When Hillary Clinton appears before Congress’s special committee on Benghazi Thursday, she’ll likely be asked all the wrong questions.
Clinton will be peppered with queries about why she kept a private email server, what caused the 2012 attacks on the U.S. special consulate in Benghazi, and how come U.S. forces didn’t respond more quickly to the strikes. But the really important issues—the questions longstanding followers of the U.S. and NATO intervention want answered—are: Why did Hillary Clinton push for strikes that contributed to the fall of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi? And why didn’t the Obama administration bother to plan for the all-too-predictable chaos that came next?
In 2011, as the United States considered intervention, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was among those who pushed for intervention—without resolving just how Libya would be governed after Gaddafi, according to a senior defense official who was part of the decision-making process. Obama advisers like Samantha Power and Susan Rice also made the case alongside Clinton. They argued the U.S. had a moral obligation to save lives in Benghazi facing a threatened genocide by Libyan dictator Gaddafi. The only strategy spelled out publicly was that the Europeans’ newly formed “Libyan Transitional Council” would be at the forefront of the effort. Washington was “leading from behind,” to use a famous phrase from the era.
The rest is at The Daily Beast
This episode again proves that the left has no principles (other than the faux variety they use to hammer people over the head with) and it does so on several different levels.
The left loves to hammer Bush for his rationale and methods of going to war, yet he got not only UN approval but CONGRESSIONAL approval for war; presenting the list of those prominent Democrats that not only voted for the war but supported it long before 9/11 elicits only a silent response. Yet Obama got no such approvals for his Libyan adventure and failed to get a War Powers approval after being engaged for 60 days, as required.
The left loves to remind us of the dangers of creating a power vacuum (something EVERYONE is, in fact, aware of) yet they not only went right ahead and did just that in Libya, but followed it up by doing the same in the exact spot they warned about… Iraq. Disaster ensued… TWICE.
In hind-sight, the left claims a humanitarian concern drove them to act in Libya, though thousands of Christians and moderate Muslims being slaughtered by ISIS draws yawns and shrugs from the left, avoiding responsibility for a mess of their own making.
The left supports popular uprisings against US allies but failed to support the uprising against the Iranian leadership.
What a joke. What a transparent, blatant joke the left is.
Of what I’ve seen of the hearing today, Hillary is trying to give the impression she is/was knowledgeable of the situation in Benghazi. She says the problem at State when she arrived in ’09 saying the foreign service personnel complained to her about being unable to do their job due to security constraints. There is purpose for security constraints. The Dems on the panel are trying to paper over there were serious security concerns in Benghazi and nothing was done to address the situation. To say the effort is more akin to 19th century diplomatic practices is nonsense. The communications platform is considerable so that we don’t have to rely on the host country. By ignoring the requests for additional security, and even drawing down DSS, and SOF personnel (on detail), helped create the conditions in Benghazi.
Though she says she accepts responsibility for Benghazi, she hasn’t. Hillary continues to assert she left the decision to her security professionals. If a mistake was made, it’s on them. The hallmark of leadership is to accept failure, including the failure of others to adequately do their job.
Part of the Libya issue is Hillary was helping out the Clinton buddy Blumenthal get some cushy oil contracts with the new Libya government. Wonder how much he contributed to the CGF?
@Bill: A joke would be the Republican Party–It wasn’t easy but you actually made HRC look good today
A joke is having Trump out front for over 100 days
Flash Carson leads Trump by 8 points in Iowa—sanity returning?
If by looking good you mean having it revealed that she emailed her own daughter the night of the attack being clear it was an AQ action (and not the video she later claimed) then you have a low standard for looking good.
Trump lives rent free in your head.
Saner choice than the hag, Hillary or the Socialist, Bernie, which is what you are stuck with.
@retire05: You’re right 05. The image of Trump as POTUS–frightening. Hopefully Iowans will end the façade.
Repubs. gave HRC a big boost today. What the hell’s the matter with them?
Gowdy? That’s the best they can do?
We all know you would rather have the crook Hillary or the Socialist Bernie.
Your guy Webb is DOA.
What do you care about Iowans? You live in LaLa Land and seem to love it. Grifters seem to find favor with you.
Really? You think showing Hillary for the liar she is will give her a big boost? Since the only people that support her are Democrats, and that is true, it shows just how low Democrats have sunk.
Yeah, the guy who was a prosecuting attorney, and never lost a case, is so much lesser (in the mind of stupid liberals like you) than the grifter, Hillary.
There’s your problem; you think looking like a callous, cynical liar is “looking good”. I guess it all depends on what sort of personality traits and people you appreciate. Tell me again how you do not support Hillary…. I am beginning to doubt again.
@Bill: I have made crystal clear who I support—and don’t support.
You, on the other hand, seem unable or unwilling to firmly back a candidate.
Many here extol the virtues of Trump but don’t have the guts to fully endorse him. Well now appears to be the time–he’s beginning his inevitable (imo) slide into obscurity He needs your unqualified support–Will you, Bill, STAND for him ,or are you gonna let him slide away like Gingrich, Cain, and others did 4 years ago?
@Rich Wheeler: You don’t seem to get it. I don’t have to commit to anyone until the Texas primary. You also don’t understand the purpose of the nomination process. And you don’t understand that your support of Obama IS support for Hillary. You support the regime that shuts out people like Webb from having a voice or input.
Maybe you truly support Webb or could support someone like him. However, when you give power to scoundrels like Obama, you either show you disrespect the sacrifices and what they might the contributions might be of people like Webb or you unwittingly aid and abet in the blockage of their contribution.
You’ve sold your soul to Hillary already. Good luck getting it back.