[robert14]

Roskam’s question makes no sense. Roskam is a Republican.He is trying to build her up. She did a great job says Roskam. Overcame diversity. She is just going on and on, yak yak yak. Roskam says she overcame opposition. She saw, did her job, and overcame. Wow. I am impressed. She saved us money as well. With Republicans like Roskam who needs Democrats?

[struggle]

No, he’s building the case that SHE SOLELY was responsible for the decision on Libya - the succeeding arguments, if they deviate into weapons-running or the Blumenthal angle, will basically implicate her in deciding on criminal behavior.

[kabar]

Rostam concluded by saying over the long term the policy driven by Clinton in Libya has proven to be a disaster. Get it?

[milagro]

He just laid the whole disaster that is Libya AT HER FEET.

Not a bad maneuver.

[AllAmericanGirl44]

It seemed to me that he was simply setting her up to acknowledge that she acted on her own, doing all that hard work to get things rolling as she wanted. It should come back to bite her, if life were at all fair.

[Prolixus]

Roskam’s question makes no sense. Roskam is a Republican.He is trying to build her up. She did a great job says Roskam. Overcame diversity. She is just going on and on, yak yak yak. Roskam says she overcame opposition. She saw, did her job, and overcame. Wow. I am impressed. She saved us money as well. With Republicans like Roskam who needs Democrats?

He gave her credit for two failures:

1. Gave her credit for the colossal failure of the regime change in Libya
2. Showed her to be hypocrite since she orchestrated the use of military force to accomplish the overthrow of Quaddafi. In her opening statement she indicated that just such an action (using force in place of diplomacy) was a failure.