Skating

Bespeckled in her horn-rimmed glasses and looking very much like she did when she attended Wellesley College over forty years earlier, Hillary Clinton testified for five hours yesterday in front of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.  She pretty much skated through what was supposed to be a grueling cross examination and got away without having to answer many hard questions about the circumstances surrounding the killing of four Americans at the American Consulate in Benghazi last September 11^th (see: Weekly Standard Story).

I say testified for five hours, but for only half that time was she interrogated by Republicans.  The Democrats in both Houses asked her either softball questions or queries that were so off the subject as to cause one to doubt the purpose of this inquiry.  So that was really a two and one half hour “grilling” by Republicans, each limited to five minutes apiece (another strategic win for Hillary).  And she started each session with about a five minute statement (choking up in the Senate about meeting the next-of-kin of those killed) which cut out another 10 minutes of questioning.  Now most of the questioners prefaced their queries with effusive praise for Ms. Clinton’s service as Secretary of State and her round-the-world  travels.  With her demurred thanks, this tete-a-tete usually took at least one minute or 20% of each questioner’s time. 

Then, being politicians, each Republican invariably prefaced his or her questions with about a two-minute soliloquy pontificating about the tragedy of the Benghazi  massacre … another 40% of misspent time.  So now, reduce this 2 hours and twenty minutes of questioning by 60% which leaves just 56 minutes of true grilling … usually working out to one or two questions per Congress-person.  Now, Hillary being loquacious, would generally answer each question with long-winded explanations of some State-Department process irrelevant to the question … eating up most of the few precious minutes left.  And, if  the questioner did, for some strange reason, stumble onto a good question, Hillary either went on the attack (a fearsome sight) or claimed no knowledge (quite likely a lie).

So Hillary Clinton skated through what was supposed to be her Waterloo … not telling us who were the survivors of this massacre; why have they been held incognito for five months; when and where can they be interrogated; how could Hillary have not seen the requests for more security from Ambassador Stevens; what conversations has she had with the President before, during, and after this affair; did she tell the father of one of the dead Americans that “we will get that video maker;” and many other follow-up questions to her many evasive answers. 

Perhaps next time (and there surely needs to be a next time) these Congressional panels should hire a cross-examiner (Mark Levin?) like what was had in the Watergate hearings and he/she might find out “what difference [Benghazi], in fact, makes”?  And then maybe network television might also just deem to broadcast such hearings?  Or will the American people rise up in protest and protect their next President?  I think I know the answer.