Check Out Our Sports Photo Galleries Contact Us
Hillary, ‘What does it matter?’
by Harry Spencer
Jan 28, 2013 | 6136 views | 1 1 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
The long awaited and often postponed appearance of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before Congress finally came to pass last Wednesday.

During the session, which was quite abbreviated because both Senate and Congress heard from her on the same day, Hillary showed a remarkable span of emotions. From tears to giggling to confrontational screaming, she was at her very best. The net outcome of her testimony proved the ineptitude of her Department oversight. She repeatedly stated she did not see cables prior to, during or after the event. Her testimony seemed to be in sharp contrast to that given by several of her underlings in previous statements to Congress.

Essentially, since the format rotated between Democratic questioners and Republican interrogators, the entire session turned into a dog and pony show. For their part, the Democratic inquisitors utilized their five minutes of allotted time to praise her for her wondrous work as Secretary of State and to encourage her to continue her political life after she resigns that post. The Republican questioners, on the other hand, seemed ill prepared as they fired multitudinous queries and further used up their time on personal speechifying. Congressman Rand Paul and Senator John McCain were the only inquisitors who were able to castigate Hillary for her actions or lack thereof.

For her defense, Clinton repeatedly referred to the lack of communication and coordination between her Department and the others of the administration. She raised a few eyebrows when she commented that she had better things to do on Sundays than to go on the Sunday TV circuit. This was borne out by the fact one of her employees, Susan Rice the Ambassador to the U.N., was tapped for a job that should have been performed by the Secretary. She (Clinton) further claimed that she did not dispatch Rice to the shows but said it was someone else in the administration. She also was very nebulous about who changed the talking points to promote the anti-Muslim video story that Rice promulgated.

When queried about the actions of the 24-7 “hotspot” that is the nerve center of the State Department, she mentioned that the “fog of war” that occurred during Benghazi made it almost impossible to know what was happening. Throughout her testimony, she claimed that she was putting into effect certain procedures for the future of the State Department when such tragedies as Benghazi occur.

Most TV reporters that covered the event credited Hillary with being better prepared than the panel. Since none of the legislators were very good at cross examination, she was artfully able to blunt whatever questions she chose not to answer. All in all, her appearance did seem to reinforce the scathing internal report that was recently released which said that the State Department was a victim of systemic failures.

Since she (Clinton) took full responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy, it would seem that we have a systemically failing Secretary of the very Department of which she is the head.

Washington D.C. in general seems to be most adept at cover-ups – remember no one died at Watergate.

Harry Spencer is a long-time northern Nevada resident.
Comments
(1)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
NVCondor
|
January 29, 2013
C'mon Harry,

Enough of the Fox News talking points.

Watergate was not just about a cover-up. It was about years of dirty tricks, illegal wire taps, and pay offs. All directed from the Oval Office.

Yea, no one died, but look at the decades of distrust and cynacism it caused this nation.

If you want to get your bowels in an uproar over blown intelligence and subsequent loss of life, perhaps you should read a memo, dated August, 6 2001 regarding Bin Laden.
Featured Businesses