Republicans used Benghazi to score political points; and so does Hillary.
I remember when the Benghazi scandal first broke. Once again, the Republicans used ridiculous lies to tear down a Democrat. Their behavior was shameful and outrageous.
It was obvious that Republicans were using the tragic deaths of our American diplomats in Benghazi as a marketing device. They were manufacturing scandal and using Benghazi to:
1.) Score political points and
2.) Paint Hillary in a specific light (un-presidential).
It now appears that the Hillary campaign and her surrogates are also using the Benghazi hearings to:
1.) Score political points and
2.) Paint Hillary in a specific light (presidential).
Since the hearings, the Clinton camp has repeatedly asserted that Hillary's stellar performance is evidence that she would make a fantastic president.
Did Hillary do a good job at these hearings? Absolutely. She handled herself very well. If I were to grade her on style, I'd give her an A+. She spoke cogently and even deflected condescending comments--with grace. She set the record straight and made the Republicans look absurd with her cool, calm demeanor.
However, what Hillary Clinton did or said during those nine hours in Congress--in answering to those Republican fools--has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's policies, her political stances or where she obtains her campaign funds. These are the things that really matter if she were to become President.
Instead of focusing on stellar performances, gotcha moments and stylistics, we should be focused on Hillary's politics and what they would mean for our country at this critical time.
Among Hillary Clinton's biggest campaign donors are: Citigroup ($782,000), Goldman Sacs ($711,000), JP Morgan Chase ($620,000) and Morgan Stanley (543,000). She will be beholden to the big banks that she claims she will fight. Hillary Clinton has taken money from the for-profit prison system as well as Big Pharma. She also takes Super Pac funds, and who knows what hidden special interests are packaged in such a mess. She has repeatedly touted the abundance of oil and gas production in this country, which has happened, in large part, due to fracking. How can you be serious about climate-change when you're spouting Big Oil talking points?
Look, I appreciate Hillary putting those nefarious Republicans in their place, as much as the next person. But let's not allow one day of answering questions to overshadow what's really important.
Hillary won't suggest a bank break up. She's against reinstating Glass-Stegall and has been nearly silent on the issue while Elizabeth Warren dukes it out on the front lines. In July of this year, Hillary spoke at the New School for Social Research and outlined her plan for slashing corporate taxes and loosen regulations. So, America's corporations need to pay less in taxes?
How you perform in front of Congress is interesting--but what's really relevant is that multinational corporations need to pay their fair share, not middle-class folks. Enough is enough!
Hillary Clinton's foreign-policy and war stances are troubling as well. Robert Kagan is a well-known neocon and he has praised Hillary's viewpoints, which include: Voting for the Iraq war and suggesting that the US should arm Syrian rebels. Hillary has also said that we would "go to war with Iran" if needed. She said things things during a sensitive time when Obama and Kerry were fighting to make diplomatic efforts work with Iran--as the right-wing criticized Obama and Kerry for being "soft". Hillary's views seem more in line with the neocons.
And who can forget about the now-famous 1998 letter that the neocons wrote to Hillary's husband, President Clinton? The letter demanded that President Clinton launch war against Iraq. President Clinton rejected the letter--which was signed by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and other assorted neocons. Bottom line--Hillary has always understood that these neocons wanted war with Iraq as far back as 1998--because they asked her husband for it! Still, Hillary voted for the Iraq war, knowing this. She could have waved that letter on the floor of the Senate and singlehandedly stopped the war with Iraq. But she didn't. Did she? (Link to the letter for those who find this as incredulous as I do: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5527.htm)
Using the Benghazi hearings to claim that Hillary would be a wonderful president--is as legitimate as the Republicans using Benghazi to claim that she is un-presidential. Both points are irrelevant. Both sides are using a tragedy, and the political aftermath of that tragedy--for political posturing.
Benghazi is a moot point, when it comes to defining someone's presidential qualifications.
To overstate what Hillary Clinton's Benghazi testimony means--is to allow political theater to overshadow her policies and politics--which are clearly wrong for this country.
= new reply since forum marked as read
