Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally testified about the Obama Administration’s cover-up of the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya– and it was not a pretty sight:
There’s a good commentary from CainTV about Hillary Clinton’s meltdown on the witness stand: “Questioned by Ron Johnson over State Department inaction the night of the Benghazi attacks, Hillary Clinton had a bit of a meltdown during today’s testimony. Johnson asked why Hillary hadn’t done more to determine the validity of the administration’s infamous claim that the attacks sprung from a “spontaneous protest,” and pressed her on the fact that she was still repeating the lie days later. Hillary did her best to avoid the issue, and then started yelling. “The fact is; we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” What difference does it make? It’s the difference between a government that fabricates events to cover-up its failings and a government that presents the truth of unpleasant facts. It’s the difference between a State Department that lies with impunity and one which is beholden to the people it serves. It’s the difference between an out-of-control bureaucracy and a government of the people. It’s the difference between reality and fiction.”
Hillary Clinton also attempted to halt Congress’ probing questions about the cover-up by feigning tears (probably setting back the potential for a female U.S. President by 50 years):
First, CIA Director David Petraeus resigned two days after Obama’s re-election over an “extramarital affair” with his biographer. Conveniently for Obama, Petraeus had been scheduled to testify in front of Congress next week about the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya– and now that Petraeus has resigned, he won’t be testifying. Now, it turns out that Petraeus had personally investigated the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya, and we won’t hear vital information that could have blown the lid off of the Obama Administration’s obvious cover-up of this national security failure. It’s also been revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is going to resign, so it’s doubtful we’ll hear anything about Benghazi from her either. All we have to go on are the words of the father of Petraeus’s “mistress,” who implied the bombshell story is just a smoke screen for something bigger.
Update: The scandal gets worse for Obama– because Petraeus actually gave honest testimony to Congress on November 16th. He admitted that he “knew almost immediately after the September 11th attack, that the group Ansar al Sharia, the al Qaeda sympathizing group in Libya was responsible for the attacks” despite his prior Congressional testimony that the attack at the U.S. Consulate in Libya began as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim youtube clip. Petraeus has now testified that the CIA’s talking points to the media and the American people were edited to downplay the terrorist connection. While intelligence officials say they don’t know who changed the CIA’s talking points, what’s clear is that Obama benefited from Petraeus’ false testimony in September 2012. During the 2012 presidential election, Obama continuously asserted that Al Qaeda was ‘on the run’ while his supporters chanted “bin Laden is dead and GM is alive.’ Because of Petraeus’ false testimony, Obama could claim that his reaction to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was justified based on the intelligence available at the time. Furthermore, Obama was able to deny the occurrence of another Islamic terrorist attack on U.S. soil for 2 weeks before Election Day. A mere two days after Obama got re-elected, Petraeus’ extra-marital affair was exposed and Petraeus was thrown under the bus by the Obama Administration.