June 27, 2016

Why did Trump say — with no evidence — that "Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed" during the Benghazi attack?

A few days ago, NBC's Lester Holt confronted Donald Trump about his statement, in a speech, that during the Benghazi attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens "was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed."

Trump's response was: "Were you there? Were you there? Were you with her?" That is, he goes on the offensive. Instead of taking any responsibility for substantiating his charge, he acts like he can get away with saying anything that other people don't step up and disprove.

And Holt lets him get away with that ridiculous debate move. Accepting the defensive position, Holt says: "She has testified before the committee that she wasn't asleep, it happened during the daytime. There's no evidence."

Trump's response is scattershot, mixing the idea that she could have been literally asleep with the argument that "sleep" was really more of a metaphor:  "It happened all during the day and the story was going on for a long period of time...  and she was asleep at the wheel, whether she was sleeping or not, who knows if she was sleeping..."

My first reaction was: ridiculous! But then I heard something yesterday on "Fox News Sunday" and flipped into thinking that the very ridiculousness of it is a devious trick. Chris Wallace confronted Newt Gingrich about the "soundly slept in her bed" quote:
WALLACE: Now, Mr. Speaker, you can certainly argue about how Hillary Clinton handled Benghazi. But the fact is, the attack happened at 3:00 or 4:00 here in the afternoon in Washington. And she was working late into the night. As I say, there's plenty to attack her on. But why not stick to the facts?

GINGRICH: Well, first of all, I've had different people say different things about what she did that night and what her instructions were. Second --

WALLACE: She wasn't asleep is the point.

GINGRICH: OK. She certainly --

WALLACE: Maybe she should have been, but she wasn't.
The transcript notes "laughter" over Wallace's little joke. And Gingrich jumps past any controversy over whether Hillary was sleeping and sleeping soundly and in her bed. And here's where I want you to see what I saw, that "soundly slept in her bed" is a trap.
GINGRICH: OK. I think that on a lot of things people can argue about that Trump says and that Hillary says, but the objective fact is there were over 600 requests for security from Libya. Now, that number came from the chairman of the intelligence committee, not from Donald Trump. They were ignored. The fact is that in the end, there was no effective effort to respond. The fact is, she clearly lied about why it occurred. And again, you had families of the people who were killed who say she lied to them. So, I think this is a debate — they can get into details of picking a fight with Donald Trump. This is a debate I think they're not going to win, because on the larger framing of the debate, the country is overwhelming going to be with Trump....
That is, Hillary Clinton doesn't want to go into the subject of Benghazi. She'd like to close the door on it or view it from a distance as part of her vast collection of experience. But Trump is laying out a particular detail — that she soundly slept in her bed — a provocative lie that Hillary and her proxies will be tempted to try to correct. If they go there, then the specifics of Benghazi are getting talked about again, and it's not good for Hillary.

She and her supporters may think that it's worth it, because it's such a great opportunity to show people Trump's reckless disregard for the truth, but I think he thinks he's placing the winning bet, because: 1. Attention to Benghazi hurts her, 2. He seems to be okay with brazenly standing his ground, and 3. There's the path of retreat to metaphor: She was "asleep at the wheel," unaware and inept, even if awake.

As Chris Wallace's joke had it: What she did was worse than if she'd been sleeping. She should have been sleeping. Benghazi might have worked out better if she'd been out of the picture. That's where that conversation ends up going. So I'm speculating that he threw out a blatant fiction as an irresistible conversation starter.

124 comments:

Michael K said...

The Hillary-Trump debates are going to be a slaughter, which is why I think she will try to avoid them.

The fact that she will try to limit them and do a "front porch campaign" like Charles Evans Hughes is going to be disaster.

Now, Trump can certainly alienate voters if he gets too rambunctious and he might.

The days when she could ignore Rick Lazio are gone. She has a record to defend and it's not good.

Clayton Hennesey said...

The term you may be looking for, Professor, is double bind.

David Begley said...

Hillary and her employees figured out a cover story early on, did not order a jet flyover from Italy (or other rescue mission) and then she went to bed at 10 pm. Plenty of actions could have been taken by Hillary after 4 pm Eastern.

tim in vermont said...

Her strategy of castling early, avoiding appearances before any uninvited crowds, and of avoiding any unscripted moments has served her well enough to get to the mid forties against Donald J Fucking Trump. So why should she change it or worry? Her palace guard in the press will protect her from any and all questions and continue to "muddy the waters" as they put it in their own memos, about carelessness with classified info, pay for play Clinton cash operation, her role in attacking her husband's many victims, etc, etc, etc...

geoffb said...

He could use "asleep at the switch" too for a change of wording.

Michael K said...

The general who tried to mount a rescue in spite of orders not to do so, was summarily relieved by his deputy. That has never been explained.

General Ham has denied it but I'm sure his pension was at stake and Obama has been shown to be vindictive to those who don't stay on script.

The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

This version of events contradicts Mr. Panetta’s October 25 statement that General Ham advised against intervention.


Some day we may learn the truth.

mockturtle said...

The bottom line here is that Clinton supporters don't give two hoots in hell about Benghazi.

Michael K said...

It would be interesting if Trump nominated Ham for Joint Chief Chair.

I'm reading "Joe Rochefort's War" and he learned how vindictive superiors can be.

He was behind the intelligence coup that won the Battle of Midway, and he was relieved and never rose above the rank of Commander afterward.

tim in vermont said...

This version of events contradicts Mr. Panetta’s October 25...

Leon Panetta? Why isn't he in prison again?

Sammy Finkelman said...

That Hillary slept during Benghazi is an important meme in the blogosphere. Trump wasn't making it up. That Donald Trump said it is a good point, indicating he's at least a little bit informed.

The meme is based on the fact that she went home before it was all over. The second attack - the one that killed two more Americans - happened during the middle of the late at night in Washington, sometime around 11:30 pm, and the CIA annex was successfully evacuated, and the Ambassador's body put aboard the plane even later. (Three captured attackers were turned over to some sort of Libyan force before they could leave)

I'm not clear on the exact time Hillary went home. Obama had gone to bed before that. Mitt Romney was going to attack the administration at midnight for seeming to apologize for freedom of religion and saying nothing else about the attack on Cairo embassy. (at midnight, because then it would no longer be Sept.11th and he had declared Sept. 11th a day off from politics) It leaked a little before, and Hillary beat him to the press it by issuing some kind of statement on the Cairo attack at about 10:30 pm.

tim in vermont said...

The bottom line here is that Clinton supporters don't give two hoots in hell about Benghazi.

And they will do whatever it takes to make sure that the rest of America never hears the facts.

james conrad said...

This is typical Trump, he plays the media like the chumps they are and they are simply dumbstruck, they don't know whether to shit or go blind which is EXACTLY where Trump wants them. Trump is a very smart man and, he gets it, whereas the media/Hillary are constantly trying to catch up, not gonna happen.
Agrees on the debates, the election will be decided there and, if Trump comes off as reasonably presidential and not the wing nut the media portrays, it's over folks, Trump by a MILE.

Hagar said...

I am curious about this.
Several commenters have stated that there are no records of activity by Hillary! that afternoon and evening.

So, which is it? Awake or not, was she informed or not, did she respond or not, and if so, how?

David Begley said...

Sammy

I think the evidence that Hillary went to bed at 10 or 10:30 Eastern. Important point re timing of the second attack.

Hillary's response: Old news. I took questions for 11.hours from mean Trey Gowdy.

But 9-11 is old news too and ISIS didn't get the old news memo.

Unknown said...

Trump believes she was literally sleeping in her bed while it happened. Trump literally believes that Obama is a Kenyan. Trump literally believes that Cruz's daddy was involved with the Kennedy assassination. Trump literally believes that vaccinations cause autism. Who dare question the Trump? Trump isn't disadvantaging Clinton when he makes such assertions, he is simply proving that he isn't capeable of being President. These types of off the wall Trumpisms only help Clinton make her case against him. Warren slams him and he can't help but go batshit on Twitter. He plays right into their hands. What a doofus.

traditionalguy said...

You can't stump the Trump.

He already has Hillary questioning his business skills as dangerous and money risking stupid and/or as selfish for making so much money for himself and paying as little tax as possible by claiming depreciation deductions on his mega earnings as he builds all over the world.

And he dares to play golf too.

Hillary's campaign thinks we are brain dead.

Virgil Hilts said...

Here is what some of us think happened. Valerie and Barak got a briefing on what was going on; Valerie vetoed sending in any military help (this was pre-election and a firefight would not fit the narrative). After the whole thing became a cluster-F, Obama's team came up with the L.A. film-maker lie. HC did not want to go along with this (I really believe this), but was blackmailed into supporting the narrative if she wanted Obama's support in 2016. If HC denied the Obama cover-up story, it would have been utter humiliation for the White House and she could kiss 2016 goodbye. Prove me wrong.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The average Republican politician is just terribly misinformed about Benghazi. That's why Mitt Romney was bamboozled in a debate when Obama said he had called it terrorism early.

They still haven't hit on the fact that:

1) There was more than one attack, separated by hours, and the people in Washington periodically thought it was all over.

2) The Administration had it right at the start that this was a planned act of terrorism, but unlearned that fact over the course of the week till Susan Rice went on TV ad said it was spontaneous.

3) The claim about it being a spontaneous, unplanned attack, originated with the CIA, not the White House. Actualy it originated with the terrorists.

William Chadwick said...

I do like Nurse Ratched's campaign slogan: "Stronger Together." It's like how one single stick can be broken by someone of even moderate strength--BUT, if you put it with a bunch of sticks, the sticks are stronger as a group, especially if you bind them tightly together. And maybe put an axe head in the middle of the bundle, just to make it more badass. Hey, someone should use that as a symbol . . . .

Sammy Finkelman said...

Virgil Hilts said...6/27/16, 4:05 PM

Your scenario is 100% wrong. And I just pointed out what is wrong with it. Just collect any kind of actual information about Benghazi and you'll see. Hillary did not argue woith the State Department talking points, because she wanted to get along with everyone in Washington. They knew there had been no demonstration.

EDH said...

Actually, the available "evidence" shows a gap from 10:27pm until 7:15am the following morning.

Other communications may have taken place, but why wouldn't it be Hillary's burden to prove it with evidence not presently in the record?

The newly disclosed documents, obtained by Veterans for a Strong America through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, include 24 pages of watch logs from the State Department operations center recording the logistics of the back-and-forth over the deadly assault in a sterile, just-the-facts manner.

The first note of the attacks is recorded in military time, just after 4 p.m. on that Tuesday afternoon.

“1606 Upon receipt of information concerning an attack on the Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi, the Watch issued a targeted alert … via electronic mail.”

The first apparent efforts at real-time, governmentwide coordination came 15 minutes later, as a conference call of command centers at various agencies was convened through a mechanism known as the National Operational Intelligence Watch Officer’s Network.

“1621 The White House Situation Room convened a NOIWON on behalf of the Watch, in which INR [State Department Intelligence & Research] also participated, to report an attack on the Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi.”
The first mention of Clinton in the watch log after word of the attacks comes at 5:38 p.m.

“1738 The Watch patched the Secretary to Central Intelligence Agency Director [David] Petraeus.”
Clinton was connected with Libyan National Congress President Mohamed Magriaf at 6:49 p.m., and President Barack Obama was connected with Clinton at 10:27 p.m., the logs show. Testimony at a House Benghazi Committee hearing with Clinton last month established that she was at home by the time of the latter call. The logs show Clinton next contacting the operations center at 7:15 the following morning.

The death of Ambassador Chris Stevens appears to have been reported to the operations center at 2:55 a.m. on Sept. 12. Three other Americans also died in the attacks.

The watch logs do not show all the calls Clinton made that night, but a State spokesman said many calls are not routed through the operations center. The logs also do not appear to reflect an interagency secure video teleconference in which Clinton took part that evening.

A spokesman for the House Benghazi Committee said the panel had access to other State Department chronologies and call records but received copies of the watch logs only on Friday. That’s a week after they were released to the veterans group on Oct. 30.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/11/state-department-watch-logs-detail-benghazi-response-215624#ixzz4Cof3SD1s

tim in vermont said...

Tell us why you put an artist in jail for making a film, Hillary.

traditionalguy said...

Trump likes Nigel Farrage too. Because working class men are usually truth tellers compared to Yale grads.. And Trump doesn't have time for lies. There is too much to do.

In fact Newt's drawback as Veep is that he is too intellectual to suit Trump. We will see.

Unknown said...

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/trump-on-clintons-3-a-m-call/

Donald Trump says that “instead of taking charge” during the Benghazi attacks, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “decided to go home and sleep.” Clinton says she was continuously engaged in responding to the attack from the moment she learned of it in the afternoon and “did not sleep all night.”

At around 8 p.m. (2 a.m. in Benghazi time), Clinton — with other senior staff on the line — called Gregory Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the Libyan embassy in Tripoli. Hicks testified that Clinton “asked me what was going on, and I briefed her on developments. Most of the conversation was about the search for Ambassador Stevens. It was also about what we were going to do with our personnel in Benghazi, and I told her that we would need to evacuate, and that was–she said that was the right thing to do.”
It should be noted that responsibility for the military response did not fall on Clinton, but rather on Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marty Dempsey.

On Oct. 22, 2015, during a House Select Committee hearing on Benghazi, Republican Rep. Martha Roby questioned Clinton closely about her decision to go home that night. For context, the questions came about nine hours into Clinton’s testimony.
Roby: And who else was at your home? Were you alone?

"Clinton: I was alone, yes.

Roby: The whole night?

Clinton, laughing: Yes, the whole night.

Roby: I don’t know why that’s funny. I mean, did you have any in-person briefings? I don’t find it funny at all.

Clinton: I’m sorry — a little note of levity at 7:15, noted for the record.

Roby: Well, I mean, the reason I say it’s not funny is because it went well into the night when our folks on the ground were still in danger. So I don’t think it’s funny to ask you if you were alone the whole night.

Clinton: Well, Congresswoman, you asked if I had a SCIF. I had secure phones. I had other equipment that kept me in touch with the State Department at all times. I did not sleep all night. I was very much focused on what we were doing."

Sammy Finkelman said...

David Begley said...6/27/16, 4:03 PM

Sammy

I think the evidence that Hillary went to bed at 10 or 10:30 Eastern. Important point re timing of the second attack.


I don't think that early because thats about the time she issued the statement on the Cauro attack. She went home at some point (that is probably buried in the publicly available information, but I must have missed it) and the point when she left the state Deppartment, not necessarily when she went to sleep, is the important point, because I think she was out of touch after that point.

Too many Republicans don't even understand that there was a series of attacks, and each time, the Administration, relying in part on what some Libyan goovernment fofficials told them, thought it was all over.

Tank said...

Tank and the Vagina both enjoy a little nap at about 4 PM. The big V is even older than Tank.

The big V wants a very aggressive military, except when Americans are under attack.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Obama was connected with Clinton at 10:27 p.m., the logs show. Testimony at a House Benghazi Committee hearing with Clinton last month established that she was at home by the time of the latter call.

OK. So the statement about Cairo was issued when she was no longer in the building. Cairo is probably what Obama and Hillary were talking about. Cairo was also what Obama wanted to talk to Netanyahu about around 5 pm but Netanyahu wanted to talk to Obama about Iran and that call lasted a half hour longer than he planned.

They were all concentrating on the attack on the Cairo Embassy, and worried about more, all this time. It was an excellent diversionary attack by the terrorists. News about Libya came in, but when it came in, it was also that it was all over.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Also, she did remain available after she left the building.

Michael K said...

"There was more than one attack, separated by hours, and the people in Washington periodically thought it was all over."

Why couldn't those f**king soldiers die quietly and let me get some sleep?

That is probably as close as we would get to the motivations in DC.

Gahrie said...

"was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed."

I always thought that this was referring back to the whole "who do you want answering the White House telephone at 3:00 AM" meme.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Hillary Clinton claims she did not sleep all night. That is possible, and certainly nobody else can know whether she slept at all or not. She was home, but she can claim she didn't go to sleep. The exact fate of the Ambassador was not yet known.

It's probably a lie that she never went to sleep at all. It just goes too far to say she didn't sleep. What? She wouldn't be woken up by a phone call, so therefore she didn't go to sleep? I mean, really? Hillary is well known for the ability to take a nap. And not even after 3 am?

tim in vermont said...

Also, she did remain available after she left the building

I am sure that she kept her Blackberry on, the one that if security problems were like real life viruses, would be covered in oozing sores.

SteveR said...

There's a good reason her good friend Chris Stephens couldn't communicate with her. There's a good reason he was in Benghazi. There was something going on that Hillary and Obama wanted to be on the down low. It turned into a disaster that they couldn't stop in spite of all the smart diplomacy. Of course she doesn't want to talk about it not that she's not willing to lie.

tim in vermont said...

I had other equipment that kept me in touch with the State Department at all times.

Her Blackberry? Her email system?

I did not sleep all night. I was very much focused on what we were doing."

Exactly how many lies does one get to tell before one is distrusted?

tim in vermont said...

Why go home to be alone at a time when your policies, policies for which you advocated, not just within the American government, but advocated for with our allies in Europe, are blowing up in your face?

Why the fuck did Hillary not only think that killing Qadaffy was a great idea, but why did she brag about it later? What kind of judgement does she have? Defective judgement, poor judgement, that's what kind of judgement she has.

tim in vermont said...

women, children, babies, boys, girls, men all drowning tonight in the Mediterranean as we sleep safe in our beds

I make no apology for using such language because this is our reality in C21 Europe.

This is not an isolated incident. This is not a handful of unfortunate seafarers, tragic though that would be. These are desperate, vulnerable, human beings and they are drowning by the boatload. Not one at a time, but dozens, hundreds at a time on the European littoral.

Whatever it is we think makes us citizens of Europe - the values we share, our common identity - surely to God we should not tolerate this.


Hillary, the farce who launched a thousand ships.

rhhardin said...

Nobody cares if it's true; it's a literary thing. Fiction is not a lie.

Just as you don't care if the Bible is true. You do care about its being different than the koran.

Different story.

TWW said...

This is easy. Ask Bill to substantiate it.

Owen said...

Hagar @4:03 said: "...Several commenters have stated that there are no records of activity by Hillary! that afternoon and evening.

So, which is it? Awake or not, was she informed or not, did she respond or not, and if so, how?"

Hillary was with her donors raising money. Per her SOP, this was scrubbed from her SOS calendar.

JPS said...

Prof. Althouse:

When I started reading this post, I thought you'd bought a little too much into the Scott Adams Master Persuader filter, where every apparent mistake is only that to us two-dimensional thinkers.

But I think you're right. This is potentially vicious, in that it stings her and her backers to insist that, no, she hadn't tuned out, she was firmly in control of this situation. Setting up the question, With what results?

The catch is well stated by mockturtle:

"The bottom line here is that Clinton supporters don't give two hoots in hell about Benghazi."

Heck, I see them laugh about it, online: Suck it, wingers! No one cares! So as long as the Clinton people can successfully frame this as: "Bad things happen in war, and only shameless partisans would make an issue of this," they still win.

boycat said...

Yah whenever I encounter a mendacious prevaricating lying liar who seeks to hide and obscure my first instinct is to circle the wagons around her and to micro-analyze the accusations of those attempting to out her.

jr565 said...

I took it as a metaphor. Its not worthy of a fact check. Even if she wasnt' literally asleep in her bed, she was asleep at the wheel.

tim in vermont said...

Owen makes a good point. Why should we believe somebody who scrubbed her calendar, the official record of her time as Secretary of State, and who deleted all of the emails on the server she used in that trust, that were not addressed to a specific list of people.

Suppose that you are a woman who is worried her husband is having an affair, he agrees to let you look at all his texts, as long as they are to a specific list of phone numbers. If you are satisfied with that response, you must be a Democrat.

jr565 said...

Hagar wrote:
I am curious about this.
Several commenters have stated that there are no records of activity by Hillary! that afternoon and evening.

Good point. If she WASN"T asleep, you'd think there would be some record of her activity during that time. At least if she was asleep you could say she didn't know because no one woke her up. But if she was a awake, that's even worse.

tim in vermont said...

Suck it, wingers! No one cares! So as long as the Clinton people can successfully frame this as: "Bad things happen in war, and only shameless partisans would make an issue of this," they still win.

Except that this was a "war of choice" that Hillary talked us and Europe into. Nothing to do with Libya's oil, though, I am sure.

Original Mike said...

"I did not sleep all night. I was very much focused on what we were doing."

Which was what?

Ambrose said...

It was a metaphor evoking the famous 3 AM phone call ad that she used against Obama in 2008.

Sammy Finkelman said...

The Democrats have never, ever, taken one step to clarify this about the separate attacks (It's theer in the public record, and in press accounts, but they never talk about it) It gets to what really went wrong that day.

I think Hllary Clinton would prefer to get a stronger, but meritless, attack on her that can be rebutted, than a perhaps, at least initially, milder attack, that is on or close to the mark.

This is almost like a GREAT CLINTON TRUTH.

AllenS said...

It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep
But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing
Something’s happening in the world
Your vote will decide who answers that call
Whether it’s someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military — someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world
It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep
Who do you want answering the phone?
-- Hillary Clinton ad

Well, it sure wasn't Hillary. Trump's response is right on target.

tim in vermont said...

Good point. If she WASN"T asleep, you'd think there would be some record of her activity during that time. At least if she was asleep you could say she didn't know because no one woke her up

How many emails during that time did she write? Oh wait. we will never know. Too bad, so sad.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Which was what?

Waiting for news.

Sammy Finkelman said...

How many emails during that time did she write? Oh wait. we will never know.

If she was writing them to some one else using a clintonemail.com account or anybody not at state.gov. Except we do know, because they didn't erase all them, and they had to turn them over.

traditionalguy said...

Trump has constructed this carefully. First he swings a right by saying she went to sleep, which is saying she did not care what was going on or who it killed anymore than she likes or values the male Military and Police personnel of the USA . She hates them all bitterly.

That bitter Clinton hatred of US personnel is then the right hand swing comes out on schedule as the Secret Service Agent's book confirming her years of bitter hatred of service personnel.

But she loves the ladies.

Sammy Finkelman said...

tim in vermont said...

women, children, babies, boys, girls, men all drowning tonight in the Mediterranean as we sleep safe in our beds

You think it's just in Europe?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/26/opinion/sunday/obamas-death-sentence-for-young-refugees.html?_r=0

...Yet he may well be sent back under a policy backed by Obama and Peña Nieto. I admire much about the Obama administration, including its fine words about refugees, but this policy is rank with deadly hypocrisy.

In effect, we have pressured and bribed Mexico to do our dirty work, detaining and deporting people fleeing gangs in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala. This solved a political crisis that Obama faced with refugees in 2014, but it betrays some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

The American-Mexican collusion began in 2014 after a surge of Central Americans crossed into the U.S., including 50,000 unaccompanied children. Obama spoke with Peña Nieto “to develop concrete proposals” to address the flow. This turned out to be a plan to intercept Central Americans near Mexico’s southern border and send them home.

Washington committed $86 million to support the program. Although Obama portrayed his action as an effort to address a humanitarian crisis, he made the crisis worse. The old routes minors took across Mexico were perilous, but the new ones adopted to avoid checkpoints are even more dangerous.

The victims of this policy, deported in some cases to their deaths, are refugees like Carlos, a 13-year-old with a scar on his forehead from the time a gang member threw him to the ground in the course of executing his uncle. I met Carlos in Mexico after he had fled — on his own — from Honduras to save his life.





Sammy Finkelman said...

Neither Donald Trump nor Lester Holt knows what they are talking about.

eric said...

I take it as literally true.

It doesn't matter if it started at 4pm. It lasted more than 12 hours. He isn't saying she fell asleep at the beginning. She went home. To do what? Sleep.

Because what else is she going to do?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if she received email updates through the night and she read all of those updates at around 730 in the morning.

I mean, she can provide the proof that Trump is lying, can't she? Should be easy. Phone call records? Email correspondence? Smoke signals?

Or are we to believe there are no records available from 1030 to 730 that night?

Or even better, that there were no updates sent to her between those hours?

tim in vermont said...

In effect, we have pressured and bribed Mexico to do our dirty work, detaining and deporting people fleeing gangs in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

It's Hillary we are talking about here, and these refugees are drowning fleeing the results of the her ham-fisted military adventurism and her war of choice in Libya.

Drago said...

Hillary literally believes she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia.

The emotional scarring from such an incident is almost as jarring as learning that your pretend Cherokee forebears had to deal with much anglo oppression.

Hillary and Elizabeth, "truth-tellers"!

CrankyProfessor said...

Is there any proof she wasn't sleeping?

A few years ago we had a great but somewhat crazy provost. At one point I was managing a tricky hire on a very short schedule - and my response to stress is always sleeplessness. She was texting me at 2, 3 a.m. and I was responding - and getting prompt responses from her.

But if you've erased your email and text records, can you PROVE you were awake and alert?

shiloh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
shiloh said...

Benghazi ~ Benghazi ~ Benghazi !!! ...

will have zero effect on the 2016 presidential election.

Repeating, Benghazi will have zero effect on the 2016 presidential election.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Original Mike said...

"Waiting for news."

She might as well have been asleep for all the difference it made.

Hagar said...

Never mind the 4 who died; where are the 40 who lived and what are their stories?

bagoh20 said...

She was awake and doing her job like the lioness she is. She already told you haters: "I don't feel no ways tired." That's how she rolls everyday. Now leave Hillary alone!

tom swift said...

A "ridiculous debate move"?

Not at all. It's an excellent debate move. It puts Hillary on the ropes, where she should be.

As a fact of history, it's unjustified. But the election isn't about the minutiae of history; it's about serial duplicity, perpetual failure, criminality and evil.

As tactics, the statement is ideal, albeit not terribly sophisticated. But it doesn't have to be subtle; he's dealing with the press, not Metternich.

Or perhaps you think that mean ol' Donald is treating po' lil' Hillary unfairly?

In any case, it's doubtless not meant to be literally true. "Soundly slept in her bed" is a common English phrase meaning that she wasn't doing her job. The press is trying to jab at Trump pretending that he meant it literally and exactly. Anyone who's dealt with teenagers is familiar with that line of argument, and should have no trouble handling it. Trump's major opponent is the press, Hillary's loyal sycophant squad, and not so much with Hillary herself; he can rely on her to be sleeping soundly in her bed when the fighting is at its hottest.

bagoh20 said...

"Benghazi will have zero effect on the 2016 presidential election."

Unfortunately, you are probably right - it won't and neither will:

Selling State Department influence
Taking enormous amounts of money from the same people she vilifies for votes
Pushing job destroying policy from taxation to healthcare to regulation and minimum wage
Illegally destroying evidence of her crimes
Defying the law by not securing government secrets
Allowing and making the middle east into a lawless bastion of Islamic murder and anarchy
Having the entirety of her personal and State Department emails in the hands of hackers including all our enemies just waiting to be used to blackmail The President of the United States

All of these are disqualifying, and yet they will not matter one bit because:
The media will not do its job.
The current administration will not do its job.
But most importantly, the voters will not do their job Half will vote for her anyway, and the rest will nominate people so unpopular or vulnerable that even this pathetic unaccomplished criminal embarrassment will still win.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

bagoh20 said...

"A "ridiculous debate move"? "

If a clown beats you into submission with his giant ridiculous shoe, you may laugh at first, and it may look ridiculous, but in the end you are beaten just the same, and the crowd still laughs with clown and at you.

Rusty said...

"There was more than one attack, separated by hours, and the people in Washington periodically thought it was all over."

It is my understanding that it , like all battles, ebbed and flowed. That new actors were arriving as others retired.
which is moot in any event because State fucked up and then boldly lied to the American people.
At least ARM isn't here insisting nobody gave the order to stand down.
13 hours, Sammy. Good men died waiting for help that State had no intention sending.

Comanche Voter said...

I'm going the Dingy Harry Reid route here. It's up to Hillary to prove that she wasn't sleeping soundly in her bed during Benghazi. Until she can prove that,well then I'll take Ding Harry/Dirt Donny's word for it. I mean if it was okay for Dingy Harry to do that about Romney's tax returns, then it must be okay for Dirty Donny to engage in flights of rhetorical fancy.

Of course Dingy Harry could get away with that horse manure because he enjoyed absolute immunity for anything he said on the Senate floor. Dirty Donny has no such immunity.

Browndog said...

After the whole thing became a cluster-F, Obama's team came up with the L.A. film-maker lie. HC did not want to go along with this (I really believe this), but was blackmailed into supporting the narrative if she wanted Obama's support in 2016. If HC denied the Obama cover-up story, it would have been utter humiliation for the White House and she could kiss 2016 goodbye. Prove me wrong.

What a convenient memory-

The "video" lie first entered the public domain nearly a full day before Benghazi.

Look it up-

Here's a clue: Morsi threatened to overrun the Embassy in Cairo if Obama did not release the Blind Sheik. Before the attack even started, Hillary's State Dept. sent out a tweet from the Cairo Embassy blaming the video for the attack on the Embassy 3 hours before it was attacked.

It took Obama 3 hours to convince Morsi to stand down.

bagoh20 said...

It's like one of those classic physical comedies where a bandit is trying to rob the clown, but he keeps thwarting the assailant entirely by accident, blindly stumbling through a total beat down of the criminal without even trying or knowing how he's doing it. It shouldn't work, and in real life it doesn't.

tim in vermont said...

Repeating, Benghazi will have zero effect on the 2016 presidential election.

So how exactly is it that Hillary can't get out of the mid 40s against DONALD J FUCKING TRUMP?

Hillary instigated a war of choice in Libya. If you don't think that people who would normally vote Democrat are backing off of voting for the war monger chosen in the invisible primary, you don't talk to many young Democrats.

bagoh20 said...

"Hillary's State Dept. sent out a tweet from the Cairo Embassy blaming the video for the attack on the Embassy 3 hours before it was attacked."

If this is true, where is this tweet and why isn't the Right all over it? It would be the most damning thing possible.

MikeD said...

Attack began 1500-1700 WDC time, went on for over 13 hours. At no point is there any evidence HRC was concerned/involved or cognizant of what was going on. However, ghoul like she was enthralled watching Seal Team 6 (correctly) assassinate OBL.
BTW, comment font really makes juxtaposition of "a's" & "s's" look strange!

wholelottasplainin' said...

OK, OK; maybe not in her bed, but in Huma's .

And maybe not sleeping, but scissoring.



Gack.

Browndog said...

If this is true, where is this tweet and why isn't the Right all over it? It would be the most damning thing possible.

There was a huge backlash at the time, and immediate calls for the Ambassador to resign for blaming the American 1st Amendment for the attack-

Then, Benghazi happened, and swept the events in Cairo down the memory hole.

Why the republicans in the House have never mentioned it is beyond me.

narciso said...

she told the truth to the libyan speaker, magarief and her daughter, but allowed the lie to be carried to pakistan, in psas

Bruce Hayden said...

It is pretty classic Trump. She is the one who ran the 3 am as against Obama, she is the one who ran all her email through her personal server, deleting roughly half of it, and she is the one who has repeatedly led about it. There apparently weren't any emails from or to her during that period released under the FOIA request and court orders. So, she says that she couldn't sleep that night. Trump says that she is such a lier. We all know that. Why should we believe her now? Sure, it might have been Jarrett/Obama issuing the stand down. But how do we know that she pushed the military to respond? Because she said so? She is such a lier. We all know that. Etc.

The reason that this doesn't come down to a classic he says/she says is that she theoretically has the ability to show that she was working this all night at home. And hasn't. No emails and no phone log. All we have is her claiming that, and "She is such a lier". If she had been smart, she wouldn't have gone home that night. Maybe gone to the WH and their situation room. Or, just stayed at work, crashing on her couch. But, she went home, and we are supposed to believe her, despite her being unable to prove that she was up responding all night. She can't prove that Trump is wrong, and he can just keep pointing out that She is such a lier. And it doesn't help that she claimed the highly improbable, that she didn't sleep a wink. Just like that she, as Secretary of State (one of 4 original classifiers in the federal govt. at the time), didn't send or receive any classified information on her private server during her four years in office.

narciso said...

now if we could only connect the dots,


http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/06/possible-911-hijacking-recruit-transferred-from-guantanamo-to-montenegro.php

Browndog said...

Updated 12:15 a.m. ET Sept. 12, 2012

(CBS News) After a massive crowd of angry Egyptians began amassing outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, furious over an anti-Muslim film produced in the U.S., the embassy there released a statement saying it did not support any anti-religious efforts.

"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions," the statement began.

Freder Frederson said...

The answer to your question in the headline is easy: Because he is a pathological liar. Or rather, the concept of objective truth is completely alien to him.

n.n said...

What difference, at this point, does it make?

Clinton is an acolyte of the Pro-choice Church that does not recognize rights and responsibilities, civil and human rights, denigrates individual dignity (e.g. class diversity), and debases human life (e.g. abortion rites, Planned Parenthood). Of course she sleeps soundly at night, Benghazi is no exception to the rule.

khesanh0802 said...

It was a metaphor and an effective one. She might as well have been asleep or AWOL for all the good she did. Hillary was responsible for the lives and welfare of all those who reported to her. She failed miserably in Benghazi.

A simple test-
If your front line commander tells you that there is a troop build up opposite his position you:
1. Send reinforcements?
2. Check for yourself?
3. Go to chow?

For you civilians the answer is 1 and 2.

pm317 said...

Well, why don't they ask where Obama the CiC was that night. Cowards! He indeed might have been sound asleep and worse.

narciso said...

as usual that claim was a squirrel in itself,

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2012/11/ansar_al_sharia_egyp.php

just as with the actual tape of the attack on the consulate, which has never been aired,

Bruce Hayden said...

Of course Obamabwas asleep. He went to bed early because he had a big fundraising trip the next day to, I believe, Las Vegas. My view is that most any President back through Carter, excluding maybe Clint, and maybe including even Nixon, would have spent the night in the situation room, and cancelled the fundraising trip. Everyone has known this from day one, but no one has been allowed to comment on the obviousness that he was derelict in his duties that night. The MSM (including Crowley) worked overtime to distract the American people from this simple fact.

John said...

Blogger traditionalguy said...

paying as little tax as possible by claiming depreciation deductions on his mega earnings as he builds all over the world.

Also deducting the value of his used underwear from his income taxes. Oh, no, wait. that was the other presidential nominee presumptive. Sorry, My bad.

Several here have said that they wanted to see Trumps tax returns to see if they supported his $9-10bn wealth filing. Stupidity on stilts. The way the rich get rich is by having relatively little income. They take what they need to live in the style they want and pay income taxes on it. The wealth, they allow to accumulate untaxed. (We tax income, not wealth, in the US. With a few exceptions)

Jeff Bezos, for example, bumps along on $2mm a year or so but it worth $20-30bn

Warren Buffett pays income taxes on about $40-50mm per year. Is worth $70-80bn

I would be very surprised if Trump takes much income out of his businesses. My guess is les than $5mm or so annually.

And what is wrong with a business taking depreciation, Trad Guy?

John Henry

khesanh0802 said...

After reading other comments I feel I must emphasize again Hillary's responsibility for the lives and welfare of her employees. Those of us who have had service experience take that responsibility very seriously. Never mind the other issues or who was where when, she failed in her primary duty!

Owen said...

Trump is metaphorically correct about Her Sleepiness. She walked off the job. Whether she closed her eyes and reached REM state is a distant second to the issue, which is what does the ordinary voter expect to see from somebody who cares even a tiny pinch about the people who go into harm's way for her. She left her post in the middle of a firefight. Until it was declared over and her people were accounted for, she should have been at her post. With witnesses and logs to show who decided what when.

She is such a genius and a lifelong politician, totally alert to how her actions will be perceived. She knew this was a bad situation and her actions would be in the cross-hairs of public scrutiny and a real vulnerability for her boss in his reelection effort. Yet: she went home in the middle of it, leaving us to guess what she was doing. And so did her boss: he went off to get his beauty sleep before his flight to eras to raise more money.

If you were to write a bad script showing people whose stupidity and incompetence might just eclipse their callous villainy, it would not differ much from this.

John said...

I could go either way on the sleeping meme. Yeah, she was not really sleeping, though she might as well have been for all the good it did the fellows in Benghazi.

But she is the one who started this whole thing with her ads about the 3AM phone call. I think it is fair, though perhaps a bit of a stretch, for Trump to recall this.

John Henry

Owen said...

"eras" = "Vegas"

narciso said...

what difference does it make,

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/747526391369981953

the truth is the emails could never reach her, because they were on the state department network, an interesting detail re that movie, the 5th estate, she wasn't exposed by assuange's first fishing expedition,

John said...

I still like the Dvorak/Curry No Agenda theory of Benghazi:

The whole megillah was staged by the (CIA, State dept, other agency, take your pick) as a kidnapping of Christopher Stevens. The "bad guys" would hold him Hostage until about October 27 or so. At that time Obama's crack SOS would negotiate his release unharmed.

Nobody would get hurt.

Somehow it got out of hand, Stevens was murdered and everything turned to shit. Improvising on the fly by the WH et al was not well handled and the video story was the only thing they could come up with fast.

I don't really believe their theory but I do like it.

www.noagendashow.com for a twice weekly, always interesting, podcast.

John Henry

narciso said...

I think there is a simpler explanation, stevens was a high value target, like al libi who had been droned some months before, they used a gambit similar to the one in the movie Z, disguising a political assasination as a happenstance,

Owen said...

khesanh0802@7:51 said "
It was a metaphor and an effective one. She might as well have been asleep or AWOL for all the good she did." Exactly. I never had the honor of serving in the military but this is pretty goddamned basic. And she failed. Utterly.


But so brave, dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. What a disgusting excuse for a human being.

cubanbob said...

If Hillary was in a coma during those 13 hours what difference would that have made? At least she could for once honestly say she didn't know. What Hillary and her boss have yet to explain why was the Ambassador at the consulate to begin with when all of the other consulates in Benghazi were closed. Why the supposed deference to the non-existent government of Libya while our people were under attack? Loyalty is a two way street, its not just the troops be loyal to their commander but the commander be loyal to the troops. Obama and Clinton have failed miserably. The idea of a traitor becoming Commander In Chief is nauseating.

narciso said...

you don't say,

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/27/hillary-clinton-blames-certain-corners-internet-eroding-trustworthiness/

wholelottasplainin' said...

Repeating, Benghazi will have zero effect on the 2016 presidential election.

I yield back the balance of my time.

***************

Win or lose, how will you substantiate that claim?

Be specific. Or is it just a case that "if she wins, I'm right. And if she loses, it was due to some other factor." ??

Bruce Hayden said...

I initially wondered about Trump coining "Crooked Hillary". Why not "Lying Hillary"? Or "Corrupt Hillary"? The answer, ithink, is that "crooked" implies both. She has been long since her cattle futures, and engaged in corruption since at least then. As most know by now, the cattle futures were a way for Tysons to pass bribe money to the governor's wife. It worked by the trader taking money from both Hillary and Tysons, and using that to buy matching buy/sell options. Then, after seeing which way the market went, assigning the winning options to Hillary and the losing ones to the other party. My memory is that the guy in the middle ultimately went to prison for this scheme. After Madison Federal went under, she lied about her work putting together the fraudulent transactions. This only came out after Vince Foster died, and her billing records showed up in the WH private quarters. Then there was Travelgate. She lied there to get friends the lucrative contracts. And illegally pulling over 100 FBI files on Republicans. The two universals, from cattle futures through Benghazi and emails is that she lies through her teeth, even when she doesn't need to, and she is constantly working scams and other questionable schemes to increase their wealth and power. She is the inveterate grifter. And, so, "Crooked Hillary".

Iapetus said...

"Blogger pm317 said...
Well, why don't they ask where Obama the CiC was that night. Cowards! He indeed might have been sound asleep and worse.

6/27/16, 7:38 PM"

We pretty much know the answer to that, I think. As I recall, he was scheduled to fly out of DC for a fund raiser that was scheduled on the West Coast for the following day so he was asleep, either in the White House or on AF-1 in flight on its way to the West Coast.

Unknown said...

Democrats just released their own report on Benghazi. One of the conclusions, it cost American taxpayers millions to fund a Republican political witch hunt.

It serves Republicans right that their Party and candidate are such a monumental mess.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

So, has Hillary explained why she lied to families and the country over the cause of the attack? If she couldn't bring herself to be honest (she never can) she should have had Chelsea go on the talk shows to explain the real reason.

Unknown said...

http://newcenturytimes.com/2016/06/27/just-in-damning-new-benghazi-report-clears-clinton-while-exposing-republican-lies/

Well, now, in a report put out by the Democratic members of the House Benghazi Committee, it is clearly shown that not only is Clinton exonerated, but it also shows to what length Republicans have seemingly lied to perpetuate the myth that she is guilty, as well as their refusal to cooperate with other House members.

“Republicans excluded Democrats from interviews, concealed exculpatory evidence, withheld interview transcripts, leaked inaccurate information, issued unilateral subpoenas, sent armed Marshals to the home of a cooperative witness, and even conducted political fundraising by exploiting the deaths of four Americans.

In one of the most serious abuses, Chairman Gowdy personally and publicly accused Secretary Clinton of compromising a highly classified intelligence source. Although the Intelligence Community quickly debunked his claim, Chairman Gowdy has yet to apologize to Secretary Clinton for his slanderous accusation.

In our opinion, Chairman Gowdy has been conducting this investigation like an overzealous prosecutor desperately trying to land a front-page conviction rather than a neutral judge of facts seeking to improve the security of our diplomatic corps.

Decades in the future, historians will look back on this investigation as a case study in how not to conduct a credible investigation. They will showcase the proliferation of Republican abuses as a chief example of what happens when politicians are allowed to use unlimited taxpayer dollars—and the formidable power of Congress—to attack their political foes.”

The entire report is utterly infuriating, but absolutely damning against Republicans in their quest to destroy Hillary Clinton. They’ve used millions of tax-payer dollars to go after a presidential candidate instead of moving forward to really figure out how to prevent an attack like this from ever happening again. Time and time again it has been found that Clinton was not to blame, but time and time again Republicans have tried their damnedest to condemn her. Well, no longer, and this report should put all conspiracy to rest.



narciso said...

it is infuriating it doesn't include the stack of requests for security, from stevens and co,
the timeline of rapidly escalating attacks against diplomatic facilities, it does illustrate that blumenthal is working for the outfit, mediamatters that whitewashes the assasination and mutilation of stevens by ansar al sharia,

Rhythm and Balls said...

Um.... because he says everything without any evidence.

You really have to work on these post titles, Althouse.

narciso said...

nothing succeeds like success,


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/us-officials-dirty-mideast-intel-partly-to-blame-for-cia-weapons-landing-in-wrong-hands.html

Michael K said...

Riitmo is in charge of entertainment.

James L. Salmon said...

Trump is playing chess while Clinton and her minions clumsily move checkers around the board. The phrase, "sleeping soundly in her bed" was designed, as noted by many other commentators, to draw Clinton and her defenders into the fray. Meanwhile, regular Americans nash their teeth at the pernicious and lethal lies told by Clinton and her defenders. Liberal commentators like to crow that "Nobody cares about Benghazi!" Well, that's because nobody knows anything about Benghazi thanks to Clinton's Praetorian Guards in the Media. Trump and others are chipping away at that facade of invisibility. The more everyday Americans learn about Clinton the less they like her. The more they learn about Trump, the more they like him. Trump's long game of Chess is more likely to pay off than Clinton's cheap checkers moves.

Michael Fitzgerald said...

Unknown said...
http://newcenturytimes.com/2016/06/27/just-in-damning-new-benghazi-report-clears-clinton-while-exposing-republican-lies/

Well, now, in a report put out by the Democratic members of the House Benghazi Committee...

6/27/16, 9:21 PM

Oh, the democrats have submitted their own investigation, I mean, press release, and surprise, surprise, surprise, it shows Hillary and the Obama administration doing all the right things, and republicans just being mean and evil... well, that settles it for me. If there's anyone I can trust, it's the democrat party and the Obama administration. I mean, when have they ever lied to us, or wiped their servers to keep the facts hidden, or had multiple simultaneous computer hard drive failures only among individuals who had been subpoenaed, or deceived the American public to pass bogus legislation like Obamacare, or lied about negotiating a secret treaty with Iranian hard-liners, or misled the public about giving AR-15's to Mexican drug cartels, or bilked the American public out of a billion or so dollars with a phony "stimulus" full of "shovel-ready jobs that weren't so shovel-ready, yuk-yuk-yuk", or lied about ordering the IRS to investigate and target conservative republican GOTV groups, or done something like force a partial government shutdown with lots of government-shutdown-theater because it would be blamed on republicans. or etc, etc, etc... Yeah, if the democrats write their own reports, you darn well better believe it's nothing but the solid gold truth.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am more and more convinced that this Unknown is a paid shill, fed daily talking points. He tries to pass a purely political document as authoritative, and ignores that the Dems, from Cummings on down, spent their time in the committee running interference for Obama, and to some tent, Hilllary. All you had to do was watch one committee hearing, or read the transcripts. They talk about the millions spent - but never ask why. The reason is that the Administration was anything except transparent. The Republicans were no more successful getting Hillary's emails than were anyone else, until ordered by an exasperated federal judge. It went something like this - the Republicans would ask for some information. The Administration would say "nothing here". The Dems on the committee would say: the Administration said nothing there. Time to move on and quit wasting money. Months later, it would turn out that thevAdminstration had, again, been caught lying about there being nothing there. Rinse and repeat, for years.

Brando said...

I'm not so sure "Benghazi" is hurting Hillary, as like a lot of past Clinton scandals it serves to make the Republicans look hysterical with overreach (e.g., the "stand down" order). How are the polls on that issue? I was under the impression it wasn't getting the sort of traction beyond the Republican voters.

The Libya war, on the other hand, was something she supported from the beginning and to this day considers a "success" even though thousands of civilians were killed and a nasty group of thugs seem to be running that country. If the GOP could get its head out of its ass and focus on her and Obama's bungled adventure, it could do a lot more towards splitting the Left--many of whom are skeptical of such interventions.

tim in vermont said...

I am curious, Unknown. Did the report explain why Hillary had to lie to the families of the four dead directly in front of their flag draped coffins? Or, like all of Bill's alleged victims, are these family members also liars?

tim in vermont said...

Brando, The leaked DNC memos explained that their tactics are about "muddying the waters" as they put it. So the more they can confuse the real issues surrounding Benghazi, the better for Hillary. Of course the press will help the DNC, that is their hobby and their job, slanting the news.

Brando said...

"Brando, The leaked DNC memos explained that their tactics are about "muddying the waters" as they put it. So the more they can confuse the real issues surrounding Benghazi, the better for Hillary. Of course the press will help the DNC, that is their hobby and their job, slanting the news."

That may be--though the Benghazi scandal is convoluted enough that you won't have much luck selling it to the public (who aren't already disposed against Hillary--I'm disposed against her and even I don't follow all the details of it). To even a casual follower of the news, it sounds more like an unavoidable tragedy (in that terrorists can get at our envoys at some point, particularly if our envoys are active in those countries, and the terrorists only have to be lucky once) which Hillary could not have prevented and at most she's guilty of telling the public a false story to try and spin it for the administration (or, more charitably, they were slow to get the correct message out during the turmoil and continued pushing the 'spontaneous riot' theme). After years of hearings, if the GOP couldn't get a big bombshell out of it, why is this suddenly going to sink Hillary now?

Paco Wové said...

"Trump is playing chess while Clinton and her minions clumsily move checkers around the board."

...suddenly, minutes before the end of the match, the judges suddenly decide that the game was checkers all along, declare Hillary the winner and rush off to cash their Clinton Foundation checks.

Paco Wové said...

"at most she's guilty of telling the public a false story to try and spin it for the administration"

I would argue that, at most, she's guilty of being an incompetent fuck-up who got people killed as a result of ill-conceived meddling in other nations' affairs.

Ken B said...

"She was asleep at the switch."
"Which switch? Where is this switch? "

tim in vermont said...

it sounds more like an unavoidable tragedy

It could have been avoided by not choosing to send our military to overthrow the sovereign and internationally recognized government of Libya on grounds that sound awfully similar to the grounds for overthrowing Saddam

Libya was a war of choice. We could have chosen not to get involved.

Brando said...

"It could have been avoided by not choosing to send our military to overthrow the sovereign and internationally recognized government of Libya on grounds that sound awfully similar to the grounds for overthrowing Saddam"

I was referring to the attack on our envoys being unavoidable--but I agree that the intervention itself was a mistake, and that should have been the focus of the GOP's argument.

shiloh said...

"I am more and more convinced that this Unknown is a paid shill"

Too funny as how much time are you wasting trying to "analyze" Unknown.

Indeed, $$$ well spent at a 95/5 con echo chamber where most of "you" would die before voting for Hillary.

Get a grip!

>

As always, the entertainment value alone re: Althouse and her con minions attempts to rationalize/apologize er jump through hoops trying to defend Trump is more than enough satisfaction. Priceless!

Chris Gerrib said...

First, would somebody tell me what the hell the Secretary of State is supposed to be doing during the attack? Last time I checked, the military worked for the Secretary of Defense, and the military is supposed to go in and rescue people from attack.

Second, we've been at war for 15 years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been engaged in combat or under attack 24/7 during that period. Do we really want the senior leaders of the country to try to stay awake during every overnight military operation?

damikesc said...

Second, we've been at war for 15 years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have been engaged in combat or under attack 24/7 during that period. Do we really want the senior leaders of the country to try to stay awake during every overnight military operation?

When our ambassador is calling for help as are the troops on the ground --- yeah. I'd rather the senior leaders be on the ground instead of the people who were killed. Might've seen some action taken then.

Democrats just released their own report on Benghazi. One of the conclusions, it cost American taxpayers millions to fund a Republican political witch hunt.

Yeah, Democrats worried about spending money...

khesanh0802 said...

@Chris Gerrib The answer to your question is yes. If one of your positions is under attack is the appropriate move to ignore that because the commander there is two rungs down the chain of command? (If we look at an org chart we'll probably see that Stevens was closer to a direct report.) I sure would not want you as my battalion commander when my platoon comes under attack. Your comment I assume would be "Well he's only a Lieutenant with a bunch of enlisted, who cares. Let's hit the sack." Jesus !

Bruce Hayden said...

I think that we need to split up the responsibility into three different time periods. Hillary had primary responsibility for the consulate getting attacked. Not only did her Department push regime change in Lybia, turning the country into the failed state it is today, but her staff also refused myriads of requests to increase security in Benghazi, then sent their ambassador into harms way by sending him there, and esp on the anniversary of 9/11. It was one stupid move after another.

But responsibility shifts to Obama when the militants attacked the consulate that night. The order to stand down could only have come from the White House. Most have little doubt that our military would have done what it could that night if GW Bush, his father, or even Reagan had still been in office that night. We are talking at a minimum, supersonic flyover, but also probably an AC 130 gunship, and ultimately boots on the ground. Maybe some drone strikes on the targets the guys at the annex kept lighting up with their lasers. That says to the troops (and others in harms way) that our military will do what it takes to protect them when attacked. And it says to our enemies that if you attack us, we will make you regret it. It is maybe not that surprising that the contrary examples (Carter and our embassy in Iran, Clinton and Blackhawk Down, and Obama and Benghazi) since Vietnam were all under Dem Presidents. We may never know why our military stood down that night, but inevitably military options were presented to Obama and/or Jarrett, and were refused. They wouldn't have been under a Republican President. Hillary's place that night was to ride the White Housevto provide an adequate armed response that night in order to protect her people (including those in other embassys and consulates around the world). And she shouldn't have abandoned her post while her people were in harms way. Of course, Obama shouldn't have either, and did so first, because, apparently, the lives of our people in Benghazi, and really around the world, were not as important to him as that fundraising trip to Las Vegas the next day.

Finally, the cover up. The bogus claim about the video. The responsibility rests on both Obama and Hillary. They and their staffs knew, from within minutes of the first attack that it was a well planned and organized terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest. As some have pointed out, you don't bring crew served weapons, including sighted in mortars, to spontaneous demonstrations, nor do you set up sophisticated traps for any relieving forces. If nothing else, the first medium or heavy machine gun fire, the first mortar round, should have been a dead giveaway. And, from the communications that night, it was. Everyone knew, at the time, that it was a terrorist attack. The problem for Hillary is that even if the decision to lie here came from the Whte House, her State Department took the lead. Not only did Amb Rice report to Hillary, but the pushback to the CIA and their analysis came primarily from the State Dept. Sure, it was Obama's reelection that was at stake, but Hillary signed on, and did so zealously. He may have promised her the world (or his support in 2016), but it was still her choice to lie to the American people, and, in particular, to the families of those who fell while under her watch.