Clinton Scolds GOP Senator On Whether Protest Sparked Benghazi Attack

[Harry Monroe]

Source: Think Progress

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shot back at a Republican senator during today’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Benghazi terror attacks, arguing that the Republicans’ focus on whether there was a protest against an anti-Muslim video at the time of the attack is irrelevant.

Much of the politicization surrounding the Benghazi affair centered on Republicans attacking the Obama administration’s initial assessment that the Benghazi attacks may have been sparked by the video protest, a determination that the administration later backed away from.

When Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) asked Clinton why she didn’t make “a simple phone call” to the evacuees to find out, the Secretary of State shot back: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans!” she said, “What difference does it make?”:

JOHNSON: Madam Secretary, do you disagree that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determined what happened would have ascertained immediately there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained. within hours if not days.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/23/1485011/clinton-ron-johnson-benghazi/

---

Hillary Rips Sen. Johnson (R-Douche) a new asshole. Love her!! This country needs her in 2016!!

[samsingh]

1. good for Hillary

[TwilightGardener]

2. I hate to say it, but it does make a difference. Sorry, Hillary.

I think the whole Benghazi thing is overblown and an obvious attempt to hurt either Obama or Hillary (for a 2016 run), but getting the facts is important.

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed

The devil is in the details and Yes, it does make a difference.

[TwilightGardener]

7. I don't think they deliberately invented the protest story, because it was being reported on in the

media all day from different ME locations. It was reported that there was a protest going on where the Ambassador was attacked--I remember it. That said, it was obvious to me after a day or so that there was no way ordinary street rabble-rousers would be able to access the facility and kill the ambassador and his staff--had to be a planned and coordinated mission. To hold the attackers culpable and fully understand what happened, this is a pretty big piece of the puzzle, it would seem. It can't be glossed over.

[robinlynne]

11. Didn't we all see vidoes of the people outside?

[TwilightGardener]

12. Yes--that was how it was being reported. I think the State Dept. just damn didn't know

what was happening and looked to the protests first. The CIA probably knew more.

[JDPriestly]

38. Watch the Rose Garden statement.

I am sick of the Republican gaming of the Benghazi killings.

The world must stand together to reject these brutal acts.

Just listen to this video.

[TwilightGardener]

40. The fact that they were piecing it together and on different pages

with Rice and the CIA is proof to me that there was no effort at cover-up. They didn't handle the aftermath very well in terms of a coordinated message, but that's not a great sin.

[karynnj]

21. There were protests in Cairo and the Cairo embassy tried to deal

with it with a statement - which infuriated Romney. CONCURRENTLY, there was the attack in Benghazi. The media conflated them -- and it is likely that was some confusion that was not cleared up by anyone.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I remember the reports of mobs carrying Mr. Stevens out--and the disagreement on whether

those mobs were hurting him or helping him. So there were a lot of people, and chaos, supposedly present at the scene. I don't know if that was related to the Cairo (video) protests or not, or if the media conflated them as you say.

[patrice]

29. Isn't it possible that if some were trying to help Mr. Stevens they were betrayed by some in their

own midst and the significance of that has resulted in those helpers clamming up in fear for their own lives?

[TwilightGardener]

32. I don't know--I still don't know why there were mobs carrying him to begin with. I don't know

how they got to him if he died of smoke inhalation. It's possible I missed a later accounting, but I remember the hours-long confusion about where his body was, whether he was still alive, and that has not been cleared up very well.

[karynnj]

55. You are right

It was chaos and I still don't think we have a real true timeline of what actually happened. I wonder if the government does.

What I meant was that Cairo and other places were in uproar over the film at the same time that the attack happened in Benghazi.

[merrily]

57. Four murders occurred only in Benghazi.

That makes it a lot different from the demonstrations in Cairo.

What other places were in an uproar on the anniversary of 911?

[karynnj]

64. It is true that there were murders only in Benghazi,

but that does not mean that there was not concern for the angry protests in Cairo and elsewhere.

[merrily]

65. I did not say anything about lack of concern.

My point was that Bengazi was sufficiently different from Cairo.

Again, though, what places other than Cairo and Benghazi were there large demonstrations?

The real point, though, is that, chaos or no, Benghazi was identified immediately as a terrorist event. It was described that way by AP in first reports. It was referred to that way by Obama in the Rose Garden.

And then, they changed the story, supposedly because they did not want to tip the perps that they were on to them.

But, there were better ways to do that.

[JDPriestly]

37. In their early press conferences on the matter, Hillary spoke of the matter as an assault on

the consulate. There was really no question from the early press conferences of Hillary and Obama that there were demonstrations and an assault.

The Republicans as usual either did not pay attention to what was being said or were not intelligent enough to understand it.

Go back and watch the video. One was in the Rose Garden as I recall.

The Romney debate in which he goofed in his information about what Clinton and Obama said right after Benghazi was just typical of the Republican idiocy and either misinformation or poor listening skills.

What do we do with that portion of our population that just isn't very bright? By that I meant Republicans. They don't understand what they read or what they hear. It's terrible.

[merrily]

51. Right after the event, it was reported by wire services as a terrorist attack and that is what the

President referred to the next day.

Then, suddenly, it was attributed to this bad video on You Tube, a story that they stuck to for several weeks before admitting it was exactly what they said originally.

Not to mention that the attack took place on the anniversary of 911.

So, I do think they deliberately invented the "spontaneous attack" story.

In fact, they said as much. They said that they did not want to tip the perps.

The reality is that they handled it badly. They should have declined to comment until the matter had been investigated, just as every local police organization does.

[marshall]

63. But did they invent it?

That is what we don't know, and we really should know. Was the explanation simply invented, as you sat? Or was there faulty intelligence? Or was it a legitimate cover up for valid reasons of national security? At ant rate, I think answering with "What difference does it make?" Was a poor choice of words, no doubt born out of frustration and perhaps other reasons we aren't privy to. It opens the door for people to explain to her why they feel it is important. Rather than closing the argument with a definitive answer it leaves the door open for extending it even more.

[pansypoo53219]

9. NOT IN THE ARENA OF POLITICS.

this is navel pickings. of course senator stupid again. they are trying to make everest out of a molehill. more presidenting while black. how many embassy attacks during georgee were put to this much scrutiny?

[Sherman A1]

17. Then

we must agree to disagree. If there were no investigations of such things under Bush, that was in my opinion improper, but there should be an investigation on this one. We need to learn from these events. Every time an aircraft accident occurs we investigate to learn why, with one reason being to improve the lot of those in the future.

Yes, there is a great deal of politics involved here, without a doubt, but that must not be a reason to dismiss what may very well be valid questions as to what actually went on.

[blue_heron]

36. There WAS an investigation!!!

An independent one, which made recommendations! This is so obviously partisan it IS beside the point. Hillary took responsibility. The congress bears responsibility but ihavemt heard any of them accept it. I want to see rand paul's votes on state department security funding, and if as I suspect he voted no, then I will be expecting his resignation.

[Sherman A1]

39. Yes, there was an investigation

and now there are hearings before the Congress. Such is an entirely proper process within our government. There is that whole checks and balances thing. I suspect that Rand Paul votes will be as you believe they will prove out. These may be as you state partisan hearings and Congress may bear some responsibility for the results of Benghazi, nonetheless, it is proper for the Representatives of the People to investigate and have hearings on the actions of the Executive Branch. That's the way it works, might be imperfect or not to your liking, but that's the way it works.

[1983law]

45. Yes.

And what we are seeing is the R turning this into the pres' Abu Ghraib.

[marybourg]

53. It may be good to know it now,

but it certainly was not of ANY importance at the moment it happened or in the immediate aftermath.

[CJCRANE]

5. But only the perps know why they did it.

If there was no public statement from the attackers, then their could be a number of motives.

It could be a continuation of the protests in other cities, a spontaneous assault, a combinaton of the two or it could be a pre-planned assault.

[djean111]

6. What if the "facts", at the time this happened, put other Americans in danger?

They are basically demanding that all information, whether known or classified or whatever, be given to them immediately, no matter what the consequences.
And why aren't they this demanding about all the other deaths? This is just political fishing, storing up shit for 2016.
Seems to me they have the facts now, they are just trying to twist the manner in which they got them. They are disappointed that the CIA and not the White House altered that first press release, so they are desperate to find something else.

[robinlynne]

13. and the facts are that was a CIA house. They should be asking the CIA. not Hillary.

And my guess is that the CIA might say: We dont want to go public about our secret (maybe legal, maybe not) missions in other countries. duh.

[LanternWaste]

8. It would appear she thinks so too...

"but getting the facts is important..."

"It our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this. The fact is that people were trying, in real time, to get to the best information."

[Richardo]

22. My read is not that she thinks it makes no difference, but that in real time it made no difference.

The investigation will reveal who was behind the assault, but in that moment it made no difference whether the killers were Al Qaeda or "two guys walking the dog" as she put it.

[TwilightGardener]

23. That can't be true. If AQ is attacking one embassy or consulate, it could be simultaneously

be attacking (or planning to attack) other targets in the region--it was the 9/11 anniversary, after all. It mattered then. I don't think it's Hillary's fault, personally, and may not even have been something the State Dept. could have prevented if it was an "inside job", but to say it didn't matter who-did-what-and-when is wrong.

[jeff47]

42. No, it actually doesn't matter

You jack up security at other locations even if it's people just walking down the street. Because other, unrelated people walking down another street could hear about it and think, "that's a good idea!"

In the short run, it doesn't matter if it was a coordinated, planned attack. The short-term response is the same.

[TwilightGardener]

44. The intelligence-gathering and immediate response to an attack on a ME/African consulate

is pretty important, especially on a terror anniversary, especially on a day of inflamed mobs and protest across the region. To deny that would be similar to suggesting that all the separate--but simultaneous--attacks that happened on 9/11 didn't matter in relation to each other.

[jeff47]

61. You're still talking about the long-term response

The short-term response is to step up security at other locations. That's it. We're talking what you do that day and the next few days. That's the short-term response.

There is no possible way to know if it's a planned attack or a random attack within that window. That can only be determined through investigations which take weeks, since the perpetrators aren't in custody.

To deny that would be similar to suggesting that all the separate--but simultaneous--attacks that happened on 9/11 didn't matter in relation to each other.

They didn't.

What should be the response to a coordinated attack? Grounding airplanes.
What should be the response to random simultaneous attacks? Grounding airplanes.

The short term response is the same. The medium- and long-term responses are different.

[struggle4progress]

25. meh. you do your best with the info you have at the time

[John2]

27. Anybody knows how to do investigations

know perfectly well initial information is fluid and likely to change. John McCain and the Republicans are trying to overblow it into some political attack as if there was some cover up. There is no evidence whatsoever of a cover up period. John McCain knows that. Ran Paul is just an idiot. I put all the rightwing attackers in the same basket right on down to them attacking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Why should anybody trust anything come out of the mouths of leaders of a Party that is trying to rig and steal Elections or refuse to help Americans during Disastors? The biggest information from that hearing was yet again the Republican House holding up funds. They have lost their credibility to hold any office. If Rand Paul and Rubio are the best the Republican Party can come up with, forget the Presidency for the GOP. The extremists need to go.

[TwilightGardener]

30. I fully agree--the GOP is trying desperately for "gotcha" moments and have no real intention

or interest in helping improve the security situation. The question posed by the Senator was valid, however, and Clinton didn't answer it well with the above quote.

[John2]

43. I was still

very impressed with her holistically. She and the vice President will be tough candidates should either one does run. I do not think there is anyone on the Republican side can compare to them. It will be a hard decision between those two if she does run. It will be for me.

[patrice]

34. Agree! The biggest information from that hearing was yet again the Republican House holding up funds

[hughee99]

31. +1. I want to cheer for Sec. Clinton here, but it does matter and she knows it.

I think her response comes off as a failed attempt to avoid the question... Although it's a line of questioning that's completely overblown. Even if we had bad information on this for weeks, it's not like we invaded a country based on false information. Hell, last time we did that, these same people didn't give a shit anyway.

[TwilightGardener]

35. I agree--as far as mistakes go, this is not the biggest. By far.

And really, when are we going to get SecDef Panetta up there explaining the military's role in responding to the mobs and the call for assistance? We're not--because Republicans like him, and he's not a political target like Hillary.

[merrily]

47. She voted for the Iraq War Resolution and the WOT resolution, too, though.

And, if I am not mistaken, the Patriot Act, which contained several provisions that even the Republican majority SCOTUS later declared unconstitutional.

So, it was not only "these same people" who are questioning her who didn't care.

[hughee99]

49. There's that too.

The people running this hearing certainly aren't the only people who didn't care before that we were making major policy decisions based on bad information.

[merrily]

58. I am not sure if those decisions were information based (good or bad) or based on

political cowardice.

No one who knows even a little about the Middle East believed that Saddam had anything to do with 911 or that he and Osama were in cahoots. They hated each other.

[Demo_Chris]

56. I disagree. Facts are pieces of data, it is interpreting that data correctly that's the challenge

It is a fact that there were protests across the middle east over this video. But that's only a piece of information. It's data.

Who was behind those protests? Someone was.

WHY were they behind it?

Were those protests related to this attack, or was it purely an accident that both occured on this significant date?

Why was the Ambassador there?

What, if anything, was the connection between these attacks and the CIA annex?

This is really complicated stuff, there are thousands and thousands of "facts" related to this, and very likely no absolute cut and dry answers -- or none that they can publicly say.

[hamsterjill]

3. I love her, too!

Someone has to stand up to these assholes, and Hillary's the one who is capable of doing it. More power to her.

[another_liberal]

10. She is a diplomat . . .

Secretary of State Clinton is a diplomat, and she behaved like one. He would have gotten a very different reply from me.

[Festivito]

14. That ""...QUOTE..."" is never in the article, only in article's title.

Odd. Odd quote.

Did she say that?

[DCBob]

15. Who knows for sure what the attackers were thinking.. we may never know.

The biggest criticism would be why the administration said it was due to anger about the movie when they werent really sure. But in a crisis situation like that sometimes things get muddled and confused and that was the logical explanation at the time. I still think that played a part if not the main motivation.

[pinto]

18. Agree about how things get muddled in a crisis situation. Complicated by media's insistence

on "instant info". I think some measured info constraint by the Administration would have been prudent, yet figure they would have been pilloried in the press for withholding info. A no win situation.

[pinto]

16. Sec. Clinton was impressive throughout the whole hearing.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

19. I love it when she uses her "Mom Voice" on these idiots...

And I would like to apologize to the rest of the United States for Wisconsin's having elected Ron Johnson. They guy's a drooling idiot, and for the life of me I don't know how he got into the Senate.

Edit: I would add that there is no such thing as a "simple phone call" from the Secretary of State. Had Hillary done that, Johnson would be pissing and moaning about how she attempted to "interfere" with the FBI investigation.

[Greybnk48]

52. What a horrid, embarrassing putz he is.

I'm so ashamed of him.

[topcat007]

20. Murder sparked Benghazi.

And the only relevant question is, "who did it"?

[Beacool]

26. That's the gal I voted for in 2008.

She schooled Johnson and has been schooling Republicans for 20 years. The thought that she would have faked an illness because she was afraid to testify in front of these critters is laughable (McCain, to his credit, actually did laugh when asked about it).

Give them hell, Hillary. Then get some rest and come back to fight them again in 2016.

[BeyondGeography]

28. When trying to be reasonable doesn't work, you have to smack these bastards

That's what I saw in that clip. I really liked her feistiness.

[bluestateguy]

33. Freshman senator with no foreign policy experience

Why is he even allowed in the hearing?

[TwilightGardener]

41. He should be in the hearing if he's on the committee, but the GOP will pick out its new "stars" and

allow them to make a name for themselves as if they've been in the Senate for 20 years. They do this all the time with Paul and now with Ted Cruz on the Sunday shows. It doesn't matter if they don't know Libya from Mali from Egypt--it's a chance to "shine" by attacking a Democrat.

[hughee99]

50. Wasn't our current president, at one time, a freshman Senator with no foreign policy experience

and on this same Committee?

[TwilightGardener]

60. I don't remember Obama being at the fore of questioning in SFRC panels.

Not to this extent. I could be wrong, but I remember him as fairly quiet in the meetings.

[hughee99]

62. I think you're right about that.

But this hearing is just for show anyway. One would need more experience with dogs and ponies than foreign relations in this instance.

[merrily]

59. Wouldn't that description have fit Senator Obama and

Senator Clinton, in her first term?

[merrily]

46. The difference it makes has to do with whether or not government misled

citizens. The answer does not bring back anyone who died, but it is not irrelevant, either.

[appacom]

48. Clinton is smashing them like bugs against a windshield

because she's smarter, and right is on her side.

[Myrina]

54. Can any of these knuckleheads actually ask her a question & let her answer it?

All bullshit talking points/statements that they want on the record of their scoldy-Teabaggy warped points of view. I give Secy Clinton a ton of credit for not flipping the table over, telling them all to get bent & walking out.


Illeana Ross-Lehtinen (spelling?) made me want to throw my radio across the room.
Talk about grandstanding!!!

[yurbud]

66. I always respect Hillary more when she goes off script like her infamous "stand by your man" crack

She got a lot of heat for that from the right, but she looked like a real person not a robot or a sociopath like most in politics.