How can you have a serious inquiry with one party in the tank for the witness?

Over the next few days, we will read that Secretary Clinton survived the hearings.  And they are right!  She was calm and rather cynical as well.  To be honest, I was not expecting the political equivalent of Foreman knocking out Frazier.  Nevertheless, the inquiry was necessary.

Let me add two things to this debate.

First, I agree with KT McFarland:

She didn't mean to, but she showed us a glimpse into her soul.

It was chilling.

We now know that when Secretary Clinton met the plane carrying the bodies of the four Americans who died at Benghazi that the Obama administration had intially lied about what happened.

She stood over the flag-draped coffins of four dead Americans knowing that the first narrative blamed their deaths on an Internet video, which caused a demonstration outside the consulate to turn into a deadly attack, when she already knew the truth.

She looked into the eyes of the families of the fallen heroes knowing all about that. 

She always knew they died from a planned terrorist attack from an Al Qaeda-like group. That's what she told her family and foreign leaders according to newly released emails.

So why support the false narrative at the start? Because the Obama administration had an election to win eight weeks later, and a terrorist attack that killed four Americans didn't fit into that plan.

President Obama asked voters to reelect him because he had killed Usama bin Laden. Al Qaeda was on the ropes. Qaddafi was dead and the Libyan war a success. The wave of war was a receding. President George W. Bush's War on Terror was over because Obama and Clinton had won it.

A terrorist attack that killed Americans at Benghazi did not fit into that campaign narrative, so it had to be retold and spun into a different story. It wasn't radical Islamist terrorists, but a spontaneous demonstration that got out of control in reaction to an obscure Internet video.

Yes, the woman is all about winning an election, or in this case helping President Obama win his re-election.  It all goes to the character question.  She will change positions or even tell a lie if that is needed to play the party line.

My second observation is that the Democrats are no longer a serious political party.  From the beginning, Rep. Cummings was reading talking points that could have been written by the Clinton campaign.  He was followed by Rep. Hackworth, who was suddenly interested in Defense Department quarterly reviews.  She was followed by Rep. Sanchez, the poster girl for why drawing up ethnic districts results in the election of incompetent Democrats with very little substance.

Are the Democrats telling us that they are okay with Secretary Clinton making up the video story?  Or having Sidney Blumenthal around when the Obama White House had forbidden his involvement in government business?  Or refusing to process requests for more security?

It was pathetic to watch Democrat after Democrat play the party line without regard for facts or truth.

P.S. You can listen to my show (Canto Talk) and follow me on Twitter.

If you experience technical problems, please write to