Bill O’Reilly is so longing to see Hillary Clinton get creamed when she testifies before the Benghazi committee this week that he actually engaged in role playing – with Fox’s Brit Hume as Mrs. Clinton – and O’Reilly shouting, “Write that down!” to the unseen members of the committee he was sure were watching. And then he insisted, “I don’t have an axe to grind.”
O’Reilly announced, as if it were a smoking gun, that Fox News has reported that Ambassador Stevens, who died during the Benghazi attacks, cabled the State Department on July ninth, about two months before his death, asking for additional security. “He did not get it,” O’Reilly said gravely.
Then he began instructing the committee members as to how to conduct their hearing:
O’REILLY: That is the crux of the matter and what should be the focus of Mrs. Clinton’s testimony on Thursday.
…That’s the key. “Did you know about this cable?” First question: "Here it is, July ninth, read the cable. Did you know about it, yes or no?" She’s under oath. Start there. Stair step up.
O’Reilly demonstrated with his hands how he wants the Congressmen and women to take incremental steps – leading, presumably, to pulling out the floor beneath Clinton’s feet.
But O’Reilly acknowledged that the committee members may not be “astute enough to keep it simple, get her locked down.”
“Right,” Hume agreed. He said “the task” (of demolishing Clinton, of course) is complicated by the fact that the questioning “ping pongs” between the Democrats and the Republicans. The result, he said, is “a scattershot quality to these things which favors a witness, particularly if the witness is, if you will, a suspect in the case.”
“Suspect in the case?” Ambassador Stevens died from smoke inhalation as the result of a fire, set by an angry mob, at the U.S. consulate at Benghazi. But I’m sure Hume’s superiors will appreciate Hume suggesting that Clinton was the real murderer. Might be good for some extra Benjamins in the pay check, even.
But that was nothing compared to the role playing. O’Reilly was the prosecutor congressional questioner and he assigned Hume the role of Clinton. Or Kate McKinnon, O’Reilly quipped.
O’Reilly was very pleased with his performance – and he commanded the Republican committee members to model themselves after him. Right down to the timing.
O’REILLY: Do I have to get elected to Congress to ask these questions? Look, I know most of the committee members are watching us right now. Write that down! That’s the crux of the matter! That’s it! Don’t ask anything else!
…The email thing is at the end. Get established whether the woman knew about the cable and if she did, why she didn’t provide the security. That’s it!
O’Reilly actually moaned with frustration at the very thought that the committee might not nail Clinton as effectively as he could. “Give me that committee!” O’Reilly said, with clenched fists.
And then, without any sense of how truly ridiculous he looked, O’Reilly added, “Not that I have an axe to grind, I don’t. I just want the truth.”
Here’s some truth for you, Bill: During one of the seven previous congressional investigations, Clinton has already addressed those issues:
Clinton replied that all four State Department officials criticized in the ARB report for their roles on the Benghazi events had been removed from their jobs and placed on administrative leave. “The ARB (report) made very clear that the level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below.”
It’s amazing to me how shamelessly O’Reilly and his Fox News pals give a pass to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for the thousands of Americans who died under their misleadership – while steadfastly insisting that their own unwavering commitment to Benghazi investigations arises only from noble humanitarianism.
Let’s hope that when Hillary Clinton testifies on Thursday, this particular Republican jig of partisan hypocrisy, self-interest and phony civic mindedness will finally be up.
Watch it below, from the October 19 The O’Reilly Factor.
I should have noted that the quote from Hillary was speaking to a Benghazi security cable from Aug. 16th. However, in her answer, she said that “security cables did not come to my attention” which would also include the July 9th security that BOR mentioned.
First of all, bullsh!t. BOR has had an axe to grind against the Clintons ever since he claimed (back on his now defunct radio show) that the Clinton admin had the IRS come after him with audits as retribution for all his criticisms of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky/impeachment debacle.
With regards to BOR’s demand that the Benghazi committee ask Hillary “did you know about this cable, yes or no, she’s under oath”…a transcript from a Jan. 2013 Benghazi hearing shows that Hillary has already answered the question about whether she knew about the cable.
In response to Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), Hillary said, “Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention. I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level … 1.43 million cables a year come to the State Department. They are all addressed to me. They do not all come to me. They are reported through the bureaucracy.”
Was BOR not paying attention? Does he and his “crack team” of researchers really not understand how to do the google? I found this quote from Hillary in about 10 seconds. Or is it more that BOR prefers his audience to just continue thinking that Hillary hasn’t even addressed the issue? BOR’s idea of the “truth” leaves a lot to be desired. LOL!
If BOR was interested in getting at the truth of this tragedy, he would have mentioned to the folks that Gen. Carter Ham said that Ambassador Stevens turned down his offer of extra security twice (and both rejections were made after the July 9th cable that BOR mentioned).
And, since truth and the security issues are what BOR is supposedly interested in, then he why didn’t he bother to tell the folks that bringing in more security wasn’t quite as simple as it has been painted due to legal ramifications. If US security forces used their weapons, they could be charged under local Libyan law by tribal judges appointed by Gadhafi. There was the matter of diplomatic immunity for any of our US security forces that is rarely ever discussed – bringing in our US security forces vs. hiring more Libyan guards for the consulate’s security (which was State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy’s rationale when he refused Ham’s Defense Department offer of extra security and, in effect, Steven’s July 9th request).
And, of course, there is no mention by BOR that the CIA was quite possibly running a covert arms smuggling op and was using the Benghazi consulate/its annex as cover (as in it was not really a State Dept. facility). Nah, none of the FOX “news” hosts ever want to go there!
It looks like there’s a lot of blame to go around with regards to the Benghazi attack but to lay it all at the feet of Hillary shows just how partisan this search for the “truth” has become. And “The Factor” viewers were just treated to more of this partisan crap by an angry, biased BOR who clearly wants Hillary targeted and brought down.
Ellen on Hume’s quip: “Suspect in the case?”
Ah, good catch, Ellen.
With such a response, it would also be interesting if Hillary spoke the words “leadership” and “esteemed” in a sarcastic way.
