Worthy Christian News » US News » Jim Jordan Traps Hillary Clinton: Emails Show She Knew Immediately Attack Was Not Result of Video
Jim Jordan Traps Hillary Clinton: Emails Show She Knew Immediately Attack Was Not Result of Video
(Worthy News) -Hillary Clinton was trapped by aggressive questioning Thursday by Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) at the Benghazi Select Committee on her rhetoric initially blaming an anti-Muslim video for the Benghazi terrorist attack, with Jordan showing emails revealing Clinton knew immediately the video wasn’t involved and telling her family it was an attack by an "al Qaeda-like group."
The matter went to why Benghazi was such a hot topic during the 2012 election cycle. The Obama administration repeatedly touted having al-Qaeda “on the run” at the time, and Republicans challenged that a terrorist attack of this magnitude would undermine Obamas’s re-election campaign narrative.
Jordan showed an email Clinton sent her own family, in which she said officers were killed in Benghazi by a group like al Qaeda. [ Source ]
Busted...
Praying
Looks like a self-righteous witch hunt to me on the part of Republican Senators? I can't stand Hillary, but I can easily see that the Republicans are obsessing over this video statement. What is this? The third inquisition? Republican failed to hear what they wanted to hear from two other investigations. They still want Hillary's blood so bad during a political season that they launch a third investigation and then they waste time for hours obsessing over the accuracy of her statement about a video.
Even though I would never vote for Hillary, I don't find it even the slightest bit hard to believe that a sudden attack on an embassy would take a few days to sort out in terms of what happened and why and that during that time, one would be grasping for answers and would express one answer at one time and then find another that maybe made more sense a few hours later. I can also understand that, until they KNEW beyond a doubt that it was terrorism, they would not publicly go out with the answer that would do them the most damage. They certainly KNEW that other embassies were being attacked because of the video so that it would seem a likely cause or contributing factor in this case.
It did not take them long to get to the point of saying it was terrorists, but they also had good reason NOT TO GIVE TERRORISTS CREDIT until they knew it was terrorist because terrorists would LOVE to take the credit for hiring the US.
At the end of the day, what matters is not how sure Hillary was or WAS NOT about the video triggering an attack. As she points out, one of the known participants in the attack has even stated that the video was a major motivator for his making the attack at that time. So, it was apparently a factor, even if terrorism was the core problem.
What matters is WHY WAS THEIR INSUFFICIENT SECURITY AT THE EMBASSY WHEN THE AMBASSADOR HAD ASKED FOR IT? According to Hillary the denial of that request for more security was something that never reached her ears. Well, why didn't it? Maybe that wasn't her fault, but it was a flaw in the State Department. Could it be that Republicans are obsessing over the video because they know that was a State Dept. flaw that was not any more Hillary's direct fault than not knowing about 9/11 terrorists was Bush's fault? Could it be that THAT answer, which was, I think, gotten to by the previous investigations is simply not an answer that they can cause political damage with.
I ask that because THAT question is the important one. Why was the ambassador's request for better security denied? An ambassador is a top-level manager in the Department of State. Are such high-level administrators not worthy of being heard? Is there any reason that a request from someone that high up would not automatically reach the ears of the Secretary of State, especially when he was ambassador in a region that was major in Obama's policies and that Hillary had been given total control of? Why would the State Dept. not assume that an ambassador asking for more security really needed it? Are there so many cowardly ambassadors who ask for security when they don't need it that the State Dept. has learned to ignore such requests as petty whining?
These are the questions that should be asked, and I think they were; but they didn't point as directly to Hillary as the video statement. so the Republicans are obsessing over the far less important question of why she indicated it had something to do with the video. The desperately want to find something they can hang around her neck during the political season.
I'd be asking why she hadn't reformed the State Dept. so that security requests from top managers didn't automatically go directly to her.
--Knave Dave
The Great Recession Blog
Question is - will it matter?