Clinton not ‘strong’
“Strong” is the word you used in the Jan. 25 editorial “Clinton, strong” to describe the recent testimony of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton before two congressional committees regarding the Benghazi attacks in which a U.S. ambassador and three staff members were killed by militant Muslims.
I know that Democrats have rallied around one of their leaders, but I am trying to imagine a worse record than that of Secretary Clinton. According to Clinton, she did not read any of the memos from the embattled U.S. mission in Benghazi. These communications had to have been read by someone at the State Department, but to date no one at the department has been fired or reprimanded. How can this be? Given the precarious position of U.S. outposts in North Africa, surely a system should have been in place that would have relayed desperate communications from staff in vulnerable positions to top officials.
Clinton, in effect, said she doesn’t do security, but if that is true, then who does and why are they still employed? Clinton’s whereabouts during the seven-hour battle at the embassy have never been explained.
Her testimony before two congressional committees was not “strong” but it was Clintonian.