The title of this post, "What Difference Does It Make?" is, of course, a reference to the response to Congress by Secretary of State Clinton when she was asked exactly who it was that attacked the embassy in Benghazi and killed the American ambassador and three others. It was an unbelievable argument to make in the face of the deaths of these brave men. Clinton, however, claimed to be uninvolved with the matter beforehand and only focused on catching the perpetrators afterwards. (I know that what Clinton said does not make sense: How can it make no difference who carried out the attack if you want to catch those responsible?)
Tonight, however, the House is out with a report that makes clear why Clinton's testimony seemed so strange. Clinton was lying. Usually when that sentence gets written, we are speaking of Bill, but in this case it was Hillary who was lying.
In her sworn testimony, Clinton stated under oath that the requests from Benghazi for additional security never made it up the chain of command to her; supposedly, the requests were denied at the Assistant Secretary level. The House report, however, shows this to be untrue. The investigators from the House found a cable signed by Clinton herself and sent to the American ambassador in Libya denying his request for additional security for Benghazi and, instead, actually reducing the level of security at that facility. To give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, maybe she just forgot about her part in denying the request for more security or her decision to cut the security level instead. I do not give her that benefit, however. Prior to her appearance before Congress, she undoubtedly was briefed by her staff which had looked over all the relevant files. She knew full well that she was just blatantly lying to Congress. I guess she figured that if it worked for her husband, she might as well try it herself.
Tonight, however, the House is out with a report that makes clear why Clinton's testimony seemed so strange. Clinton was lying. Usually when that sentence gets written, we are speaking of Bill, but in this case it was Hillary who was lying.
In her sworn testimony, Clinton stated under oath that the requests from Benghazi for additional security never made it up the chain of command to her; supposedly, the requests were denied at the Assistant Secretary level. The House report, however, shows this to be untrue. The investigators from the House found a cable signed by Clinton herself and sent to the American ambassador in Libya denying his request for additional security for Benghazi and, instead, actually reducing the level of security at that facility. To give Clinton the benefit of the doubt, maybe she just forgot about her part in denying the request for more security or her decision to cut the security level instead. I do not give her that benefit, however. Prior to her appearance before Congress, she undoubtedly was briefed by her staff which had looked over all the relevant files. She knew full well that she was just blatantly lying to Congress. I guess she figured that if it worked for her husband, she might as well try it herself.
No comments:
Post a Comment