I wanted to weigh in on the Congressional testimony yesterday by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
As most people know by now, when Secretary of State Clinton was asked by Senator Ron Johnson about the Benghazi terror attack and the fact that the story we were told by the administration was false, Mrs. Clinton exploded.
“With all due respect,” Hillary shouted, “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?”
Let’s be clear what Mrs. Clinton is saying. It really doesn’t matter whether the president and his advisers misled the public on the origins of a lethal terrorist attack that claimed four American lives, including the first ambassador murdered in more than 30 years. What matters, she insisted, is what we do going forward. There is no useful purpose to be served by dwelling on the past. Get over it. Move on. Chill out.
What a perfectly post-modern approach to things. For Mrs. Clinton, like her husband, truth seems to have no intrinsic worth. It’s an instrument to be used in the quest to gain and maintain power. If people have to manipulate the truth, ignore it, or roll their eyes at it in order to maintain “political viability” (to use an infamous phrase from her husband), then so be it. If misleading the public is necessary to help a president prevail in a bitter election—well, you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. That, at least, is the Clinton logic.
Having a president and his administration mislead the nation is problematic. How problematic depends on whether the story was intentionally misleading or not. That is the difference between a mistake and a lie. And I’m not prepared to say the president and his administration lied. What I am prepared to say is that the Obama administration misled us. That is serious enough. And for Mrs. Clinton to simply wave that off with a dismissive and aggressive outburst offers us a disturbing (if not altogether unsurprising) insight into her worldview.
What difference does it make?
A lot, actually.
Sec. Clinton's "…dismissive and aggressive outburst offers us a disturbing…" insight into her temperament and leadership style, which is why all the msm cheerleading is real cognitive dissonance for me. n nMeanwhile, some day, someone will leak the reason why Amb. Stevens had to be in Benghazi that day. Hope it will not take a Libyan SAM taking down an airplane in Kashmir to connect the dots.
and when that does happen, after numerous inquiries as to how that happened and how they acquired the weapon to shoot down a plane, all go unanswered, we will be told 'what difference does it make?' and we will hear crickets come from the MSM. n nUnless of course this happens on a Republican's watch.
the really disturbing insight is into this sham investigation by this committee without balls n n(with few exceptions) n nwe are in very deep doodoo if this is the best we have in government n nand the pathetic collection Brenan, Hegel and this a****** smarmy opportunist and gigalo Kerry in a new cabinet n nfeh
Its more depressing than disturbing. n nAnd to think that what we have to look forward to after the Obama is Hillary Clinton. n nIts not Obama or Hillary that are depressing, mind, but the public that put him there, and which furthermore thinks that she is the best person in government at the moment. Who are these people? n n n
Richard Nixon and his thugs were quaint amateurs compared to the sleazy crooks currently in power in Washington.
deep doo is right! because this is pretty much as good as it gets now!
She prepped 4 months for this "What difference does it make?"_How arrogant a position for a Sec. of State! _Wonder if the families of the 4 murdered Americans feel it makes a diff, Hillary._A dispicable performance!
SHE IS A CONFIRMED LIAR OR AS WILLIAM SAFIRE SAID BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THE NY TIMES WAS A NEWSPAPER "A CONGENITAL LIAR". nTHIS WAS BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THE WHITEWATER SCANDAL WAS ON THE FRONT PAGES.
That is what makes her a "great politician"!
and how many of you, Mr. Wehner included, took the same position when Oliver North and John Poindexter "misled" the American people? When Ronald Reagan "misled" the American people. When Dick Cheney and George Bush "misled" the American people? Once again, you have shown that to those on the right of center, the ends justify the means, and tactics you would decry if used by your opponents are perfectly valid if used to further your agenda. For Jews, this is especially troubling, since those of you who have even a minimum of theological study know that "What is hateful unto you, do not unto others" sums up our entire weltanschauung. But of course, that only counts when what is hateful unto you will not, as far as you are concerned, turn around and bite you in the tuchas. nOh, the "thumbs down" button, for those of you who did not just hit it without thinking when you saw my name, is at the upper right…..
@Oldleftie — Your response is a non sequitur. It makes no difference to the situation of Sect. Clinton and Benghazi what anyone else did or said. You cannot draw any conclusions by invidious comparison to people acting in an entirely different context, some a generation ago.____What happened in Benghazi was a scandal. The way the Administration has responded deepens the problem, and should be deeply troubling to everyone. Benghazi reveals the incompetence behind the Administration's foreign policy assumptions, its inability to accept responsibility for mistakes, and its willingness to scapegoat others, like the hapless filmmaker first blamed for the problem. Elemental prudence, the kind a responsible Secretary of State might exhibit towards her charges, warned everyone else away.____And don't nurse this conceit that Jews are distressed, per religious teaching, by Clinton's bad behavior. If tomorrow were 2016 and Hillary were running, they would vote for her with the same abandon as Obama. It makes them feel good about themselves, the ultimate test of virtue for Liberals.
There is a principle in equity known as "clean hands". One cannot object to the acts of another if they approve of the behavior objected to when used by someone of which they approve. Your comments show the same apologisms and situational ethics you decry in your opponents. You obviously believe that ends justify means, and that tactics you condemn when used by your opponents are perfectly sound when used to further your agenda. Commentary and its minions would never criticize those they support for doing exactly what Hillary and the left are doing. They are simply stoking the fires of impatience and intolerance in order to maximize their gain.
When someone attacks the speaker rather than engaging with their argument, that's ad hominem, isn't it? (If I overlooked the "substance" of your defense of Mrs. Clinton and her testimony when she appeared before that Congressional committee, please point me to it, so I consider it.) n nAs for "equity," do you imagine that this is a court and someone here is seeking an equitable remedy, so that the doctrine of "clean hands" might come into play? (Do you know the distinction between "equitable" remedies and legal ones, or did you just think to throw out the wholly inapt "clean hands" stuff so as to impress and distract?) [continued below]
When you say that "Commentary and its minions would never criticize those they support for doing exactly what Hillary and the left are doing," can we infer that you approve of "exactly what Hillary and the left are doing," so take the strong exception that you do to the criticism? Or do you disapprove of "exactly what Hillary and the left are doing" and wish to see such conduct heartily criticized no matter whose conduct it is? Please tell us, is it "approve" or "disapprove" of "exactly what Hillary and the left are doing," which you have analogized to conduct years before by Republicans, so we may understand where you are coming from. n nAnd a "substantive" response would be appreciated.
I mean to point out to Commentary and its supporters the hypocrisy and possible dishonesty of its position here. My opinion of Hillary is not the subject of my criticism, My criticism is of the double standard maintained by Commentary and by extension those who also condemn Hillary and yet are silent on the similar acts of those who they support. If you and your allies are willing to say whether you consider the acts of those I pointed out to be equally odious, I shall then respond with my opinion of Hillary's testimony.
Your opinion, doc, is worth what I paid for it. I used the concept of equity as a reference point in response to Faivel's calling my response "non sequitur". My criticism did not need a defense of Ms. Clinton. My criticism was simply that Commentary, is willing to criticize others for behavior they ignore if the malfeasant represents their interests. That is not ad hominem by any stretch of the definition.
"Your opinion, doc, is worth what I paid for it." Great comeback, as good as "I'm rubber, you're glue…" Always fun to talk to so intelligent an interlocutor. n nThat "concept of equity" and the doctrine of "clean hands" is a legal one, and clearly you know nothing of what you presume to speak. And your elaboration on that "concept" ("One cannot object to the acts of another if they approve of the behavior objected to when used by someone of which they approve.") makes it all the more certain that you are uninformed, since it is entirely about the litigant's own conduct, not what they do or do not approve of.) [continued below]
"My criticism was simply that Commentary, is willing to criticize others for behavior they ignore if the malfeasant represents their interests." Yes, and you have not, and it seems will not, say whether you think Mrs. Clinton is deserving of the criticism. The notion that it is fundamentally important in whose mouth the criticism lies is part of your ad hominem approach, refusing to say whether you approve or disapprove of the conduct in question, instead attacking the speaker. (Or maybe tu quoque is a better characterization of the defense you offer on behalf of Mrs. Clinton and the Left generally.) n nAnd finally, don't think this has as much to do with your "leftist" perspective, as it does with your failure to make positive contributions to these threads. Thoughtful "leftist" comments challenging what others have said would be fine, indeed very welcome, but that is not what you serve up. n n n n
Are you under the care of a psychotherapist? Is that why you are asking me to assure you that I am not a psychotherapist, and thus possibly one of your doctors? n nIf "supercilious syntax" and being gainsayed cause you such distress, why don't you stick with the company of other old lefties? n n[And once more, "Yes, and you have not, and it seems will not, say whether you think Mrs. Clinton is deserving of the criticism."]
There is nothing situational or apologetic in my remarks. I am not justifying reprehensible, incompetent and feckless behavior on one side while condoning on the other. I am not a minion of Commentary, nor do I need Commentary to know this Administration stinks, or that the rot comes from the top. I don't believe ends justify means, and I have no agenda. Your analogies are completely inapt and inapplicable, your reasoning defective. All administrations make mistakes and errors of judgement, and it is right to bring them to light, but no administration in my long experience has been so self-absorbed, so concerned with image, so mindless of the general welfare of the country, so divisive, or so tone deaf as this one. I have not heard any official of any previous administration ever ask what difference it makes, after Americans were murdered as a result of incompetence at the highest levels. What an outrageous remark. No one but you is suggesting Hillary should be beyond reproach.
The fact is that you are not willing to blame the Bush administration at least of equally misleading the American people to a far greater loss of political and economic stability. I am not suggesting that Hillarey should be beyond reproach. I am saying only that no one who championed George Bush's rape of Iraq and the American economy has any right to do so.
And what does this bit of liberal lies passing for history in your fevered brain have to do with the subject of this post? Nothing! P.S. Extra credit for "weltanschauung."
please identify what you consider "liberal lies".
The strange thing about Clinton's formulation is that neither of her scenarios — "a protest" or "guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans" — accurately describes what we know happened. It was a trained and heavily armed military unit that invaded the consulate. There was nothing spur-of-the-moment about it. She seems to still be in denial.
I noticed that also
Ought we mention here that the Algerians claim that among the terrorists who attacked their gas installation last week, there were Egyptians who were part of th crew that attacked our consulate in Bengazhi? Or would bringing that up only further vex Mrs. Clinton, who has already been so vexed by questions about what happened in Bengazi? n n(BTW, do people think that "with all due respect" crap was spontaneous or scripted? I think scripted, and thus all the more outrageous.)
And you can be sure that the information was obtained from those Egyptians by "enhanced interrogation techniques." Now that is the only thing that would have "vexed" Mrs. Clinton about the entire incident.
Well, I don't know how the Algerians came by that information, whether it was from interrogation of those they captured, with or without "enhanced interrogation techniques, or it was intelligence gathered by wholly different means (e.g., they ID'ed the dead bodies and matched that up with other info they had by participants in the Bengazhi attack). And I don't know whether they are correct about it, I just think it would have been interesting to hear what Mrs. Clinton had to say about the possible significance of that. n nIf "enhanced interrogation techniques" were employed, then it was by the Algerians, not by us, though it would of course be just as terrible in the eyes of some. (BTW, we saw Zero Dark Thirty last night, and thought it an excellent movie. And I was not at all troubled by the "enhanced interrogation techniques" as depicted in that movie.)
History is totally "irrelevant", that is why so many Americans are IGNORANT of history and geography and of a lot more. nH.C. has been posturing and she knows very well the short comings of her department and the Islamophil agenda of the Pr.
Clearly, Hillary Clinton holds Republicans in contempt. Who can blame her? Look at what has become of our side—a weak, finger-pointing bunch of fanatics, obsessed with human sexuality and promoting inequality! If I were a Democrat right now, which mercifully I am not, I'd be laughing in my non-alcoholic beer. Then I'd climb into my electric car and drive, soundlessly and pollution-free, home to my suburban white enclave, where I'd toast free-sex and equality to the high-heavens I don't believe exist—but if they do, are gradually getting warmer. n nNeither the GOP nor the Democrats believe any longer in "what works." Both are focused on appeasing their base—those know-nothings who clamor on behalf of their passions-of-the-moment. Even the Tea Party is over the top, with its demonization of "regulation" and "taxes," and its demand for a smaller government—as the US population grows. n nWhat happened to America's commitment to pragmatism, to finding Burkean/Madisonian solutions to just about everything? Evidently, all that has been lost as the nation slides perilously into the abyss of extreme, uncompromising, ignorant ideologies and ideologues. n nWho's to blame for this? We are. Republicans have contributed to the current mania for ideological solutions far more than Democrats have. Clinton was essentially a non-ideological politician, the ultimate pragmatist—whatever his talents and insights may have been! But then came George W. Bush, with his laissez-faire capitalist instincts, reminiscent of the late 19th century, bound to end in financial disaster. And behind the scenes were Dick Cheney and others, egging the intellectually-challenged president on, urging him to send our soldiers "over there" to show the Arabs and Afghans what "democracy" was all about! Whatta guy: George W. Bush. n nAnd now there is Barack Obama, a far-Left ideological to beat-the-band, a man so enraged and anxious to take his revenge on white America that he must stay up late at night thinking of new and devious ways to inflict maximum punishment on us—for what whites did a long time ago. And now he's Barack Unbound, thanks to our brilliant choice of Mitt Romney to run against him! In fact, Obama could have been defeated in 2008 as well, just not by a lousy candidate like John McCain and his bizarre political instincts—e.g., Sarah Palin as running mate? n nHad we given America's voters a choice worth making in either 2008 or 2012, they'd have jumped at it. But we didn't. And this is, understandably, why Hillary holds us in contempt. n nBut, I suppose we'll continue to focus on "them" and forget to ask ourselves "What kind of people nominate a person like Mitt Romney to run in the most important national election since 1980?" That would be us. Easier to keep mumbling about Hillary and Barack, no? Anything, but asking "Who are we, where did we go wrong, what must we do now?"
I generally agree wholeheartedly with everything you say (and you are one of the best writers on this board), but your take on Romney is not accurate or fare. Romney as a man is admirable to the nth. A success in everything he touched, personal and business. Generous, giving, modest to a fault. Father of 5 successful sons, faithful husband to a woman who has been to hell and back. n nMaybe he did not run the best campaign. He was up against a new type of machine. Computerized, ruthless, and dishonest. Maybe Obama's is the political machinery and chicanery of the future, but Romney, as a man, would have made a superb leader and I believe could have been a great President. n nToo bad for all of us, including the poor, the misguided, the 'idealistic' and the downright silly who voted for Obama. It breaks my heart that Romney lost. I fear there is no going back. It's all downhill from here. n n(and Clinton's testimony and political future point nowhere but down.)
Not a "great" President but Romney would have knocked himself out doing a workmanlike job. And that's really all our Constitution actually requires. And let's be very clear that the American people were not given a worthy choice in 2004 or 2000 either and that is the root of the situation we find ourselves in today. n n I would guess that if the GOP screws up again ala Bush, who expanded rather than contracted government, the budget and the deficit, the Republican Party may no longer be a viable force…as extinct as the Whigs who couldn’t get their arms around another great American crisis.
Right, Mitt's campaign machine, funded by gambling impresarios and other promoters of causes that Mitt consideres to be immoral, wasn't equally computerized, ruthless and dishonest? If by some chance it was, it was because of incompetence, not lack of desire. The democrats may be no cleaner than the republicans, but they are no dirtier.
While I'm sure you know we disagree on basics, I am very interested in whom you think should be backed by the GOP in 2016. I frankly think that Jon Huntsman could have won this time. Will the GOP ever return to a party that believes that means must justify ends?
mitt Romney is not the problem, apparently dead democrats can vote.
continued n nThe problem is that the progressive ethos permeates the elites of both parties. This pretty much works for Democrats because their base is largely clientele of the nanny state, the progressive Utopia. The Republican elite has a much tougher row to hoe with their base which is increasingly unwilling to follow their “betters”…hence you get a populist movement like the TEA Party. And the transformation of our political landscape is now virtually complete: the GOP has lost its capacity as the vehicle of choice for the elite. n nThe Republican ideology is nominally focused on preventing the government from doing things to the individual rather than what the government can/should do for you…a natural opposition party. The best and brightest with this philosophy will not naturally gravitate towards politics or positions in government. The career Republican politicians are a barren and self-serving wasteland, all tactics and small ball, no vision…no positive agenda for putting political power to use. Maybe a step up from Hastert, Boehner and McConnell but did Romney really hold out any promise other than being a more effective administrator of the nanny state?
continued…damn these restrictions on size of comments…. n nFrom my perspective, the progressive agenda is wrong and even dangerous but it does attract a better caliber of people…simply because they can aspire to apply their considerable talents to use the government as a tool for doing “good.” The road to Hell on Earth is forever paved with their good intentions and they live to endlessly lecture us about them. n nWhile, in the public square, currently, the progressives, those who would enslave you to create a utopia on earth have the ascendency, it will be interesting to see whether those who would enslave you to save your soul will be able to coalition for very long with those who say “save yourself and stay the hell out of my business.” In short, the social conservatives and the TEA Party quasi-libertarians are a difficult but plausible coalition in opposition (where all they need agree on is “no”) but almost certainly not able to provide a coherent government.
If you post a small part of your comment, then go back and edit it, you can avoid the size restrictions. I offer this suggestion without endorsement of your opinion or my opinion whether it was worth reading as a public service. Thank a progressive.
I'm always grateful for any helpful hint so, thank you. I find progressives to be among the kindest and most thoughtful people I know. And it could be that the very kindness and thoughtfulness that i so appreciate on a personal level is the source of the problem when it comes to political matters. You see they know better how to run my life and spend my money than i do..they are just an all around better caliber of people than those who only have an eye to their personal interests. They mean me only the best (just as their opposite numbers on the right who want to save my soul) and both of these groups see government as the appropriate tool for saving me from myself…like that nice man, Bloomberg, who wants to cut down on my consumption of popcorn and soda pop or that Robertson fellow who wants to make sure only Godly things are transpiring in my bedroom.
"Having a president and his administration mislead the nation is problematic. How problematic depends on whether the story was intentionally misleading or not. That is the difference between a mistake and a lie. And I’m not prepared to say the president and his administration lied." n nThe exact statement could be made with even greater accuracy to the Bush administration following 9/11 when 2,997 Americans were killed here in America and the administration made numerous statements which were later found to be completely inaccurate. How long did it take the Bush administration to finally begin an investigation into what led to the attacks that for the first time in history hit the US mainland, 442 days, which was the time it took from 9/11 to when the 9/11 Commission held it's first meeting. How long did it take before the American people were finally told the truth instead of the misleading statements the Bush administration had been putting out? An additional 607 days and yet, to this day, there are large parts of the report that are still classified. n nSo on the one hand, Susan Rice is being faulted for not revealing classified information to the public just days after the attack at Benghazi and yet 11 years after 9/11/2001, much of the 9/11 Commission Report records remain sealed at the National Archives in Washington, even though the commission had directed the archives to make most of the material public in 2009.
As some others have intimated, the key to understanding Secretary Clinton's obfuscation is to find out exactly why our Ambassador was out of the Tripoli embassy and in Benghazi on such a day as 11 September. What was so important, so secret, so monumental about his presence there that the administration would deflect all discussion to such a canard as the reasons why the consulate was attacked? Find out why the Ambassador was there and you will know why the administration is willing to go suffer such embarrassment in order to keep the conversation on something else. WHY WAS THE AMBASSADOR IN BENGHAZI, SECRETARY CLINTON? PRESIDENT OBAMA?
Face facts: Obama won the election because he lied and the American public was/is willing to accept those lies.r nWhat did he lie about? Benghazi, the Arab Spring (which is just an Islamic takeover), the economy, Iran, Israel, etc…
RUSH LIMBAUGH: from behind the grave nBravo Hillary. She exploited the harm those Deranged Republicans and Teeebaagerzz Frugals did to GOP defaming the only and honorable Dr. David Petraeus. She minted that hiring John Kerry & firing Susan Rice. Touché. n4 years in State Department Groomed Hillary from Desperate Gagging First Lady to Madame President. nHillary was so cautious to youyou CIA & Pentagon Private Contractors’ Trio Headhunters who’re murdered by shear idiocy. Hillary snubbed Rand Paul unintelligible enquiry about McCain Germs alias Syrian Arabspringers weapons that shipped from Benghazi to Turkey. She affronted Ron Johnson call and McCain transparency dearth. She was good. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Republican crocs and Teeebaagerzz stood no chance to crush Hillary who has nothing to lose at those crucial moments but mind GOP Ignorance & Arrogance on C-span. On the contrary! I am looking forward to see her taking this street next year to kill any chance of Republicans get the White House back. Senator Durban was so handy aid to remind the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s Republican crocs and Teeebaagerzz of WMD Goose-Chase. Hillary toasted McCain, Johnson & Paul-The-Idiot and accused the Republicans Frugality Madness at the House for Benghazi incident, during her testimony at Senate Foreign Relations Committee horseplay. She choked up as she spoke of comforting victims' families and grew angry at accusations that Obama administration misled country over whether Benghazi incident stemmed from protest. She also depicted the incident as part of long history of such violence, and result of regional instability since Arabspringers Conquest. nCLINTON: But not… nJOHNSON: …Al Qaeda. That was not the facts. nCLINTON: But, but, you know… nJOHNSON: And the American people could have known that within days. nCLINTON: And… nJOHNSON: And they didn't know that. nCLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. nJOHNSON: I understand.
nice work,
You consider Pat Robertson a progressive? n—————- nAnother authoritarian. Right or left, they all mean well and they are all so damned sure that they have the answers and are prepared to use government power to see them implemented. A rose, by any other name, is still a rose. And they all have thorns.