillary is therefore incompetent for her job or any other administration job OR Hillary just LIED. Take your pick.....Also the difference is whether or not she and the White House interfered with the 2012 election and are impeding evidence that could be used for later impeachment proceedings due to the Benghazi affair...Also not one Democrat Senator of the Senate intelligence committee asked a question about her role in Benghazi.