Click the Pic
Support Free Republic
Posted on 05/07/2013 6:53:36 AM PDT by lasereye
When it first became clear that the CIA’s Benghazi talking points had been altered, many of us viewed the White House as the prime suspect. After all, it served President Obama’s 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? It’s difficult to see how she could not have been.
As I understand it, when State pushed back against the CIA’s 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 Clinton’s 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 couldn’t 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 wouldn’t bet on it. First, it’s 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 Clinton’s 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 wouldn’t bet on that either.
I’m in!
Republicans too scared to do this but the Dems would do it in a minute and would do it well.
They both deserve a traitor's noose
My guess is that they’re going to blame this all on “low level operatives” acting on their own, and fully throw Susan Rice under the bus (and back over her several times) in saying that she acted alone in editing the talking points and lying. They’ll just say she was overzealous or depressed and acting out or some damn thing, and welll, gee, that was wrong, but we’ve dealt with it and the poor woman has paid the price, so now can’t we all just MOVE ON!?
Remember, Hillary has always gotten away with every rotten thing she’s done. Rose Law records, Vince Foster, cattle futures, bimbo eruptions...every bit of it.
Hillary Clinton is one of the biggest zeroes to ever hit this country.
When she was first lady I remember a “lecture” she gave the then newly elected senators. She told them that if they didn’t follow the Clinton talking points that they would be “demonized”...yes that’s the word she used. Made a lot of those senators mad, God love them politicos all.
Now we can DEMONIZE her and we don’t even have to lie to do it. She is just an awful person and will burn in hell. I will smile and dance as she goes down.
It honestly wasn't mere rhetoric above .. words simply don't get the job done.
spit3
Which guarantees the GOP-eunuchs wouldn't touch it to save their miserable whorish lives.
Hilliary is guilty for her actions before and after the attack. (ignoring security problem, hiring 17th martyr brigade; cover-up)
Obama is guilty for his actions during and after the attack. (allowing al qaeda to attack without resistance, no reinforcements/rescuers; Cover-up)
I agree they should use the word “lie”. I’ve been astonished at the reluctance of Republicans to use the word. I don’t see what there is for a special prosecutor to investigate.
Obama is culpable too. the liberals will protect his behind. On Wednesday we will find out. Just watch the whole story may change again on Wednesday.
Bingo. But as Rush so eloquently stated yesterday, the Left's main goal right now is to protect and shield Hillary, since they want her as the 2016 nominee. Here's what we know:
Biden wants it blamed on Hillary.
Hillary wants it blamed either high or low, on Obama or some underlings.
Obama wants it kept as from him as possible.
Many years ago, regarding the Whitewater scandal, Rush said, "If you want to know what happened at Whitewater, find out what happened to Vince Foster." That line of reasoning holds true for Benghazi: if you want to figure out the Benghazi coverup, find out what Obama and Hillary were doing and/or planning during those missing hours.
Yes, she’s culpable...of covering up for Obama. No SOS, particularly a weak and side-lined one like Hillary, goes out and does things like that on his or her own. This policy came from the WH.
She carried it out willingly, of course, because she also hates the US. But it didn’t originate with her, and stopping the investigation with her is just what Barry-Throw-Them-Under-The-Bus wants. It’s worked for him in every preceding instance, and it will probably work for him this time, too.
May her commie butt go down.
A SP could focus on all White House and SOS emails, and communications, meetings, staff interviews, and of course the testimony of the 31 survivors. A congressional committee could of course do all of the afore mentioned, but often lack focus, as new issues spin up, and a SP could be seen as impartial and not a political witch hunt, which is how the left will spin this.
Indeed. Susan Rice could have been a formidable candidate until her Sunday morning talk show debacle. I can't help thinking she was purposely burned.
But what possible crime would the SP be investigating?
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.