Last month, Fox's KT McFarland was attacking President Obama's policy in the Middle East and calling it a failure because he did the opposite of George Bush. This Saturday, she was back, going after Hillary Clinton and telling more lies about their drummed up fake scandal, Benghazi-gate and making the absurd claim that the Middle East was pro-American and stable until President Obama was elected and these uprising we've seen with the Arab Spring.
I'm not sure just how much more revisionist history someone could manage to pack into a four or five minute interview as we had here, but McFarland was doing her best to set a record with the amount of b.s. she was shoveling. Never mind anything that happened under Republican presidents. Everything was perfect until the Kenyan usurper came along and got himself elected.
JARRETT: What do we expect to hear from Secretary Clinton? Joining me now to talk about it KT McFarland, Fox News national security analysts. And, one takes her letter word when she and her spokespersons say she's been ill but she has certainly managed to dodge a lot of this event since September 11.
MCFARLANE: Yeah, you know Gregg, she says she takes full responsibility, but so far she's managed to avoid taking any blame. One thing though I think with these hearings, this will probably be the last opportunity these lawmakers have to question Secretary Clinton as Secretary of State and I hope instead of looking back and saying well “What did you now when did you now it?” and “Why did you talk about the video?” I hope instead they focus forward.
Which is “Why have you not responded?” Why has the American government not responded to these attacks? Why have we not gone after the people who killed our own? Because we know that ten years ago or in the late 1980's... '90's... 1998 East Africa bombings US embassies were bombed. 2000 and the USS Cole was bombed. We did not retaliate. We beefed up security. We changed the rules of engagement, but we never went after al-Qaeda and we knew al-Qaeda had done those attacks.
What happened as a result? Bin Laden said, let's go get them again and my concern, and I hope these lawmakers ask Secretary Clinton why has the United States not gotten those people who killed ours? We know where those people are. We could do a drone strike against them.
And then I think Gregg the second point they ought to ask her is why in two years have we gone from a Middle East which was stable and secure and pro-American to a Middle East which is in political and economic chaos, and and governments that are anti-American and increasingly turned over to Islamist radicals.
JARRETT: Are you saying that President Obama's foreign policy is feckless and weak?
MCFARLAND: Well, I'm saying... you know, you make your own decisions. Two years ago the Middle East was a stable place than it was and governments that were pro-American. They were not at war with Israel. And fast forward two years later.
We have been very involved in toppling all of those dictators in the Middle East but we have stepped back as as those countries struggled to find new governments. And what have they done? They found Islamist governments.
We did not help them towards a pro-democracy direction. Whether you are talking about Libya or Egypt or any of the countries in the Middle East, they were all a lot worse off than they were two years ago, and I think the Secretary of State has a lot to answer for and to explain why. What did we do? What are we doing wrong to have the policies that have allowed the United States essentially to be blamed for most of the problems in the Middle East today.
GARRETT: Yeah. The Benghazi diplomatic mission was known to be a dangerous place. There had been previous attacks in and around it before the September 11 terror attack that killed four individuals. She'll be asked some pretty direct questions about why you weren't protecting those people.
MCFARLAND: Yeah and what will she say? I think she'll probably say look, you know, it was the fog of war. We were unsure. We made some mistakes. The people who are responsible for making poor judgments have been disciplined.
They've been given new responsibilities. And so I think she'll skate over that. I think she'll also probably skate over the fact that she herself didn't go out and talk to the American people about what happened.
GARRETT: Yeah and then there's the question about why no assistance, no rescue when these folks were under attack for seven long hours and allegedly the State Department had real time observance of what was going on there.
She'll be asked about that won't she. What what would have her involvement have been or would it have been strictly the Pentagon and the White House?
MCFARLAND: No, no, no, no... there would have been, and as I understand it, and Fox News broke the story, that any classified computer was able to call up in real time the surveillance from drone and that would have been computers at the State Department, at the Defense Department, presumably the CIA, maybe even the White House situation room. So I think she should be asked those questions.
Why was there are no relief? Why was there no rescue effort mounted? I think I suspect what she will say is “We couldn't get there in time” when in fact if you go back and look, there was the opportunity and they didn't know how long that attack was gonna' go on. They didn't know if it was going to be one hour, one day, two days.
So why not at least try? I certainly know what I was in the Pentagon during the first marine barracks bombing in Beirut, we tried to rescue our own.
I was silly enough to think maybe they'd actually drop this once the election was over because it wasn't going to help them get Mitt Romney elected any more. I should have known they wouldn't let it go without going after Clinton as well, since they're all assuming she's going to run for President next time around.