The all out assault on the House select committee investigating the Benghazi terror attack which left four Americans dead will come to a culmination tomorrow when Hillary Clinton testifies. It's an amazing thing to watch. The liberal media is going off the deep end to try to paint the hearing and the committee as just a political witch hunt. None of that matters, however. The real issue is what will Hillary be asked tomorrow and how will she answer.
Let's take a step back for a moment.
First, is this really a witch hunt? For anyone who looks at the facts, the clear answer is no. The committee has been in existence for a long time. It has interviewed over fifty witnesses. Every interview was done in private. Even Hillary Clinton's interview would have been private except that she demanded that it be public. If the goal were just to attack Clinton or Obama, the hearings would all have been public. Further, there have not been many leaks from the committee. Some of the relevant documents have been released to the public once they were finally obtained from the State Department or the White House. Such release is standard operating procedure, however, and not any political posturing. Even the chair of the committee, Trey Gowdy has not been appearing on TV shows to promote any story. If this were a politically motivated committee, Gowdy would have been on TV non-stop.
Second, what has the committee found so far? We don't really know, which is further proof that this is not a political witch hunt. We do know that it was this committee that finally got Hillary Clinton's emails. It was this committee that got Sidney Blumenthal's records. It was this committee that interviewed, for the first time, many of the eye-witnesses to the attack in Libya.
Third, what are the choices for Hillary Clinton to say during the hearing. There are many questions to which we don't know the answers yet.
1. Prior to the attack, were any precautions taken regarding security as the anniversary of 9-11 approached? If so, what were they and what was Hillary's involvement with them?
2. Was Hillary aware of the multiple requests by Ambassador Stevens for additional security? If so, why was there actually a reduction of security prior to the attack? Was Hillary actually aware of the reduction of security in Benghazi?
3. Why was there no quick response team available to go to help the consulate personnel on the day of the attack? Why was no help ever sent?
4. Where was Hillary during the ongoing attack? What was so important that she couldn't follow the fate of these Americans under attack?
5. When did Hillary first speak to the president after learning of the attack in Benghazi? What was the substance of that conversation? Did they discuss sending military help to rescue those under attack? Did they discuss whether or not this was a preplanned terrorist attack?
6. Why did the administration send Susan Rice onto the Sunday shows to tell America that no terrorism had been involved? Did Hillary believe that Susan Rice was telling lies on those shows? If not, why not? If yes, then why did she stay silent?
There are also many questions about Hillary's email system. No doubt some of them will be asked as well. The key, however, will be the answers to the above questions. If Hillary has no good answers to these, she may be sorry that she demanded a public hearing. We will have to wait to see tomorrow.
Let's take a step back for a moment.
First, is this really a witch hunt? For anyone who looks at the facts, the clear answer is no. The committee has been in existence for a long time. It has interviewed over fifty witnesses. Every interview was done in private. Even Hillary Clinton's interview would have been private except that she demanded that it be public. If the goal were just to attack Clinton or Obama, the hearings would all have been public. Further, there have not been many leaks from the committee. Some of the relevant documents have been released to the public once they were finally obtained from the State Department or the White House. Such release is standard operating procedure, however, and not any political posturing. Even the chair of the committee, Trey Gowdy has not been appearing on TV shows to promote any story. If this were a politically motivated committee, Gowdy would have been on TV non-stop.
Second, what has the committee found so far? We don't really know, which is further proof that this is not a political witch hunt. We do know that it was this committee that finally got Hillary Clinton's emails. It was this committee that got Sidney Blumenthal's records. It was this committee that interviewed, for the first time, many of the eye-witnesses to the attack in Libya.
Third, what are the choices for Hillary Clinton to say during the hearing. There are many questions to which we don't know the answers yet.
1. Prior to the attack, were any precautions taken regarding security as the anniversary of 9-11 approached? If so, what were they and what was Hillary's involvement with them?
2. Was Hillary aware of the multiple requests by Ambassador Stevens for additional security? If so, why was there actually a reduction of security prior to the attack? Was Hillary actually aware of the reduction of security in Benghazi?
3. Why was there no quick response team available to go to help the consulate personnel on the day of the attack? Why was no help ever sent?
4. Where was Hillary during the ongoing attack? What was so important that she couldn't follow the fate of these Americans under attack?
5. When did Hillary first speak to the president after learning of the attack in Benghazi? What was the substance of that conversation? Did they discuss sending military help to rescue those under attack? Did they discuss whether or not this was a preplanned terrorist attack?
6. Why did the administration send Susan Rice onto the Sunday shows to tell America that no terrorism had been involved? Did Hillary believe that Susan Rice was telling lies on those shows? If not, why not? If yes, then why did she stay silent?
There are also many questions about Hillary's email system. No doubt some of them will be asked as well. The key, however, will be the answers to the above questions. If Hillary has no good answers to these, she may be sorry that she demanded a public hearing. We will have to wait to see tomorrow.
No comments:
Post a Comment