In response to:

Hillary Clinton's Dodgy Testimony

James64 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 9:20 AM
What difference? Somewhat like the difference between unintentional and intentional. Her response does not refute the commonality, though; that the embassy and annex were inadequately protected, help was minimal and late as preparations for such assistance were not in place - and some available assistance was called off. Logically, there is no good reason for the lax security/protection/assistance in a region as tumultuous and violent as this. Even if the Ambassador had not requested more, the the circumstances in that region should have demanded it, at a minimum. You rarely can have too much, but often and easily too little.

A lot of people in Washington apparently forgot how good Hillary Clinton is at not telling the truth.

Wednesday, in her testimony before both the Senate and, later, the House, Clinton brilliantly fudged, dodged and filibustered. Of course, she's a pro. Clinton was slow-walking depositions, lawyering up and shifting blame when many of her questioners were still civilians down on the farm.

Aided by a ridiculous format, she outfoxed most of the Republicans with ease.

Meanwhile, the Democrats, almost uniformly, seemed singularly interested in celebrating Mrs. Clinton as a global diva who somehow manages to carry the burden of her awesomeness...