BACKGROUND: The Republican National Committee suffers memory loss. We hope. Otherwise, Republicans are simply playing politics on the backs of 4 dead Americans. Republicans ask questions that have been answered, verified and answered again. Republicans are trying to stop Hillary Clinton from being President. And, through it all, Republicans are demeaning the service of dedicated, patriotic Americans, wasting taxpayer money and turning a blind eye to the truth. Yes, we hope Republicans suffer memory loss. Otherwise, shame on the Republicans:
ASKED: Why was Hillary Clinton not interviewed by the accountability review board?
ANSWERED: 5/12/13: Pickering: “We had a session with the secretary…We felt that was more than sufficient.”“We had a session with the secretary. It took place very near the end of the report. It took place when we had preliminary judgments about who made the decisions, where they were made, and by whom they were reviewed. We felt that that was more than sufficient for the preponderance of evidence that we had collected to make our decisions and you know that our decisions was two of those people should be separated from their jobs. Two others failed in their performance.” [Meet the Press, 5/12/13]
ASKED: Four mid-level state officials took the fall for Benghazi, but were later reinstated by Secretary Kerry. Is this the State Department’s idea of accountability?
ANSWERED: 12/29/12: Chairman, House Committee on Foreign Affairs: “The board severely critiques a handful of individuals, and they have been held accountable.” ‘The [Accountability Review] board severely critiques a handful of individuals, and they have been held accountable,’ said Representative Ed Royce, Republican of California, who is the incoming chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.” [New York Times, 12/19/12]
ANSWERED: 8/20/13: State Department Spokesperson: As the State Department spokesperson noted, the reassignment of the four employees “reaffirmed the Accountability Review Board’s findings, which were that they saw serious concerns – or concerns with some of the steps and actions of these four individuals, but that they did not determine that there had been a breach of duty.”
ASKED: Why were additional security requests denied or ignored by Washington?
ANSWERED: 4/25/13: Washington Post Fact-Checker: The claim that Clinton denied funding is “absurd” and a “whopper.” “One of the headline items in the [House Republican] report was the claim that an April 19, 2012, State Department cable acknowledged a request from the embassy in Libya for additional security assets but ordered that a planned drawdown would proceed as scheduled. ‘The cable response to Tripoli bears Secretary Clinton’s signature,’ the report said, referring to the message as ‘the April cable from Clinton.’ […] [Congressman Darrell] Issa presented this as a ‘gotcha’ moment, but it relies on an absurd understanding of the word ‘signature.’ […] [T]he State Department is a vast organization and even office directors can send out a cable that ends up with the secretary’s ‘signature.’ At this point, Issa has no basis or evidence to show that Clinton had anything to do with this cable — any more than she personally approved a cable on proper e-mail etiquette. The odds are extremely long that Clinton ever saw or approved this memo, giving us confidence that his inflammatory and reckless language qualifies as a ‘whopper.’” [‘Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it,’ Washington Post, 4/25/13]
ASKED: Why were additional security requests denied or ignored by Washington?
ANSWERED: 1/15/14: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, page 41]
ANSWERED: 5/30/14: Hard Choices: “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were.” “‘There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,’ she writes. ‘It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
ASKED: Why does Hillary Clinton continue to defend Susan Rice’s Sunday show account of the Benghazi attack?
ANSWERED: 1/15/14: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, page 41]
ANSWERED: 5/30/14: Sec. Clinton correctly noted Susan Rice’s statements corresponded with current intelligence assessments. According to Politico’s coverage of the chapter in “Hard Choices” about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, “Intelligence officials didn’t know Rice would use them [the talking points], Clinton writes… ‘Susan stated what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time,’ Clinton writes. ‘That was the best she or anyone could do. Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people. There is a difference between getting something wrong, and committing wrong. A big difference that some have blurred to the point of casting those who made a mistake as intentionally deceitful.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]