Rubio grills Clinton: An early 2016 face-off?

As Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday on Capitol Hill about the deadly raid on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, there was much speculation in the blogosphere that this may well be the first face-off between eventual 2016 presidential contenders.

As part of the exchange, Rubio asked Clinton about her knowledge of the security situation in Benghazi prior to the attack.

“Were you ever asked to participate in any sort of internal or interagency meeting before this attack with regards to the deteriorating security situation in Libya?” Rubio asked.

 “With specific security requests, they didn’t come to me – I had no knowledge of them,” Clinton replied. “With regard to the situation in Libya – not just Eastern Libya, across Libya – there were a number of conversations and meetings to try to see what we could do while Libya went through this transition from transitional government, to interim government, to elections to try to get in there and help them with security.”

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed

Tom Tillison

Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review.He can be reached at tom@bizpacreview.com
About Tom Tillison

Tom is a grassroots activist who distinguished himself as one of the top conservative bloggers in Florida before joining BizPac Review. He can be reached at tom@bizpacreview.com

  • KB Cook

    Clinton was successful in some and unsuccessful in others regarding her use of the Methodology of Alinsky-ism. The following is a quotation from the cited link that follows the quotation:

    This method is being used at all levels of government to force meetings toward PRESET conclusions. There are three steps to defeating this process. They are simple to learn, if not always easy to put into practice since the Facilitators are well trained in agitation techniques.

    The first rule is: Always be charming, pleasant and courteous. SMILE! Speak in a normal voice to avoid seeming to be belligerent or aggressive.

    Rule No. 2 is to STAY FOCUSED! Write your question or statement down in advance to help you stay on track. These Change Agents are trained to twist the conversation around to make the questioner appear foolish or belligerent or aggressive. The idea being to put the questioner on the defensive. Be careful! As mentioned in Rule 1, always be charming, pleasant and courteous (if it kills you to do so!) Often an attempt will be made to change the subject, digress or distort your intent. Always bring them back to the question you asked! If they distort your question into what amounts to an accusation of them, simply state clearly and precisely: "That is NOT what I stated. What I asked was…"(here repeat your original question.) Do not be distracted or angered by their efforts to make you look bad.

    Rule No. 3: BE PERSISTENT! When the Facilitator realizes that putting you on the defensive is not going to work, quite often he, or she, will go into some long drawn out discussion of some unrelated or only vaguely related subject. Such a discussion may drag on for a number of minutes. The intent being to have the crowd become bored and forget what the original question was. Let them run on, then very calmly, quietly but with determination drag them back to the subject by saying: "But you didn’t answer my question! My question was…"(again repeat your question.)

    Never, NEVER allow yourself to become angry. Anger directed toward the Change Agent makes him or her the victim. Their object is to become liked by the crowd, to be seen as a friend by a majority of those present to convince that majority the ideas of the Facilitator are correct and acceptable.

    With the increasing demand for education reform, increasing agitation among the public and more and more grassroots research exposing the defects in our current government indoctrination centers, also known as public schools, more and more people are being exposed to this Alinsky method of maneuvering public meetings toward preset goals. Somehow, people walk out of public meetings wondering just what happened – how were their ideas and objections so neatly derailed. This consistent pattern of manipulation of public meetings is causing concern about the corruption of the very process of government established by our Founding Fathers.

    (from this resource: http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Educate/alinsky_met

  • Quan

    Great observations, KB. Senator Rubio did a good job and was respectful. So did his colleagues in the House from Florida in the afternoon session. Distinguish themselves from the inane cantankerous and flippant attitudes of McCain and Paul.

  • Joeadirect

    I for one am tired of this approach as it allows those who play the political game to allow people like Clinton off the hook with their gentle "alinsky" approach. What you saw for the most part was the kettle calling the pot black. She never was asked the "HARD" questions for fear of being dubbed GOP hard asses out to embarrass Clinton. Not once in that room was there any "Real" compassion for the men who died. Only fake and rehearsed tears by Clinton and a few good men who chastised her and made it clear that she and all involved should have been FIRED! Only a few had the guts to push her and then got her reprieve form those who fawned all over her including the new congresswoman from NY. It is this type of inaction that has Americans livid with most of these morons who attempt to call themselves leaders. Is it now a crime to ask the tough questions and get to the bottom of a horrendous cover-up??

    • Sick of lies

      Absolutely correct. This woman was in charge of something that went terribly wrong. She saw "willingness but not capacity"…if that was the case, where were the marines? —To find out how frivolous they were in their spening eslewhere but unable to spend on security in a war zone is outrageous and should have been met with the same ire that the American public is feeling. These people should represent us, not fawn on the woman they think may be the next president. Shame on them and shame on anyone suggesting the Senators with "hard question" should have muffeled themselves.

  • teresa russell

    i watched..and i think he (RUBIO) could and should have asked harder questions and HE (RUBIO) DIDN'T ..I CHANGED MY MIND YESTERDAY ABOUT RIBIO….HE IS NOT THE PERSON I THOUGHT HE WAS…I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM..HE LET HILLARY PASS…RUBIO DOES NOT CARE

    BIZPAC YOU HAVE IT WRONG..MAYBE YOU ARE THE PROBLEM ALSO…RUBIO DID NOT "GRILLS CLINTON"…WAS BizPac EVEN WATCHING…BizPac IS LYING IF THEY SAY RIBIO GILLED HILLARY..HE DID NOT…ALL THIS MEANS IS WATCH FOR YOURSELF AND DON'T BELEIVE WHAT BizPac SAYS

  • MaeBelle Barger

    I have never heard so many softball questions in my life. The democrats all spending most of ther 5 minutes fawning over Hillary was nauseating enough by itself, but then the majority of the Republicans including Rubio, whom I have always had great respect for, just being Mr. Nice guy and pitching cotton balls at her, just makes me Angry.. We learned nothing yesterday except that they will all get away with murder through their lies and ability to B.S. their way through anything, and our Congress falls for it every time…..SHAME ON YOU ALL !!!!!

  • Jeremy R

    Quan, in the footage I saw of Paul, and in his interview afterward on Hannity, I thought he did an excellent job of pointing out that Clinton had completely failed as a leader in tending to her people and her responsibilities, and additionally showed the outrageous waste of $$ that was spent in other areas while the request for more security was denied.

  • Sick of lies

    And Rubio's questionswere sofball. He is running for president now. Attempting to look Presidential when we need a guy to represent the people.

  • Sick of lies

    I, too am about done with BizPac. Another group pushing a merger with the Dems. You walk like a dem, talk like a dem, you are useless to the people, who increasingly have no voice to represent and protect their freedoms. Disgusting.

  • Joe McKean

    Senator Rubio was himself. He exhibited much skill at turning aside by diversion , the issue of armament transfer to our enemies. Undoubtely the Secretary of State was pleased with his assistance of drawing attention from the main issue. .

    The main issue being the transfer of weaponry to our enemies.

    Rand Paul addressed the armament traitorous transfer transfer of weapons to our enemies.

    I take offense at the title of this article that Sen Rubio grilled. He did no such thing.. He did not grill her. He assisted her in avoiding the key issue of what was taking place there..

  • http://Bizpac Ted

    Sen. Rubio looked like a boxer afraid of getting hit in his questions for Sec. Clinton. He is always way too cautious about wanting to keep his job and maybe one day become president. I don't think he is the man for even the job he has now. He is more more concerned with his future than the future of this country. Admitedly, the questions about the attack on our consulate really can't be answered to everyone's satisfaction. Some here have asked: "where were the marines?". Two things on this. The marines required to answer the threat at the scene would probably be at least in the company strength (120 or so personnel) or more. This would require the terrorists to give advance notice of exactly where they were going to strike and how may people they would be attacking with. The second point is that the marines do not work for the State Department. The marines guards are for embassy security other tasks directed by the ambassitor. Normal strength is only about the size of a couple of platoons (25-35 personnel) or less. The tasking of these people for mobile security of the ambassitor is complicated, which is why the State Department relies on its own security personnel or private security personnel. In most cases, the host country is responsible for US diplomatic personnel in their country. In this case, when the Libyan security personnel saw what was coming down the street towards the consulate, they just walked away. This particular Ambassitor was famous for not using his security. He would go jogging with only one or two security personnel. This in a country that was becoming more and more unstable. I believe that he believed that his very long experience with the Libyan people and his ability to speak Arabic would be enough. He was very well respected in diplomatic circles in Libya. I suspect he was wrong at the consulate.

    Secretary Clinton is going to benefit from these hearings by making the GOP questioners look clueless. Time to move on.

    The GOP is really whipping a dead horse here and is looking foolish. Other than making changes to future security of or diplomatic missions overseas, this subject is costing the Republicans a lot more than they could ever gain.