No Apology for Benghazi in ‘Hard Choices‘

In “Hard Choices,” Hillary Clinton’s new memoir, the former secretary of state attempts to answer the critics of her handling of the Benghazi scandal. Yet she completely fails to do the one thing that might have help lay the controversy to rest: express personal remorse and a sense of responsibility. Clinton’s account of the fateful … Read more

Hillary Clinton Opens Up: Could She Have Done More in Benghazi?

In an exclusive interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer, Hillary Clinton said her role in securing the American mission in Benghazi, Libya, which came under attack on Sept. 11, 2012, was to give “very direct instructions” to security experts and said she was right to defer to their judgment. Ahead of the release of her new … Read more

Still plenty of questions for Hillary Clinton on Benghazi

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knows her presidential campaign is threatened before it begins by the mountain of wreckage left along her trail of tears tenure at State. Her failed and embarrassing “reset” with Russia, her mismanagement of Egypt so that all parties now hate the U.S. and President-elect Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is accepting Vladimir Putin‘s embrace, the horrors ofSyria escalating, Iran poised … Read more

Hillary Clinton Still Blames ‘Hateful’ Youtube Video For Benghazi Attack

GET VIDEO

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has released the chapter of her new memoir Tough Choices dealing with the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.
In an exclusive preview to Politico’s Maggie Haberman, a defensive Clinton challenged her critics but offered very little new information about where she was and what she did during the attacks.
“[T]here will never be perfect clarity on everything that happened,” she wrote, “…But that should not be confused with a lack of effort to discover the truth or to share it with the American people.”
Clinton still insisted that the anti-Islamic YouTube video did have some role in motivating the attacks, pointing to a report in the New York Times.
“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she wrote. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”
She also defended President Obama, who she insisted gave the order to do “whatever was necessary” to support the Americans under attack.
“When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the Commander in Chief has to give twice,” she wrote. “Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand.”
Clinton defended Susan Rice’s appearance on Sunday talk shows, pointing out that she did “the best she or anyone could do” with the current information from the intelligence community.
She also expressed contempt for the Sunday shows, deriding her critics for not appearing on the programs herself.
“I don’t see appearing on Sunday-morning television as any more of a responsibility than appearing on late-night TV,” she writes. “Only in Washington is the definition of talking to Americans confined to 9 A.M. on Sunday mornings.”
Clinton also addressed her controversial “what difference does it make” line, explaining that her words have been misinterpreted to appear that she was trying to minimize the tragedy.
“Of course that’s not what I said,” she wrote. “Nothing could be further from the truth. And many of those trying to make hay of it know that, but don’t care.”

MAY: A road map to get to the bottom of Benghazi

CNN President Jeff Zucker says his network may not bother to report on the House select committee hearings looking into the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi. The New York Times has pre-emptively dismissed them as “partisan.” Eugene Robinson, a columnist for The Washington Post, predicted they will be a “show trial,” a “farce,” and a “new low” for Republican “inquisitors” who could not “locate Benghazi on an unlabeled map.”

Here’s a reasonably compelling counterargument: “It is our job to figure out what happened and prevent it from ever happening again.”

That statement was made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at a January 2013 Senate hearing on Benghazi — the same hearing where she more notoriously asked: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” (That the two statements appear inconsistent goes without saying.)

With this in mind, a little unsolicited advice to the Republicans on this committee: Do not bloviate. Do not posture. Check your opinions at the door. Ask questions. Establish facts and don’t get ahead of those facts. Throw no red meat to conspiracy theorists in the peanut gallery. Prior to the hearings, consult a map.

Chairing the committee will be Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, by all accounts a skilled prosecutor. That’s a double-edged sword since, as suggested above, the purpose of these hearing should be fact-finding — not prosecution.

At a news conference earlier this month, Mr. Gowdy challenged the notion that there is nothing further to learn about Benghazi, asking reporters if they knew why Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was in Benghazi on the Sept. 11 anniversary, why requests for additional security were denied him, who originated the false narrative that the attacks were “a spontaneous reaction to a video,” and how that got to be the “official position of the administration”? No hands shot up.

More gratuitous counsel, this for the Democrats who are only reluctantly participating in the hearings: Your constituents did not elect you to be defensive lineman for the administration. You should regard this inquiry as the U.S. military would; namely, as a “post-action review” of a battle lost — which is what Benghazi was. Take Mrs. Clinton’s useful counsel: Make it your mission to figure out what happened so that measures can be taken to prevent it happening again.

Among other things, that means ditching the talking point that Benghazi is ancient history with no continuing policy relevance. Or, as former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor phrased it: “Dude, this was like two years ago.”

Over that incomprehensibly long span of time, not one of the individuals responsible for the attacks has been captured or killed. Why not? Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last fall that he was not authorized to target the Benghazi attackers because they were not considered “al Qaeda” or “associated forces” and therefore not covered by the Sept. 14, 2001, Authorization for the Use of Military Force against those involved in the attacks.

That’s very strange: As one of my colleagues, Foundation for Defense of Democracies senior fellow Thomas Joscelyn, and The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes reported in January, a Senate Intelligence Committee report — one “prepared under the supervision of Chairman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, and signed by every Democrat on the panel” — concluded that terrorists “affiliated” with al Qaeda took part in the Benghazi attack.

Mr. Hayes and Mr. Joscelyn also have noted that two of the groups responsible are al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula — official branches of the organization founded by Osama bin Laden and today led by Ayman al-Zawahri.

The leader of a third group, Muhammad Jamal, has sworn an oath of allegiance to al-Zawahri. The fourth group identified in the Senate report is Ansar al Shariah. Mrs. Clinton, in her January 2013 testimony, said: “Whether they call themselves al Qaeda or Boko Haram or Ansar al Shariah, they are all part of the same global jihadist movement.”

According to Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn, the original draft of the CIA’s talking points stated unequivocally that “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.” The intelligence community also knew that exactly one day prior to the attacks, al-Zawahri called on his followers in Libya to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior al Qaeda operative from Libya, who had been killed in a U.S. drone attack in June. “His blood is calling you and is urging you and is inciting you to fight and kill the crusaders,” al-Zawahri implored.

Then why did Gen. Dempsey believe his hands were tied — and does he still? Why, despite all this solid intelligence, did administration spokesmen blame the attack on an obscure video made by a Coptic Christian in California which, they further claimed, set off spontaneous demonstrations of aggrieved Muslims that spiraled out of control?

One explanation is that the president and his advisers sincerely believed they had al Qaeda on the ropes, and so they tuned out evidence to the contrary. Also possible: With an election coming up in two months, the president and his advisers did not want to give Republicans an opening.

In his new book, “Faithless Execution,” former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy argues that if “the president and his subordinates” did in fact engage in “fraudulent misrepresentations to improve his prospects for wining re-election,” that would constitute a high crime and misdemeanor.

Though impeachment seems unlikely, strong evidence suggesting not just spin, but outright deception of the public, would at least place an asterisk on the 2012 election results.

More unasked-for advice for members of the select committee, Republicans and Democrats alike: Seek the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. Do anything else and, in the history books of the future, your name will carry an indelible stain.

On Benghazi, GOP remains suspicious of Hillary Clinton

It’s common for Republicans to say there are “unanswered questions” about the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. In some cases, though, it might be more accurate to say that questions have been answered, but Republicans don’t believe the answers. A prime example concerns then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton‘s knowledge … Read more

Desperate Antics to Obstruct the Truth About Benghazi

The Democrats and their media acolytes who are pushing back against a full investigation of the Benghazi scandal are in full circle the wagons mode.  They are trying to make investigating this scandal into some sort of late night joke against Republicans, but instead are looking more desperate by the day. Many Americans do not … Read more

Lanny Davis to Lead Benghazi ‘Truth Squad’

Former Clinton special counsel Lanny Davis says he plans to lead a “truth squad” to counter accusations coming out of the Benghazi select committee hearings.

Davis will lead a group of volunteers “in front of the hearing room of the Gowdy committee” to be “available to put the facts out.”

“We’re going to do a ‘truth squad.’” Davis, a Hillary ally, told Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File” on Monday night.

“The Republicans who are critical about what happened in Benghazi should not fear the truth,” Davis said.

The former aide to President Bill Clinton said the “truth squad” will use the organization “Correct the Record” to challenge and fact-check “whoever is using innuendo as a surrogate for truth.”

The “truth squad” is similar to Davis’ crisis management efforts for Clinton in 1997. Davis told Fox that he doesn’t believe the hearings are necessary, but he hopes Democrats participate in them.

 Originally published at the Daily Caller