Skip to comments.HILLARY CLINTON — CULPABLE FOR BENGHAZI FROM BEGINNING TO END
Posted on 05/07/2013 6:53:36 AM PDT by lasereye
When it first became clear that the CIAs Benghazi talking points had been altered, many of us viewed the White House as the prime suspect. After all, it served President Obamas political purposes to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which he was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.
It turns out, however, that the State Department was the prime culprit. It was State that pushed back hard against the original talking points. The White House, probably for the political reason cited above, took its side.
Why did State want the talking points changed? Because it had ignored warnings about rising terrorist activity in Libya and had reduced security rather than beefing it up, as our embassy requested.
Under these circumstances, it would not do to attribute the Benghazi killings to the terrorism about which top State Department officials had been warned. Much better to lump what happened in Libya together with the protests that occurred in Egypt, and thereby characterize it as a demonstration that went too far, rather than premeditated terrorism.
Was Hillary Clinton directly involved in this cover-up? Its difficult to see how she could not have been.
As I understand it, when State pushed back against the CIAs talking points, a White House meeting was scheduled to thrash out the issue. One can imagine Clinton failing to keep apprised of something as mundane as a mounting threat to be safety of her personnel in Libya. But surely she was in the loop when it came to a bureaucratic struggle about how our U.N. ambassador was going to spin the Benghazi debacle. And surely, her representatives would not attend the meeting in which that bureaucratic struggle was to be resolved without being able to state the desires of the Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton, then, is culpable at the front end of the Benghazi disaster when she and/or her agents ignored requests for enhanced security and at the back end when she and her agents engineered an attempted cover-up. Her culpability during the attacks is doubtful in my opinion, but I would still like to know what she was doing during those tragic hours.
In a serious society, Benghazi, standing alone, would spell the end of Hillary Clintons public career. But there is much more.
The signature initiative of her time as Secretary of State the reset with Russia was a fiasco or a farce, depending on how seriously one took it to begin with. I would have had trouble taking seriously an initiative launched with the aid of a fake reset button, even if Clinton had used the correct Russian word for reset.
We should also remember that Clinton managed to lose the presidential nomination in 2008 despite having a huge lead and major advantages over her relatively unknown rival. She lost in part because she and her staff couldnt figure out the importance of winning caucuses in a host of off-the-beaten-path states.
Finally, there should be no statute of limitations on Hillarycare. On big matters, failure is the norm for Hillary Clinton.
Despite all of this, Clinton finds herself the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, if she seeks it. And I gather that she is favored to win the general election, as well.
Will Benghazi derail her? I wouldnt bet on it. First, its far from clear that, in 2016, the electorate will still care much about what happened in Benghazi (did it ever?) and about subsequent lying about the nature of the attacks.
Second, and relatedly, before Benghazi can hurt Clinton, someone needs the courage to raise the issue. Would Clintons serious Democratic rivals (if any) have that courage? Or would they fear a backlash from an essentially pacifist base that sees this as a Republican issue, and therefore irrelevant, and that is that may be hell bent on nominating a female.
Would a Republican nominee have the requisite courage? Or would he fear a backlash from female voters offended about suggestions that the first woman candidate for president is, simultaneously, too weak and too conniving for the job?
Perhaps the specter of Benghazi, or simple embarrassment over it, will dissuade Clinton from even entering the race. But I wouldnt bet on that either.
>Does Huma Abedin have a security clearance?<
Wouldn’t it be better to ask the question: “Who issued her a security clearance?”
Do you have a link for Hilliary’s full melt down video? You have part of it in your collage....hammering her fists...I can only find part of that tantrum...we need all of it *~* Thanks...post here.
I can see your political ad right now, and you got all the right heart tuggers.
I’d only intersperse the video with clips of WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE with Hillary’s own “3am call in the middle of the night” ad she ran against The One in 2008.
And I’d end your ad with the announcer asking, “So who would you call when the safety of your countrymen are at stake? To which Hillary screeches, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Let’s do it Fishtalk. LOL Let’s get our own Mad Men political consultancy group going. Cuz I’m definitely mad.
Good advice. Yes, Hillary screaming “What difference does it make?” should be repeated and repeated.
"What difference...does it make?" one has asked.
In response to repeated requests for heightened security at the Benghazi consulate, not only was consulate security lessened, but a large portion of responsibility for Benghazi's consulate security was handed over to the February 17th Martyrs Brigade. A spinoff of that Brigade, Ansar Al Sharia, a group with known ties to Al Quaeda is understood to be the force behind the attack!
The Brigade "had been implicated in the kidnapping of American citizens as well as in the threats against U.S. military assets. The Muslim Brotherhood-infiltrated State Department, under Clinton, did all that!
That's just one aspect of the many differences it makes, Madame Secretary of the Clinton Body Count.
The question will not end with, "Who issued that clearance?" but rather, "Who are the highest level people in the State Department chain of command that requested and/or approved that clearance, and on the basis of what application data and vetting process(which we demand to see)?"
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
Thank you, MM!
Just ask the voters if they would want to share a fox hole with Hilliary. Ask the voters what kind of commander leaves their troops to die needlessly and then lies about it?
Hillary is toast. But if there is any doubt replay "Once an Eagle" on TV.
Perjury is lying under oath.
I would think that the families of the dead Americans would have a case to file a legitimate civil law suit beyond what the heirs receive from worker’s compensation and other death benefits.
This in of itself would bring the cupability of Clinton to the forefront.
Wasn’t it reported here that in the hours and days following the massacre, Clinton was lawyering up some where secluded.
This lady is about as dishonest and devilish as they come. What genuine right does she have to run for any high office in this country? None.
I think the story will have legs, esp if there is a law suit that potentially pierces Clinton’s corporate envelope, that probably will not happen, because in her job she probably has defense against civil law suits in her contract.
Either way, it could be an extremely high profile case.
I think too, contrary to what Rush and everyone is saying...I do NOT think as the story gets out that the democratic party and esp Obama will rally around her and defend her.
To the contrary, Obama’s track record is to throw people under the bus before it gets to him.
I call BS. Powerline Blog is trying to get Obastard off the hook, pure and simple.
"They both deserve a traitor's noose."
Yes, they both deserve public trials for treason, guilty verdicts, and execution of sentences.
Then the real competition begins: Who will get the liquor licenses to sell beer to all the people standing in lines waiting to piss on the graves of Barry and Hillary?
Poor Hillary. She got drunk and fell down fracturing her thick skull. But then, what difference does it make?
Her royal highass thought that it was just a bunch of muslim boys out looking for some Americans to murder and sodomize.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/huckabee-benghazi-obama-presidency/2013/05/07/id/503192#ixzz2SdkkPcre
“Gregory Hicks, who became the top diplomat in Libya after Stevens was killed, claims troops who were ready to come to the rescue were told to stand down.
Lawyers representing Hicks and others now claim the administration is trying to intimidate them against speaking out in Issa’s committee’s hearings.”
I hope that Mr. Hicks has close security watching his back. The Clintons will attempt to ruin him just as they did with Bubba’s Bimbo Gate women that he raped, and or will have Hicks murdered just as they did with Vince Foster.
The man who knew too much? The truth about the death of
Hillary Clinton’s close friend Vince Foster
By SALLY BEDELL SMITH
Last updated at 00:23 15 January 2008
When she sees her dream of being president swirling down the toilet maybe she’ll take Hussein down with her.
Thanks for adding to my nightmares :-(
Not that "Triangle Torso" lady would be much different than HRC (who did her thesis on Saul Allinsky tactics - true story).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.