YOUR SAY: What do you want to see in a commander-in-chief?
During Hillary Clinton's day-long congressional testimony last week, American voters learned all they need to know about what kind of commander in chief she would make as president of the United States. By reviewing this detailed investigation of the tragic debacle that occurred in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, during the time Clinton was secretary of state, we can evaluate her competence, her priorities, her integrity, and her empathy for the potential loss of life she would be responsible for as commander in chief.
Her competence. Though charged with the security for all ambassadors and staff assigned to consulates around the world, Clinton admitted she left all security questions to the "security professionals" and apparently never had input into their decisions. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, the first American ambassador killed in the line of duty in 33 years, never even had Clinton's email address as he sent increasingly desperate calls for increased security to the State Department, which she says she never heard. After the security professionals ignored all Stevens' requests for increased security and Stevens and three other Americans were slaughtered in the terrorist attack, nobody lost a paycheck at State. None of the security professionals was held accountable, disciplined or fired.
Her priorities. While Clinton ignored the increasingly perilous situation in Libya, she had plenty of time to exchange countless emails with her friend, Sidney Blumenthal, who was trying to set up some lucrative business deals for his friends in Libya. Blumenthal was a man of such shady reputation that President Obama had expressly forbidden Clinton to employ him in any position at the State Department.
Her integrity. The night of the attack, Clinton admitted she emailed her daughter Chelsea and told her that the attack was a preplanned terrorist attack and had nothing to do with the recent protests in neighboring Egypt over an internet video. The next day, Clinton sent the same message to the President of Egypt -- i.e., terrorist attack on anniversary of 9/11 by an al-Qaida-like terrorist group, no video protest involved. Yet almost immediately, she and the administration began a vigorous campaign to tell the American people that the entire cause for the attack was a spontaneous reaction to an obscure Internet video. (Remember that the presidential elections were just weeks away and the president had recently bragged that al-Qaida was "on the run" and the handling of Libya was one of his -- and her -- foreign success stories.
Her human compassion. Knowing it was a lie, Clinton told the grieving family at the casket ceremony of the four slain Americans, that the maker of the video bore all the blame for Benghazi, and "they would get him." She promised that she would keep all the families informed of the investigation. Neither she nor the State Department ever contacted the families again. When Tyrone Woods' mother -- he was one of the ex-Navy Seals slain -- tried repeatedly to contact the State Department about further details, Woods was told she was not privy to those details because she was "not immediate family." Tyrone Woods was her only son.
And there you have the main facts about how Hillary Clinton handled the situation in Benghazi. The media praised Clinton's "performance" and "stamina" after the congressional hearings, but I suspect American voters were looking for different attributes from America's potential commander in chief, especially during today's perilous times.
Rinda Wilson is a resident of Macon.
This story was originally published November 4, 2015 at 9:42 PM with the headline "YOUR SAY: What do you want to see in a commander-in-chief? ."