WHY HILLARY’s PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDACY MAY BE IN JEOPARDY ( That is, if enough Americans care ):
EXCERPT FROM FOX NEWS:
FOX News colleague James Rosen reports that another whistleblower will testify on Wednesday that Clinton tried to cut the agencys counterterrorism bureau out of the process during the attack. Clintons team denies the claim, but even in so doing, reaffirms her central role in the response and talking points about the attacks. No bystander was she.
Clinton has centered her defense on an internal review of her agencys conduct before, during and after the raid. The review lamented security preparations at the consulate, but that is another way of saying that if Republicans had been freer with funding for the State Department, better precautions would have been taken.
But that review itself is falling into disrepute as credible whistleblowers step forward and provide new details, the most damning of which is the claim that officials squelched an effort to send a handful of Special Operations troops to aid the doomed Americans.
Its not unreasonable for President Obama, Clinton and others to have decided that the loss of four Americans to an attack by Islamist militants was preferable to expanding the fight and risking a larger, bloodier and more potentially embarrassing battle in Libyan rebel capital. It is not reasonable, though, to mislead the public about such a decision.
Asking that Americans die in the line of duty in service of a larger policy aim is nothing new. Saying that there was no choice when there were at least some options, crosses a line. Changing talking points to support a false account of events would cross yet another. Doing so eight weeks before an election would be really rotten.
“Asking that Americans die in the line of duty in service of a larger policy aim is nothing new.”
With the left, that “larger policy aim” is always the advancement of collectivist power.