Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Let's move on our political panel right now bring in from Washington DC David Mercer former national finance director with a Democrat party.
And Bradley -- when former -- deputy assistant to President Bush.
-- the State Department denies this.
But it really looks like particularly -- look gave you look at James Rosen reports.
That they -- this State Department made an effort early on to make sure that this came before the public as something.
Other than a terrorist attack something other than al-Qaeda linked violence.
Against Americans abroad so let me first start with you David what would be the impact politically for Hillary Clinton.
It just as the impact has been.
From a political standpoint aside from Susan Rice.
A potential candidate for secretary of state an appointment there.
-- where they the Republicans came hard at her and what she.
Had done on the Sunday talk shows prior.
Two the year.
On I am not sure that it will amount to much.
You know we've seen.
Met through various sources.
Namely Tom singer who represents one of with a whistle blowers.
You know claim that there was a Petraeus.
Ben Ghazi connection -- with regard to his recent resignation which turned out not to be the case.
And secondly you know with what we need they're also put in the context of all this.
Is that -- when it came to enhancing security around embassies around the world you know it was a very Republicans that are launching of these.
Rumors who voted no and enhancing security and providing the funds to do so -- embassies across there.
The world or across -- -- local control serve.
You know with them voting no -- one hand and -- asking what happened with security lapses on the other.
Seems to be talking out of both sides your mouth and I think that's what will be the ultimate conclusion in all of this as we've seen before.
All right -- -- -- if you think two points from what you get hey I want -- once it's like get two points from what you're saying you've seen the accusers lack credibility.
And that the Republicans in the criticism -- lack credibility because they voted down measures are gonna finance.
That more enhanced security accurate.
Well -- IA you know we'll see about the credibility of the whistle blowers but the point and I'm trying to make into conveyed to the audience.
And the viewers is that.
You know the very congressman -- -- and others.
Who are talking about security and whether or not state was responsive it was State Department that went to the bridge differences of the world asking for funding for security.
And upgrading the security which was denied they voted no.
Still wanting to -- God's got the fact of the matter embassies around the know that -- -- and -- well let's let's think let's get Bradley in here.
Did your money back into thinking -- Bradley that is yeah has discretionary.
The funding of where.
-- needed funds need to go to secure our consulates and embassies this consulate should have never.
Ever been open because it lacked the kind of security that was needed.
It's setbacks in construction and personnel and other thing and vote and you know for anybody -- know it's up to his secretary of state either she's a competent.
Or willful malfeasance on the attack and -- -- I think I was on Fox News on 9/11 twelve.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a film.
That -- that nobody had seen in this part of the world somehow spurred -- -- that we saw.
And then they try to tell us it was a peaceful demonstration -- gone -- People don't bring -- refugees to a peaceful demonstration -- waves of attack the killer ambassador and kill other American personnel and and trash and burn our consulate.
Well everything we have seen to this point is not consistent with the idea that this was a peaceful demonstration that just got out of hand.
And the one thing and I and I -- a judge -- -- -- about -- a little -- and I'll talk with you -- more from a political standpoint.
It just doesn't seem the written at the risk of the cover up is what the political benefit.
The administration could have taken another tactic -- if it means the president's reelection they could have said.
-- you need a strong commander in chief.
At a time like this so why did they go the route of what appears now particularly if you look at James report to be AM pretty -- cover up.
-- -- Well look at that look -- it's like every scandal here in Washington generally speaking the coverup is worse the crime but not in this instance all the crime was worst -- the cover up.
The fact is Americans are dead but it didn't meet politically the president's narrative that her son is dead al-Qaeda.
Is dead as well most -- may have been dead but al-Qaeda was alive and well and attacking.
And -- personnel in Ben -- and weeks before months before a presidential election they did not want a terrorist attack on their watch.
And what do they do they covered it up and tried to -- the American people and it put rice on TV because Clinton didn't want any part of this thing.
And she goes on in -- the American people and says that this was because of film and everybody knows today that was an outrageous lie.
We also know and what was it over and then James is reported is Petraeus is testimony also before.
Congress in which he stated.
That -- it was known.
Now as a terrorist attack.
That they did not want to tip the hand it to al-Qaeda or any other elements that -- part of that attack.
To tip them off to the fact that they were on to them so there are a lot of elements that will hear in hearings hopefully.
Arm and those kinds of pieces of information are very important for -- this was characterized.
And presented to the American public and how it's unfolding in the future.
Filter by section