Posted in: Politics

Hillary Clinton Benghazi Testimony: ‘What Difference Does It Make?’

Hillary Clinton Benghazi Testimony: 'What Difference Does It Make?'

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?

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

10 Responses to “Hillary Clinton Benghazi Testimony: ‘What Difference Does It Make?’”

  1. William J Murray

    What about the film maker who was arrested and jailed by the Obama Administration when they claimed he was the only cause of the attack? Does he get out of jail now?

  2. Bruce H McIntosh

    Points to ponder, relative to the most quotable of orations from our Secretary of State in her recent Senate testimony:

    “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.”.

    First point: "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 about was it a planned, coordninated attack of an inadequately protected facility timed to take place on an emotionally charged day? Hadn't the people on the ground in Benghazi been concerned for months about the vulnerability of the consulate in the face of the constant state of ferment in the area? Don't give us this "spur of the moment" nonesense.

    Second point: "It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator." What happened was YOUR State Department evidently disregarded repeated requests from the Ambassador and his staff for enhanced security forces. That disregard left our diplomats and their facilities dangerously exposed to whatever mayhem anyone might have chosen to unleash on them. The direct result of YOUR State Department's inaction on the Ambassador's security requests, whether they stemmed from ignorance, a Pollyana, rose-colored-glasses idealism toward the perpetrators of the "Arab Spring" movement in Libya, or active malfeasence, were directly responsible for the deaths of four Americans, one of them the first US Ambassador to lose his life in three decades, and the destruction of a US Consulate (in stark terms, given enclave status of diplomatic sites, an invasion of US soil).

    You asked, Madame Secretary, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" I suppose, upon reflection, it makes not a whole heck of a lot of difference. Whether the entire episode was, as you, UN Ambassador Rice, and the President himself repeatedly asserted at the time, a spontaneous protest gone terribly wrong, or if it was, as testimony before various Congressional committess and reports in the news media assert, a planned attack by Islamic militants known to be active in Benghazi. Whichever it was or even if it was something else that has not yet come to light, decisions undertaken by YOUR staff at YOUR State Department to deny the people onsite the level of security forces that would have been sufficient to the task left the Benghazi consulate, and thus Ambassador Stevens and his staff when they visited, fatally exposed. Either way, if you truly did accept responsibility for YOUR State Department's role in this monumental disaster, you should have at a bare minimum sacked this Charlene Lamb person upon whom you rested the blame for the fatal reduction in security forces, and in all honesty you should have resigned your post yourself after your tacit admission that you had so badly mismanaged a Cabinet-level Department as to allow this to happen on your watch.

    And of course, underlying all the hoo-ha of the Secretary of State being raked over the coals by the Senate is the deeper, more disturbing contemplation of how much input the White House had in the creation of the circumstances that led to this debacle. Was the notion of "political cost" mentioned in conjunction with discussion of Charlene Lamb's actions or lack thereof generated from the Oval Office? Was the President so blindly idealistically wedded to the romantic notion of "democratic reform" brought on by the "Arab Spring" that he himself considered the increased security presence unnecessary? Or was he so desperately eager to "make points" with the Muslims in charge and so determined not to do anything to "offend Islam"? And really, what would the "political cost" of providing US diplomatic facilities with adequate security have been? How could anyone in this Administration have imagined that there *would* be a "political cost" associated with exercising proper stewardship of American diplomats and American diplomatic sites in a troubled and dangerous part of the world?

  3. Allan Foster

    Pres. Truman was known for the sign on his desk which read, "The Buck Stops Here". It would seem that Hilary, Obama, and the modern Democrats have a similar sign–"The Buck Stops There".

  4. Curmud Geon

    you will make an excellent muslim slave, patrick. just swallow whole what the government media feeds you. no need to look at the motives behind the sudden severe prosecution for a "crime" that was of no consequence until the harridan of state needed to imprison a scapegoat to deflect attention from her own treason.

  5. Joy Cehlar

    This should be made a focal point during the 2016 presidential campaign. This is what Billary thinks about the value of human life. Is it any surprise?