« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Hillary’s irrelevant testimony, WMD intel and Matt Ryan

By: Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary)  |  January 23rd, 2013 at 01:01 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

No intel could have proven that Saddam had no WMD and no words from the Secretary of State’s lips can render her incompetent performance competent

Matt Ryan is a generally competent NFL quarterback who has led my Atlanta Falcons to their best consecutive seasons’ run since he took over for Michael Vick five years ago. But I saw his two turnovers in the second half of their NFC Championship Game loss to the San Francisco 49ers last Sunday. No post-game news conference can change the fact of his responsibility (and those of other teammates) for the failure of his team to reach the Super Bowl.

What has this to do with Hillary Clinton’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees today, much less the ancient story of false intel on WMD stockpiles in Iraq before our 2003 invasion? With respect to the latter, it is next to impossible to prove a negative, so that, especially after 9/11, a lack of intelligence identifying the presence of WMD in Iraq could not have outweighed the public behavior of Saddam Hussein consistent with the presence of such weapons coupled with the risk that he would use them again, as he had in the past.

With respect to the former, Secretary Clinton is no Matt Ryan. For the record, the Falcons have gone 56-24 (57-28 counting playoff games) since Ryan took over as a rookie starting QB in 2008. By contrast, what is Mrs. Bill Clinton’s public record since going pro?

Her first act as President Barack Obama and America’s chief diplomat was to restore diplomatic relations in 2009 with, in her words, the Bashar Hafez “reformer” al-Assad-led Syrian regime. Since the 2011 Arab Spring-inspired protests, the Reformer has slaughtered over 40,000 Syrians in the streets.

Hillary’s second major initiative abroad was to “re-set” relations with Russia. Since the 2009 re-set, President Vladamir Putin has supported terror regimes from Syria to Iran and regularly and publicly taunts President Obama concerning our national debt and hostility to free enterprise, no less. Moreover, the re-set didn’t prevent Obama from revealing a secret “flexibility” plan to gut America’s nuclear defenses after the 2012 election while, speaking to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev over an open mic.

Finally, concerning the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, we don’t need testimony from Mrs. Clinton to know that:

  1. Libyan embassy and consulate personnel had requested that the Secretary of State complaining of inadequate security due to threats from al Qaeda and other terrorists groups only weeks before the anniversary of 9/11;
  2. Four terrorist attacks occurred in Benghazi during the 12 months before the 9/11/12 attacks there;
  3. Security was inadequate on the day of the attacks that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans stationed there; and
  4. Hillary blamed the attacks on an anti-Mohamed video days later.

She was Susan Rice, the serial video-blamer, before anyone knew who the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations was:

On Sept. 14, 2012, three days after the assault at Benghazi, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke at the transfer of remains ceremony to honor the four Americans killed. The White House published video of their remarks.

After lauding the four slain Americans, Clinton said “This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”

Emails released late Tuesday provide evidence that, contrary to Clinton’s remarks on 9-14, on the evening of 9-11 and just two hours into the attack, Clinton had been made aware that terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was claiming responsibility for the attack. The United States had a drone or maybe multiple drones overhead, feeding video of the battle back to the State Department and the White House Situation Room. That video allowed members of the administration to monitor the battle in real time.

Her record as Secretary of State: 0-3

Other “professional accomplishments” include twice voting against funding U.S. armed forces in the field while the junior Senator from New York and achieving “honorable friend” status with Senator John McCain in the Senate Cloakroom. She was elected to the U.S. Senate, so her composite record as a D.C. pro stands at 1-4-1.

But didn’t Hillary Rodham Clinton perform the “job” of First Lady mostly from the West Wing of the White House? Fine, so let’s include her eight years of  achievements as a “full partner” in Bill Clinton’s presidency:

  • White House Travel Office
  • Vince Foster suicide and Rose Law Firm documents
  • Hillarycare
  • Puerto Rican terrorists pardoned

Finally, while a heavy favorite to win the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination, her and Bill’s vaunted Clinton Political Machine failed to organize caucus states. Her non-amateur record now stands at 1-8-1, but feeling generous in our post-Inaugural glee let’s consider Bill Clinton’s “I do”, achieving victim status at Rick Lazio’s expense and taking white racist bitter clinger votes in the 2008 Pennsylvania Democratic primary away from Barack Obam, as three “wins”.

Final professional First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State composite Hillary Rodham Clinton record in the District of Columbia and the Empire State: 4-8-1

Again she is no Matt Ryan and no matter what she says today or what the CIA could dig up, save for proof the real Hillary has been held hostage since not baking cookies for Gennifer Flowers while a robot Stepford wife assumed her identity until its batteries ran down after a fainting spell, can turn a failed record into a competent favorite to win the nomination of a responsible political party to succeed Barack Obama as the 45th President of the United States at noon, four years from last Sunday.

But then again, she is a Democrat and the 2012 electorate re-hired a worse failure than her.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Editor – Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor – Political Daily

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist – Examiner.com

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • westcoastpatriette

    I would have to add one more “accomplishment” for Hillary when she was a full partner in Bill Clinton’s presidency and that is that she uncovered a vast right-wing conspiracy to destroy her husband when he was caught messing around with cigars and a young intern named Monica. That, of course, would certainly qualify her as a credible witness in today’s Benghazi testimony.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Hillary, as per usual, played the poor female victim card in the form of a hysterical hissy fit.

  • http://www.TerriersOfTheRight.blogspot.com Flagstaff

    Part of another comment I posted about the hearings:

    “Today’s hearing illustrates very well the problem we have with Congressional Republicans–they are lazy and unorganized. Maybe disorganized….

    ANY of us could have come up with better questions than those that were directed at Ms. Clinton. Therefore, I can only conclude that the Republican questioners were too lazy to think about their questions in advance and too disorganized to come together to create a strategy. Or, they really weren’t interested in getting enlightening answers, only in providing Ms. Clinton with a chance to repeat her false narrative.

    Finally, it shows us clearly that there is NO Congressional Republican leadership. As bad a leader as Obama is, he at least EXISTS. SOMEBODY is giving the Democrats direction. Our leader is an empty chair who didn’t see fit to formulate a strategy to deal with the testimony they knew they’d hear.”

    We don’t plan, and when we DO plan we don’t plan on what to do it our first plan comes a cropper. There is no strategic thinking at the top of the Republican Party. The Democrats have it, and they will continue to whup our butts until we recognize that shortcoming, among others.

  • David

    Will our loyal Democrat neighbors turn away from Hillary after her underwhelming performance before the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees? The answer is no. I didn’t see Beckel’s reaction on The Five, but I’m willing to bet he bent over to carry her water as all good Democrat sycophants do and will, when she runs for President against Joe the Dumber. Watch and see. She’ll be treated as a victim because “mean” Republicahs had the audacity to challenge her on Benghazi and “it didn’t matter” four people are dead… Can conservative people make a difference? Maybe- if we’re willing to hold these people accountable. That means holding your neighbors accountable for allowing this circus to go on. Do I think we’ll do that? Sadly, no. We haven’t yet, so, I’m not convinced conservatives have the guts.

  • David

    Yep, and that’s enough to get her elected when she runs for President. I mean, besides Hilary, look at the clowns we have in office now- our neighbors voted for them.

  • jiminga

    The congressional hearings were intended to absolve Hillary as an apology for throwing her under the bus in 2008. They were nothing but the first step toward her nomination in 2016. The 2016 “race” has begun.

  • mhorner

    Totally agree with Flagstaff. Almost any person of average intelligence could have formulated better questions than were posed to Hillary. They allowed her to filibuster most questions which took up most of the time that the questioners had. The Democratic questioners were totally worthless of course. When Hillary was “banshee screaming” the statement “What does it matter about what caused the assault” I would have literally taken her apart, verbally of course. As a trained interrogator you also never show deference to the person you are interrogating. Remember the softball interview of Bill Clinton on national TV? If I had been Senator Johnson I would have shot back “What does it matter? Four brave men died because of your lack of leadership! You then proceeded to lie about the fact that the assault was a coordinated, pre-planned assault by Al Qaeda. Who directed you to lie about this incident, Hillary?”

  • rj145

    A simple question yet to be answered is: Who gave the order to stand down? As far as the hearings are concerned, it appears to me that the “fix was in” from the git go. The hearing was more theater than substance.

  • http://www.ajharaldson.com lakeworthcane

    I agree with you. The republicans aren’t asking Clinton the questions that could at least identify the Benghazi incident’s potential gravity.

    Americans were under attack for several hours, requested support several times, and each time their requests were denied, even though help was immediately available. The denials purportedly came from the White House. So it appears that somebody at the White House wanted those Americans killed.

    In other words, the Benghazi incident looks like a “hit.”

    A lot of “conservative” columnists are publicly supposing that the Obama administration was and is trying to conceal its foreign-policy failures. Maybe that’s true, and maybe it isn’t. But I don’t believe it. My sense is that something more sinister was afoot in Libya: something more deliberate than a mere “foreign-policy failure.” Those four Americans, at least one of whom was “researching” arms sales, had discovered something in Libya that people in the White House didn’t want anybody to know, and they were silenced, permanently.

    But back when Bill Clinton was under impeachment, the House impeachment-committee investigator had come up with over 20 criminal charges against Bill Clinton. The investigator–a federal prosecutor and lifelong democrat–also found sufficient evidence to pursue rape charges in Arkansas (against Bill Clinton) and campaign finance charges against both Clinton and Gore for taking money from what later turned out to be Chinese intelligence.

    So, the then republican-controlled senate had more than enough criminal evidence against Clinton to not only remove him from office, but to likely land him in prison, and certainly enough to prosecute Al Gore, too.

    But the republicans backed down then–prompting the book “Sell Out” from the subsequently enraged investigator–just like they’re backing down now.

    It’s the second time in 15 years that congressional republicans apparently have or had evidence of serious felonies against democrats, and the second time they’re backing down. The republicans are obstructing justice as much as or perhaps more than the democrats.

    My sense is that this routinely happens among federal politicians on both sides of the aisle. They protect each other, thereby–however indirectly–protecting themselves. They don’t want Americans to know how federal politicians go about doing their jobs. They don’t want us to know the level of corruption that exists in our federal government. It probably behooves them all to ensure that such information doesn’t become public, and the ensuing criminal trials, convictions and sentences don’t occur.

    The Watergate scandal was the exception. But former Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham was behind that. She apparently had some personal issue with Nixon, and she didn’t back down until he’d resigned.

    But I think the general practice among beltway politicos is: they make deals. They keep the nasty truth private, keep each other out of prison, and thereby preserve the sacred myth of honor and authority they all enjoy.

    But if you want to talk football . . .. The NCAA is now admitting that some of its members, who were investigating charges against the University of Miami Hurricanes, improperly obtained information. The original charges were published in a Yahoo! sports story after the sports writer heard them from slimeball ponzi-schemer Nevin Shapiro, who is now in prison for ripping off almost a billion dollars from would-be investors. The NCAA investigators hired–for pay–Shapiro’s sleazy lawyer, Maria Elena Perez–a UM law grad, no less–to obtain the information.

    The NCAA broke the law. The lawyer broke the law. Everybody knew it. But the Yahoo! sports writer somehow fell off his heroic horse when it came to reporting the scandal.

    Miami Herald stories about Nevin Shapiro indicate that he’s about as sleazy as they come–just one really stinky story after another about the guy–and he more or less bought access to UM football and basketball players via a $50,000 donation to the school (which the school hurriedly returned after the story broke). The Herald published photos of UM president (and former Clinton cabinet member) Donna Shalala accepting Shapiro’s donation. Shapiro’s lawyer and the NCAA have now been tainted by his contagious sleaze, as has been UM’s football and basketball programs.

    Does Nevin Shapiro know the Clintons? I don’t know, but I suspect that he, Bill and Hillary would all get along very well.

    They could all share the same cell.

  • BA Cyclone

    Surely you are not suprised? A Senate oversight meeting is 12 parts theater to 1 part substance going into the game, regardless of topic or target.

  • hoosierheart

    The only thing that became apparent during yesterday’s questioning of Hillary is that our people in Congress are wearing silkier panties than Hillary. With perhaps half a dozen exceptions, these girly men avoided asking any of the tough questions the public wants answers to and allowed Hillary, a consummate liar who has trampled the truth since her days as a Watergate lawyer, to once again get away without being caught in the web of her deceit. Oh well, what does it matter?

  • wumingren

    Given that the majority of legislators are/were lawyers, you’d think they’d have done a better job of taking advantage of an emotional outburst from the witness. Of course, that emotion might have been faked for effect, but still, if she had gotten off her game, the questioner might have been able to get an unguarded slip of the tongue out of her. I was underwhelmed by the whole charade.

  • wumingren

    And the media will accuse Republicans of living in the past when they bring up any of Hillary!’s failures during the campaign. “Oh, that’s ancient history,” they’ll proclaim, putting it off limits, even as they headline the childhood mistakes of the Republican candidate.

  • paco12348

    Very few real Republicans in Congress. A few had guts, Rand Paul was the best. If McCain had actually asked some questions he might have done ok. Most of the Republicans just vented and almost all, if not all of the Democrats glowed with pride for their 2016 candidate. Never seen so much a** kissing. Absolutely NOTHING was gained from the dual travesties. Shame on everyone!

  • Ari

    Why do we beat around the bush dancing on our tiptoes?

    If we remain complacent with fraud, embezzlement, payola on the scale of
    billions,
    and even murder and treason against our own Embassy personal.

    We deserve the Obama’s, Clintons, Carters, and Lyndon Johnsons if we
    continue to sheepishly accept these and unending litanies of BIG LIES.

    Now, in the internet age, we are all just as responsible as they, because we
    KNOW or can know, and choose not to do so. No one can avoid collective
    responsibility. Either justice, truth, morality, ethics rule, or we just cower
    in the hole of slavery we deserve.

    BTW, even the Clinton’s
    folded to BHO in 2008. Hillary actually won the nomination* but caved after
    Bill’s “best friend” Bill Gwatney, Arkansas State Dem Party Chairman, was shot
    to death, the day after pledging to floor nominate Hillary. Her second Super-
    delegate, a black woman pledged in Ohio, also died the very next day. Obama’s

    rampant 2008 primary voter fraud was proven and nothing happened. After the 2
    deaths, Bill stopped saying “if Obama is Certified to run for President…” So some really serious back room extortion had to have occurred. Also dropped lawsuits.

    Can’t say they did not earn that Karma.

    In Benghazi, Yes, it was a “Hit” on Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other
    brave Americans were sacrificed to hide responsibility for upwards of 20,000
    surface to air missiles lost in Libya’s Arab Spring, (probably by BHO conspiracy) to the most radical of Arab ISLAMIC Militants. ** Only a few have been used so far, some in Syria. Many missiles went to Turkey,supposedly our ally. Hillary, Obama, and our intelligence community WATCHED the Embassy attack live. One of 2 naval commanders in the Mediterranean that evening refused direct DC orders and was scrambling to save the embassy even after told to STAND DOWN, he was immediately relieved of command on highest authority.
    This was BHO covering his Arab Spring DEBACLE, and the potential panic that
    public knowledge might cause with travelers wondering when air liners all over
    the world would start falling from the sky by thousands of surface to air hits.
    Makes FAST & FURIOUS look like child play.

    Oh, and of course, totally unrelated, it would have prevented O’s reelection.

    Treason it is and should be so addressed. If we let these treasonous acts go,
    we do not deserve to be called Americans, or Christians, or Jews and certainly
    not “Free.”

    “Slaves” will be to glorious a title for all who ignore such blatant, treasonous wrongs.

    * Documentaries 2008 Dem primary frauds, more

    http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2010/07/documentary-charges-obama-got.html

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/07/11/we-will-not-be-silenced-democrats-produce-documentary-alleging-rampant-vote-fraud-by-obama-campaign-vs-hillary-in-2008-primaries/

    IF ONLY Repubs were the bull dogs Dems are… sad but only very few aren’t wimps!

    ** BENGHAZI- Within hours even Ex Military intelligence KNEW that Obama, State
    Dept, and Military knew the truth of BENGHAZI watching as was happening everything
    on live feeds from drones and ground. YET, For over week State Dept,.&
    Obama denied knowing even in the Presidential debate.

    FOX
    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xuryt3_lt-col-shaffer-obama-watched-the-benghazi-attack-in-the-situation-room_news

    More details contained in Jones’ interview of Lt. Col Tony Schaffer:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IGPHm2bpryc

  • Don T.

    Great diary. What I learned? Our congress critters do not know how to ask planned simple questions and then follow up with clarifying questions. But they do know how to make speeches.

  • rightlane1111

    For most of the questioners…it was only about having their “face” time. Conceited.

  • duncer

    I think that the republicans know the truth but were careful not to reveal it because they might then be politically obligated to press for impeachment that they know would never succeed with a democratic controlled senate. Obama,s arrogance about the constitution and other laws is a direct result of this immunity.