Stonewalled. Again. *Open Thread*
Well, at long last, Secretary Clinton had her day on The Hill, meeting with both houses in one day. That did not permit many probing questions, or any follow-up questions, particularly since her appearance was treated like her Farewell Tour. We know blessed little more now, than we did before she testified. Well, about Benghazi, that is.
We do know that the Democrats took every opportunity to try and blame what happened there as a budget issue, and then complained about the process being “political.” No matter how many times they were reminded that Charlene Lamb, while testifying under oath, repeatedly said that the Budget did not factor into her decision to not send more security to Benghazi. Not one bit. And WHO is playing politics with this issue?
The White House continues to play politics, with Spokesweasel Jay Carney claiming that the GOP has an "obsession" with Benghazi. My question to him is: Why doesn't the WHITE HOUSE have an "obsession" with Benghazi? Why aren't THEY obsessed with finding the terrorists who waged this coordinated attack against our consulate, killing four Americans?
I’m not the only one with more questions than answers about what happened in Benghazi. Intrepid CBS News reporter, Sharyl Attikisson, who broke the Solyndra story as well as the “Fast and Furious” scandal, has quite a few herself.
Attkisson should not be dismissed lightly. BizPacReview has a little more history on Attkisson:
CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson has had enough of the uber-secretive Obama administration’s handling of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which led to the murder of four Americans, including that of Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Attkisson has gone where no women and very few men have gone before in her pursuit of a story. Her reporting has earned her multiple Emmys, most recently for her investigations on Operation Fast and Furious. She’s also a multiple winner of the Radio and Television News Directors Association-Edward R. Murrow Award.
Attkisson knows when she’s being stonewalled or handed a line. The Obama administration, which calls itself the most open and transparent presidential administration in recent history, is doing both, and Attkisson voiced her frustrations on Twitter Tuesday evening to let the world know it.
That is all to say, Attkisson is the real deal. She is truly one of the best, and FEW, remaining investigative reporters in this country. The article lists a number of Tweets Attkisson sent out after the Clinton Hearing, questions that SHOULD have been asked that weren’t, and which still demand answers:
[...]“@SharylAttkisson
The Obama Admin has indicated it will not be answering Benghazi questions we’ve been asking since Oct. I will list some of them.”
[...]
“@SharylAttkisson
What time was Ambassador’s Stevens’ body recovered, what are the known details surrounding his disappearance and death…”
“. ..including where he/his body was taken/found/transported and by whom?”
And from that moment forward, she just kept hammering:
“Who made the decision not to convene the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) the night of the Benghazi attacks?”
“We understand that convening the CSG a protocol under Presidential directive (“NSPD-46”). Is that true? If not, please explain…”
“… if so, why was the protocol not followed?”
“Is the Administration revising the applicable Presidential directive? If so, please explain.”
“Who is the highest-ranking official who was aware of pre-911 security requests from US personnel in Libya?”
[...]
“Who is/are the official(s) responsible for removing reference to al-Qaeda from the original CIA notes?”
“Was the President aware of Gen. Petraeus’ potential problems prior to Thurs., Nov. 8, 2012?”
“What is your response to the President stating that on Sept. 12, he called 911 a terrorist attack, in light of his CBS interview…”
“…on that date in which he answered that it was too early to know whether it was a terrorist attack?”
[...]
“Forgot to mention that Sen. Graham has asked 4 transcripts of FBI iviews w/Benghazi survivors but at last word that hadn’t been provided.” [...] (Click here to read the rest.)
There were more tweets by Ms. Attkisson on this issue. If you wish to see them all,t hey are available at Twitchy.com.
Uh, yeah. These are PRECISELY the questions many of us have wanted answered, and it isn’t a POLITICAL issue, it is an AMERICAN issue. There are way more questions than answers on Benghazi STILL. For the White House to state they will not be dealing with this any more is absurd, no, it is OBSCENE. Lives were lost under their watch and through what can only be described as poor decision making by those responsible in the State Department as the Accountability Review Board made clear. So, yeah – just because Clinton appeared before both houses with much of the time going to her history, and not what happened in Benghazi, there are still a TON of critical questions begging for answers.
Oh, and I sure hope John Dickerson, the CBS News Political Director and Slate writer, who has instructed Obama to “declare war on the GOP” doesn’t try and get you fired for your attempts to hold this Administration accountable.
Thank you, Ms. Attkisson, for working so hard to get to the bottom of this, and other issues. Without your dedication and hard work, the American people would not know about Solyndra, Fast and Furious, or some of the probing questions surrounding the terrorist attack in Benghazi. If you ever get any answers to these questions, please let us know…
Wow RRRA what an excellent job of reporting on this…
Ms Attkisson sounds like a REPORTER…something that our country seems to have a VERY VERY short supply of in the last decade or so.
What seemed to strike me about the reports on Clinton’s testimony, is how quite a few are saying what a great job she did as SOS. Also saying that her great job as SOS and testimony was indicative of someone who would make a great presidential candidate in 2016 (My response was “What the F…is happening out there” I am wondering that since the Dems were able to Ramrod this election they have plans to do it again…Was that why Bill helped out so much???
What an interesting observation abt Bill. That would make a lot of sense. And honestly, I know Clinton has traveled all over the place, but the entire time, she was pushing Obama’s FLAWED policies, like helping out the Taliban, or turning her back on the Mubarraks. So much stuff she has done that has NOT been stellar.
Benghazi is a massive issue in and of itself.
OH! And then there is this little ditty from The Hill today abt USAID: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/foreign-aid/279207-report-state-departments-aid-agency-under-investigation-for-alleged-bid-rigging
So, um, again – WHY are they praising her so much?! Even Kirsten Powers said last night on the All Stars that it didn’t matter WHO was in position of SoS because Obama is such a micromanager, that they will do nothing more than push his policies the way he wants them to do. So, yeah – I guess they were praising her for doing what Obama told her to do…
And yes – Attkisson is a phenomenal reporter, along with Jake Tapper, Catherine Herridge, Jennifer Griffin, and Lara Logan. There aren’t many out there like her…
Well THIS certainly explains a lot. No wonder Menendez didn’t do anything abt the young, illegal alien, sexual predator working on his staff: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/25/emails-show-fbi-investigating-sen-bob-menendez-for-sleeping-with-underage-dominican-prostitutes/
I saw your post on FB about Sen. Boxer and her hypocrisy and made a comment myself. I am disturbed about the inability of the left to actually discuss an issue on its merits. If the left wants to convince me that their position is the correct one, calling me names will only give rise to me returning fire, as it were, and I don’t take prisoners. Obots with whom I work behave in the same way. I nail them with facts and they merely say that what I said isn’t true. Of course I never get an apology when it turns out that my statement or prediction was correct. Moreover, the liberals with whom I work can’t seem to ever finish a job because the can’t-do attitude always gets in their way. The truth must hurt….
It is really frustrating, especially since the woman who sent it to me is a LONG time Feminist (she’s in her 60′s), but is buying into this crap. I have seen FAR harsher hearings on the Hill than this was, and their rush to protect Hillary from the big bad men who were actually treating Hillary like an EQUAL is astonishing to me.
Oh, you are SO right – never an apology. My Obot sister jumped on the whole “video” bandwagon ASAP, because that was the Party Line. Has she come back and apologized? No. Yesterday, she started in on our sheriff (and told me he was our sheriff – as if I didn’t know) who said he will NOT enforce the Ex. Orders if he doesn’t think they are Constitutional. She tried to claim he said he wouldn’t enforce a LAW if passed. Wrong. I put the quote from HER HuffPo article in there, and well, that was that.
She also tried to explain why it was HORRIBLE when Bush did Ex. Os, and not Obama. WOW, what a logical stretch…
I hear you. The thing about executive orders is that they only apply to the federal administration and do not create a legal framework under which sheriffs can be compelled to enforce them. They are NOT laws duly enacted. That obots and liberals don’t understand this means they’re clueless lock-step automatons and not much else. These sheriffs are to be commended for doing the right and entirely legal thing. This is what happens when courses in government are no longer required in school.
I find it outrageous that the women who sat silent, or joined in, on the attacks on conservative women have a hissy fit when a woman who is the damn Secretary of State is asked for some accountability. What happened to integrity in the female of the species? Or at least far too many of them. I am repulsed by their double standard!
On the topic of Hillary Clinton I found this article interesting:
Hillary’s Little Helpers
The cult of Clinton is alive and well.
The late Christopher Hitchens was one of Hillary Clinton’s most bullish critics. When Clinton was nominated to be secretary of state, he noted a chasm of opinion:
Hitchens’ main concern was that Clinton would use her leverage as secretary of state to benefit foreign friends and cronies. He was vindicated the next year when James Riady, the Indonesian businessman who’d been barred from the United States for illegal contributions to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, mysteriously obtained a waiver and returned to Arkansas. Say what you will about the Clintons, they don’t waste any time.
But Hitchens’ first point, that fealty to Hillary would divide us, was also prescient. That divide still exists today, albeit in a different form. In one camp are those who believe that Hillary should be judged on her merits and held accountable when necessary.
In the other are those who admire her to the point of deification, who believe her critics are beneath her, and who scramble the fighter jets every time someone gives her a sour look.
more: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/25/hillary-helpers-benghazi
Let me state for the record that I was not a fan of Christopher Hitchens. I thought he was a pusillanimous little pissant! However when a pusillanimous little pissant speaks the truth I’m willing to acknowledge it. Even posthumously. Especially posthumously.
As for Hillary, I’m hoping her heartless “what difference does it make” remark will haunt her to her grave and end any hopes she had for 2016. For a smart women it was a stupid thing to say and I believe brought about by her arrogance which thinks a “nobody” Senator from Wisconsin has no right to question her highness.
What a PERFECT cartoon, Kenosha! I have a post coming up soon where I talk abt this some more, and I have to say, it really pisses me off. It undermines our credibility when we say we deserve to be treated as equals, then throw a fit when we are. Honestly, ANYONE in that position should be able to handle the tough questions, and the reality is – she only got THREE out of the entire hearing – the two senators, and the Rep. from Fl whose name I am blanking on right now – she’s also the one who helped free the Marine from the Mexican jail. Naturally, SHE is not included in Sen. Boxer’s letter abt how mean they were to Hillary.
Please. If that is all it takes to bring her down, she never should have gone into politics in the FIRST place. (And not for nothing, but the WOMEN who supported Obama in 2008 said far nastier things abt her. Just sayin’. She responded all the time that things like this just roll off her back, but now she is some fragile little thing? Yeah. Okay.)
I wasn’t a fan of Christopher Hitchens, either, but as they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows. I have certainly found that to be the case over the past few years. And yes, if he’s right, he’s right.
True that, Ferd! I tell you, the stuff she was coming out with was surprising. I told her I don’t know why in the hell ANY ExOs are followed since the CONGRESS makes laws, not the Prez. But if Obama wants to, so be it.
Oh, and in terms of our other conversation abt women in combat, I saw a debate this morning between two women vets, one a Gunnery Sergeant, and I don’t remember the Army woman’s rank. Anyway, one thing the Gunny said was that there has not been sufficient study done into the physical effects of being in combat for women. Apparently, and I didn’t know this, women suffer a disproportional number of injuries, like spine compression, stress fractures, stuff like that. She said that this kind of thing cvan cut a woman’s military career short. Hadn’t thought of that. Just mentioning it.
Many of the men I know who are against women in combat are not and as far as I know ever been misogynists. They point out the fact that few women are capable of carrying the gear required of combat soldiers. Point of fact some men aren’t either.
The argument about not being allowed in combat having an adverse affect of a woman’s career in the military is foolish. So far as I know the military is supposed to fight and protect this country not provide a career for anyone.
It isn’t so much abt the men’s misogyny, though no doubt, there are misogynistic men in the military, just as their are racists and homophobes. It is all abt who can fulfill the requirements and expectations in the midst of a battle. An dyes, many men are not capable of fulfilling those qualifications, either. That’s what makes all the Special Forces so elite – not just anyone can make it in.
But people DO make careers of being in the military. I think the Gunney’s point is that if they have done insufficient study to determine just how being on the front lines, with the same physical requirements will affect women, their careers may be cut short by repetitive physical injuries. Considering this woman was a Gunnery Sergeant in the Marine Corps., no doubt she had her fair share of strenuous training.
It is a mixed bag, though. Women cannot progress as quickly as their male counterparts without the Combat experience. Even if they were, de facto, in combat, since women weren’t technically allowed, they didn’t get the same recognition, or medals, or advancement (among other things). She mentioned that this was not abt equal opportunity since the military is NOT an equal opportunity employer. You can’t get in if you are overweight, she said, and you can’t fly if you are too tall. There ARE limitations.
All that said, women have always had to go the extra mile to prove we were capable. This is nothing new to us (and why all of this crapola abt poor, poor Hillary is so annoying – she knows as well as anyone how hard it is for a woman to succeed. Look what her own PARTY did to her in 2008, for pete’s sake.). So, I imagine the women who want to be in combat will do what they need to do to get in.