I agree with this column.
It's about Benghazi. The attack September 11th that killed Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Chris Stevens. And specifically about then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's testimony to Congress last month.
In this community, her testimony was called out.
And C.I. plays fair. She knows Hillary, she likes Hillary. But that didn't stop her from saying it was an embarrassment especially when Hillary snapped "what difference does it make!" Here's C.I. reporting on that hearing:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before Congress today. In the morning, she spun before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in the afternoon, she spun before the House Foreign Relations Committee. Does Hillary live in a bubble?
This morning, her voice broke as she read (from her prepared remarks), "I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters."
Yes, she did meet with various family members. Equally true, a significant number of them have publicly rebuked her and the administration. Pat Smith is the mother of the late Sean Smith. She spoke with Anderson Cooper October 10th for CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. Here and here for video, here for transcript. Here's an excerpt of Pat Smith speaking about her son:
COOPER: Do you feel that you know what happened or are you still searching for answers? Have you been in contact with the State Department? Have they reached out to you and given you details of what happened?
SMITH: That's a funny subject. I begged them to tell me what was -- what happened. I said I want to know all the details, all of the details no matter what it is, and I'll make up my own mind on it. And everyone of them, all the big shots over there told me that -- they promised me, they promised me that they would tell me what happened. As soon as they figure it out. No one, not one person has ever, ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people.
"No one," Pat Smith stated, "not one person has ever, ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people." Charlie Woods is the father of the late Tyrone Woods. October 26th, he spoke with Megyn Kelly on America Live (Fox News).
Charlie Woods: My son was an American hero. And he had the moral strength to do what was right, even if that would professionally cost him his job, even if it would potentially cost him his life. He was a hero who was willing to do whatever was necessary to respond to their cries for help. If, in fact, those people from the White House were as courageous and had the moral strength that my son, Ty, had immediately within minutes of when they found there was the first attack, they would have sent, they would have given permission, not denied permission for those C130s to have gone up there.
The two parents above are not being partisan, they are being parents. We will note that Kate Quigley told Erin Burnett (Erin Burnett Out Front) that her family was getting updates. (Kate Quigley is the sister of the late Glen Doherty.) The families of Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty and Sean Smith have largely been ignored/silence by the media. Even worse, their loved ones have gone unnamed over and over in reports which usually read "an attack that killed Chris Stevens and three other Americans."
Hillary did name all four. She also repeatedly noted there was one DS Agent still in Walter Reed (the agent's name was not given). But I didn't see anything that indicated this hearing was about that. Instead, we got a lot of nonsense, a lot of, "You are so wonderful, Hillary." That's garbage. You were there to ask questions. Four Americans are dead and I don't think "I am grateful" nonsense from senators recognizes the reality of those four deaths. Senator Ben Cardin walked the line very well, taking a brief moment to note Hillary's accomplishments and not getting lost in it. It's a real shame others couldn't do the same. Senator Robert Mendez was the acting Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Bob Corker is the Ranking Member. ARB is Accountability Review Board. Senator Barbara Boxer waxed on about how "you stepped up" -- I don't know that the hearing established that.
One key exchange.
Ranking Member Bob Corker: To my knowledge, no one has been held accountable. Our staff had a meeting with one of the State Dept officials and I hate to use this word again but it was nothing short of bizarre as they talked about the communications. These officials were screaming out for more security. And I was just wondering if you might mention one reform that would be helpful so that you would have known of the needs of security that went undone.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Well obviously, I have, uh, thought about this almost constantly since that date, Senator, uhm, you know I do feel responsible. I feel responsible for, uh, the nearly 70,000 people that work for the State Dept. You know, I take it very seriously. Uhm, the-the specific security requests, uhm, pertaining to Benghazi, you know, were handled by the security professionals in the department. I didn't see those requests. Uh, they didn't come to me. I didn't approve them. I didn't deny them. That's obviously one of the findings that Ambassador Pickering and Admiral Mullen made -- that these requests don't ordinarily come to the Secretary of State.
Ranking Member Bob Corker: If we could -- I know -- I respect you tremendously but we have short amount of time. They did come in to folks.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: That's right.
Ranking Member Bob Corker: We did have SST people on the ground at no cost to the State Dept. They were asked to be extended by the ambassador. Someone at the State Dept turned that down. They were at no charge -- 16 officers. So I just wonder, what has happened inside to make sure that never happens again?
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Well -- uh -- several things. Not only are we, uhm, on the path to implement all of the ARB recommendations but we've gone beyond that. Uhm, we did, uh, immediately do this high threat assessment using DoD assets as well as our own. That had never been done before. Uh, we have asked the Congress to help us, uh, reallocate funds. The Senate has given us that authority -- we-we don't yet have it from the House -- so that we can get more Marine guards, we can get more diplomatic security guards, we can try to put more money into the maintenance, the upgrades, the construction that's needed. I created the first ever -- it sounds like it should have been done years ago -- but first ever Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for High Threats. I'm also recommending that there be a regular process that includes the secretaries and the deputies in these decisions because nobody wants to sit where I am and have to think now about what coulda-woulda-shoulda happened in order to avoid this. Now, as I said, we've had 19 ARBS. Only two have ever been unclassified. The one coming out of the East Africa bombings where there was full transparency, there was a set of recommendations, many of which have been implemented, along with recommendations from other ARBS. But this Committee never had a public hearing about the 17 other ARBS because they were classified. So we're-we're-we're putting into action, steps that we think will help the next Secretary be able to make these decisions, be part of these decisions, have more insight into what is going on and we would, obviously, welcome the opportunity to work closely with a subcommittee or a set of members to make sure that that's what's happening.
That's a lot of words. If you know Hillary, and I do, she's not a "uhm" and "uh" and "the-the" type person. When she is that? She's hiding. That's reality. You can admit that or not.
But if you're on the fence about whether she's spinning, grasp that she used a lot of words. Ranking Member Bob Corker wanted to know -- and asked three times -- what she'd done that would ensure that the Secretary of State would be aware of the security needs and requests?
And Hillary couldn't answer it. She went on and on. To the point that Corker pointed out time was limited and re-directed her. She responded by going on and on and still not answering his question. So he tried asking it for a third time. And no answer.
That's not just disappointing, that's actually damning.
If you need to contrast? Senator James Risch asked her about what's going on in Algeria. She couldn't talk about it in terms of what it is but she, explained, she could talk about this ongoing situation in terms of the information she's receiving (that "we don't have anyway to confirm it" at present). Hillary didn't stammer once, she'd didn't pause and it wasn't until the end that she even fell into a "uh" (and there she was recalling what someone in another department had done). That question was out of left field. It played to her strengths, she is very knowledgeable. She is very smart. She thinks on her feet. She was pulling from news reports and briefings in her head, off the top of her head, and speaking eloquently and to the point. Contrast that completely unprepared for moment and how well she mastered it with her refusal to answer Corker's very basic question -- one she was asked three times.
Another serious issue "we knew we were piecing together what a host nation was not able to do." That Hillary speaking to Senator Marco Rubio. Who's insane idea was it that Libya could provide security? How many billions has the US government spent on Iraq's police and military? But the protection of the US staff there is US military and contractors. That issue has not been dealt with adequately by the press, by the Senate or by the State Dept. Do not say, "Well host countries provide security." No. Not in Iraq. According to Reuters timeline of the 2011 Libyan War, October 23, 2011, Libya is declared "liberated." The attack happened less than a year later. In what world does the US government assume that a regime not even a year old can provide adequate security? Don't distract with budgets or authorizations or other nonsense. Answer clearly who made the decision -- in State or out -- that the militias in Libya could protect US diplomatic staff?
"What difference at this point does it make!" she shouted to Senator Ron Johnson at one point in the hearing looking unhinged, unprofessional and, quite frankly, uncaring.
It was supposed to be a dramatic moment that showed her heart. She's a diplomat. Johnson was doing nothing but agreeing with her but she wanted a big TV moment apparently. Instead she's flying off the handle in a hearing where she's gotten more praise than any non-uniformed witness in the last six years. It wasn't pretty. Nor her attempts shortly afterwards -- during Senator Jeff Flake's line of questioning -- to laugh about the same topic ("we didn't [laughter] have a clear picture"). There are four people dead. I don't need to scream that as she did at Senator Johnson. But there are four people dead and America doesn't need your laughter, Hillary Clinton. She did not conduct herself in a professional manner and as this haunts and taints her legacy, look for people to step forward and insist it was health related and she should have waited a week or two longer before testifying. I'm not here to rescue her, I'm reporting what happened in the hearing and it was embarrassing. Wally will be covering Johnson's questions at Rebecca's site tonight, Ava will cover another aspect of the hearing at Trina's site and Ruth's covering it at her site (Ruth's offering an overview of the testimony Hillary offered).
It's public here that I supported Hillary in her 2008 run for the presidential nomination, that I like her and I know. I've also long shared that I can't stand Senator John McCain (Cindy McCain is a very sweet woman). I stated here as early as 2006 that I would not be voting for him. I would love to be reporting John McCain unleashed the crazy and Hillary was just amazing. But that's not what happened.
Senator John McCain: Four months -- or months -- after the Benghazi tragedy -- it's a tragedy when we lose four brave Americans, there are many questions that are unanswered and the answers, frankly, that you've been giving this morning are not satisfactory to me. Were you and the President made aware of the classified cable from Chris Stevens that said the United States Consulate in Benghazi could not survive a sustained assault? Numerous warnings -- including personally to me -- about the security were unanswered or unaddressed. It took a CNN reporter looking through the Consulate to find Chris Stevens' last warning. When were you made aware of that cable? When were you made aware of the attack on the British ambassador? And the assassination attempts? And the closing of the Consulates there? And what actions were taken? What were the president's activities during that seven hour period? On the anniversary of the worst attack in American history, September 11th, we didn't have the Department of Defense forces available for seven hours. Two brave Americans died in the last hour. With all these warnings, all these things took place, we didn't have a single Department of Defense asset apparently available to come to these rescue. I categorically reject your answer to Senator Johnson about 'Well, we didn't ask these survivors who were flown to Ramstein [Air Base] the next day that this was not a spontaneous demonstration.' You say that it was because an investigation was going on? The American people deserve to know answers and they certainly don't deserve false answers. And the answers that were given the American people on September 15th by the Ambassador to the United Nations [Susan Rice] were false -- in fact, contradicted by the classified information which was kept out of the Ambassador to the United Nations' report who, by the way, in the President's words, had nothing to do with Benghazi -- which questions why she was sent out to start with. Why is it that the administration still refuses to provide the full text of the e-mails regarding the deletions of references to al Qaeda and terrorism in the talking points? Why do we care? Because if the classified information had been included, it gives an entirely different version of events to the American people. Going to the American people and tell them what happened then you ought to have your facts straight -- including, the Ambassador said, "al Qaeda is decimated and our consulates and embassies are secure." So here we are, four months later, and we still don't have the basic information. Now if you want to go out and tell the American people what happened, you should have at least interviewed the people who were there instead of saying 'No, we couldn't talk to them because an FBI investigation was going on.' And, by the way, as I said at the time, I just happened to be on one of those talk shows, people don't bring RPGs and mortars to spontaneous demonstrations. That's a fundamental. And, of course, the president continued to say, days afterwards, September 12th, he made a reference to active terrorists, September 12th on 60 Minutes "too early to know," September 20th on Univision "we're still doing an investigation," September 24th on The View "we're still doing an investigation." The President of the United States, as late as September 24th, two weeks later, did not acknowledge that this was an act of terror conducted by people who were at least somehow connected to al Qaeda. And, finally, Madam Secretary, I strongly disagree with your depiction of what we did after [Libyan leader before the 2011 assault, Muammar] Gaddafi fell. We did not provide the security that was needed. We did not help them with border security. We did not give them the kind of assistance that would have been necessary to help dismantle these militias that still, to this day, remain a challenge to democracy in Libya and freedom. You knew Chris Stevens very well. I knew him very well. I knew him on July 7th, when I went to Libya to observe the elections. And at that time, on July 7th, he expressed to me his deep and grave concerns about security particularly in Begnhazi. And he continued to communicate with the State Dept -- and I don't know who else was privy to those cables -- of his deep concern about the security there and the need for additional assistance. And I will argue -- [will argue] with facts -- that after that event took place, after the fall of Gaddafi, the so-called 'soft footprint' was partially to some degree responsible for the tragedy that took place. The American people and the families of these four brave Americans still have not gotten the answers that they deserve. I hope that they will get them.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Well Senator, I understand your very, very strong feelings. You knew Chris, you were a friend of Chris, you were one of the staunchest supporters of the efforts to dislodge Gaddaif and try to give the Libyan people, uh, a chance and we just have a disagreement. We have a disagreement about, uh, what did happen and when it happened, with respect to explaining, uh, the sequence of events. Uhm, we did get to, uh, talk to the DS Agents when they got back to this country. We did so. It was not before September 15th. We had no access to the surveillance cameras for weeks which helped to answer a number of questions. But with respect to helping the Libyans -- and that also goes to the question Senator Rubio asked -- we will provide a list of everything we were doing and were attempting to do but I will also tell you that since March 2011, Congressional holds have been placed on programs for many months for aid to Libya. Uh, we've had frequent Congressional complaints: Why are we doing anything for Libya, it's a wealthy country, it has oil, disagreement from some sources that we should never have been part of some UN mission in Libya. Currently, the House has holds on a bilateral security assistance on other kinds of support for anti-terrorism assistance, so we got to get our act together between the administration and the Congress if this is a priority and if we are serious about trying to help this government stand up security and deal with what is a very dangerous environment from east to west, then we have to work together, uhm, so I hope that, uh, we can have the kind of discussion where we can agree on, uh, certain approaches that will make a difference. We -- And, again, I would urge that you look and read both the classified 6and unclassified versions of the ARP that tries to deal with the very questions that you and Senator Johnson are raising -- the timing of it and the like. But I also hope we're looking forward because right now Libya is still dangerous, it is still in a very unstable status and whatever we can do for them we at least ought to agree we need to do and get out there and start delivering.
Again, a lot of words and none of them address the issues raised by McCain, do they? They do distract. He's asking about the failures and she's talking about how support needs to be firm for funding Libya. (Neither spoke of the illegal nature of the Libyan War -- the US involvement -- but War Hawks never do.)
It was an embarrassment and she might have been better off pleading health problems to avoid appearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We'll try to grab her appearance before the House Committee in tomorrow's snapshot and I also want to return to the Senate hearing to note something from Senator Bob Casey.
Now here's C.I. reporting on it the next day:
Hillary's performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing yesterday should have resulted in her being condemned -- both for how she presented herself and for what she said. We called her out in yesterday's snapshot. In addition, Wally covered it in "Facts matter, Hillary (Wally)," Ava covered it in "20 are still at risk says Hillary in an aside (Ava)," Ruth covered it in "Like watching Richard Nixon come back to life" and Kat covered it in "Can she not answer even one damn question?" Kat admits that she was so surprised and disgusted by Hillary's performance that she didn't attend the afternoon hearing with us because she couldn't take seeing Hillary like that again. Ava points out that Hillary acted out in every negative stereotypical was possible. Ruth compares her to Nixon when it comes to answering questions. They went into the hearing expecting Hillary to sail through it in a professional and adult manner. I did have doubts and by the time Hillary was screaming and waving her hands -- above the shoulders -- like a lunatic, I'm sorry. I supported her in 2008. I don't see supporting a presidential run again.
I have never seen lunatic behavior like that in a hearing and I was present a few years back when a Ranking Member stormed out in the middle of a witness' remarks, loudly and intentionally slamming a door behind him. Everyone stopped -- the witness stopped testifying -- and we all appeared to wonder, "What the hell is wrong with Steve Buyer?" I disagreed with Buyer on many things (he was very right, however, on the burial grounds for military members who were buried in this country and overseas -- he was a champion on that issue and deserves praise for it) but I had never seen anything so rude. I sat through Condi Rice testifying as a hostile witness or at least to a hostile Congress, I sat through Condi testifying as a woman with red paint (representing blood) on her hands invaded Condi's space. Condi didn't scream and yell. In fact, I said to Kat, "I'm sort of impressed with how calm Condi remained and with the fact that she didn't try to sick security guards on the woman" (Diane Wilson). (I think John Kerry responded very well to an outburst in the midst of his opening remarks at today's Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.)
Some 'press' -- like the Drama Queen at the Washington Post -- are distorting the hearing, especially a key exchange (the one Wally covered accurately last night). They're rushing to praise Hillary and calling Senator Ron Johnson a "tea partier." I have no idea what he is (other than Republican), yesterday was the first time I ever laid eyes on him. But I don't need to know his backstory to know what happened in the hearing.
Senator Ron Johnson: Mr. Chairman and Madam Secretary, I'd like to join my colleagues in thanking your for service sincerely and also I appreciate the fact that you're here testifying and glad that you're looking in good health.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Thank you.
Senator Ron Johnson: Did you, were you fully aware of -- again, I realize how big your job is, you know everything's erupting in the Middle East this time. Were you fully aware of these 20 incidents reported in the ARP in real time? I mean --
Secretary Hillary Clinton: I-I was aware of the ones that were brought to my attention. They were part of, uh, our ongoing discussion about the um-um deteriorating threat environment in uh eastern Libya uh, we certainly were, uh, very conscience of them was assured by our security professionals that, uh, repairs were underway additional security upgrades in place.
Senator Ron Johnson: Okay. Thank you. Did you see personally the cable on -- I believe it was August 12th -- specifically asking for basically reinforcements for the-the security detail that was going to be evacuating -- or leaving -- in August? Did you see that personally?
Secretary Hillary Clinton: No, sir.
Senator Ron Johnson: Okay. Uhm, when you read the ARB, it strikes me, uh, how certain the people were that the attacks started 9:40 pm Benghazi time. When was the first time you spoke to, or have you ever spoken to, the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?
Secretary Hillary Clinton: I've spoken to, uh, one of them but I waited until after the ARP had done its investigation because I did not want there to be [laughing] any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARP conducted its investigation.
Senator Ron Johnson: How many people were evacuated from Libya?
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Uhm. Well, you, uh, the numbers are a little bit hard to pin down because of our other friends --
Senator Ron Johnson: Approximately?
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Approximately 25 to 30.
Senator Ron Johnson: Uh, did anybody in the State Dept talk to those folks shortly afterwards?
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Uh, there was discussion going on uh-uh afterwards. But once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them and so other than our people in Tripoli which -- I think you're talking about Washington, right?
Senator Ron Johnson: Yeah. Yeah. The point I'm making is a very simple phone call to these individuals I think would have ascertained immediately that there was no protest prior to this. I mean this attack started at 9:40 p.m. Benghazi time. It was an assault and I appreciate the fact that you called it an assault. But I mean, I'm going back to then, Ambassador Rice five days later going to the Sunday shows and what I would say purposefully misleading the American public.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Well, Senator --
Senator Ron Johnson: Why-why-why wasn't that known? And, again, I appreciate the fact that the transparency of this hearing but why weren't we transparent at that point and time?
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened and once we got our people rescued out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries because, as I said, I still have a DSA agent still at Walter Reed seriously injured, getting them into Frankfurt-Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to talk to them, we did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And, you know, I just want to say that, uhm, you know, people have, uh, accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of, uh, misleading the Americans, I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren't reached initially and I appreciate --
Senator Ron Johnson: But, Madam Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn't have ascertained what happened immediately that there was no protest? I mean that was -- that was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: But Senator, again --
Senator Ron Johnson: -- within hours, if not days.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Senator, I, you know, when you're in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going --
Senator Ron Johnson: I understand, I realize ---
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Number two --
Senator Ron Johnson: -- that's a good excuse.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: No, it's a fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because even today there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people, but what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing --
Senator Ron Johnson: No, no, no.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: -- is still -- is still --
Senator Ron Johnson: Again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily --
Secretary Hillary Clinton: But-but --
Senator Ron Johnson: -- ascertained that that was not the fact.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: But-but --
Senator Ron Johnson: -- and the American people could have known that within days and they didn't know that.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans! [This is where Hillary's crazy hands, like the volume of her voice, begin going all over the map.]
Senator Ron Johnson: I understand.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans! What difference at this point does it make!
It is our job to figure out what happened and to do everything we can to prevent it from every happening again, Senator! Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this but the fact is people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out but, you know, to be clear, it is from my perspective less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it then to find them and then maybe we'll figure out what was going on in the meantime.
Senator Ron Johnson: Okay, thank you Madam Secretary.
If you applaud that performance by Hillary I don't know who you are or what you believe in. You don't believe in the Constitution -- not enough to support it -- nor do you believe in an informed society. You do believe in all the b.s. Bully Boy Bush put the United States through after 9-11.
As Wally points out in his piece, there are things called "facts" that actually are facts but facts are not Hillary Clinton's personal opinions no matter how loud she gets in hearing.
Second, the issue of Susan Rice came up repeatedly. During other questioning on the topic, Hillary testified she wasn't present so she can't speak to that process or what happened or anything. But with Johnson, she wants to assure him what happened -- what happened when she wasn't present. She knows those aren't facts, she knows they're at best "hearsay."
Third, she's being asked a basic question. I'd be a real hypocrite if I disagreed with Johnson because the issue of talking to someone who was present during the attack before going on TV to pontificate? I raised that in the November 15th snapshot. And Johnson was right yesterday. You do have an obligation to speak to someone.
I've never been more disappointed in Hillary or more ashamed. We're not going to debate the Susan Rice nonsense, it's been covered. We're going to address Hillary's nonsense and we have to because the press doesn't want to do their damn job -- as usual.
Hillary said she took accountability. If you burn my house down and show up the next day as I'm going through the charred remains and you say, "I take accountability," I may believe you . . . up until you start yelling and screaming. If you take accountability, then you damn well learned something from the experience. Hillary learned nothing. It's a cheap line ("I take accountability") intended to silence people. You either take accountability or you don't.
She's taken no accountability. She's done nothing to indicate she has. She's done nothing to improve her knowledge of the attack. She's done nothing to secure the diplomatic staff around the world. On the last one, as Ava so aptly pointed out in her report, as an aside, Hillary tosses out in the hearing that at least 20 US diplomatic outposts are currently at risk. I'm missing the moment where Hillary or one of her staffers rushed before Congress in the last months to demand funding for these 20 at risk posts.
Don't lie to the country and claim you took accountability when you so obviously didn't.
Gore Vidal used to praise Hillary for her manners and grace. Neither was visible yesterday. If you didn't get it from the exchange, she was being flattered by Johnson, she was being praised. She flew off the handle and started screaming and acting like a crazy person while she was being treated with kid gloves. I was offended by her behavior. She is not just a former First Lady, she's also a former US Senator and she fully knows how to conduct herself in the Senate. There was no excuse for her behavior. Senator John McCain was probably the most severe critic she faced yesterday. John McCain did not yell at her, he did not fly off the handle. Let's move over to what she said while she was acting so crazy.
Senator Ron Johnson: Again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily --
Secretary Hillary Clinton: But-but --
Senator Ron Johnson: -- ascertained that that was not the fact.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: But-but --
Senator Ron Johnson: -- and the American people could have known that within days and they didn't know that.
Secretary Hillary Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans! [This is where Hillary's crazy hands, like the volume of her voice, begin going all over the map.]
There were four dead Americans and they died because of failures within the administration. You can claim to take accountability all you damn well want. But Ranking Member Bob Corker put one question to Hillary over and over (three times) and she ignored it. 'You claim you didn't see any of the various requests for more security.' Corker wanted to know how that wouldn't happen to you again or the next person in your position? Hillary couldn't answer him. That's a failure. She refused to answer him. There are four dead Americans, Secretary Clinton, and you've done nothing to ensure that when people in the field ask for additional security, these requests and their outcomes are made known to the Secretary of State.
I could go on with that. C.I. does a great job reporting on Congressional hearings. And she holds people accountable. She held Hillary accountable for her outrageous actions.
But the press treated it like it was normal and rational. That's why C.I. returned to the topic the next day, because the press wasn't doing their job. They were too busy insisting Hillary had the nomination sewed up, they wanted to insist. No, she didn't. If she was planning to run in 2016, she may have even slit her own throat. That was an appalling performance.
Kathleen Parker calls her out for "what difference at this point does it make!" in her new column:
Well, it all makes quite a bit of difference, though inarguably less now than it might have just weeks before the November election. Apparently, Johnson and his Republican colleagues were so hornswoggled by Clinton's irritation that no one wanted to volunteer.
Most important is the possibility that those four American lives might have been saved. More prosaically, it is very possible that President Obama's reelection might not have been assured had possible incompetence at the highest levels been highlighted sooner rather than ."‰."‰. now.
She then goes into Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's testimony this month where he said that he informed Barack as the attack was starting and that Barack told him basically to handle it and didn't do anything else. Parker points out:
As chief executive, Obama may have felt he delegated appropriately. Let the military handle it. But he is also the commander in chief. When our ambassador is being attacked, our country is being attacked. Should he have done more? Might he have made a call to Stevens or someone else on the ground? Obama didn't hesitate to call Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke two days after she was attacked on-air by Rush Limbaugh. Two days after would have been too late for Stevens, of course, but one is a real-war theater and the other is merely political.
Again, first time reading Parker (who is a Republican, if you didn't know that) so I can't judge her entire work. But she wrote a strong column.
Now this is from Stephen Lendman's column grading Barack's awful State of the Union Address Tuesday night:
Obama did what he does best. He lied. He’s a serial liar. He supports wealth and power. He’s beholden to powerful monied interests. They own him. He spurns popular needs. He prioritizes letting them go begging on his watch.
He proposed massive Medicare cuts. In 2010, 2011, and last November he urged more. He’s waging class war on Americans.
He wants fundamental social benefits destroyed. He wants ordinary people hung out to dry. He wants them on own sink or swim.
In 2010, his Simpson-Bowles National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRF) recommended deep Medicare cuts, higher Medicaid co-pays, and restrictions on filing malpractice suits.
It urged other ways to end Washington’s responsibility for healthcare. Obama’s address reiterated support. Implementation assures disaster for millions.
Healthcare for millions already is unaffordable. Implementing Simpson-Bowles makes it more so when most needed. Illnesses will go untreated. Pain, suffering, and early deaths will follow. Rogue leadership assures it. Obama reflects the worst of irresponsible lawless leaders.
Do you ever eat something and it just doesn't agree with you?
My daughter and I had chicken tenders. I spent an hour with her after she threw up. She felt like she was going to hurl again. So I got her to lay down and I just kept a cold wash cloth on her head and talked to her until she fell asleep. And then I went to the bathroom. I didn't throw up, I had the runs. I cannot believe it.
Elaine would have chosen something healthy but Thursday nights is when she does her veterans group session so she wasn't eating with us.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Starting in England where Politics UK noted early today:
A new approach to intervening in foreign countries will be set out by Labour as the shadow Defence Secretary, Jim Murphy, accuses David Cameron of failing to learn the lessons from Tony Blair’s mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ten years after the Iraq War, Labour will attempt to further distance itself from a conflict which alienated many voters by warning against the “ideological” crusade against al-Qa’ida favoured by Mr Blair and Mr Cameron.
In his speech today, Murphy declared:
Just as important is the need to understand the culture and character of a specific country. A primitive understanding of the Afghan population, culture and geography prior to our intervention severely undermined attempts to work with proxies and our political strategy was in its conception insufficiently representative. In Iraq there was a serious deficit in Western comprehension of the Sunni-Shia or intra-Shia dynamics.
There is rightly much discussion of ungoverned spaces, but this means absence of a central authority rather than a non-existence of local power-brokers who must be navigated. Extremists often understand this and so must we.
Associated to this, as we all now know, the physical disconnection of a ‘Green Zone’ or an ‘inside the wire’ mentality can impede communication or cultural empathy. Diplomatic compounds, equally, can be isolated from local communities, restricting the relationships necessary to understand communities.
The final lesson I want to mention is the need to understand the interests of the Forces with whom we co-operate, not just our enemy. They will have their own interests - and not necessarily those of the central authority. It took too long for us to see the training of the ANA and ANP as a strategic priority, and we know that de-Ba’athification left a lethal vacuum in Iraq. When the UK plays a role in training local or regional forces, it is essential we view them not just as auxiliaries but as partners who can inform the strategy behind our operations.
And Murphy's remarks in the speech can be paired with what Labour's Douglas Alexander tells Andrew Sparrow (Guardian) in an interview today:
Q: You mentioned Iraq. Over the last 10 years, have you changed your view of that conflict and the British involvement in it?
A: Well, of course I regret the loss of life and accept that there was a loss of trust that followed. Had any of us who were in the House of Commons at the time known then what we know now, that the weapons of mass destruction weren't there, we wouldn't have voted, indeed there wouldn't have been a vote. So of course our understanding of the situation deepened and changed because the evidence pointed against the existence of weapons of mass destruction when the weapons inspectors did their work in Iraq after the conflict.
Q: It was clear within six months of the conflict that the weapons had not been found. But the way events have panned out of the following 10 years has, for many people, changed their views of the rights and wrongs of the conflict.
A: Sure, if you look at the ledger with a 10-year perspective, the negatives outweigh the positives. Of course, I don't regret the removal of Saddam Hussein, the relative safety of the Kurds compared with their previous position. But given the lack of post-conflict planning, the insurgency that followed the action in 2003, of course the negatives outweigh the positives in my judgment.
The remarks come one day before the tenth anniversary of the largest protest London ever saw -- and there were protests all over England February 15, 2003 -- not just in London. The demonstrators were calling for the march to illegal war to be halted. Laurie Penny reflects in "Ten years ago we marched against the Iraq War and I learned a lesson in betrayal" (New Statesman):
Ten years ago this month, millions of people all over the world marched against the war in Iraq – and were ignored. I was one of them. For me, at the age of 16, there were a lot of firsts on 15 February 2003: first truancy, first solo trip to London, first time seeing democracy rudely circumvented.
Tony Blair’s decision to take Britain into the Americans’ war in Iraq was an immediate, material calamity for millions of people in the Middle East. I’m writing here, though, about the effect of that decision on the generation in the west who were children then and are adults now. For us, the sense of betrayal was life-changing. We had thought that millions of people making their voices heard would be enough and we were wrong.
The Week's Matthew Clark also reflects in "Lest we forget: anti-Iraq war protesters were in the right:"
Supporters of military intervention in Iraq, both then and since, have variously smeared the protesters for being pro-Saddam, anti-American, fellow-travellers of totalitarianism and jihadism, political ingénues and Chamberlain-style 'appeasers'.
Alastair Campbell, the ruthless and cynical apparatchik who did so much to promote the war, wrote contemptuously in his diary of encountering "no end of people coming back from the march, placards under their arms, faces full of self-righteousness, occasional loathing when they spotted me".
Shortly before the march, his boss Tony Blair made the characteristically grandiose and narcissistic observation that unpopularity was "the price of leadership and the cost of conviction" and insisted that there would be "bloody consequences" if Saddam was not "confronted".
AFP reports, "French-Australian journalist Nadir Dendoune has been released from an Iraqi prison after three weeks in custody, Iraqi and French sources said Thursday. The 40-year-old reported was jailed in January after taking 'unauthorised' photos in Baghdad." As I pointed out when I filled in for Ruth last week, he's French. He was very vocal about that in a BBC report -- on tensions in France, alienation among the Muslim community. October 31, 2005, he asked the BBC, "How am I supposed to feel French when people always describe me as a Frenchman of Algerian origin?" -- over five years ago. Dropping back to the February 8th snapshot:
Alsumaria reports Nadir Dendoune appeared before Baghdad's Criminal Court today wearing a jacket, jeans and handcuffed. Who? Good question because Nadir's not supposed to exist. Just Saturday, Karin Laub and Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reported Nouri declared, "There are no detained journalists or politicians." But Nadir Dencoune was 'deatined' and had been for weeks. From the January 29th snapshot:
As we noted this morning, Nadir Dendoune, who holds dual Algerian and Australian citizenship was covering Iraq for the fabled French newspaper Le Monde's monthly magazine. His assignment was to document Iraq 10 years after the start of the Iraq War. Alsumaria explains the journalist was grabbed by authorities in Baghdad last week for the 'crime' of taking pictures. (Nouri has imposed a required permit, issued by his government, to 'report' in Iraq.) All Iraq News adds the journalist has been imprisoned for over a week now without charges.
Nadir is the latest journalist to be targeted in Nouri's Iraq. A petition calling for his release has already gathered 15,594 signatures and a Facebook page has been created to show support for him. The Journalistic Freedoms Observatory in Iraq, Reporters Without Borders and The Committee to Protect Journalists have called for his release.
Arnaud Baur (Le Parisien) reports his sister Houria spoke with him today and he told her he was at the French Embassy in Baghdad, that he has freedom of movement there and has thanked everyone but he does not yet know when he'll be able to leave Baghdad. Remi Yacine (El Watan) counts 22 days of imprisonment for Nadir. The Voice of Russia states he is "freed on bail." Reporters Without Borders released a statement which includes:
“The announcement of Dendoune’s release is an immense
relief after 23 days of worry,” Reporters Without Borders
secretary-general Christophe Deloire said. “He was arrested simply for
doing his work as a journalist. A campaign by his family and fellow
journalists in France and Iraq has borne fruit. Reporters Without
Borders thanks all the journalists who signed the petition for his release launched by RWB and the support committee.”
Dendoune arrived in Iraq on 16 January to do a series of reports for the French monthly Le Monde Diplomatique and the magazine Le Courrier de l’Atlas.
According to the French foreign ministry, he was arrested near a water
treatment plant in the southwest Baghdad neighbourhood of Dora while out
reporting on 23 January.
Moving over to the United States . . .
Dr. David Rudd: I've included in my testimony the tragic suicide of Russell Shirley. I spoke with Russell's mother over the course of the last month. I've spoken with one of his dear friends. And I think Russell is probably typical of the problem -- the tragic problem which will occur over the coming years. Russell was a son, a husband, a father. He was a soldier. He served his country proudly and bravely in Afghanistan. He survived combat. He came home struggling with PTSD and Traumatic Brain Injury. With a marriage in crisis and escalating symptoms, he turned to alcohol. He received a DUI and, after ten years of dedicated service, he was discharged. And part of the rationale for the discharge was the increasing pressure to reduce the size of the force. I think we're going to see more and more of that over the coming years. After the loss of his family, the loss of his career and the loss of his identity, Russell shot himself in front of his mother. Having spoken with Russell, I would tell you -- or having spoken with Russell's mother -- I would tell you that a part of the tragedy is that we knew that Russell was at risk prior to his death. We recognized, identified him as an at-risk soldier prior to his discharge, but yet there were not adequate transitional services in place that allow a clean connection from an individual to an individual. And I think those are the sort of things we need to start talking about, we need to start thinking about. How do we connect at-risk soldiers -- once we identify them and they're being discharged -- particularly if they're being discharged against their -- against their wishes -- into the VA system and how do we connect them with an individual and not just with a system? How do we help them connect in a relationship that can potentially save a life? I've included a picture of Russell with his two children at the end of my [written] testimony. And the reason I've done that is I think it's important for all of us. When I read the Suicide Data Report, the one thing that is missing in the Suicide Data Report are the names of the individuals, the names of the families, the names of the loved ones that are affected and impacted by these tragedies. And I think it's important for all of us to remember that.
Rudd was speaking before the House Veterans Affairs Committee yesterday as they explored mental health care issues. He was on the first panel along with the Wounded Warrior Project's Ralph Ibson, the Disabled American Veterans' Joy Ilem and Connecticut's Commissioner of Veterans Affairs Linda Spoonster Schwartz. Rudd spoke of Russell Shirley's forced discharge and the loss of identity that took place as a result. Linda Spoonster Schwartz picked up on that theme.
Linda Spoonster Schwartz: The President's message last night [Barack Obama's State of the Union address] that we're going to have all of these people coming down. He [Rudd] mentioned a very important point -- some of these people who have joined, you have an all volunteer force who has joined. They intended to make this their career and now you have a drawdown and that is a loss of identity. As a disabled veteran, I had to leave military service and I had a long time finding a new identity.
What she went through, what Russell Shirley went through, is happening for a number of veterans right now and is about to happen for even more. Dr. Rudd portrayed Russell Shirley as someone the military knew, prior to the discharge, would be someone who would struggle with the discharge. If they knew ahead of time and still couldn't tailor some program for him, what does that say about their ability to help those whose problems emerge at a later date?
Chair Jeff Miller: Last night the President announced that 34,000 service members currently serving in Afghanistan are going to be back home. The one-size-fits-all path the Department is on leaves our veterans with no assurance that current issues will abate and fails to recognize that adequately addressing the mental health needs of our veterans is a task that VA cannot handle by themselves. In order to be effective, VA must embrace an integrated care delivery model that does not wait for veterans to come to them but instead meets them where the veteran is. VA must stand ready to treat our veterans where and how our veterans want to be treated -- not just where and how VA wants to treat them. I can tell you this morning that our veterans are in towns and cities and communities all across this great land. The care that they want is care that recognizes and respects their own unique circumstances, their preferences and their hopes.
Spoonster Schwartz noted that veterans sought care that was closest and that might mean skipping the VA if it was sixty miles away. She also noted that veterans had more access -- outside the office -- to a private sector doctor than to a veterans doctor
"Something somewhere is clearly missing," House Veterans Affairs Committee Chair Jeff Miller observed at the start of the hearing. US House Rep Mike Michaud is the Ranking Member on the Committee.
Ranking Member Mike Michaud: Over the years we have held numerous hearings, increased funding and passed legislation in an effort to address the challenges of our veterans from all eras. VA spent $6.2 billion on mental health programs in Fiscal Year 2012. I hope to see some positive progress that this funding has been applied to the goals and outcomes for which it was intended and the programs are really working. We all know that mental health is a significant problem that the nation is facing now -- not only in the VA but throughout our population. In the broader challenges is an opportunity for the VA to look outside its walls to solve some of the challenges that they face rather than operate in a vacuum as they sometimes have done in the past. One of the most pressing mental health problems that we face is the issue of suicide and how to prevent it. Fiscal Year 2012 tragically saw an increase in military suicides for the third time in four years. The number of suicides surpassed the number of combat deaths. Couple that with the number of suicides in the veterans' population of 18 to 22 per day and the picture becomes even more alarming.
Still on the issue of health care and veterans, Senator Patty Murray is now the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and her office issued the following today:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, February 14, 2013
CONTACT: Murray 202-224-2834
Tester 202-228-0371
Murray, Tester
Introduce Bill to Expand Health Care for CHAMPVA Children
Would raise maximum age for CHAMPVA eligibility to 26
to bring program into parity with Affordable Care Act
(Washington, D.C.)
– Today, Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Jon Tester (D-MT) introduced
legislation to adjust current eligibility requirements for children who receive
health care under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA). Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
a child may stay on a parent’s health insurance plan to age 26. However,
children who are CHAMPVA beneficiaries lose their eligibility for coverage at
age 23, if not before. The legislation introduced today by Sens. Murray and
Tester would raise the maximum age for CHAMPVA eligibility to age 26 in order to
bring eligibility under the VA program into parity with the private
sector.
“As more and
more servicemembers return home from Afghanistan, CHAMPVA will continue playing
a vital role in caring for veterans’ loved ones,” said Senator Murray. “In our ongoing commitment to keep the faith with our
nation’s heroes, this bill ensures CHAMPVA recipients, without regard to their
type of coverage, student status, or marital status, are eligible for health
care coverage under their parent’s plan in the same way as their peers.”
"Allowing young folks to stay on their
parents' health insurance until they turn 26 gives them a chance to finish
school or start their careers without worrying what happens if they get sick,”
said Senator
Tester. “This bill
makes sure that the children of our most selfless citizens have access to the
same care as the rest of the country."
“MOAA strongly
supports VA-sponsored health coverage for eligible adult children of CHAMPVA
beneficiaries,” said VADM Norb Ryan,
USN-ret., President, Military Officers Association of America. “Such coverage is mandated in law to be made
available for every other qualifying adult child across the nation and only a
technical adjustment to the VA statute is needed to extend it to the grown kids
of our nation’s heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country.”
“The DAV
applauds Senators Murray and Tester for introducing legislation we strongly
support, which would grant adult children of beneficiaries of the Civilian
Health and Medical Program of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA) eligibility for
continuing health benefits through age 26,” said Disabled American Veterans National Commander
Larry Polzin. “DAV believes children of severely disabled veterans and of
veterans who made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our nation should be able
to enjoy the same comfort and peace of mind of having health coverage into their
young adult years as every other child in our great nation.”
“This legislation is critical to
ensure that dependent children of severely disabled veterans are afforded the
same health care protection as all other
children,” said Paralyzed Veterans of America President Bill
Lawson.
“It is simply unacceptable that the only children who do not have the benefit
of extended health care coverage are those children of the men and women who
have sacrificed the greatest.”
CHAMPVA is a VA health insurance program that provides
coverage for certain eligible dependents and survivors of veterans rated
permanently and totally disabled from a service-connected condition. CHAMPVA is
a cost-sharing program that reimburses providers and facilities a determined
allowable amount, minus patient copayments and deductible. Once a veteran
becomes VA-rated permanently and totally disabled for a service-connected
disability, the veteran's spouse and dependents are then eligible to enroll in
CHAMPVA.
###
---
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media
Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty
Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834
Get Updates from Senator Murrayiraq
the guardian
andrew sparrow
the new statesman
laurie penny
mehdi hasan
the week
matthew clark
abc steve austin
alsumaria
the los angeles times
ned parker
human rights watch
az attorney
al mada
ayad al-tamimi
iraq
