Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Wednesday, February 26, 2025
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 706)
Video

[brid video=”18719″ player=”1929″ title=”Kansas City Royals Eric Hosmer Named Falkan Tires High Performance Player for the Night”]

Kansas City Royals first baseman Eric Hosmer named the Falken Tires High Performance Player of the Night for driving in the winning run in Game 6. The Royals will go on to face the New York Mets, who shut out the Chicago Cubs and in the National League Championship Series.

The Royals are advancing to the World Series for the second straight season and will open the World Series on Tuesday night at home against the Mets.

Kansas City Royals first baseman Eric Hosmer

Sports

Royals-Game-6-Lorenzo-Cain

Kansas City Royals’ Lorenzo Cain is safe at home past Toronto Blue Jays catcher Russell Martin on a hit by Eric Hosmer during the eight inning in Game 6 of baseball’s American League Championship Series on Friday, Oct. 23, 2015, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

The Kansas City Royals defeated the Toronto Blue Jays in the American League Championship Series (ALCS) Game 6 at Kauffman Stadium.. The Royals will advance to the World Series for the second straight year against the NLCS undefeated New York Mets.

Kansas City Royals first baseman Eric Hosmer was named the Falken Tires High Performance Player of the Night for driving in the winning run. Hosmer’s well-placed single down the line in the eighth delivered the pennant-clinching run when Lorenzo Cain, who walked on base, scored from first. Davis retired Blue Jays star Josh Donaldson on a grounder with runners on second and third to end Game 6 of the AL Championship Series.

The Royals open the World Series on Tuesday night at home against the New York Mets.

The Kansas City Royals defeated Toronto and

Politics

lois lerner

Lois Lerner, former head of the IRS unit that decides whether to grant tax-exempt status to groups, listens on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, May 22, 2013. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

The Justice Department has decided not to file charges against Lois Lerner, the former IRS official at the center of targeting Tea Party and conservative groups. The political controversy involved the IRS targeting groups for extra scrutiny while processing applications for tax-exempt status in the wake of Citizens United, a Supreme Court decision that gave individuals the same campaign finance rights unions have enjoyed for decades.

Federal prosecutors announced their decision Friday in a letter to members of Congress. However, PPD has learned that the decision does not reflect whether Lerner did anything wrong, per se, but was told that it was rather the strength of the case.

More than two years ago an inspector general’s investigative report found that Lerner and other IRS agents had improperly singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. The disclosure, which was made public when Lerner planted a question during a public gathering, set off investigations by the Justice Department and multiple congressional committees.

The House voted to hold Lerner in contempt of Congress last year after she invoked the Fifth Amendment at two House Oversight hearings. She has since retired.

Worth noting, PPD reported in July that newly obtained documents reveal the Justice Department was well-aware of, in fact knee-deep in the IRS targeting of conservative groups as early as 2010. A “DOJ Recap” report detailed an October 2010 meeting between Lois Lerner, DOJ officials and “one representative from the FBI” to discuss the possible criminal prosecution of nonprofit organizations for alleged political activity.

The documents also reveal that President Obama’s and then-Attorney General Eric Holder’s DOJ wanted IRS employees who were set to testify to Congress to turn over documents to them prior to handing them over to Congress. The IRS gave the FBI 21 computer disks, which contained 1.25 million pages of confidential IRS returns from 113,000 nonprofit social 501(c)(4) welfare groups -– accounting for nearly every 501(c)(4) in the United States -– as part of its effort to prosecute the president’s political opponents.

That was not the first revelation to cast serious doubt on the integrity of the Justice Department under AG Holder, particularly as it relates to the IRS targeting scandal. House Republicans learned in January, 2014 that the Justice Department’s investigation into the IRS targeting Tea Party groups had been “compromised,” after Holder’s DOJ outrageously appointed an Obama donor to head up the probe.

In a letter to Holder, lawmakers say they’ve learned that Barbara Kay Bosserman, the trial attorney appointed to investigate the IRS scandal, is a long-term donor of both the Democratic National Committee and President Obama, a revelation confirmed Tuesday by the White House.

Campaign finance records show Bosserman contributed at least $6,750.00 going back to 2004 and donated sometimes twice a month, rotating between Obama’s campaign and the Democratic national committee, at one point giving $1,000.00 in one shot to the “Obama for America” super PAC.

Meanwhile, because of the illegal public disclosure of confidential taxpayer information from the IRS to the FBI, the agency was forced to return the 1.25 million pages to the tax-collection agency.

The Justice Department has decided not to

US

Hurricane-Patricia

Oct. 23, 2015 – Image released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows Hurricane Patricia moving over Mexico’s Pacific Coast. Patricia headed toward southwestern Mexico as a Category 5 storm, the strongest ever in the Western Hemisphere. (Photo: Courtesy of NOAA/ AP)

Hurricane Patricia headed toward southwestern Mexico Friday with maximum sustained winds near 200 mph as a Category 5 storm that the National Hurricane Center in Miami described as “potentially catastrophic.” Patricia, which is the strongest storm ever measured in the Western Hemisphere, is expected to hit Mexico’s Pacific Coast between San Blas and Punta San Telmo on Friday.

“This is an extremely dangerous, potentially catastrophic hurricane,” center meteorologist Dennis Feltgen said.

The NHC expects the storm to bring rainfall amounts of eight to 12 inches, with some isolated locations seeing up to 20 inches of rain. The center warned these rains could bring life-threatening flash floods, mud slides and waves up to 30 feet tall. Director of Mexico’s National Water Commission Roberto Ramirez said that Hurricane Patricia is powerful enough to lift up automobiles, destroy homes not built with cement and steel, and will be able to drag or pick up people still outside when the she hits.

A Hurricane Warning is in effect from San Blas to Punta San Telmo, and a Hurricane Watch is in effect east of Punta San Telmo to Lazaro Cardenas. While it was a tropical storm less than 24 hours ago the storm’s power is comparable to that of Typhoon Haiyan, which according to the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization, left more than 7,300 dead or missing in the Philippines two years ago. Now, the pressure is also the lowest recorded, measuring in Friday morning at roughly 880 or 881 millibars.

Some resorts in Puerto Vallarta began evacuating guests ahead of the storm and local officials declared a state of emergency in dozens of municipalities in Colima, Nayarit and Jalisco states that contain the busy port of Manzanillo and the posh resort of Puerto Vallarta. The governor of Colima ordered schools closed on Friday, and three airports in Patricia’s path were shut down, including Puerto Vallarta, Manzanillo in Colima state and Tepic in Nayarit.

The Mexican Red Cross said Friday morning that it has stocked three tons of humanitarian aid supplies in preparation of the storm. Patricia may survive over land long enough to bring heavy rainfall in the U.S., and the National Weather Service has forecast 10 or more inches of rain for Texas through Sunday.

Hurricane Patricia headed toward southwestern Mexico Friday

Policy

McCarthy-Boehner

Outgoing House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio listens at right as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Calif. speaks during a new conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2015. McCarthy is assuring Republicans he can bring them together, even as emboldened conservatives maneuver to yank their party to the right in the wake of the leader of the U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner’s sudden resignation. (Photo: AP/Carolyn Kaster)

Republicans are probably going to surrender on spending caps, thus allowing Obama to reverse his biggest-ever defeat. Moreover, GOPers almost surely will get nothing in exchange for raising the debt limit, thus squandering an opportunity to limit profligacy in Washington.

So, I should be feeling very glum. And, truth be told, I am routinely frustrated by what happens in DC.

But one thing I’ve learned over the past three decades is that it’s very hard to win battles without doing the hard work that helps to build a consensus for policy reform.

With this in mind, I’m going to express some optimism about the case for long-run spending restraint. This may seem counter intuitive given the probable defeats that will occur in the next month or two on the BCA spending caps and the debt limit.

But I’m thinking this may be Obama’s last hurrah and that things will change dramatically after the 2016 elections.

My medium-term hopefulness isn’t based on the election of any specific candidate. Instead, it’s a reflection of the growing consensus for good policy.

For instance, Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas, writing in National Review, says that the BCA spending caps need to be expanded.

Congress’s latest effort at fiscal restraint — the Budget Control Act of 2011 — targeted the one-third of federal spending that goes for discretionary programs. This act has helped to shrink Washington’s budget deficit by two-thirds and shave Washington’s spending by a significant three percentage points of GDP. …Unfortunately, the…Budget Control Act does not address entitlements. And without common-sense reforms, the massive uncontrolled growth in entitlements will leave America with a bleak fiscal future. …Congress must build on the success of the Budget Control Act. We need smarter, 21st-century budget guardrails… The upcoming fight over the federal debt limit gives Congress an opportunity to think smartly and act boldly by enacting a responsible spending cap that limits federal spending in relation to the size of our economy.

Congressman Brady has a specific plan to cap spending growth, and he explains that it is similar to Switzerland’s very effective approach.

The Maximizing America’s Prosperity Act of 2015 (MAP) would cap federal primary spending (which includes both discretionary and entitlement spending) as a percentage of potential GDP. Under MAP, primary spending would gradually decline from 19 percent of potential GDP in fiscal year 2016 to 16 percent of potential GDP over ten years. …MAP is a very prudent approach similar to the “debt brake” that has successfully capped the growth of government spending in Switzerland.

Since I’ve already written favorably about the Swiss Debt Brake and specifically noted that the MAP Act is the closest thing to that approach in the Untied States, it’s obvious that I like spending caps.

But what about other fiscal experts in Washington?

Well, there’s significant agreement on this issue.

Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute testified on the issue earlier this month.

…countries have increasingly begun to rely on specific expenditure targets… The adoption of such targets makes a great deal of sense. …Marking spending to potential GDP would be an effective way to enact budget legislation that is transparent and difficult to game. …I encourage Congress to consider adopting a budget rule that caps spending in the U.S. (other than interest payments) at some agreed upon fraction of GDP.

By the way, Kevin mentioned in his testimony that even the IMF has identified spending caps as the only effective fiscal rule.

Returning to the views of American fiscal experts, Romina Boccia of the Heritage Foundation shared favorable thoughts about spending caps in an article for The National Interest.

…how could Congress…make long-overdue spending reforms? One way is to enact spending caps in line with Congress’s budget to pave the way for concrete reforms with the threat of automatic cuts. Such a statutory spending cap would encourage lawmakers to prioritize federal spending, enable them to say “no” to special interests, and help to protect American taxpayers from wasteful spending burdens. Lawmakers should build on the success of the Budget Control Act and its spending caps enforced by sequestration to motivate entitlement reforms. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) recently reintroduced the Maximizing America’s Prosperity Act (H.R. 2471), which would impose a statutory spending cap across all non-interest outlays, in line with the spending targets established in Congress’s budget resolution.

And here’s some of what Veronique de Rugy wrote for the Mercatus Center.

…the caps and accompanying sequestration enforcement mechanism have been successful in constraining the discretionary share of the federal budget. …One of the chief criticisms of the caps is that they are largely limited to the discretionary programs, which comprise an increasingly smaller share of the overall federal budget. That’s a fair criticism. …policymakers should lock in these gains for taxpayers and seek to expand limits on federal funding to include more of the mandatory side of the budget.

By the way, here’s a chart Veronique prepared showing how the BCA spending caps have saved taxpayers a lot of money.

From this chart, you can see why I think it’s so important to preserve the spending caps and not surrender to Obama’s veto threats.

But let’s not dwell on potential bad developments and instead focus on the best approach, which is expanding the caps to constrain a far greater share of the federal budget.

Here are some excerpts from an article in Reason by A. Barton Hinkle, who explains how spending caps produce fiscal progress.

How do we avoid the iceberg up ahead? …sequestration has helped slow the growth of the federal government. Before it took effect, federal spending was on track to consume one-fourth of America’s GDP. By last year, Washington sopped up only one-fifth of America’s wealth. …there’s a[n]…option that could put America in the black… Hold the growth of government spending to 2 percent per year. That’s it. If Washington did only that, the federal budget would be balanced within six years. …many other advanced democracies have held their spending in similar check. Sweden, Canada, the Netherlands, and Italy did so during the 1990s; Germany, Switzerland, Israel and Taiwan did so in the 2000s. And because their economies grew somewhat faster, their government debt burdens shrank.

Wow. If you have Cato, AEI, Heritage, Mercatus, and Reason all endorsing spending caps, that’s a noteworthy development. And remember that this approach also has been lauded by the International Monetary Fund, which definitely is not part of the vast right wing conspiracy. Here’s the bottom line, which presumably explains the growing support for spending caps.

We have lots of examples of countries that have successfully addressed fiscal problems with multi-year periods of spending restraint. And we have further evidence that explicit spending caps are the only sure-fire way of ensuring long-run fiscal discipline.

So no wonder lots of people and institutions are joining forces in the campaign to create a successful enforcement mechanism for fiscal policy’s Golden Rule. But I don’t want to get cocky. Building a coalition for good policy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for reform.

I’ll feel more confident about possible changes if some of the presidential candidates openly embrace spending caps and put forth plans to restrain the burden of government spending. But if we get enough people in the parade for good policy, I suspect a few politicians will suddenly see the wisdom of getting to the front of the line.

Republicans are probably going to surrender on

Video

[brid video=”18660″ player=”1929″ title=”Uncle of Benghazi Victim Hillary Clinton is a Serial Liar”]

Michael Ingmire, the uncle of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, told Sean Hannity Thursday night that Hillary Clinton lied during her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

“Hillary Clinton is a serial liar,” Ingmire stated. “Hillary Clinton really has a difficult time maintaining a consistent level of truth, and that was proven today, and it’s been proven before.”

He said that Clinton should consider withdrawing from the 2016 presidential race.

“If she’s not duplicitous, she’s definitely incompetent. And neither personality trait really belongs in the office of the president.”

Michael Ingmire, the uncle of Benghazi victim

Politics

Under Reconciliation, GOP Leaders Could Pass the Senate Bill With 51 Votes

Paul-Ryan-candidacy-House-Speaker

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington on October 21, 2015. (Photo: AP)

The Republican-controlled House passed a bill Friday that would gut ObamaCare and defund Planned Parenthood under reconciliation, passable in the Senate with 51 votes. Even though it faces a certain veto from President Obama should it reach his desk, the move represents a change in strategy that has long been advocated by conservatives in Congress.

The bill easily passed 240-189, though Democrats voted to continue to fund an organization that has a surplus each year, let alone not in need of federal funding. Still, there is no guarantee that all 54 Senate Republicans will back it. Moderate Republicans, or ones who aren’t concerned with keeping their campaign promises, as all promised to defund ObamaCare, may say it goes too far. Meanwhile, more conservative GOP senators running for president, all trying to top the other, are likely to say it doesn’t to enough to push back on the Obama agenda.

However, there is still a wildcard. President Obama vetoed the defense spending bill, which is the first time any president in modern history vetoed a basic stand alone appropriation measure, simply because he wants to squeeze out more money for unrelated programs. The unprecedented move infuriated moderate Republicans such as Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who said he has never seen a president play politics with defense in all the years he has been in the Senate.

Yet, the bottom line is that House Republicans believe the bill is the best way to paint bold political differences with Democrats for next year’s elections.

“This is our best opportunity to date to put the bill on the president’s desk and show the American people where his priorities lie,” said Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn.
“The legislation would eliminate the health law’s requirements that most people who don’t have employer-provided health coverage buy individual policies, and that most companies provide medical insurance. It would also eliminate the statute’s taxes on medical devices and high-priced insurance policies.”

It also prevents Planned Parenthood from getting federal money for a year — the GOP response to undercover videos recently released that showed PPFA officials describing how they alter abortion procedures to better traffic in aborted baby body parts with researchers for fetal tissue, both of which are illegal.

“This is a hyper-partisan document that is just talking points for extremists,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif. In truth, federal funding for late-term abortion in the extremist position in the country, according to a dozen recent polls tracked by PPD’s Election Projection Model.

In a statement promising Obama’s veto, the White House said the GOP measure “would take away critical benefits and health care coverage from hard-working middle-class families.”

The Republican House passed a bill Friday

Politics

Lincoln-Chafee-Minneapolis

Democratic presidential candidate, former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee speaks in Minneapolis on Aug. 28, 2015. (Photo: AP/Jim Mone)

Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee dropped his 2016 bid for president Friday, further shrinking the already thin and arguably weak Democratic field.

Chafee announced his decision at a Women’s Leadership Forum conference where other candidates also were speaking.

“After much thought I have decided to end my campaign for president today,” Chafee said, while reminding the audience of his “prosperity through peace” campaign slogan. Appealing for less U.S. military intervention abroad, he said: “I would like to take this opportunity one last time to advocate for a chance be given to peace.”

The former Rhode Island governor and former senator, initially a Republican-turned-independent-turned sort of Democrat, had a hard time on the campaign competing against Clinton as well as liberal Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Chafee is currently polling at just 0.3% on the PPD average of Democratic nomination polls nationwide.

In last week’s Democratic debate Chafee referred to himself as a “block of granite” when it came to issues and said he was most proud of his judgment, particularly his vote against the Iraq war. But his performance was widely panned due to his stumbling over questions about his record and his reason for seeking the presidency — even as he was perhaps the most critical of Clinton on stage.

Gov. Chafee raised only $11,000 in the third fundraising quarter, an abysmal sum compared to the $28 million and $26 million hauls by Clinton and Sanders, respectively. In fact, the vast majority of his money came from the $360,000-plus he has loaned to his own campaign.

Earlier this week, former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb also ended his bid for the Democratic nomination, though he left the door open to run as an independent. The decisions leave only Clinton, Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley as major candidates in the Democratic field.

Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee dropped

Video

[brid video=”18639″ player=”1929″ title=”Benghazi Committee Chair Trey Gowdy’s Opening Statement”]

House Select Committee on Benghazi Chair Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., ripped the shortcomings of previous investigations, including the Accountability Review Board (ARB), which Clinton referenced numerous times when she testified before Congress in 2013. He noted that the ARB did not review her emails, nor did the investigators even interview Mrs. Clinton, the former secretary of state. Further, the transcripts of the interviews conducted was not made available, and they didn’t uncover (or didn’t report) that Mrs. Clinton was using a private server, which he didn’t focus on.

“Madame Secretary, I understand some people — frankly in both parties — have suggested this investigation is about you,” Gowdy said in his opening statement. “Let me assure you it is not. And let me assure you why it is not. This work is about something much more important than any single person. It is about four U.S. government workers, including our Ambassador, murdered by terrorists on foreign soil. It is about what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed these four men.”

The select committee grilled Mrs. Clinton for roughly 11 hours on Thursday, though they still do not have all of the pertinent emails. Yet, it was established beyond a shadow of a doubt that Hillary knew the terror attack on the Benghazi consulate that claimed the lives of 4 Americans had absolutely nothing to do with a YouTube video that was offensive to Muslims, despite her public statements and comments to the victims’ families.

“Not a single member of this Committee signed up for an investigation into you or your email system,” Gowdy added. We signed up because we wanted to honor the service and sacrifice of four people sent to a foreign land to represent us – who were killed – and do everything we can to prevent it from happening to others.”

The chairman was attempting to refocus the public’s attention on why the committee was established in the first place, following Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s gaffe on “Hannity” late last month. McCarthy suggested the committee was established to drag Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers down and supporters have used to argue it was a partisan witch hunt, though the victims’ families would argue otherwise.

“Our Committee has interviewed half a hundred witnesses, not a single one of them has been named Clinton until today,” Gowdy said. “You were the Secretary of State for this country when our facility was attacked. So, of course this Committee is going to talk to you. You are an important witness, but you are just one important witness, among half a hundred important witnesses.”

House Select Committee on Benghazi Chair Trey

Politics

[brid video=”18633″ player=”1929″ title=”GOP Rep. Roskam Grills Hillary on Role in Libya Intervention “You Drove It You Persuaded People.””]

Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., grilled former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton over her role in convincing President Obama to intervene in Libya militarily. Former Secretary of Defense Bob Gates, Vice President Joe Biden, Valerie Jarrett and the entire National Security Council opposed toppling Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, but not Hillary Clinton.

Of course, as Rep. Roskam pointed out, they didn’t have their close friends–who also work at the Clinton Foundation–asking them to do so in order to push their business interests, i.e. Sidney Blumenthal.

TRANSCRIPT

REP. PETER ROSKAM (R-IL): Good morning, Secretary Clinton.

Jake Sullivan, your chief foreign policy adviser, wrote a tick- tock on Libya memo on August 21, 2011. And this was the day before the rebels took Tripoli. He titles it, quote, “Secretary Clinton’s Leadership on Libya,” in which he describes you as, quote, “a critical voice” and, quote, “the public face of the U.S. effort in Libya and instrumental in tightening the noose around Gadhafi and his regime.”

But that didn’t come easy, did it? Because you faced considerable opposition, and I can pause while you’re reading your notes from your staff.

FMR. SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON: One thing at a time, Congressman.

ROSKAM: OK. That didn’t come easy, did it, that leadership role and that public face and so forth that I just mentioned?

CLINTON: (OFF-MIKE) this is an issue that the committee has raised. And it really boils down to why were we in Libya; why did the United States join with our NATO and European allies, join with our Arab partners to protect the people of Libya against the murderous planning of Gadhafi. Why did we take a role alongside our partners in doing so.

There were a number of reasons for that. And I think it is important to remind the American people where we were at the time when the people of Libya, like people across the region, rose up demanding freedom and democracy, a chance to chart their own futures. And Gadhafi…

ROSKAM: I take your point.

CLINTON: … Gadhafi threatened them with genocide, with hunting them down like cockroaches. And we were then approached by, with great intensity, our closest allies in Europe, people who felt very strongly — the French and the British, but others as well — that they could not stand idly by and permit that to happen so close to their shores, with the unintended consequences that they worried about.

And they asked for the United States to help. We did not immediately say yes. We did an enormous amount of due diligence in meeting with not only our European and Arab partners, but also with those were heading up what was called the Transitional National Council. And we had experienced diplomats who were digging deep into what was happening in Libya and what the possibilities were, before we agreed to provide very specific, limited help to the European and Arab efforts.

We did not put one American soldier on the ground. We did not have one casualty. And in fact, I think by many measures, the cooperation between NATO and Arab forces was quite remarkable and something that we want to learn more lessons from.

ROSKAM: Secretary Clinton, you were meeting with opposition within the State Department from very senior career diplomats in fact. And they were saying that it was going to produce a net negative for U.S. military intervention.

For example, in a March 9th, 2011 e-mail discussing what has become known as the Libya options memo, Ambassador Stephen Mull, then the executive secretary of the State Department and one of the top career diplomats, said this, “In the case of our diplomatic history, when we’ve provided material or tactical military support to people seeking to drive their leaders from power, no matter how just their cause, it’s tended to produce net negatives for our interests over the long term in those countries.”

Now, we’ll come back to that in a minute. But you overruled those career diplomats. I mean, they report to you and you’re the chief diplomat of the United States. Go ahead and read the note if you need to.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: I have to — I have to…

ROSKAM: I’m not done with my question. I’m just giving you the courtesy of reading your notes.

CLINTON: That’s all right.

ROSKAM: All right.

They were — they were pushing back, but you overcame those objections. But then you had another big obstacle, didn’t you, and that was — that was the White House itself. There were senior voices within the White House that were opposed to military action — Vice President Biden, Department of Defense, Secretary Gates, the National Security Council and so forth.

But you persuaded President Obama to intervene militarily. Isn’t that right?

CLINTON: Well, Congressman, I think it’s important to point out there were many in the State Department who believed it was very much in America’s interests and in furtherance of our values to protect the Libyan people, to join with our European allies and our Arab partners. The ambassador, who had had to be withdrawn from Libya because of direct attacks — or direct threats to his physical safety, but who knew Libya very well, Ambassador Cretz, was a strong advocate for doing what we could to assist the Europeans and the Arabs.

CLINTON: I think it’s fair to say there were concerns and there were varying opinions about what to do, how to do it, and the like. At the end of the day, this was the president’s decision. And all of us fed in our views. I did not favor it until I had done, as I said, the due diligence speaking with not just people within our government and within the governments of all of the other nations who were urging us to assist them, but also meeting in-person with the gentleman who had assumed a lead role in the Transitional National Council.

So it is of course fair to say this is a difficult decision. I wouldn’t sit here and say otherwise. And there were varying points of view about it. But at the end of the day, in large measure, because of the strong appeals from our European allies, the Arab League passing resolution urging that the United States and NATO join with them, those were unprecedented requests.

And we did decide in recommending to the president there was a way to do it. The president I think, very clearly had a limited instruction about how to proceed. And the first planes that flew were French planes. And I think what the United States provided was some of our unique capacity. But the bulk of the work militarily was done by Europeans and Arabs.

ROSKAM: Well I think you are underselling yourself. You got the State Department on board. You convinced the president, you overcame the objections of Vice President Biden and Secretary of Defense Gates, the National Security Council. And you had another obstacle then, and that was the United Nations.

And you were able to persuade the Russians, of all things, to abstain, and had you not been successful in arguing that abstention, the Security Council Resolution 1973 wouldn’t have passed because the Russians had a veto. So you overcame that obstacle as well, right? Isn’t that right?

CLINTON: Well congressman, it is right that doing my due diligence and reviewing the various options and the potential consequences of pursuing each of them, I was in favor of the United States joining with our European allies and our air partners and I also was in favor of obtaining U.N. Security Council support because I thought that would provide greater legitimacy. And that of course, our ambassador to the U.N. was very influential and successful in making the case to her colleagues. But this was at the behest of the president once he was presented with the varying argument.

ROSKAM: And you presented the argument… CLINTON: Congressman, I have been in a number of situation room discussions. I remember very well, the very intense conversation over whether or not to launch the Navy SEALS against the compound we thought in (inaudible) that might house bin Laden.

There was a split in the advisers around the president. Eventually the president makes the decision. I supported doing what we could to support our European and Arab partners in their effort on a humanitarian basis, a strategic basis, to prevent Gadhafi from launching and carrying massacres.

ROSKAM: There was another obstacle that you overcame and that was the Arabs themselves. Jake Sullivan sent you an e-mail, and he said this, “I think you should call. It will be a painful 10 minutes. But you will be the one who delivered Arab support.” And that’s a Jake Sullivan e-mail of March 17th to you asking you to call the secretary general of the Arab League.

So to put this in totality, you were able to overcome opposition within the State Department. You were able to persuade the president. You were able to persuade the United Nations and the international community. You made the call to the Arabs and brought them home. You saw it. You drove it. You articulated it. And you persuaded people. Did I get that wrong?

CLINTON: Well, congressman, I was the secretary of state. My job was to conduct the diplomacy. And the diplomacy consisted of a long series of meetings and phone calls both here in our country and abroad to take the measure of what people were saying and whether they meant it.

We had heard sometimes before from countries saying, well, the United States should go do this. And when we would say, well, what would you do in support of us, there was not much coming forth. This time, if they wanted us to support them in what they saw as an action vital respective to their respective national security interests, I wanted to be sure they were going to bear the bulk of the load. And in fact, they did. What the United States did, as I said, was use our unique capacities. As I recall, if you want if you monetary terms, slightly over a billion dollars or less than we spend in Iraq in one day, is what the United States committed in support of our allies. We asked our allies to do a lot for us Congressman, they had asked is for us to help them.

ROSKAM: My time is expiring. Let me reclaim my time. Let me reclaim my time because it’s expiring. Actually, you summed it up best when you e-mailed your senior staff and you said of this interchange, you said, “It’s good to remind ourselves and the rest of the world that this couldn’t have happened without us.” And you were right, Secretary Clinton.

Our Libya policy be couldn’t have happened without you because you were its chief architect. And I said we were going to go back to Ambassador Mulls’ warning about using military for regime change, and he said, “Long-term things weren’t going to turn out very well. And he was right. After your plan, things in Libya today are a disaster. I yield back.

CLINTON: Well, we’ll have more time I’m sure to talk about this because that’s not a view that I will ascribe to.

Rep. Peter Roskam, R-Ill., grilled former Secretary

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe