Did Hilary Clinton slip-up when delivering her testimony? (age AP)
In recent days former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has been called to account by Republicans at the House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing to give evidence regarding US involvement in Libya. As the Guardian pointed out,
“Clinton calmly navigated Republican questions on her role before and after the 2012 terrorist attack on the US consulate in Libya where four Americans were killed, including the ambassador, Chris Stevens.”
Republican Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama has expressed his desire “to impeach Hilary (a Democrat) on her first day in office if she is elected to the White House next year” as reported by Reuters for “improperly handling classified information on her private email server while serving as secretary of state”.
Regarding Hilary’s grilling this week, Politico tweeted,
Hillary Clinton didn’t answer everything during the Benghazi testimony http://politi.co/1Mc0Q1j
However an observant Micah Zenko (Senior Fellow, Expertise, Conflict prevention; U.S. national security policy) did spot an interesting answer from Hilary allegedly missed by most media. Her comment indicated that the reason for the military mission by NATO into Libya was somewhat different to the version originally offered to the public which was according to President Obama “to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone”… NOT regime change.
This is what Zenko picked up and posted on Twitter:
“At the eleven-hour United States House Select Committee on Benghazihearing yesterday, Sec. Hillary Clinton said something in passing that has received no attention by the committee members or the media. When asked by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) about a video clip that read, “We came, we saw, he died [meaning former Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi]. Is that the Clinton doctrine?” Clinton replied, “No, that was an expression of relief that the military mission undertaken by NATO and our other partners had achieved its end.”
What is now totally forgotten is that regime change WAS NOT the intended military mission of the Libya intervention in March 2011. As President Barack Obama stated (atfp.co/1kyBt2i) in a speech to the nation on March 28, 2011, “The task that I assigned our forces [is] to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone,” adding explicitly, “Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”
If the Select Committee on Benghazi had been interested in conducting an actual oversight hearing of the Obama administration’s policy toward Libya, a committee member could have pressed Clinton to explain why U.S. objectives shifted so markedly from protecting civilians to killing Qaddafi. Or, if regime change was the intended policy objective from the very beginning, why didn’t President Obama say so to the American public? Unfortunately, such a line of questioning was not pursued yesterday, nor will it be in other committee hearings. A journalist should ask Clinton about this discrepancy, since she would be making similar speeches to the nation about America’s war aims.”
Micah Zenko, Senior Fellow, Expertise, Conflict prevention; U.S. national security policy; military planning and operations; nuclear weapons policy, Programs
Center for Preventive Action United Nations Roundtable Serie
Surely then further questions need to be answered, a new committee perhaps investigating why the public were sold one thing while the endgame planned appears to have been another. Most importantly Libyans have a right to know what was the actual intention of the NATO mission as this is now looking like yet another case of US government misinformation and alleged deceit.
Carol Anne Grayson is an independent writer/researcher on global health/human rights/WOT and is Executive Producer of the Oscar nominated, Incident in New Baghdad. She is a Registered Mental Nurse with a Masters in Gender Culture and Development. Carol was awarded the ESRC, Michael Young Prize for Research 2009, and the COTT ‘Action = Life’ Human Rights Award’ for “upholding truth and justice”. She is also a survivor of US “collateral damage”.
Carol Anne Grayson (Radical Sister) blog 
Like any of the above matters even an iota. Hillary gets a free pass just like every other employee of the Federal government. They don’t even try to hide the elitism anymore. They need not even offer REASONS that these people (and agencies) are allowed to skate from ANY transgression with absolutely zero consequences. It’s sickening, but there it is. Imagine if Nixon had simply refused to be held to account? If he offered nothing at all of substance, by way of excuse or explanation; yet simply continued to live his daily routine? I mean, it’s staggeringly un-American…it’s literally Orwellian…but the kids don’t even know what that means today. Sad. I’d like to blame the Dems…but the Republicans are EQUALLY duplicitous because they allow it to happen again…and again…and again.
Yes Benghazi exercise was futile because there was no accountability whatsoever and it will be the same for Iraq and Afghanistan. Nixon was faced with fierce investigation by strong journalists…alongside pathetic politicians on all sides, much of mainstream media is so wishy washy in reporting and has too close ties to governments… Hilary will now be branded stronger for having largely escaped meaningful interrogation!