Live blog: Clinton testifies before House on Benghazi attack
January 23rd, 2013
05:03 PM ET

Live blog: Clinton testifies before House on Benghazi attack

[Updated at 5:03 p.m. ET] And after three hours, the session is over. The panel's chairman, Rep. Edward Royce, R-California, ends the session by saying he's concerned whether the independent review board captured fully what happened in Benghazi.

[Updated at 4:59 p.m. ET] The last question goes to Rep. Grace Meng, D-New York. Noting French and military action in Mali, she asks what more can the United States ask of "allies in the area" to combat problems in Africa.

Clinton says U.S. military trainers have been working with multiple African forces to get them in a position to successfully combat Islamist militants. She notes that the United States just recently recognized the new Somali government, saying that wouldn't have been possible without U.S. and U.N. support.

Clinton says: Nobody can match the United States in military assets and prowess, but the United States' challenges are not immediately solved by military action alone, so the country needs to get countries in Africa to boost their own anti-terrorism efforts.

[Updated at 4:56 p.m. ET] Rep. Alan Lowenthal, D-California, asks Clinton how officials should go about making the analysis between diplomatic presence and risk.

Clinton says: "This is my ongoing hope, that we can get it more right than wrong."

"I don't think we can retreat from these places," she says. "We've got to be there, picking up intelligence."

[Updated at 4:52 p.m. ET] Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, asks Clinton whether she's distressed over Tunisia's decision to release a suspect in the Benghazi attack.

Clinton says no. That's because high-ranking Tunisian officials told her that they released the suspect because they're committed to the rule of law and that they didn't yet have sufficient evidence against him, she says. The Tunisian officials promised that the suspect would be watched carefully, Clinton says.

[Updated at 4:45 p.m. ET] Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Alabama, addresses what U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice told the media shortly after the attack. Brooks asks: Were her comments about the attack being a spontaneous reaction true or false?

Clinton points to the independent post-Benghazi review board's conclusion. "There is still question about what caused it," Clinton says. But: "That is not the weight of the evidence right now," Clinton says.

Brooks asks: Was Rice's statement about the Benghazi attack being a copycat of the September 11 demonstration outside the U.S. Embassy in Cairo accurate?

"It turned out not to be," Clinton responds. She notes there were differences, specifically that demonstrators outside the Cairo embassy weren't heavily armed.

Clinton defends Rice, saying that Rice was working with the information that she had been given.

[Updated at 4:36 p.m. ET] Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Illinois and a former Air Force pilot, asks a series of assertions and questions. Among them:

- He says Clinton, in a briefing shortly after the attack, told lawmakers that the Benghazi attack was related to an anti-Islam video made in the United States.

- He says that because a (unarmed) U.S. drone was flying overhead, he assumes that Clinton would have had a live video feed, showing her what was happening at the Benghazi compound.

- He says that U.S. F-16s from an airbase in Italy, even if unarmed, could have flown to the area to do nonviolent things to disperse crowds.

Clinton responds that she didn't tell lawmakers that the Benghazi attack was related to the anti-Islam video. She says she told them that other demonstrations around that time in other countries were related to demonstrations against the video.

She also says she personally did not have live video of the area.

[Updated at 4:29 p.m. ET] Rep. Bradley Schneider, D-Illinois, asks how the State Department will weigh security risks against its desire to help other countries.

"It is a constant debate, congressman," Clinton responds. "It is something we take very seriously when we do it."

Schneider asks: How do we ensure we're able to provide resources to high-risk posts?

"Very difficult," Clinton responds. "We have to ask you, based on our best assessments, what we need to do our jobs."

[Updated at 4:25 p.m. ET] Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-South Carolina, rips into Clinton. He refers to, among other things, a June 7 request for more security at Benghazi that was rejected.

“You let the consulate become a death trap, and that’s national security malpractice" Duncan said.

Duncan questions whether Clinton truly is taking responsibility for the attack, because she's still the secretary of state. What, Duncan asks, does responsibility mean to Clinton?

"I think I've made that very clear, congressman," Clinton responds, a bit testily. She notes that she didn't have to release a declassified version of the independent post-Benghazi review board's report.

"The reason we have ... review boards is we take out politics, we take out emotions ... and we try to get to the truth," Clinton says.

[Updated at 4:13 p.m. ET] Rep. Tom Marino, R- Pennsylvania, talks about a pre-Benghazi Department of Defense report of al Qaeda-affiliated or -sympathizing protesters who were seen holding certain black flags outside U.S. diplomatic compounds in North Africa and the Middle East. He asks why security wasn't therefore properly boosted at diplomatic compounds such as the one in Benghazi. "I personally think it would demand an increase in security,” Marino says.

Clinton responds that she was well aware of people claiming to be associated with al Qaeda that were attempting to influence militias and exercise more authority.

Marino then asks why the State Department officials who were put on leave because of the attack are still being paid. Clinton - somewhat exasperatedly, because she addressed this earlier during the hearing - responds that certain laws and regulations stipulate that they have to be paid, and that these rules stand in the way of their firings.

Earlier during this hearing, Clinton said she's asked Congress to fix these rules so that such firings can happen.

[Updated at 4:03 p.m. ET] Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Arizona, asks: Given that Clinton says that security requests before the Benghazi attack never got above the assistant secretary level, is Clinton concerned about the flow of information within her department?

Clinton responds: The independent post-Benghazi review board found that Ambassador Stevens "did not (forsee) an attack of this scale," and that the intelligence community didn't make a connection between the "threat environment" and a direct threat on the Benghazi compound.

Clinton says her department is acting to implement recommendations made by the review board.

[Updated at 3:57 p.m. ET] In response to questions from Rep. David Cicilline, D-Rhode Island, Clinton says she is "for the first time elevating a lot of these security issues to the secretary level."

[Updated at 3:52 p.m. ET] Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, asks whether any suspect in the Benghazi attack is currently in custody.

"One suspect is under monitoring by the Tunisian government," Clinton says, adding that the FBI is monitoring other suspects. She says the FBI's director went to Libya and Tunisia, and that he believes the investigation is proceeding.

She notes that the FBI has given lawmakers classified briefings regarding suspects. "I certainly hope that the FBI is able to investigate and identify those responsible," she says.

[Updated at 3:48 p.m. ET] Rep. William Keating, D-Massachusetts, asks Clinton about the pressures of cost-cutting at the State Department.

"One never knows what the budget is going to be going forward," Clinton says. "We've had some ups and downs budgetary-wise."

[Updated at 3:44 p.m. ET] Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, refers to an Aug. 16 cable that warned that the Benghazi compound couldn't withstand a coordinated attack. He asks whether Clinton was aware of the cable.

"That cable did not come to my attention," Clinton says. "I made it very clear the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the (independent post-Benghazi review board) placed responsibility."

McCaul asks when Clinton was aware of the cable. Clinton says she knew of it only after the review board began its investigation.

McCaul asks whether the cable was a surprise to Clinton.

"It was very disappointing to me that the (review board) concluded there were inadequacies and problems in the responsiveness of our team here in Washington to the security requests that were made by our team in Libya," Clinton says. "I was not aware of that going on ... but it's something we are fixing ... to make sure it doesn't happen again."

[Updated at 3:34 p.m. ET] Rep. Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina, asks Clinton whey U.N. Ambassador Rice went on the Sunday news talk shows to address the Benghazi incident instead of Clinton. Clinton says "I have to confess ... that going on Sunday shows isn't one of my favorite things to do," that she hadn't been on such shows more than a year, and that she believed that her time was better spent helping to manage the United States' response to the attacks.

[Updated at 3:26 p.m. ET] Rep. Theodore Deutch, D-Florida, asks: "What kind of strain will the presence of less military personnel in the region" put on diplomatic security.

"When our troops withdrew from Iraq, it dramatically altered what our civilians were capable of doing," Clinton says. "We're going to face the same kind of questions in Afghanistan."

[Updated at 3:21 p.m. ET] A light moment from Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, who jokes that he looks forward to most of the departing secretary’s future endeavors. Presumably the Republican wouldn’t be a supporter of any 2016 Clinton presidential run.

Chabot takes the rest of his allotted five minutes to make statements. He says lawmakers have had to jump through hoops to get information about the attack. He says the House committee got was a "document dump" that made it difficult to find useful information.

"More than four months later its unacceptable that the State Department has made it so difficult" for congressional oversight, he says.

Because Chabot used up his time, Clinton will have to respond in writing. We’re on to the next congressman.

[Updated at 3:17 p.m. ET] Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-New York, asserts that Congress "has failed to act in a meaningful way" regarding money for security issues. Meeks wants to know what the United States can do to move forward with nations whose governments turned over in the Arab Spring - such as Libya - to prevent these types of attacks from happening.

Clinton says: "We cannot retreat from, give up on these new Arab Spring revolutionary countries and new regimes. They are very new. Most of them have leaders who have never run anything. They have come from backgrounds where they are suspicious of security."

"We have to do some work. That work requires we stay engaged," she says. "We need to do a better job conveying a counter-narrative to the extremist jihad narrative."

[Updated at 3:13 p.m. ET] Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-California, asks Clinton many things. Among them, he asks about what Clinton and President Obama were saying to each about the nature of the attack that night, specifically whether it was a terrorist attack. (As background, some Republicans have taken the administration to task for early administration statements that the attack might have been a reaction to an anti-Islam video in the United States.)

Clinton says she said the very next day that it was a terror attack. But she says there still are questions about what promoted the attack and who the attackers were.

The independent post-Benghazi review board said the issue was complicated, Clinton says. She then makes a reference to the review board's unclassified report and its classified report. Rohrabacher goes no further after that remark.

[Updated at 3:07 p.m. ET] Rep. Brad Sherman, D-California, asks whether the Libyan government has the will and capacity to arrest those responsible for the Benghazi attacks.

Clinton responds that "I've found Libyan officials to be willing, but without capacity."

Clinton says the United States needs to give Libya money to upgrade its own security capabilities. It has its own problems, and its own leaders are being attacked, she said. Clinton notes that the United States government has placed holds on funds that would help Libya with its security capacity. Although Libya may have oil resources, until the post-Gadhafi government can "get up and going," it's in the United State's interest to give Libya resources, she said.

[Updated at 3 p.m. ET] Now comes Rep. Christopher Smith, R-New Jersey. He says America is relearning the same lessons that came after similar situations, and tells the subcommittee that the lessons were shockingly similar. He refers to 1998 attacks on embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Smith acknowledges Clinton takes responsibility for "during and after" the Benghazi attacks. He asks: What about before? He's referring to Stevens' cable, shortly before the attack, saying more security would be useful. When did Clinton become aware of Stevens' request for security upgrades, and what did she do in response, Smith asks.

Clinton says no cables requesting more security came to her attention.

[Updated at 2:57 p.m. ET] Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, D-American Samoa, apparently is going to be a more friendly questioner. He says he's looking forward to 2016 - a nod to the possibility that the departing secretary of state could run for president in four years.

Faleomavaega talks about the unfailing dedication of Ambassador Stevens and others. He wants Clinton to clarify what she meant when she said that Stevens went to Benghazi knowing how bad it was.

"We have a foreign service that is composed of men and women who take on these responsibilities because they love their countries," Clinton says. "Chris Stevens was one of our very best."

"In the wake of this tragedy, I think one of the most poignant events has been overlooked. That is what happened after the Libyan people ... learned that Chris Stevens, someone who they had gotten to know, was murdered." Clinton was referring to Libyan street demonstrators who protested against the attacks that killed Stevens and the three other Americans.

[Updated at 2:50 p.m. ET] Next up is Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida. She asks why the post-Benghazi review board didn't interview Clinton. "I think that's outrageous," Ros-Lehtinen says of the board not having interviewed Clinton.

Ros-Lehtinen also asserts that while some officials might have been reassigned after the attack, no one at the State Department has been sufficiently punished. She asked whether Clinton finds it acceptable that officials who "ignored security requests" remain employed by the State Department.

Clinton responds that the review board was focused on security issues, and that therefore the board interviewed security experts. "If they thought that I was relevant, I would have gladly" spoken to the review board, Clinton said.

Regarding the certain State Department employees who technically remain employed, she points out that they have been removed from their former positions and placed on administrative leave. She asserted that they remain employed because of restrictions in law. The review board, she said, didn't find that their actions didn't legally rise to the level of breach of duty.

Clinton says she's asked Congress to fix certain laws and regulations so that such firings could happen.

[Updated at 2:41 p.m. ET] Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, asks about the department's requests for security finding from Congress. He wants to know if Congress provided proper resources.

"Since 2007 the department has consistently requested greater funding," she said. "With the exception of 2010, Congress has enacted less than requested."

Clinton said that the post-Benghazi review board that she appointed has said that more resources are needed.

"The funds provided by Congress were inadequate," she said.

[Updated at 2:38 p.m. ET] Royce asks Clinton why a Defense Department "site security team" had been withdrawn from the area in August.

Clinton responds that the team is focused mainly on the embassy in Tripoli, Libya, and not the Benghazi site. Less than 2 percent of its time was ever spent in Benghazi, she said.

"They helped to stand up embassy in Tripoli when (it) reopened. At the end of the day, they were not focused on Benghazi," she said.

[Updated at 2:31 p.m. ET] Rep. Edward Royce, the California Republican and chairman of this panel, prefaces his questions by asserting that the State Department "saw this (Benghazi) risk coming," but "didn't act to prevent what could have been handled by answering" requests by certain personnel for more security.

Royce asserts that senior officials knew U.S. diplomats weren't safe, and he says he wants to know why, therefore, was security withdrawn. Royce acknowledges that Clinton, this morning, told the Senate panel that she hadn't personally seen any request for more security.

[Updated at 2:28 p.m. ET] Clinton has concluded her opening remarks, and she's ready to take questions.

[Updated at 2:27 p.m. ET] Clinton, still delivering her opening statement, is now asserting there's a growing issue of al Qaeda's influence in North Africa. She mentions last week's hostage-taking of gas-facility workers by Islamist militants in Algeria. And she says the administration is dealing with this growing influence.

"We have focused on targeting al Qaeda's syndicate of terror - closing safe havens, cutting off finances, countering extremist ideology, and slowing the flow of new recruits," Clinton said. "We continue to hunt the terrorists responsible for the attacks in Benghazi and are determined to bring them to justice."

[Updated at 2:24 p.m. ET] More from Clinton's opening remarks: She points out that she appointed an independent review board - the Accountability Review Board, which you're sure to hear more about as this hearing goes on - to address what went wrong and how officials can fix it.

"I have accepted every one of their recommendations - our deputy secretary for management and resources is leading a task force to ensure that all 29 of them are implemented quickly and completely ... as well as pursuing additional steps above and beyond those the board" recommended, she said.

"We are taking a top-to-bottom look, and rethinking how we make decisions on where, when, and how our people operate in high threat areas, and how we respond."

[Updated at 2:19 p.m. ET] From Clinton's opening remarks: "As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility."

[Updated at 2:18 p.m. ET] Clinton is giving her prepared opening statement. It's pretty much the same as the opening statement she gave to the Senate panel this morning. Here it is. Keep in mind that the actual remarks won't be exactly the same as the prepared remarks.

[Updated at 2:14 p.m. ET] Addressing the State Department's ability to provide proper security to its diplomatic missions, Engel adds that Congress had slashed resources, including requests for security funding.

[Updated at 2:13 p.m. ET] The panel's ranking member, Rep. Eliot Engel, D-New York, is now giving his opening remarks. His tone, as we saw from Democrats during the Senate panel session earlier today, is less confrontational and more friendly than we've seen from Republicans.

To wit: Engel said President Obama is no more responsible for the Benghazi attack than President George W. Bush was responsible for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in Washington and New York.

"Whether (the Benghazi incident) was called a terrorist attack or not in the immediate aftermath or not, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant," Engel said.

[Updated at 2:07 p.m. ET] Royce, the panel's Republican chairman, continues his preface: Senior officials should have known about the security situation in Libya, he said.

"Al Qaeda and its affiliates will very likely be targeting other diplomats for years to come," he said. The State Department "must get this right," he said.

[Updated at 2:05 p.m. ET] The House hearing is getting under way, with the chairman, Rep. Edward Royce, R-California, kicking it off. Royce says he glad that Clinton is healthy and willing to testify before she leaves office.

Royce, whose party has been critical of the State Department's handling of the Benghazi situation - including security issues before the attack and the department's reaction afterward - sets things up by saying that "threats to Americans abroad are growing - particularly those threats are growing in North Africa."

[Initial post, 1:55 p.m. ET] For the second time today, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is about to testify before a congressional panel about the September terrorist attack in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.

Starting at 2 p.m. ET, Clinton will face the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

This morning, Clinton gave what was at times fiery and emotional testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (you can get a rundown of that testimony here).  Conservative Republicans on that panel challenged Clinton on the lack of security at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, as well as the erroneous account provided four days later by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice that the attack grew spontaneously from a protest over an anti-Islam film produced in the United States.

Clinton was originally scheduled to testify last month but postponed her appearance as she was treated for illness, a concussion and a blood clot near her brain. The country's top diplomat returned to work just over two weeks ago.

soundoff (516 Responses)
  1. Nelly

    Step back from your partisan view for a sec. Bear in mind terrorist killed these 4 Americans and in a country accross the globe. How did you feel about Bush and Condi when 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorist right here in america. Did you demand their accountability? Or place blame on the terrorist.....which is where it belongs.

    January 23, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • dman

      You hit the nail on the head. Don't expect a response from the Conservatives to your post. I have more than one friend who won't answer this question when I pose it to them. Their basic response is that Bush didn't know about the attacks. When I show them stories that say that the CIA was warning him as early as May, the call the stories lies. The Right's phony moral indignation is just one more reason to dislike them.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • Slappy

      This isn't a story about Bush.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:14 pm | Report abuse |
    • Clinton = fail

      I am also angry that Bill Clinton didn't nab Bin Ladin when he was in custody–and then divided the intelligence community into multiple departments–cutting down communication.

      You can try to blame Bush all you want, but Hillary blew it (and if you want to go back to 9/11, Bill messed up as well).

      January 23, 2013 at 3:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Robin Jones

      There is a difference between "stories" and facts.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • John Illinois

      What people want to know is why repeated requests for more security were denied by Clinton, her peope, Obama or his people. One or all of them have to explain specifically WHY more security was denied.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • ShawnDH

      ...because YOUR GOP House refused to fund embassy security. It's not that hard to understand, but don't let the facts get in the way of your desperate imaginary conspiracy.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • MikeFrye

      IF that were true – don't you think that would be her answer to these ridicuous questions? I think even this Administration has finally learned they've pulled the "Bush", "GOP" trigger too many times to be able to pass that off as an excuse for this one!

      January 23, 2013 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • sly

      John, not surprisingly, you must be unaware that President Obama requested additional security for the Lybian Embassy, and the Tea Party GOP voted it down.

      Details details...

      January 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • Anna

      No, John, that's not what people want to know. This is merely an example of the panicked, flailing of Republicans who lost the popular vote to a black man, in a poor economy, are losing the "culture wars", and who cannot understand why they are no longer relevant. They will do anything they can to try to make this administration look bad because they can no longer make themselves look good.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Boo

      John – read the article.....the Republicans in Congress VETOED more funding for embassy security.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dan

      Funding. The Republicans have been fighting to cut funding. When you cut funding, things like embassy security get reduced.

      January 23, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama

      If you listened to what she said, She never recieved a request.

      January 23, 2013 at 7:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • kckaaos

      Bush and Condi were not asked DOZENS of times for more security.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • CJB

      That's a stupid argument. No one called and said planes are attacking the WTC. They had 7 hours to react and not only did nothing – but told those in command to "stand down". That is treasonous.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • mike

      CJB, prove it. No proof = you're lying.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • cedar rapids

      'They had 7 hours to react and not only did nothing – but told those in command to "stand down". That is treasonous'

      well apart from the bits about 7 hours to react, not doing anything, commanding to stand down and being treasonous you got everything right.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • melpa

      Great comment!

      January 23, 2013 at 2:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • n222s

      I'm perfectly fine with holding Bush and Condi responsible for 9/11. Now, back to the current subject. Who was responsible for the poor decisions surrounding the consulate attack, before, during and after? What was the reason for the video story? What happened to the ambassador's diaries? Where was the prez for the 7 hours of the attack? There are more. But again. Let us hold Bush and Condi responsible. Now, what about this fiasco?

      January 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • Clinton = fail

      Off topic. Hillary screwed up in all phases of her job - Benghazi is a prime example.

      I didn't want war in Iraq. I'm saddened that soldiers and civilians died in battle. I am not happy when soldiers die because of obama's troop surge, or obama's growing Afghanistan war. Is it necessary? Not sure, but obama thinks it is. And soldiers are dying because of it.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • XxMacleodxX

      big difference in a surprise attack and people begging for months for protection and the begging for their lives for hours while they were being attacked

      January 23, 2013 at 3:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      Can she answer the questions? Why the lies in the talking points? it's really not the hard. Of course she didn't know what her own husband was doing in the same building so understandable she wouldn't know here.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tina

      This does not compare to Bush's 911. He at least gave blame to who was responsible. This administration KNEW it was a terrorist attack and they LIED. Why did they lie? That's what we want to know.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • John

      Yes I do. They should all be tried for high treason, convicted, and executed.

      January 23, 2013 at 5:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Waylon

      Whoa Nelly.....Listen, this old lady knew stevens was asking for more security and ignored it. This could have been prevented. How do you prevent an airplane from flying into a building???

      January 23, 2013 at 5:18 pm | Report abuse |
  2. Charlotte

    Whey do they call them "Conservative" Republicans when they refer to the most determinedly ignorant, idealogically obstreperous, and inflexible in the presence of changing facts and reality? That is not "conservative" that is merely puerile and stubborn and obsequious to their campaign funders (Koch and ilk).

    January 23, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mike in NYC

      Wow ... did you break out the big thesaurus for that post? Next time find someone to help you string together your big words in a coherent fashion.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:31 pm | Report abuse |
  3. Jme

    Wow, the liberal nuts are out in full force today. lmao!

    January 23, 2013 at 2:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • Clem

      I guess you like the how Bush put us in an illegal war costing us billions a day. Did you forget how we had NO WMD's....shows you who the DumbA's are. bwuahahhahaha....

      January 23, 2013 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
  4. tuscany590

    Amazing how this women is permitted to sit there, under oath, and lie..Having seen the Senate version of this fiasco, I say the GOP should be ashamed to bark for 4 months and allow this circus. I fully expected the Dems to coddle but not the GOP..

    January 23, 2013 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
  5. clouds9

    HILLARY AND BILL 2016!!!!!!!

    January 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • furnfor1

      God help us all.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • n222s

      Yes, the hag and the perv in 2016

      January 23, 2013 at 3:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • JimB

      She's not running in 2016, and Bill can't run, even for VP.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • IndependentRealityDose

      I guess some people really like incompetence and bald-faced dishonesty. To each his own, I guess...

      January 23, 2013 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
  6. DC

    clearly most of these comments come from uneducated people who speak only ignorance cuz they know not what really happen. as someone how was involved with all this from the inside, it's a matter of fact that Secretary Clinton does so more than meets the eye and you all should be ashamed for speaking without knowing the facts.

    January 23, 2013 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • furnfor1

      yeah, okay. You have credibility just because you posted here and said you do. What do you do on the inside again?

      January 23, 2013 at 2:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • chris

      It's her job, shes top dog in the department and refuses to simply say I take responsibility, I messed up..I'll fix it. Responsibility is so simple...

      January 23, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • scranton

      Please educate yourself before you post, I am embarrassed for you.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dee Keegan

      Interesting that you point others out as uneducated while your post is somewhat unintelligible due to missing words or use of incorrect words.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama

      @Chris- obviously you did not listen to her this morning or her speaking now, she has done all that.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • David

      Yeah, your post sounds really educated and knowledgeable (eye roll)

      January 23, 2013 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • jaana

      ahh so your another liberal "nazi" who does not believe that any criticism of the regime nor expecting the members there of to DO THEIR JOBS.. can be tolerated from the mere fife's in our country.. good job butt head we're headed stratight to dictatorship thanks to people like you..

      January 23, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
  7. Big_D

    What amazes me is the GOP is surprised the consulate was attacked. They rejected paying for the security and now they wonder why it wasn't in place? DO they think it is for free?

    January 23, 2013 at 2:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • scranton

      You should be more concerned that the Obama administration knew Al Qaeda was in the area and that this siege lasted 7 hours and no help was sent when asked for. Typical Obama strategy, blame everyone and deflect, deflect, deflect.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • MikeFrye

      Amazing – so if there was no money to increase security – then why didn't Ms. Clinton take those people out of harms way?!?! Seriously? They asked HER for help! Did SHE forward that information on? C'mon – come up with something besides "Bush" and "GOP" – that's such a tired record.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • jaana

      what does the GOP have to do with this? this is the Obama regime.. he's paying for all kinds of other crap, why did he not think this was important? Let's start making those resposible take responsibility and quit giving them a pass because of their skin color.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • bob

      100% of democrats voted for the budget cuts. Just sayin. Oh and obama signed the bill.

      January 23, 2013 at 5:03 pm | Report abuse |
  8. furnfor1

    What a lying drama queen.

    January 23, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
  9. chris

    Just once I'd like to hear any liberal take responsibility for something. Whats so hard about that?

    January 23, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • Scottish Mama

      I believe Obama said the buck stops here and I take responisiblity, Clinton said again it was her responsibilty. Now what responsibility has Bush and Cheney taken. Any? No

      January 23, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Spock500

      It will be interesting to see if anyone in the hearing brings up the historical perspective and parallels of the Beirut , Lebanon terorrist attacks x 2 in 1983...

      January 23, 2013 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
  10. andres

    It seems that Hillary is the only member of this adminstration who has balls. Too bad the rest gave theirs away or just don't use them

    January 23, 2013 at 2:31 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Jakkfrost

    Don't trust her. BBC doesn't seem too also. Take full responsibility even if it means your career. Why, because that's what real leaders do.

    January 23, 2013 at 2:34 pm | Report abuse |
  12. SlammerBC

    Many of you are missing the point to all of this.

    Hours after the attack many foreign news outlets were reporting an attack on 2 different complexes by heavily armed groups, none of which were caused by protestors. This was common knowledge everywhere except information coming from our WH and many of our news outlets. I have no idea why the WH chose to lie and blame this on protestors, but I'd like to find out.

    January 23, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • HZ

      The white house initially said it was terrorism. They were then told by intelligence people (probably CIA) to change what they said so they did. Most likley a lot of CIA undercover stuff was being done at that site. I'm not saying I understand why the CIA would benefit from the story downplaying terrorism but they don't always tell the public what they are up to or why.

      January 23, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • SlammerBC

      That's a far stretch if you listen to the words coming from the WH initially, it's very unclear in what they were trying to say and then it immediately went to caused by protestors. Meanwhile however, almost all foreign news agency's had it correct with no ambiguity from the very start. Why?

      January 23, 2013 at 2:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • cedar rapids

      You pointed out the difference yourself. The news outlets were saying it was terrorist attack but then thats the news outlets, the same people that rush to get a story out and the more sensational the better. The WH does not really have that luxury, we have seen what happens when claims are made then later found to be false.

      January 23, 2013 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • SlammerBC

      CR, If you can honestly say if Pres. Bush had done the same thing you would think the same thing then I'll buy your argument because its an honest assessment of what you believe. We need accountability not based on party but based on actions. Sadly we don't have this anymore.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:41 pm | Report abuse |
  13. ooftus gooftus

    Lindsey to serve in Iran, R Paulie to Mali, McCain to ret home for ole peeps; Clinton for sainthood!! Or Pres.

    January 23, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
  14. REinAZ

    Anyone who ignores or denies the political nature of the aggressive criticisms seen with Republicans trying to use talking points for political advance against the Obama administration, necessarily accepts and effectively participates in the current major fault of our government – that being politics above all else. Today Republicans, after having experienced their significant downfall with the people who now recognize the Republicans' irresponsible and costly concentration on being "puppets" for "the money" while just depending on their propaganda to con the people and manipulate public opinion, ... are instead of changing to become more honest and responsible to the majority, they just seek to use Benghazi as an issue to fault the Obama administration and try to just falsely raise their own image. Totally disgusting in that it solves nothing and drastically wastes time with more politics as usual and with further polarization of the parties without ever having any real concern for representing the people.

    January 23, 2013 at 2:35 pm | Report abuse |
    • SlammerBC

      Both sides are doing exactly the same thing it depends on what flavor of koolaid you like.

      January 23, 2013 at 4:54 pm | Report abuse |
  15. Scottish Mama

    @jnpa-probably cause he used the C word.

    January 23, 2013 at 2:36 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19