« | »

WP Swoons Over Hillary’s ‘Righteous Outrage’

From the opinion page of the Washington Post:

In Benghazi hearings, Hillary Clinton storms Capitol Hill

By Dana Milbank | January 23, 2013

They blamed her mismanagement for the death of Americans in Benghazi, Libya. They accused her of a cover-up. Some even suggested that she faked an illness to avoid testifying about the attack.

On Wednesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton finally had her chance to respond to critics, and the outgoing secretary of state served up a potent brew of righteous outrage.

Well, self-righteous outrage, anyway. But Hillary has always been good at being self-righteous. (Cf. ‘the vast rightwing conspiracy’ against her poor husband.)

She began her appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with restraint, and even remorse. She choked up as she described receiving flag-draped caskets at Andrews Air Force Base and hugging relatives of those killed.

What "remorse"? For remorse you must feel guilt. (The Oxford English Dictionary defines remorse as: ‘A feeling of compunction, or of deep regret and repentance, for a sin or wrong committed.’ Hillary insists she didn’t do anything wrong. So she cannot feel any remorse.

But her anger boiled over when rookie [sic] Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) demanded to know why she and her aides didn’t immediately call those evacuated from Benghazi to find out whether a protest had preceded the attack. Clinton replied that she didn’t want to interfere with the FBI’s investigation — which is almost certainly what Republicans would have accused her of doing.

Nonsense. No one would have said such a thing for simply trying to find out what happened while the facts were still fresh in their minds. Besides, how could Hillary or anyone else protect all the other embassies and consulates in the area without knowing what motivated this deadly attack?

“That’s a good excuse,” Johnson said, scornfully.

“Well, no, it’s a fact,” Clinton retorted, growing irritated.

Of course it is nothing like a fact.

Waving her index finger, she pointed out that much of what happened in Libya on Sept. 11 remains unknown.

“No, no, no, no,” Johnson rejoined. “We were misled that there were supposedly protests and then something sprang out of that, an assault . . . and the American people could have known that within days.”

Why would Hillary want the American people to have known the truth before the elections?

Clinton raised her voice. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she shouted at the lawmaker. Waving her arms and then pounding the witness table with her fist, she continued: “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?”

Notice how smart ‘the smartest woman in the world’ is, once she goes off script. But she does know the old lawyer trick of ‘when you have the facts, pound the facts. When you don’t have the facts, pound the table.’

Johnson stopped interrupting as Clinton continued. “It is, from my perspective, less important today looking backward as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice,” she said.

And never mind that nobody has been brought to justice. There are not even any suspects in custody, anywhere. The only person currently in jail is that poor schlub who made that video that no one has ever seen.

But bear in mind that Senator Johnson’s question was not about looking back in hindsight. It was a simple question. Why didn’t she ask the people at the consulate in Benghazi what happened?

Johnson didn’t attempt a rebuttal. “Okay, thank you, Madam Secretary.”

Because he didn’t want to be excoriated by Hillary’s praetorian guard in the news media for beating up on a frail woman.

It never made sense that Republicans focused less on the serious security lapses that allowed the debacle in Libya than on the supposed cover-up surrounding U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s initial claim, since disproved, that the attack had spun out of a protest.

But Clinton’s appearance on the Hill, expected to be her last before she is succeeded by John Kerry, provided a broader vindication of the one-time (and probably future) presidential candidate.

If this was "vindication," we would hate to see condemnation.

There had been concern among Democrats that the Benghazi episode would mar her otherwise successful tenure at State — but in fact she is leaving the post more popular than ever…

And, after all, that is all that really matters.

Clinton, in heavy green jacket, dark pants and thick glasses, disarmed her critics, who sat uncomfortably through the tearful moment in her opening statement. She further preempted their criticism by readily accepting responsibility for the lapse, which occurred at lower levels

And never mind that she accepted no responsibility. Again, being a Democrat means never having to say you’re sorry. Never having to be held accountable.

Only gadfly Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) still had the stomach to fight with Clinton. “Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi . . . I would have relieved you of your post,” he charged.

“Ohhh!” exclaimed one of Clinton’s aides, appalled.

But Paul, a man of exotic opinions, is never going to be president, and Clinton deflected his provocation with a mild reply: “I believe in taking responsibility, and I have done so.”

That may have been Clinton’s most cutting response to a critic: Letting him know he’s not worth wasting her breath.

And, of course, her answer was a lie. But what difference does it make?

Granted this is an editorial from the uber liberal, Dana Milbank, but it probably represents the ‘inside the Beltway’ view of yesterday’s events perfectly. All that really mattered was that Hillary was able to keep her skirts clean. (If we are still allowed to use such a sexist phrase.)

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 24th, 2013. Comments are currently closed.

One Response to “WP Swoons Over Hillary’s ‘Righteous Outrage’”

  1. USSFreedom says:

    Time spent convalescing to get her ducks in order and memorize the tear jerker act to responses to questions known to be on the agenda, all part of the theater of the absurd, culminating with the remark; “What difference does it make”.
    Another “Right Wing Conspiracy Production” written and directed by the left wing masters of deceit. Advertised as a block buster moment in historic detail but, leaving the cutting room floor covered with all clips of truth before the premier.
    The apology video to the islamists, she and the president spent a hefty sum of taxpayer funds on should have been played prior to her mike being turned on. Her kept promise to jail the filmmaker, that dared speak truth of the pedophile prophet run as a coming attractions segment for the coming sequel in (Pick a Mid-East Country) and the audacity of her fake indignation, knowing full well she was part of the cover-up, was and is a moment to remember should this woman dare seek another office.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »