Category: Libya

#DNCLeaks: The Benghazi-ISIS Connection (Why Democrats Are Wrong)

Posted on

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
— Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012, while standing over the caskets of the four Americans killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya

Why did ISIS emerge as a major terrorist threat in 2013? This is a question that Democrats don’t want Americans to consider a consequence of President Obama’s policies, as it quite obviously is. Nor does anyone in the Hillary Clinton campaign want to discuss how the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was connected to the rise of ISIS, although this connection is equally obvious.

The connection involves the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings of 2011 that were supported by Clinton’s State Department. A major goal of the “Arab Spring” was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s Ba’athist regime in Syria. In the wake of the successful U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi, the Obama administration sought to recover the weapons it had provided to the Libyan rebels, and transfer them (via Turkey) to the rebels fighting in Syria, where Assad had managed to retain power. It was for this purpose — seeking a weapons “buyback” deal with a group of Libyan rebels — that U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens traveled to Benghazi on that fateful day in September 2012 when he was ambushed and murdered. The offer of a meeting with rebel leaders, it turned out, was the bait for a deadly trap. The anti-Ghaddafi rebel forces in Libya were dominated by Islamic radicals, including al-Qaeda operatives and, in just the same way, the anti-Assad forces in Syria came to be dominated by the radical Muslims of ISIS — and the Obama administration’s policies helped make this happen.

Concealing this truth about the policies that Hillary Clinton had approved and implemented was why she lied about Benghazi, promoting a false narrative about “an awful internet video” in order to distract from the reality of what had actually happened in Libya, and what was also happening in Syria. In its effort to arm the anti-Assad rebels, weapons were being shipped from Libya to Turkey, and then transported to Syria. ISIS was not the intended recipients of these weapons, but the situation in northern Syria was so unstable that many of these weapons certainly did end up in ISIS possession and, furthermore, the U.S.-backed uprising against Assad created the “perfect storm” of anarchy within which ISIS subsequently established its Raqqah-based “caliphate.”

All of this is background to the leaked 2014 email in which Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Policy Director Mike Ryan tries to provide a defensible explanation for the rise of ISIS. The 2003 invasion of Iraq “created the atmosphere for a Jordanian to start a Muslim sectarian war, which ultimately created ISIS,” Ryan wrote:

He goes on to disclose that Zarqawi entered Iraq during the invasion to establish a religious caliphate for just Sunni Muslims and to start a sectarian war against Shias.
The Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Maliki and supported by the U.S. made the situation worse, because Maliki was discriminatory towards Sunnis and helped rally extremists to Zarqawi.
“Malaki’s prejudicial governing style worsened after U.S. troops left Iraq, helping quickly deteriorate the situation further,” Ryan concludes.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Ryan’s explanation is simply a lie — deceit by omission, at the very least — because it wasn’t Zarqawi, who was killed in Iraq in 2006, who created the situation that developed in Syria in 2013. Ryan’s explanation was a typical Democrat “blame Bush” excuse that ignores both (a) Obama’s disastrous decision to rapidly decrease U.S. troop strength in Iraq, and (b) the equally disastrous policy of arming the anti-Assad rebels in Syria. Ryan’s version of the ISIS story conveniently skips over the seven-year gap between Zarqawi’s death and the emergence of ISIS as a major threat in order to conceal the role that the Obama administration’s policies played in the rise of ISIS. Just a few relevant highlights from the Wikipedia article on ISIS:

In August 2011, following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, ISI, under the leadership of [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi, delegated a mission into Syria, which under the name Jabhat an-Nusrah li-Ahli ash-Sham (or al-Nusra Front) established a large presence in Sunni-majority Al-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo provinces. . . . .
In August [2011], al-Baghdadi began sending Syrian and Iraqi ISI members experienced in guerilla warfare across the border into Syria to establish an organisation there. Led by a Syrian known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani, this group began to recruit fighters and establish cells throughout the country. . . .
On 8 April 2013, al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that the al-Nusra Front had been established, financed, and supported by the Islamic State of Iraq, and that the two groups were merging under the name “Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham”. . . .
Meanwhile, the ISIL campaign to free imprisoned ISIL members culminated in simultaneous raids on Taji and Abu Ghraib prisons in July 2013, freeing more than 500 prisoners, many of them veterans of the Iraqi insurgency. . . .
On 29 June 2014, the organisation proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate.

Now, from the Wikipedia article on Syrian Civil War:

On 11 January 2013, Islamist groups, including al-Nusra Front, took full control of the Taftanaz air base in the Idlib Governorate. . . . The leader of the al-Nusra Front said the amount of weapons they took was a “game changer”. . . .
On 2 March, intense clashes between rebels and the Syrian Army erupted in the city of Raqqah, with many reportedly killed on both sides. . . . By 3 March, rebels had overrun Raqqah’s central prison, allowing them to free hundreds of prisoners . . .
By 6 March, the rebels had captured the city of Raqqah, effectively making it the first provincial capital to be lost by the Assad government.

It is these events between 2011 and 2014, during Obama’s presidency, that Mike Ryan dishonestly omitted from his email to Democrats. After the death of Zarqawi and the 2007 U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, this ragtag coalition of Sunni extremists was not a threat beyond a few places in western Iraq. However, once the U.S.-backed “Arab Spring” uprising destabilized neighboring Syria — at the same time Obama had withdrawn U.S. troops from Iraq — this created a new opportunity for al-Baghdadi.

 

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Democrats don’t want to talk about the policy decisions that brought about the disaster in Benghazi, which is connected to the disasters in Iraq and Syria. Fiddling around with rival factions in Muslim countries is no substitute for exerting our own military strength directly in defense of our own interests. The Obama/Clinton policy was always naïve — as naïve, in its own way, as the idea that we could “make Anglo-Saxon republicans out of obscure desert savages,” as Kevin D. Williamson once described Bush-era “War on Terror” policy. It is not usually necessary for the U.S. to deploy 150,000 troops, to invade other countries and topple dictatorships, in order to influence foreign affairs. However, if we are never willing to deploy any troops, our influence will be minimal, our allies will have no reason to trust that we will defend them, and our adversaries will despise our cowardice.




 

Hillary Is Lying, People Are Dying

Posted on Comments

Patrick Howley reports:

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s embassy in Tripoli, Libya, warned State Department officials in Washington, D.C., not to blame the Youtube video, Innocence of Muslims, for the Benghazi terrorist attack.
The House Benghazi Committee released a new email Saturday that a Tripoli embassy official sent to Clinton’s underlings in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 2012, two days before Susan Rice appeared on Sunday talk shows to use the administration’s “video” talking point.
“Colleagues, I mentioned to [redacted] this morning, and want to share with all of you, our view at Embassy Tripoli that we must be cautious in our local messaging with regard to the inflammatory film trailer, adapting it to Libyan conditions,” the official wrote.

You can read the whole thing. The official in Tripoli told the State Department that it was “increasingly clear that the series of events in Benghazi was much more terrorist attack than a protest which escalated into violence,” and warned against conflating the simultaneous protests in Egypt with “this well-planned attack by militant extremists” in Libya. What this email shows is that Clinton cannot plausibly claim she believed the lies about the Benghazi attack that she and others (including Susan Rice) promoted in the days after Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed on Sept. 11, 2012.

The Benghazi cover-up was necessary, first of all, to protect Obama’s re-election campaign message that, with the death of Osama bin Laden, the threat of Islamic terrorism had been defeated. By deliberately lying — portraying the Benghazi attack as a protest against a YouTube video — Clinton sought to reverse the meaning of this event, creating the false impression that right-wing “Islamophobia” was a greater threat than radical Islam itself. Furthermore, there is clear evidence that what happened at Benghazi was a consequence of U.S. covert operations to influence the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings that had begun in 2011. Questions about what Ambassador Stevens was doing in Benghazi, and the nature of the CIA operations in Libya he was apparently overseeing, are at the heart of what this scandal is really about.

 

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The answer to Hillary Clinton’s now-infamous question is that the death of four Americans in Benghazi brought to light an aspect of Obama administration policy that continues to have consequences for U.S. national security. Was the “Arab Spring” a spontaneous occurrence or was it a result of a U.S. covert policy intended to overthrow the governments of Libya, Egypt and Syria? There have been reports that the United States supplied weapons to the rebels who toppled Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi and then sought to recover those weapons, shipping them to opponents of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. It is believed that Ambassador Stevens went to Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, as part of that operation, to conduct negotiations with Libyan rebels who were refusing to give up their U.S.-supplied weapons. This backstory of the Benghazi attack, as part of a much larger U.S. policy in the North Africa/Middle East region, is why this ongoing investigation cannot be dismissed as mere partisan politics or a trivial concern with Hillary Clinton’s personal emails. The current crisis surrounding ISIS militants in Syria and Iraq, which has caused the deployment of U.S. Special Forces to Syria, is directly connected to the policies that Hillary Clinton implemented and supervised during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Meanwhile, Islamic extremists are exploiting the instability that the Obama administration’s policies have created. Egypt:

ISIS has released a video purporting to show the final moments of the Russian jet that crashed in Egypt, killing all 224 people on board.
The terror group has claimed it downed the aircraft, but has not said how it might have done so. The horrific footage . . . shows a large structure resembling a plane falling through the air, before being consumed by a mass of smoke.
Cairo and Moscow have denied any possible terrorism link in the incident, which was one of the deadliest Airbus crashes in the past decade.
However, it has emerged that the aircraft broke up mid-air scattering debris and bodies over a wide area. . . .
Professor Michael Clarke, Director General of the Royal United Services Institute said early indications suggest that the jet may have been destroyed by a bomb on the aircraft.
He told BBC Radio Five Live: ‘This aircraft was 200km north of its take-off zone, that means it was flying at around 31,000 feet. Terrorists, as far as we know, don’t have equipment to take down an aircraft at that height.
‘They have shoulder-launched missiles, known as man-portable missiles. They can get aircraft when they are taking off or landing, when they are going low and slow. But anything above 8,000 or 9,000 feet is out of the range of the weapons that they’ve got.’
He said the area where the jet crashed is a known location for groups affiliated to Al Qaeda and ISIS, but it was highly unlikely that a ground-based weapon was responsible for the in-flight break up.
‘Early reports said it split into two and that suggests a catastrophic failure, not a mechanical failure, but perhaps an explosion on board, so I would be much more inclined to think, if we have to guess at this stage, it is much more likely to have been a bomb on board than a missile fired from the ground.’

A terrorist attack in Egypt against a Russian airliner, at a time when Russian forces are engaged in defending Assad’s regime in Syria? We are seeing the consequences of a disastrous policy failure by the Obama administration, a failure in which Hillary Clinton is deeply implicated.




 

Ace on @Milbank: ‘Biased and Giddily Ignorant … Proud to Know Nothing’

Posted on Comments

Last night, I hit Dana Milbank’s cheap smear of a Heritage Foundation panel about the Benghazi cover-up and thought I’d done a good job. This morning, I woke up and saw Ace’s treatment of the same story and was awed by the work of the master:

Milbank’s original deception is reporting this woman’s charge — a vague claim that the panel was Muslim-bashing — without first stating if the charge was accurate or not.
He reports her charge as if the charge is, itself, a fair one.
But is it? He doesn’t say. He implies it is, without saying so.
Note, however, what this panel was about. It was not about terrorism. It was not about Islam.
It was about the American government’s response to Benghazi, including lying to the public and retaliating against internal whistleblowers.
How would Islam have even have come up, except as a brief tangent? It seems unlikely that it did — and I imagine when the full video gets released, it will demonstrate, as one panelist told this woman, that this questioner was the only person talking about Islam, while all the panelists were focused on the Obama administration.
That is, she hijacked the panel to make her own point and toss out a vague charge of Serious You Guys Racism while doing so. . . .
Milbank’s original column shows him as biased and giddily ignorant. He’s actually proud to know nothing at all about the subject he’s allegedly covering.

Read the whole thing. In one of Milbanks’ “Look at These Crazy Wingnuts” gestures, he includes this:

The accusers’ allegations grow wilder by the day. . . .
[Brigitte] Gabriel floated the notion that Stevens had been working on a weapons-swap program between Libya and Syria just before he was killed.

Does Dana Milbank really think Brigitte Gabriel just made that up? Has he not paid attention? October 25, 2012:

On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.
Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists.

Stevens’ meeting with the Turkish consul in Benghazi is significant because it is believed — not confirmed, because the administration has been stonewalling congressional investigators — that what happened was this: The CIA and State Department were trying to negotiate a “buyback” of weapons they had (secretly) supplied to anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya, weapons which were then being (secretly) shipped via Turkey to anti-Assad forces in Syria. Of course, Milbank might dismiss this as a Fox News conspiracy theory, except that CNN reported the same thing in August 2013:

CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack. . . .
Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency’s Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out. . . .
Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.
A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.
While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency. . . .
Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.
It is clear that two U.S. agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA.

The CIA was reportedly forcing employees with knowledge of the Benghazi operation to take polygraphs, asking if they had talked to journalists or congressional investigators. And this is significant . . . why? Because, if true, it shows that the administration had a covert policy which was neither authorized by Congress nor disclosed to the American people, that four Americans were killed because of this policy, and that the whole farcical charade of claiming that the Benghazi attack was a “spontaneous” protest against a YouTube video was part of a clumsy attempt to conceal the truth, a cover-up that continues to this day.

Dana Milbank is (or pretends to be) “giddily ignorant” of this. Why? Because the Washington Post is actively involved in the cover-up?

“The accusers’ allegations grow wilder by the day . . .”

 

Hillary Lied, Americans Died

Posted on Comments

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
— Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012, while standing over the caskets of the four Americans killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya

We cannot forget how Hillary Clinton deliberately lied about the Benghazi attack, blaming it on “an awful internet video,” and spreading that lie everywhere in an attempt to conceal from American people the truth: This was an Islamic terrorist attack, there was advance warning of the danger, warnings which the State Department and the Obama administration failed to take seriously, so that when the attack came — on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 — they were unprepared to protect the lives of the Americans who died there.

We know this, and the American people deserve to know the truth, but Team Hillary doesn’t want them to learn the whole truth:

Hillary Clinton’s world was so worried about a Republican investigation of the Benghazi attacks, they sent a message to House Democrats: We need backup.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) publicly considered boycotting the panel, an idea that Clinton supporters feared would leave the potential 2016 candidate exposed to the enemy fire of House Republicans.
So Clinton emissaries launched a back channel campaign, contacting several House Democratic lawmakers and aides to say they’d prefer Democrats participate, according to sources familiar with the conversations. Pelosi’s staff said they have not heard from Clinton’s camp.
On Wednesday, Pelosi appointed five Democrats to the committee, giving Democrats another crucial mission in the months ahead of what was already a tough election year: act as Clinton’s first line of defense.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

It makes a lot of difference, and we should not let Democrats — or Hillary’s hired liars in the media — convince us otherwise.

RECENTLY:

 

So What If The #VA Scandal Is Just #ObamaCare Meets #Benghazi?

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Americans in general and veterans in particular are far too spun up about the VA scandal. This has led to at least one scurrilous photo-bumming incident already. And why? What difference, at this point, do these veterans make? The WSJ gets it all wrong:

The recent revelations about the Department of Veterans Affairs point to serious problems. But the root of the scandal is not what self-serving bureaucrats failed to do or tried to cover up; it is a federal budget that prevents us from meeting even the national needs on which our polarized political parties can agree.
Whatever the disagreements about the long wars of the past decades, Democrats and Republicans agree that we must fully honor the debt we have incurred to the tiny fraction of the population that does the fighting for the rest of us. Yes, the budget for the VA has risen sharply since 2002. But the number of returning veterans has risen even faster. Many live with grievous wounds from which they would have succumbed in previous conflicts. Many others struggle with the multiple effects of repeated deployments. Aging Vietnam-era patients require more care, and new responsibilities such as coping with Agent Orange add to the VA’s burden.

Aw, c’mon: these veterans, in the main, don’t even vote correctly! And now that ObamaCare is sucking the lifeblood right out of the American healthcare system, these veterans are just a doubly useless load on a Constitutional system that has been fundamentally transformed since the 2008 election.

If these veterans aren’t given the the Doherty & Woods Special, then their block of votes could become an embarrassment for Her Majesty’s 2016 Coronation event.

Besides: American voters gave #OccupyResoluteDesk a pass in 2012. We knew him for an incompetent boob all four years leading up to Benghazi. We knew that ObamaCare was going to make the Titanic seem a minor bathtub incident by comparison.

We have begged to have our warriors treated dishonorably by a completely honor-free rodeo clown, and he hasn’t shown a smidgen of hesitation in delivering.

So. Just. Screw. Us. To. The. Wall.

Because history is going to wonder if we aren’t kind of into this stuff.

Like Fish Don’t Notice Water

Posted on Comments

CNN President Jeff Zucker declares his network won’t “be shamed into” covering a congressional investigation of the Benghazi scandal, as he claims the pressure to cover Benghazi comes from “others who have political beliefs that want to try to have temper tantrums.”

Mocking CNN’s bizarre and monomaniacal devotion to the story of a disappeared jet, Grover Norquist wondered what would happen if the Malaysian plane were to land in Benghazi. OK, so . . . forget about politics. What does Zucker’s bias mean for CNN’s ratings?

First Night of CNN Primetime Changes
Land Network in Third Place
CNN took third place among cable news networks [Monday] night after making significant primetime changes, including the removal of live programming at 9PM. The new lineup lost to both FOX News Channel and MSNBC during the 8PM, 9PM and 10PM hours.

Here are the numbers:

8 p.m. ET
Fox: The O’Reilly Factor ….. 2,019,000
MSNBC: Chris Hayes ………… 639,000
CNN: AC360 …………………… 274,000

9 p.m. ET
Fox: The Kelly File ………….. 1,787,000
MSNBC: Rachel Maddow …….. 720,000
CNN: Parts Unknown …………. 281,000

10 p.m. ET
Fox: Hannity ………………….. 1,383,000
MSNBC: The Last Word ……… 531,000
CNN: Tonight …………………… 304,000

Averaged over prime time (8-11 p.m.), the three major cable news networks had a combined audience Monday of 2.7 million viewers, and here are the percentage shares:

Fox ……………… 65%
MSNBC …………. 24%
CNN …………….. 11%

Now, let us stipulate that politics is not the only factor that influences cable TV news ratings. However, the news junkie — the kind of person who prefers cable news as a prime-time viewing habit — is also usually a political junkie. Because of a general perception that most news media have a liberal bias, Fox News dominates cable news ratings by delivering news and commentary from a standpoint that is decidedly not liberal. In a distant second place, MSNBC caters to an audience of left-wing news junkies whose political appetites are not satisfied by a half-hour of biased news nightly on the Big Three broadcast networks. And CNN . . .

Jeff Zucker’s network is a fucking asterisk, is what they are — an irrelevant afterthought in the TV new business, of interest only as an example of how not to operate a cable news franchise.

The most obvious play for CNN would be to try to peel off some of the conservative viewers — two-thirds of the cable-news audience — who are now regularly watching Fox. One can easily imagine how this could be done. If Zucker can’t imagine it, he should drop me an e-mail and I’d offer a few suggestions, but of course that’s not going to happen because, as Zucker’s Benghazi comments show, he thinks he’s such a goddamned Harvard-educated genius that nobody can tell him anything.

Therefore, CNN continues failing.

Everyone in the organization, from Zucker on down the line, should feel a profound sense of shame for how they’ve squandered CNN’s advantage as the pioneer in the industry, failing to adapt to changing circumstances as they’ve drifted down to the ratings cellar, where they sit day after day, hoping for the Big Event — the breaking-news story that will make people switch over for continuous coverage. It’s a pathetic waste of resources, a disgrace and a failure for which no excuses should be accepted.

Many years ago, not long after I became an ex-Democrat, I explained the problem simply: Most people in the news media don’t notice liberal bias for the same reason fish don’t notice water — it’s everywhere all around them and it’s all they’ve ever known.

Insofar as CNN is failing because of its liberal bias, Jeff Zucker isn’t the solution to the problem, he’s part of the problem.

 

The Libyan Disaster

Posted on Comments

Obama’s “Arab Spring” continues unraveling:

The revolt by Gen. Khalifa Hifter threatens to detonate the long volatile divisions among the multiple militias that dominate Libya amid the weakness of the central government and military. Hifter says he aims to crush Islamists he accuses of seizing control of the country and he appears to have the support of some militias from the eastern half of the country and the western Zintan region. . . .
In the other camp, parliament chief Nouri Abu Sahmein — an Islamist-leaning politician — ordered a powerful umbrella group of mainly Islamist militias known as “Libya’s Central Shield” to mobilize on Monday to defend against Hifter’s forces. The umbrella group is dominated by a militia from Libya’s third largest city, Misrata.

Walter Russell Mead:

Dozens have been killed, dozens more wounded, and the clashes between General Hifter’s forces and Islamist militias don’t seem to be winding down. The country is thoroughly fragmented, flirting with the failed state label.

Instapundit delivers the sarcastic verdict:

It was a war of choice, fought on the credit card, with no real understanding of the country targeted and no clear exit plan, complicated by astonishing incompetence in following up after the dictator was toppled.

Gosh, that sounds so familiar . . .

 


 

Can the #Benghazi Spinners Win?

Posted on Comments

If you’re going to win a spin war, you’re going to need some better answers than “I don’t know.” Lanny Davis, who spent years spinning for the Clinton administration, certainly knows this. I remember Davis’s role in helping shape the administration’s media message on the Lewinsky scandal, and so when Davis was brought in to help do damage control on Benghazi — to try to protect the Hillary Clinton “brand” going into 2016 — this was important: Davis is an experienced professional spinmaster.

Unfortunately for Hillary, when Davis went on the Larry O’Connor radio show, the only answers he seemed to have were, “I don’t know.”

They’re going to have to do better than that. And they will.

We can expect Team Hillary to try and make it seem un-American to ask questions that Democrats don’t want to answer.