There’s a terrorist attack. Susan Rice goes on the morning shows shortly after and links it to the protests. In the meantime I assume other US assets are in Libya hunting for the terrorists. However, Obama’s political opponents paint this as a coverup.
Two things:
First, isn’t this a common tactic for authorities versus bad guys? Bad guys watch the news too and they might get complacent if they think no one is chasing them. Susan Rice should have offered this as a defense. Of course she wasn’t going to say “we know who did it and we’re this close to catching them”.
Second, if the Obama administration is engaged in a coverup, why? What purpose would it serve? The population of the US will reliably rally around a president in times of trouble. If it was a terrorist attack and they knew it all along (rather than had no idea because it happened on the literal other side of the world), what do they gain by covering it up?
Third, do the Republicans actually count this kind of obstructionism as victory? Do they not care that someday soon the shoe will be on the other foot?
I suspect that you’re absolutely right as to the real reason she withdrew her name from consideration, but they’re certainly pointing their collective fingers at this whole Benghazi attack from the right. Makes me thinks that the Rwanda angle actually has some real truth behind it and they don’t want it hitting the airwaves.
I’ve never been that hot on her. She was running the Africa Desk at State in the 90s, when I was posted in Africa. One of our political officers (in DOS parlance, political officer=regional expert), who was also a personal friend, confided that she was very difficult to work with, and really didn’t have a handle on the job. She’s very smart in her own right and probably more than qualified at this point, but the general consensus then was that she parachuted in on the coattails of her adoptive mother, Madeleine Albright. She has an abrupt nature, it seems, which is off-putting for me.
So after months of stalling, suddenly Hilary Clinton can’t testify on Benghazi next week because…she suddenly got sick, fainted dead away, banged her widdle head, and got a concussion.
Yeah, right! :rolleyes:
And yet despite this terrible fall and injury to her head which has left her being monitored by doctors at her home and totally unable to testify about this snafu that she’s been dodging ever since questions about it arose, she was never hospitalized. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Frankly I’m wondering why doesn’t she just lie about it like she and her husband have always done about inconvenient truths?
Must be skeered of technology these days. She and her hub have both been busted lying because of it, and Bill under oath no less.
Oh, well, at least they seem to have learned their lesson and she anyway has been forced to change tactics. Plus this’ll be good ammo to use to whip up the opposition should she decide to run for office in 2016.
And here believe it or not just yesterday I was looking at a photo of her in an article speculating on whether she might run in '16 and found myself grudgingly admitting to myself that I’ve finally come to believe she’s paid enough real time dues and done enough real work to deserve a shot at the presidency, something I’d never believed before. And then, BLAM, I get smacked right back to reality the very next day and reminded what a deeply dishonest and conniving couple those two have always been, always ready to blatantly game the system when cornered, confident in the knowledge that there’s nothing anyone can do about it and memories are short.
Too bad, Hil, you almost had me but then you lost me!
Getting into conspiracy theory nonsense can’t be good for you.
Are you under the impression that the congress can’t call Hillary back? Didn’t you realize the silliness of this line when Paetraeus quit and the RW media screamed about how he was quitting so he didn’t have to testify, then he testified anyway?
The people you rely on your news for aren’t honest. You can want a smaller government and to have a respect for tradition without war whooping drivel.
Did you bother looking at the link? The cited article is from CNN, not Fox or Drudge. And there are numerous other articles online stating that Deputy Secretary William Burns and Deputy Secretary Thomas Nides will provide testimony in Hilary’s absence, so it looks like the plan at this point is to keep her from getting into a sticky situation that could come back to haunt her later. I perhaps wouldn’t be so suspicious of an official with a greater reputation for honesty and integrity, but we are talking about a Clinton here.
Nah, I doubt it can do any further harm to someone so befuddled that he assumes that immediate accurate answers about exactly what happened in Benghazi are and should by right be easier to come by than immediate accurate answers about exactly what happened in Connecticut.
Only liars get dehydrated from viruses? What god damned school of medicine do conservatives go to where that learn that women’s bodies reject pregnancy from rape, and that only liberals experience loss of consciousness from dehydration?
If only there were some kind of test to determine whether a woman of her height is physically capable of falling down and striking her head…
What has me befuddled is that damn sentence. You hittin’ the sauce tonight?
Plus I haven’t said a word about the info coming out of Connecticut, and I never expected immediate answers out of Benghazi. Weeks and months of conflicting stories from various administration sources is a bit much though, especially in this day and age where info can travel around the world in the blink of an eye.
Look, we all know what happened. Obama’s boys fucked up and we had a diplomat and several other people killed by Al Qaeda. Obama and his team knew the Republicans would seek to make hay over that, and so with the election coming up they played keep-away with the facts. Politicos play games like that. Hell, to be honest, if it had been St. Ronald of Reagan I’d have been cheering him for doing the same.
But let’s not be coy, mmkay? They fucked up, and now they (and Hilary) don’t want Hilary put in a position where she either has to lie and very possibly get her ass handed to her later on, or where she has to blow the administration’s cover on it’s chicanery, so they came up with this painfully transparent adult version of “the dog ate my homework” to get her out of having to take the test.
I’d have been happier if they’d come up with something a little more sophisticated and less insulting to our intelligence. As it is, the Clinton-esque arrogance and blatancy of this particular dishonesty smacks of her design (or perhaps Bill’s). The whole thing seems much more like something they’d come up with than something Obama and his team would hatch.
But who knows? He’s had four years to watch them in action. Maybe he’s picked up a few pointers along the way.
It’s not a question of whether women can get dehydrated. Or whether Hilary even got dehydrated. It’s a question of whether the entire story has been cooked up to get her out of having to testify as to what she knows about Benghazi.
And FYI I’ve never thought that women’s bodies reject pregnancy from rape, that if they lubricate during rape it means they really wanted it, or that if they really don’t want to be raped their bodies lock up/dry up/whatever, making it practically impossible, and I’ve known better than that since I was a preteen. You guys may think you’re making some kind of point by taking a comment from some outlier here and there and pretending all of us think that way, but you only reveal the depths of your desperation and lack of…oh, let’s say, ‘good faith’ when you do so.
If former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, Reagan’s ambassador to Nigeria, El Salvador and Israel (Thomas Pickering), Reagan and Bush political appointee Catherine Bertini, and retired CIA agent Hugh Turner conclude that there was no conspiracy to lie about the attack, will you revise your conspiracy theory?
The difficulty you see, is that people high up in government can’t be trusted to tell the truth because too many times the consequences of being truthful are deemed to be (and often are) just too serious or harmful. Plus I don’t know how much access these people have or had to the appropriate information. Plus I haven’t really followed the affair all that closely because I knew that it was going nowhere prior to the election, and once the election was over it wouldn’t make any difference.
But there was too much horseshit and too much supposed ignorance over al Qaeda’s role in the attack which was too obvious to too many other people way sooner than was ever admitted by the administration, and that, combined with Obama’s little bit of verbal sleight-of-hand during the debates “Read the transcript, Candy! Read the transcript!”, where Obama tried to make it look like he hadn’t said what he had in fact said, for me to believe that everything coming out of the White House was on the up and up.
Plus I wouldn’t trust either of the Clintons to tell me what time of day it was. I seriously began to wonder about Obama’s innate judgement and/or honesty once he decided to name Hilary Clinton Secretary of State.
So I guess the honest answer to your question is “Maybe, but probably not.”
Reason, tempered by observation and experience, is precisely what has brought me to this pass. Anyone who automatically accepts the word of politicians (and especially that of a president, and most extra-especially that of either Clinton) is either naive or a fool.