"Now sequestration will be very damaging to the State Department and USAID if it does come to pass, because it throws the baby out with the bath," Clinton said, referring to the United States Agency for International Development, which administers civilian foreign aid.
While the State Department does need to make cuts in certain areas, "there are also a lot of very essential programs … that we can't afford to cut more of," she added.
Every administration ever has lied to us about something. Sometimes they just don't know the best way to keep people from flipping out. I think the Republicans would have been all tra la laaa la la had this been a Republican President and the Democrats would be filled with faux outrage for the dead, which is actually outrage for the fact their guy isn't in office and doing the lying.
Mrs. Clinton had a hard job, ask Condi Rice if the job was easy ... Nope it is a hard one and if you have a president who never wants to be wrong it is even harder.
Also, the outrage could be driven in part from a near perfect foreign policy from the Obama Administration with the crowning point being the Tea-Bagging of W by killing Bin Laden.
I am very sad for the death of four diplomats, but I think the State Department handled it very well, despite all the confusion at the very start. If anything, this is proof that the Accountability Review Board process works very well and is a good way to figure out problems.
And ... we disagree. The FP moves have not been good.
The State Department is so underfunded that it can't afford security for its Embassy in Tripoli and for an 11 acre luxury compound in Benghazi and the CIA annex in Benghazi? How many other facilities did they have in Libya?
When did the team from Spain arrive in Behghazi after being delayed 90 minutes to change clothes? The attack on the CIA annex was much later after the attack on the compound and they could have assisted with that. The team in Italy was even closer. Clearly the POTUS and the SOS didn't want it to appear that we would use military force to stop terrorists.
Hillary stood next to Obama in the Rose Garden the next day when he mentioned terror attacks in general at the end of his comments, but Susan Rice went on five television shows after that calling him a liar because she said it was a protest in response to the video.
What difference does it make if the SOS and the POTUS lie to us? Somebody will still vote for them anyway.
The pub politicians did another great job.... of making a donk even more popular.
The State Department handled it well? Lying about it until it was obvious even to the MSM that it was all bullshit? That's handling it well? Confusion? There wasn't any confusion. They all watched it go on in real time. They weren't too confused to not send in any help even when it was obvious that help was needed. They weren't too confused to create a cover up and tell that ridiculous story about a video. BHO wasn't too confused to go to bed as his ambassador was being ****d and murdered and then skip his intel meeting and go party in Vegas comparing his campaign volunteers to the four dead.
I have posted this once, I will post it again.
The timeline matches up and this bizarre anger with the president, despite doing everything possible is more proof that the extreme right wing is taking over. Come on cub, you are the voice of reason in this thread for the moderate right.
She makes the Senator from Wisconsin to look like an absolute shit. The thing that strikes me as bizarre, is that Hillary is concerned with facts, and with the deaths of those diplomats. The Senator is concerned about bad information given on a Sunday talk show as the story was still developing.
Her typical Clinton fake pre-planned emotional outburst designed to avoid answering questions. Her replacement the war criminal will be just as shitty as Hillary.
Americans died and they shouldn't have died. That's why people are outraged. If Obama and the Sheep would've given a rat's ass about something as practical as security, they may still be alive.
She is not a good SOS because the people she picked to help her ignored the realities of the region and four Americans died because of it. The story the Obamanites spun regarding the YT video was created out of panic. They knew they were politically vulnerable (i.e., responsible) and they hoped their pals in the media wouldn't ask too many questions.
Hillary's false indignation about being questioned today is what is really laughable. It's so transparent. But the people who want to believe she and the Obamanator do nothing wrong will gladly lap up her act as something genuine, just as they did when she "came under fire" on the tarmac ... and just as they did when she feigned surprise and anger when her husband got getting a hummer from an intern.
The idiots on the Right are making a big deal out of a YouTube video, Secretary Clinton is trying to explain what happened, and what steps the State Department has taken and is implementing to prevent this from happening. Turns out lack of funding which is controlled by congress contributed to the incident, but instead we get questions about a YouTube video of all things...
I am just getting political theater and it seems that there is not a rational person on this forum (besides cub) who can present an un-emotional argument on this topic.
The NYT reporting that three of the surviving terrorists captured in algeria claim to have taken part in Benghazi. Outstanding. What difference does it make!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The reason conservatives are outraged about the idea of a video is because this administration blamed a video for a failure. You can't seriously try to convince anyone it was a Congressional lack of funding--this President is extremely happy to blame Congress for anything he can. He's trying that now that the video thing has blown up in his face. If there were no criminal acts going on in the CIA safe house, at the very least the administration ignored repeated requests for increased security by the ambassador. At minimum there is responsibility with this administration for ignoring the requests for more guards that led to the deaths of Americans.
If you want to say that some of the questioning from the conservatives is politically motivated, I can't totally disagree with that. But I do know that if they didn't ask these questions they would be doing us all a disservice.
If you're the SOS of the U.S., you need to be able to handle tough questions without losing your cool.
The sheep want to be ruled not lead and they are getting just what they asked for.
Obama lied from the beginning. So did Hillary. So did Rice. He mmade that absurd, pant wetting speech to the UN. He and Hillary embarrassed themselves with that PSA to Pakeestan. Rice, well we know about her. This was a save our ass action from the beginning. The lying and covering up is horrible. No one expected her to come clean yesterday. Sadly nothing will come of this.
Clinton was saying focusing on the motivation of the murderers is less important than correcting security, communciation, etc, to make it less likely that Americans are murdered - regardless of their motivation.
Nice try though.
What you brought up about Sandy Hook is not analogous. Clinton wasnt asked to talk about the (actual) motivation she was asked why the Obama Administration lied about it in the first place. Her answer, literally, was "What difference does it make?".
That quote alone should sink the S.S. Hillary Clinton's career as it demonstrates she has a perverse and warped interpretation of what the role of government and the job of the President is. It wont though, because as has been demonstrated the sheep want to be ruled.