Defiant Clinton takes on lawmakers on Libya attack
Thursday, January 24, 2013
WASHINGTON (AP) — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered fiery rejoinders Wednesday to Republican critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the deadly attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi, facing off with lawmakers who included potential 2016 presidential rivals.
At times emotional and frequently combative, Clinton rejected GOP suggestions in two congressional hearings that the administration tried to mislead the country about the Sept. 11 attack that killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans. She insisted the State Department is moving swiftly and aggressively to strengthen security at diplomatic posts worldwide.
In her last formal testimony before Congress as America’s top diplomat — but perhaps not her last time on the political stage — Clinton once again took responsibility for the department’s missteps and failures leading up to the assault. But she also said that requests for more security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi didn’t reach her desk, and reminded lawmakers that they have a responsibility to fund security-related budget requests.
Three weeks after her release from a New York hospital — she was admitted for complications after a concussion — Clinton was at times defiant, complimentary and willing to chastise lawmakers during more than 51⁄2 hours of testimony before two separate committees. She tangled with some who could be rivals in 2016 if she decides to seek the presidency again.
Her voice cracking at one point, Clinton said the attack and the aftermath were highly personal tragedies for the families of the victims who died — Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty — as well as herself.
“I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters and the wives left alone to raise their children,” she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a packed hearing.
Clearly annoyed with Republican complaints about the initial explanation for the attack, she rose to the defense of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was vilified for widely debunked claims five days after the attack that protests precipitated the raid rather than terrorism.
Clinton said, “People were trying in real time to get to the best information.” And she said her own focus was on looking ahead on how to improve security rather than revisiting the talking points and Rice’s comments.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed her on why “we were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that.”
“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said, her voice rising and quivering with anger as she and Johnson spoke over each other.
“Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”
If Johnson’s comments drew an irritated response from Clinton, she notably ignored Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., when he said he would have fired her if he had been in charge and found that she had not read cables from her team in Libya asking for more security. Paul is a potential 2016 presidential candidate.
Clinton and other officials have testified that requests for additional security did not reach her level, and a scathing independent review of the matter sharply criticized four senior State Department officials who have been relieved of their duties.
“I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them,” she said.
Later, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina repeatedly challenged Clinton’s claim to have looked at the tragedy with “clear eyes,” saying she should have personally ensured security at the mission.
He said Clinton had “let the consulate become a death trap” in denying requests for additional security and called it “malpractice.”
Clinton said she could have let the review board’s report remain classified and told Congress “goodbye” before leaving office. But she said, it’s “not who I am. It’s not what I do.”
In a second round of questioning on Wednesday, Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee where Republican members pressed her on why cables and other memos about security deficiencies in Benghazi seemed to be ignored.
“The dots here were connected ahead of time. The State Department saw this was coming,” said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the chairman of the panel. “The State Department didn’t act.”
Clinton told senators the department is implementing the 29 recommendations of the review board and going beyond the proposals, with a special focus on high-threat posts.
“Nobody is more committed to getting this right,” she said. “I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.”
Clinton had been due to testify in December but postponed her appearances after fainting, falling and suffering a concussion while recovering from a stomach virus that left her severely dehydrated. She was then diagnosed with a blood clot near her brain and returned to work only on Jan. 7.
She won bipartisan well-wishes on her recovery, but while Democrats were quick to praise her for accomplishments as secretary of state, Republicans then hit her with withering criticism.
“It’s wonderful to see you in good health and combative as ever,” said McCain.
But in the same breath, he dismissed her explanation of events, the administration’s response to warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Libya and even the attention paid to Libya after rebels toppled Moammar Gadhafi. “The answers, frankly, that you’ve given this morning are not satisfactory to me,” McCain said.
To McCain, a friend that Clinton served with in the Senate, she replied matter-of-factly: “We just have a disagreement. We have a disagreement about what did happen and when it happened with respect to explaining the sequence of events.”
More like this story
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting