On Oct. 23, 2015, Hillary Rodham Clinton faced the House Select Committee on Benghazi to answer questions about the 2012 terror attacks on the American consulate in Libya, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The 11-hour hearing, described by most Democrats as a “political charade” meant to discredit Clinton, has been largely viewed by political observers as a good opportunity for the 2016 presidential hopeful to showcase her foreign policy experience to the electorate. Clinton said she was committed to telling the nation the truth about the Benghazi attacks and find nonpartisan solutions to future problems that may befall the country again. However, some are of the considered view that although Clinton survived the Benghazi Hearing onslaught, she did not tell the whole truth.
Speaking on one of the Fox News programs after the marathon hearings, Ed Henry and Greta Van Susteren were quick to point out that Clinton has come out unscathed. The duo agreed that she looked “presidential” and was in command of the proceedings. They also pointed out her score in the Benghazi narrative has unsettled the Republicans, who had hoped to hear an outburst from Clinton as she once did in 2013, when she blurted “what difference does it make” to the senate committee.
One thing that came out of the hearing was the bipartisan politics in America. The House Select seemed to be divided on political affiliation. The Democrats in the committee viewed the hearing as a trap meant to entangle Clinton, who might become the first woman President of the United States. Adam Schiff, a Democrat from California, described the Benghazi Hearing as a “prosecution,” premised on interrogation tactics. This was an apparent reference to the stern questioning from Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chairperson of the committee. At one time, Martha Roby, an Alabama Republican wanted to know what the former Secretary of State was doing alone “the whole night,” and why she left the State Department for home the night of the attacks in Benghazi.
Elijah Cummings, the Maryland Democrat, consolidated what many viewed as a partisan committee, when he loudly said, “I don’t know what we want from you!” The veteran politician then told Clinton that the House Committee on Benghazi has “wasted’ more than $4 million of taxpayers’ money on a futile effort that is aimed at derailing her presidential campaign. In a post for the NBC, Chuck Todd described the committee as a theater which the former Secretary of State expertly carried out. He then added, “[It] was a victory for Hillary Clinton and an overwhelming defeat for the House of Republicans.”
However, the Conservatives strongly believe the former Secretary of State was not forthcoming with the truth. While some acknowledge that Clinton did survive the Benghazi Hearing onslaught, questions are still being asked about the e-mails received and sent by her during 2011 and 2012. The Republicans sitting in the committee wanted to know why there were diminished numbers of electronic mails after the death of the Libyan Dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2012 than the previous year. In their opinion, this showed that the State Department was not interested in the fate of Ambassador Stevens and his staff when the situation went out of control in Benghazi. To which the former First Lady replied, “I didn’t conduct my business for the State Department on e-mails.”
By Shepherd Mutsvara
Edited by Leigh Haugh
Fox News: Hilary Clinton Showed Us Glimpse of Her Soul at Benghazi Hearing. It Was Chilling
Wall Street Journal: Hillary Clinton Testifies in Benghazi Hearing
The Atlantic: What Conservative Media Say About Benghazi Hearing
Image Courtesy of nznationalparty’s Flickr Page – Creative Commons License