Showing posts with label what difference does it make. Show all posts
Showing posts with label what difference does it make. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Hillary: There’s more to find on Benghazi and the IRS

Hillary:There’smoretofindonBenghaziand

Hillary: There’s more to find on Benghazi and the IRS

posted at 8:01 am on June 18, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Who knew the former Secretary of State was such a fan of getting answers? When Congress tried to get answers about the failures that led to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Hillary Clinton infamously erupted in anger, asking “What difference at this point does it make?” Now that she’s preparing a run for the presidency, it apparently makes more difference now than it did then:

There are still too many unanswered questions about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday, even as she welcomed the capture of a suspected mastermind of the assaults.

“There are answers, not all of them, not enough, frankly,” she said of the September 2012 attacks on a diplomatic and CIA compound that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others.

“I’m still looking for answers, because it was a confusing and difficult time,” Clinton said.

Her remarks, delivered during a CNN interview in Washington to promote her new book, appeared to lend credence to a central claim by Republicans that there is more to learn about the Benghazi tragedy. The Obama administration has said that after multiple investigations, there is little new to say about the attacks.

It’s also a statement against her own interests, and a sharp change from the past 18 months since the issuance of the Accountability Review Board. Since December 2012, Hillary has insisted that the ARB report was the sine qua non of Benghazi answers, but that report hasn’t convinced many Americans — perhaps because the ARB spent more time avoiding accountability than pursuing it. In this answer, Hillary has thrown away the ARB fig leaf and finally acknowledged that it didn’t provide any comprehensive answers at all, thanks to its relentless focus on everyone below the level of the actual decision-makers.

That’s not the only investigation Hillary endorsed yesterday, either. During her interview on Fox, Hillary told Greta van Susteren that the probe on the IRS targeting scandal and abuse of power needs to continue, too:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says “the investigation needs to continue” into possible wrongdoing at the IRS — a position that puts her at odds with many fellow Democrats.

In an interview Tuesday night, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren noted that President Obama has called allegations the IRS targeted conservative groups a “phony scandal.” Van Susteren added a simple question: “Is it a phony scandal?”

“Well, I think that any time the IRS is involved, for many people, it’s a real scandal,” Clinton began. “And I think, though, that there are some challenges that rightly need to be made to what is being said, and I assume that the inquiry will continue.”

“So I don’t have the details,” Clinton continued, “but I think what President Obama means is there really wasn’t a lot of evidence there that this was deliberate, but that’s why the investigation needs to continue.”

Hillary tried to salvage the “phony scandal” slam by saying it applies to “the circus” around the scandal, but that’s clearly not what the White House has said about it. Barack Obama went on national TV in February to proclaim that there’s “not even a smidgen of corruption” at the IRS — while Lerner takes the Fifth and the agency loses two years of e-mails related to the targeting practice. In the same interview, Obama also claimed that the White House had already shared all the answers on Benghazi, too. That argument was intended not to criticize “the circus” but to preclude the very investigations that Hillary now endorses, at least nominally.

This is nothing more than Hillary putting distance between herself and Obama … and on Benghazi, between Hillary 2012 and Hillary 2016.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, June 5, 2014

Harry Reid on when he got a heads up on the Bergdahl: “What difference does it make?”

HarryReidonwhenhegotaheads

Harry Reid on when he got a heads up on the Bergdahl: “What difference does it make?”

posted at 2:01 pm on June 5, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, I realize that modern politics is all about brand-building but “whatevs” is a weird brand to choose. Hillary uttered these same words during her Benghazi testimony, now here’s Dingy recycling the sentiment for the Bergdahl swap. We’re one apathetic Obama soundbite away from a campaign commercial. Given his waning interest in his job these days, I’m thinking we’ll eventually get it.

Reid’s being asked here if it’s true that the White House notified him on Friday that the Bergdahl swap was impending, which would be curious since apparently no one else — no one — in Congress received that courtesy. Boehner wasn’t told, in case you’re wondering whether Reid’s tip-off was something they did as a matter of course for the majority leader in each chamber. Could be there’s a simple explanation, though: Maybe Reid was told on Saturday, after the deal had gone down, like everyone else and was simply mistaken about when he was notified. Right? Wrong, via John Ekdahl:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that the White House told him about the Bergdahl deal on Friday — before it actually happened. That would be notable because it appears nobody else in Congress was told about the deal until after the fact on Saturday, ABC’s JONATHAN KARL notes. That prompted a senior administration official to urgently tell reporters traveling with the President that Senator Reid was mistaken and that he had been told on Saturday just like everybody else. So, Senator Reid simply got his days mixed up, right? Maybe not. Shortly after the senior administration official sought to correct Senator Reid, Senator Reid’s spokesman sought to correct the senior adminstration official. “This is mildly awkward,” tweeted Reid spokesman Adam Jentelson, “but someone at the WH must be confused…” In a second tweet, Jentelson added: “We were alerted earlier in the week that a significant notification was imminent & learned on Fri that Bergdahl op was going fwd.” Asked about that, the senior administration official had a new response: “No comment.”

Reid says Friday, the White House says Saturday, Reid says no, really, it was Friday, the White House clams up. My theory on this yesterday was that Reid is lying through his teeth, trying to give Obama a tiny bit of political cover in claiming that he did notify at least one member of Congress before the swap happened — not 30 days earlier, as required by law, but a little bit earlier just to prove his good faith. That doesn’t add up, though. If Reid was going to lie to protect O, he should have said, “Yeah, he told me about this 31 days ago. He complied with the statute.” That wouldn’t have explained why Reid was the only member of Congress he told but it would have been something. Also, if Reid was intent on lying, he shouldn’t have taken the “whatevs” approach here. He should have been firm on Friday, i.e. “you’re damned right I received advance notice, just as Congress requires the president to provide.”

Sounds like what happened is that Reid did get a heads up from someone on Friday and either assumed that all the other key players in Congress had received one too or couldn’t keep his big mouth shut when someone asked him about his unique privilege. Being a sleazebag hatchet man for the White House’s enemy du jour has earned him some special treatment, no? Exit question: If it’s true that the Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if the prisoner swap leaked before it happened, why on earth would anyone have risked telling Reid or anyone else beforehand?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair