maxparrish
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,262
- Location
- SF Bay Area
- Basic Beliefs
- Libertarian-Conservative, Agnostic.
Ford,
You have one MSM source (the Atlantic) characterizing other sources, and if their FOX news analysis was a sample of its accuracy, then we know it's not credible. I listened to FOX this morning and the take on the hearings were mixed - some thought she was let off the hook, others thought not. For example, the WP chief thought many questions were effective, but the chief was frustrated by the lack of coordinated followup on clearly new information.
And yes, some of the Committee members the first few hours were poor questioners, and Hillary danced away easily. But as the hearing ground on things got a little dicey for the old gal, so she held her upper lip and simply ignored answering.
Some of the better cross exams came from:
Rep. Brooks who did an effective job of showing, via emails, how little attention Clinton was paying to Libya in 2012 compared to 2011. Conclusion: either Clinton’s attention was not on her job or lots of Benghazi emails have been destroyed. Or both.
Rep. Westmoreland showed that Clinton was aware of only two occasions where the compound came under attack out of 20 times that occurred. He asked how many times the embassy would have to be attacked before she did something to improve security, she ducked by lamely saying she relied on her security officials to tell her.
He asked if Ambassador Chris Stevens had Hillary Clinton’s personal email, as did Sid Blumenthal did. Nope, so he couldn’t ask Clinton personally for more security. Clinton went defensive, saying that Stevens never suggested that we shut down the facility. Westmoreland notes that he not talking about shutting it down but about better security.
Rep. Pompeo did a good job. He asks why no one was fired over Benghazi, Clinton she had no authority to fire anyone. (LOL).
Pompeo charted the 600 requests for security for Libya, none reached her desk but dozens of Blumenthal emails reached her desk. (Ouch).
Relying on his chart, Pompeo asks why she relied on “security professionals.” given that Stevens was the best expert on the security requirements in Libya?
Pompeo showed a cable that State Department officials were discussing security in Libya with an al Qaeda fighter just days before the attack in Benghazi attack. Clinton says she’s unaware of it.
Rep Jordan gave a lashing to Hillary. Jordan showed there was no protest or demonstration, based on eyewitnesses plus Greg Hicks, the number two diplomat in Libya. Rather there was a terrorist attack and we (she) knew it at the time. Yet Clinton immediately released a statement trying to tie the event to a protest over a video. Why?
Clinton says she was just noting what some people were saying. Jordan pulls an email in which she told her family that this was an al Qaeda-affiliated group attack. But she didn’t tell this to the American people. And she told the Egyptian president the next day that this attack had nothing to do with the video. Why didn’t she tell this to the American people?
Clinton said it was confusing and conflicting information (even if this “confusion” isn’t reflected in what she told her family and the Egyptian president.).
Jordan is hammering Clinton now based on emails from her spokesperson Victoria Nuland. They show that while Americans are still fighting for their lives, Clinton’s staff is trying to figure out how to spin this, talking about what to say “if pressed”.
In any event, the MSM knows Hillary is the only horse on the racetrack, so now that Biden has tucked his tail and bolted, one should expect the MSM to rally and covertly editorialize for Hillary (they dread Bernie getting the nod because they fear he would lose). Perhaps they will do us a favor and declare Hillary the winner of debates 2,3,4,5, and 6?
.
In anycase, baring a confession by Hillary, they will always declare "reality" for the tens of millions who never watch.
You have one MSM source (the Atlantic) characterizing other sources, and if their FOX news analysis was a sample of its accuracy, then we know it's not credible. I listened to FOX this morning and the take on the hearings were mixed - some thought she was let off the hook, others thought not. For example, the WP chief thought many questions were effective, but the chief was frustrated by the lack of coordinated followup on clearly new information.
And yes, some of the Committee members the first few hours were poor questioners, and Hillary danced away easily. But as the hearing ground on things got a little dicey for the old gal, so she held her upper lip and simply ignored answering.
Some of the better cross exams came from:
Rep. Brooks who did an effective job of showing, via emails, how little attention Clinton was paying to Libya in 2012 compared to 2011. Conclusion: either Clinton’s attention was not on her job or lots of Benghazi emails have been destroyed. Or both.
Rep. Westmoreland showed that Clinton was aware of only two occasions where the compound came under attack out of 20 times that occurred. He asked how many times the embassy would have to be attacked before she did something to improve security, she ducked by lamely saying she relied on her security officials to tell her.
He asked if Ambassador Chris Stevens had Hillary Clinton’s personal email, as did Sid Blumenthal did. Nope, so he couldn’t ask Clinton personally for more security. Clinton went defensive, saying that Stevens never suggested that we shut down the facility. Westmoreland notes that he not talking about shutting it down but about better security.
Rep. Pompeo did a good job. He asks why no one was fired over Benghazi, Clinton she had no authority to fire anyone. (LOL).
Pompeo charted the 600 requests for security for Libya, none reached her desk but dozens of Blumenthal emails reached her desk. (Ouch).
Relying on his chart, Pompeo asks why she relied on “security professionals.” given that Stevens was the best expert on the security requirements in Libya?
Pompeo showed a cable that State Department officials were discussing security in Libya with an al Qaeda fighter just days before the attack in Benghazi attack. Clinton says she’s unaware of it.
Rep Jordan gave a lashing to Hillary. Jordan showed there was no protest or demonstration, based on eyewitnesses plus Greg Hicks, the number two diplomat in Libya. Rather there was a terrorist attack and we (she) knew it at the time. Yet Clinton immediately released a statement trying to tie the event to a protest over a video. Why?
Clinton says she was just noting what some people were saying. Jordan pulls an email in which she told her family that this was an al Qaeda-affiliated group attack. But she didn’t tell this to the American people. And she told the Egyptian president the next day that this attack had nothing to do with the video. Why didn’t she tell this to the American people?
Clinton said it was confusing and conflicting information (even if this “confusion” isn’t reflected in what she told her family and the Egyptian president.).
Jordan is hammering Clinton now based on emails from her spokesperson Victoria Nuland. They show that while Americans are still fighting for their lives, Clinton’s staff is trying to figure out how to spin this, talking about what to say “if pressed”.
In any event, the MSM knows Hillary is the only horse on the racetrack, so now that Biden has tucked his tail and bolted, one should expect the MSM to rally and covertly editorialize for Hillary (they dread Bernie getting the nod because they fear he would lose). Perhaps they will do us a favor and declare Hillary the winner of debates 2,3,4,5, and 6?
.
In anycase, baring a confession by Hillary, they will always declare "reality" for the tens of millions who never watch.
Last edited:
