COMMENTARY | Hillary Clinton is giving her Benghazi testimony, and she has already made several controversial statements, asking “what difference does it make” for the reasons that the American people were purposefully misled on the Benghazi terrorist attacks. Some people believe the difference lies in whether or not the Benghazi cover up was arranged in order to protect President Obama during his re-election.
As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is finally answering questions regarding the attack on the Benghazi consulate last year. Hillary Clinton has been getting quite emotional during this testimony as she’s come under blistering fire from many Republicans for her role in the Benghazi coverup.
According to CBS, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) persistently questioned Clinton about what he called Susan Rice’s “purposely misleading” the American people:
“We were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact. The American people could have known that within days.”
Fists shaking in the air, Hillary Clinton shouted back at her Republican accuser:
“With all due respect, 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 decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator.”
As previously reported by The Inquisitr, Charlene Lamb is the State Department official who resigned after the “systemic breakdown” cited by an Accountability Review Board. Hillary Clinton accepted all 29 of its Benghazi recommendations, but the ARB did not point any fingers or place blame on any particular person for why Benghazi was allowed to happen in the first place.
Many of the statements made by Ambassador Susan Rice attempted to politicize the Benghazi attacks to make them appear favorable to President Obama right before the Presidential elections. The Rice narrative included Al-Qaeda losing ground, which the State Department knew to be untrue, and that the Middle East’s public sentiment toward the United States was improving. The Benghazi attack was specifically stated by to not be connected to any US foreign policy decisions by the Obama White House.
Past testimony indicates that the rest of the officials in the State Department allegedly knew that terrorism was the cause from the beginning, which means Hillary Clinton would have known as well. In the past, Hillary Clinton has dodged all direct questions on her level of involvement in the lead up to the Benghazi attacks, but her office claims she “was getting regular updates from both the DS Command Center and the senior NEA leadership in the building, she was making phone calls to senior people, and so she was obviously very much involved.”
Charlene Lamb is allegedly directly responsible for lowering the number of diplomatic security agents from 34 to just three by first pushing for requests for help to not be made, claiming there were political reasons for this decision. Then, when continued levels of good protection were requested in spite of her demands, she ignored them anyway. What we don’t know yet is who else in the Obama administration or the State Department gave Charlene Lamb the idea that there was “too much political cost” for keeping the security forces at safer levels.
Hillary Clinton today told the committee she had no direct role in the handling of denied requests by Stevens and other diplomats for maintaining security levels at 34 security agents:
“I didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me.”
Even after all this time, we do not know who is responsible for causing the Benghazi scandal by putting political pressure on Charlene Lamb. Do you think Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for her actions as we know them? Why do you think the government created the Benghazi cover story in the first place?