Hillary Hounds Keep Hammering

We only THINK that Hillary Clinton won that round against the absurd Republicans and their political witch-hunt. 

Don't worry friends:  After a few hours of sleep, the conservative press has composed itself and is all over Hillary...You didn't think they'd give up that easily , did you?

Some may have admired her "grace under pressure" during yesterday's marathon Republican-controlled Benghazi committee hearing, but the conservative press (especially the Murdoch-owned venues) is still claiming she lied and that the Republicans found out "new information". 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Testified for 11 hours before the Republican-led Benghazi Committee.  Picture found at the New York Post.  

F
For those of you who don't have the stomach for the rightie press, I'll summarize.. just so you can be aware of what your rightie friends and relatives may start to blather about over the weekend.

1. She really did know that the attack wasn't about the video. In private, she knew it was an act of terror.

(My comment: Huh? Obama was talking about "an act of terror" the next day. It was clear to any of us who were paying attention that the administration was still trying to figure out exactly who did what, but they did think that terror was a part of it, and they did think that the video was a part of it.  I can't believe the righties are still beating this very dead horse.. Well, yes, I guess I can believe it.)

2. The Wall Street Journal (Murdoch-owned) wrote "The hearing turned up new information that relates directly to the former Secretary of State’s political character and judgment as a potential Commander-in-Chief" Unfortunately, Murdoch's jewel is behind a paywall, so I have no idea how they trashed Hillary, but I'm sure they did. If anyone has access to the WSJ, please copy the relevant paragraphs.

3. The trashy Murdoch-owned New York Post really came down on Hillary: They cutely entitled their article "Hillary’s horrid Benghazi-hearing howlers".. Nice alliteration with a Halloween touch.  (Notice my title on this article.) 

First, they claimed that HILLARY and the DEMOCRATS were busy playing "for the cameras", as if the Republicans were not.  We all know better. 

"Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Benghazi committee — a public hearing, at her request — produced more heat than light. Thank Clinton and committee Democrats, who were too busy playing to the cameras.
For those who’ve followed the investigation carefully, Clinton’s hours-long testimony only provided more questions than answers about her role during and after the 2012 terror attack that left four US officials dead."

4. They claimed that her testimony was "flatly dishonest":

That’s especially true of her flatly dishonest testimony — accompanied by icy stares of contempt and boredom — about her ongoing relationship with her family’s veteran propagandist-fixer, Sidney Blumenthal.

The Republicans really hate Blumenthal and will sully any kind of role or value that Blumenthal might have regarding Libya or regarding the Clintons. 

We know there are connections among various Republicans, various fund raisers, and various lobbying groups. Why are those OK, but the role of Blumenthal in the Clinton's life and politics NOT OK? (Yes, he apparently did get a 10,000 retainer from the Clinton Foundation at the time he was exchanging emails with Hillary about Benghazi. I'm not sure why this is supposed to be a horrible thing to the Republicans considering the revolving door between Congress and Republican administrations and right-wing "non-profit" think tanks.) 

The Post alleges that Blumenthal was "running a private spy network and had major business interests in toppling Libya’s government. Clinton not only thanked him profusely for his intelligence reports, she passed many of them on to the Obama White House."   Private spy network?  Major business interests in getting rid of Ghadaffi?  The Post provides no further information or links about these allegations.  

5. Blumenthal had access to Hillary via her private email; Chris Stevens did not.

Stevens had to go through channels and Hillary hadn't talked to him directly for several months. (It's unclear whether Secretaries of State regularly talk to the various and numerous ambassadors around the world. It's clear that Libya was different from most other posts at that time, but it's still unclear if Hillary did anything wrong or different in terms of her communication with Stevens.)

6. The Post summarizes: "Three years later, this much we know: Four Americans died and this administration tried to cover up the reason why." And dozens of Americans have died in other attacks on embassies under Republican presidents, and their Secretaries of State have never had to tolerate 11 hours of grueling partisan questioning.

The purpose of such investigations should always be: What went wrong? How do we fix it?  Three years later, it is unclear if, after all of these partisan investigations, we know anything more than we did and whether or not we are any closer to fixing embassy security to keep this stuff from happening again.  Are the partisan witch-hunts getting in the way of helping us to understand how to keep ambassadors and embassy personnel safe?

And the administration tried to cover up the reason? No, they didn't. In the earliest days after the attack, Obama mentioned "terrorism".  Watch the video of Obama speaking in the Rose Garden a couple of days after the Benghazi attack.  He says "terrorism".  It even came up in one of the 2012 Presidential debates.  But the Post still flies that false flag.  

I guess my definition of "cover up" is different than that of the Murdoch-owned trash liner the New York Post.

So, friends, beware.  No, the Republicans and their lying mouth pieces are not done.  This war is not over.