By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Placeholder Image

Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, finally and in her own good time, appeared before the both senate and house committees to explain the president’s and her department’s inaction that resulted in the death of American Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave souls in Benghazi, Libya.

It was a sad charade. The Democrats largely fawned over her, while the Republicans, in most cases at least, lobbed a bunch of softball questions at her.

Mrs. Clinton, for her part, was as slippery as usual and defiant in the face of the questioning.

At one point, in response to a question from Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who had asked why were the country was misled into believing the attack in Benghazi was because of a video, like a little school she threw an emotional tantrum as she shouted out, ""With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans… What difference, at this point, does it make?"

We were disappointed that nobody had the courage to respond to this bullying tactic. The proper response would have been, "The difference, Secretary Clinton, is that you and the president of the United States lied to the American people about why this tragic incident occurred."

If you’re going to take the time to have a hearing, then get the answers you came for or at least ask some tough follow-up questions.

In our opinion, the best response given to Mrs. Clinton’s antics came from Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who said, "Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post…I think it’s inexcusable."