Video: Greta interviews Hillary Clinton about Middle East / Benghazi

Fox News Channel's Greta Van Susteren sat down with outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss - among other things - Egypt and Benghazi. Those expecting Greta to be a bit tougher on Clinton than was the stable of gelded Republican Senators and Congressmen last week were disappointed but there were some revealing moments.

Commentary after the video:



After exchanging niceties, Clinton refers to the post-Arab Spring in general - Egypt in particular - as a "period of adjustment" and that it's important "not to see these revolutions hijacked by extremists". What she didn't say was that countries like Egypt are adjusting to Sharia law and that the hijacking of those revolutions is a foregone conclusion and was predictable to so many with much less information than Clinton had at her disposal during the early stages of the Arab Spring.

Shortly thereafter, Greta brings up Morsi's 2010 comments, which included him saying the Jews were descendants of "apes and pigs", and that Egypt must "nurse its children on hatred of the Jews". A few hours before Greta's interview, reports came out that a close Morsi aid said the Holocaust never happened and that the Jews secretly moved to the U.S.

Hillary's response?

At the 1:58 mark, she says "We were quite concerned about those statements" and that "the Egyptian presidency has repudiated" the comments.

What more proof does one need that the Democratic Party has more contempt for Christians and conservatives than for the Muslim Brotherhood? Virtually the entire Barack Obama administration, for more than four years, has been engaged in class warfare that involves much more critical and relentless criticism of conservatives who haven't even come close to talking like Morsi.

At the 3:30 mark, when asked about Morsi personally, Hillary said:

"I think he has a lot of the right intentions".

Wait a minute. A leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who also happens to be the President of Egypt has pure intentions?! The intentions of the Brotherhood include the annihilation of Israel and establishing a global caliphate.

Shortly after the 4:00 mark, while mildly defending Morsi, said:

"It's not what somebody says. It's what they do."

You mean like saying Al-Qaeda has been decimated while actually fueling the group's resurgence by siding with the Muslim Brotherhood all over the Middle East?

At the 4:40 mark, the conversation shift's to Morsi's welcoming of Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, who is responsible for mass genocide in his country. Clinton doesn't just excuse Morsi for doing so by saying such meetings take place all over the Middle East but check out this quote, delivered by her at about the 5:20 mark:

"He (Bashir) does need to be held accountable for what happened on his watch as President."

Interesting to hear such language coming from Clinton, which makes a nice segue to the question about Benghazi, which is asked shortly after the 12:00 mark. It was a two-part question and just as open-ended as many of the questions asked by Republican Senators and Congressmen at last week's hearings.

1.) Can Americans feel confident that security at embassies and consulates will be sufficient, moving forward?

2.) Should we go back to Benghazi?

Clinton's answer ultimately led to a sales pitch for more money to help keep these installations more secure. Again, like what happened at the Senate and House Committee hearings, that pitch went unanswered by Greta, despite earlier testimony from Charlene Lamb, a State Department bureaucrat, who testified that a lack of funds was not the reason for a lack of security in Benghazi.

In that hearing, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) asked Lamb if lack of security due to budget concerns. Her answer (at about the 1:45 mark) was "no sir":



Breitbart was not too happy with Van Susteren's failure to ask any follow-up questions of Hillary about Benghazi.

Two Woefully absent arguments in Gun Control debates

"I've been sitting here, getting more and more fed up with all of this talk about these pieces of machinery having no legitimate sporting purpose, no legitimate hunting purpose. People, that is not the point of the second amendment. The second amendment is not about duck hunting and I know I'm not going to make very many friends saying this but it's about our right, all of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there." - Suzanna Gracia-Hupp in 1993 Congressional testimony about banning assault weapons.

It may seem like I'm beating a dead horse but remember, doing so is warranted when the truth lies in that horse's bones. Like Gracia-Hupp in that 1993 hearing, I too am getting "fed up" with the gun control debate, not because I don't think it's legitimate but because practically everyone who is engaging in it is arguing the wrong points while playing defense instead of going on offense.

There are two arguments that second amendment proponents never seem willing to address. First, the reason for the second amendment is to protect against tyranny and second, it's the government that should be the subject of a gun control debate relative to Operation Fast and Furious.

To his credit, CNN's Piers Morgan is giving plenty of gun rights advocates their say on his show but few of them seem all that interested in deviating from the terms of Morgan's debate, which is that no one needs an AR-15 for home defense. When guests argue the point that they do, it sounds a bit loopy. Most of the arguments have to deal with fending off multiple intruders. When that's the argument, people like Morgan are more successful than they should be.

It's like pro-lifers allowing leftists to make the argument about whether abortions should be permitted in the cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother's health. Those cases are so rare as a percentage of the overall number of abortions that they're outside the bounds of the central issue, which is whether abortion is murder. Conservatives constantly allow the debate to shift away from the real issue.

The same thing continues to happen with the gun control debate. Here are two examples. First, staunch conservative radio talk show host Dana Loesch does battle with Piers Morgan. Notice what the debate is about - the nuances of the difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons. While Loesch is correct and makes some good points, Morgan is far more successful with viewers because Loesch doesn't shift the debate to what the second amendment is really about (see Gracia-Hupp quote above).

Pay attention at the 3:00 mark. Morgan's question to Loesch is:

"What would you personally do and authorize Washington's politicians to do, to curb gun violence in America?"

Her answer:

"Stop disarming law-abiding citizens."

She's right but doesn't go on offense. She also has a problem coming up with another example when prompted by Morgan to do so but does ultimately add that there should be...

"...tougher penalties for criminals who kill people with illegally obtained firearms."

Once again, this would have been a perfect opportunity to inject the government's role in Fast and Furious into the debate. Consider Morgan's response if Loesch would have said something like:

"Well, Piers, perhaps we could start with more transparency in Operation Fast and Furious. How about you demanding that President Obama lift Executive Privilege on subpoenaed documents by the House Oversight Committee that Eric Holder doesn't want you to see? How about we dig a little deeper into how the ATF - with the approval of the Justice Department - was allowed to put assault weapons, to include .50 Caliber rifles, which are much more powerful than AR-15's, into the hands of drug cartels? It seems to me, Piers, that you're being a little biased in this debate."

Until conservatives engage in the real debate, the progressives will continue to make gains. It's really a shame because Loesch is very conservative and never afraid to debate the hard issues.

The AR-15 lighter was a nice touch, though.

Via GWP:



Here is another example. Two young conservative women in an interview with Piers Morgan do the same thing Loesch did; they allow Morgan to make the debate about whether an AR-15 is necessary for home defense (See Suzanna Gratia-Hupp quote again). This is not the reason the second amendment was put in the Constitution. While one of these women accurately cited a news story about how an AR-15 came in handy relative to home defense, the pro-second amendment crowd has got to start going on offense instead of simply playing adequate defense.

Via WND:

1993 Video: Killeen, TX woman testifies in front of Congress after losing her parents because of Gun Control

In 1991, Susan Gratia-Hupp went to a Luby's restaurant in Killeen, TX (not far from where Nidal Malik Hasan killed 14 and injured 32 in a gun-free zone eighteen years later) with her parents. Hupp left her gun in the car because Texas law prohibited her from taking it inside. Watch her tell the story of what happened next.

A couple of years ago, Hupp spoke at a Tea Party rally I attended and she has just as much fire and passion today as she expressed in that 1993 hearing.

While you're at it, watch Chuck Schumer's face and then ask yourself if his motives for gun control today are pure.

They are not.

Via Breitbart, which is calling for Piers Morgan to have Hupp on his show.