Benghazi Is Such a Non-Issue That Hillary’s Democrat Party Enablers Are Meeting About

[Busybody]

Benghazi Is Such a Non-Issue That Hillary’s Democrat Party Enablers Are Meeting About It Tomorrow.

 

[Busybody]

Benghazi Is Such a Non-Issue That Hillary’s Democrat Party Enablers Are Meeting About It Tomorrow




Nothing to see here, America. Hillary’s job performance review, AKA Clinton ’16, will be about what she decides it’s about.



An array of Democrats — including Hillary Clinton’s allies — are meeting this week to hammer out a united front on national security issues, including a clear response to Republicans over the Benghazi controversy…


The meeting is one in a series that ["centrist" think tank] Third Way has convened with Democrats since the George W. Bush era to discuss and shape national security policy. But at least some Democrats involved in the upcoming session are hoping it results in a coordinated and strengthened response to the new congressional probe into the deadly Benghazi attack…


Their involvement in the meeting suggests that some Clinton allies and Democrats are concerned about the stain the Benghazi attacks could leave on the former secretary of state if Republican charges go unanswered.

Well, that’s the important thing. Not whether she’s capable of telling the truth. Not whether she’s fit to run a Sunglass Hut, let alone the United States of America. Not whether an abandoned U.S. ambassador’s murder by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11, and the lies she told to cover it up, say anything about her leadership skills.

No, no, no, no, no. It might leave a stain.

Now she and her creepy pals need to “answer the charges,” much like a child wiping his chocolate-smeared face while “answering the charge” that he broke the cookie jar. Being honest is completely out of the question, of course. But denial, deflection, doublespeak, and denouncing anybody who doesn’t believe Hillary’s horsecrap hasn’t worked. There’s simply too much evidence of her ineptitude and dishonesty.




Well, I’m sure those geniuses will figure something out. Maybe they could try reminding everybody that Hillary is a woman, and therefore it’s her turn to be president, and you’re just not smart enough to get that.

And now I’ll cede the floor to the shrieking #BenghaziDeniers, so they can vigorously and ineptly argue that this doesn’t matter and it really isn’t important and shut up, teabaggers. When normal people think a story isn’t important, they don’t even read about it, let alone scream at the people who do. But then, I’m not talking about normal people. I’m talking about liberals.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/29/b...-are-meeting-about-it-tomorrow/#ixzz33BpClWNv

 

[unregistered]

 

[Busybody]

doubt that

they will anyway

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It's bad enough watching the hotties of Lit age, can you imagine what it's going to be like to watch her turn to Dust in the Wind right before out very eyes?

 

[miles]

The Hildabeast will lie under oath just like Bubba did. Then Liberals can make excuses that it was all about something else.

 

[Busybody]

It's bad enough watching the hotties of Lit age, can you imagine what it's going to be like to watch her turn to Dust in the Wind right before out very eyes?

Fuck you 'Fendy....Im still fucking HOT

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

 

[splish splash]

Benghazi Is Such a Non-Issue That Hillary’s Democrat Party Enablers Are Meeting About It Tomorrow




Nothing to see here, America. Hillary’s job performance review, AKA Clinton ’16, will be about what she decides it’s about.



An array of Democrats — including Hillary Clinton’s allies — are meeting this week to hammer out a united front on national security issues, including a clear response to Republicans over the Benghazi controversy…


The meeting is one in a series that ["centrist" think tank] Third Way has convened with Democrats since the George W. Bush era to discuss and shape national security policy. But at least some Democrats involved in the upcoming session are hoping it results in a coordinated and strengthened response to the new congressional probe into the deadly Benghazi attack…


Their involvement in the meeting suggests that some Clinton allies and Democrats are concerned about the stain the Benghazi attacks could leave on the former secretary of state if Republican charges go unanswered.

Well, that’s the important thing. Not whether she’s capable of telling the truth. Not whether she’s fit to run a Sunglass Hut, let alone the United States of America. Not whether an abandoned U.S. ambassador’s murder by terrorists on the anniversary of 9/11, and the lies she told to cover it up, say anything about her leadership skills.

No, no, no, no, no. It might leave a stain.

Now she and her creepy pals need to “answer the charges,” much like a child wiping his chocolate-smeared face while “answering the charge” that he broke the cookie jar. Being honest is completely out of the question, of course. But denial, deflection, doublespeak, and denouncing anybody who doesn’t believe Hillary’s horsecrap hasn’t worked. There’s simply too much evidence of her ineptitude and dishonesty.




Well, I’m sure those geniuses will figure something out. Maybe they could try reminding everybody that Hillary is a woman, and therefore it’s her turn to be president, and you’re just not smart enough to get that.

And now I’ll cede the floor to the shrieking #BenghaziDeniers, so they can vigorously and ineptly argue that this doesn’t matter and it really isn’t important and shut up, teabaggers. When normal people think a story isn’t important, they don’t even read about it, let alone scream at the people who do. But then, I’m not talking about normal people. I’m talking about liberals.


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/29/b...-are-meeting-about-it-tomorrow/#ixzz33BpClWNv

send that bitch there and take Hanoi Jane with her

 

[Que]

It's all handled in Hilary's 34 page chapter on Benghazi that, predictably, is short on what happened and long on 'who wants to know? and Why?

She has said that she is not going to dignify her detractors with a response...of course AFTER she has a chance to get her ridiculous spin out there.

Politico that got the advance copy of the Benghazi chapter...no doubt as a reward for the DOZENS of "Benghazi is not a scandal" articles...has an interesting little slide show...

Called "Clintons BEST hearing lines." as if any of that "matters"

Her response to Benghazi will always be remembered as "What does it matter, now?"

The Select Committee is #readyforhilary. She is busily preparing to be #readytonotshowup

"The chapter appears intended, in part, to give Democrats a clear framework to respond to Republicans who have raised questions about Clinton’s role and what the Obama administration has said about the Sept. 11, 2012, killing of four Americans. The section was obtained and reviewed by POLITICO on the eve of a meeting in which members of Democratic-leaning groups will be briefed by Clinton’s team about how she addresses the attacks in the book."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html#ixzz33G1EorKV

So...hillary herself has hardly spoken about the attacks but she has an entire "team" available to brief supporters on how she "addresses the attacks" in her book.

I guess Hilary supporters cant wade through 34 pages of dissembling.

By "Attacks" she means the ones aimed at her, not the ones aimed at the consulate...by the way.

 

[Que]

This is interesting:

Clinton has retained Tommy Vietor, who worked with Clinton in the Obama administration as a National Security Council spokesman, to assist with publicity and messaging surrounding the book release.

“I had the privilege of working with Secretary Clinton and her team as she traveled around the world working to restore and strengthen our alliances and advance critical administration priorities,” Vietor said. “I’m excited to help tell the story of that work when she releases her book.”

So the "DUDE! that was like 2 years ago," dude was actually working for the Clinton Campaign.

Now it makes more sense that he both "slipped" that Obama himself was never in the situation room that night and contradicted the sworn testimony of an intelligence official.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ultra rightwing "New Yorker" magazine had a piece today as well not entirely flattering about her attempt at damage control with the Benghazi Chapter...

“Without me”—what will that mean, in practical terms? Will she just, when asked about it, decline to respond? (“Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers,” she writes, according to Politico.) One does understand Clinton’s impatience with the way that Benghazi has been turned into a conspiratorial shorthand. Relying on quiet disdain, if that is the plan, might be a more efficient tactic if it didn’t seem like she was a candidate for President in 2016. An alternative is to shame her critics into silence a bit more loudly, by making the case that just saying the word Benghazi is a sign of poor political character. But however much they may seem to blur together, Benghazi is distinct from trumped-up scandals like Travelgate, or deeply personal ones like the Monica Lewinsky affair.

For one thing, four people died, people who were working for her, in her role as Secretary of State. Clinton says that the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with her, while pushing back on questions about whether security was adequate, or—and this might be more important—whether anybody in the Administration really thought the diplomats’ mission through, or was clear-eyed about who America’s allies and antagonists in Benghazi were. Republicans have certainly been disingenuous about their willingness to provide resources for diplomatic missions. But Clinton has not always spoken about what happened in Benghazi adeptly, as real as her grief for the diplomats surely is—Politico quotes her as saying that it was a “crushing blow.” In the chapter, she addresses a moment in testimony on the affair last year, when she was questioned by Senator Ron Johnson about whether an Al Qaeda plot or anger at a film was behind the attacks:

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans.

Johnson: I understand.

Clinton: Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?” That line has, predictably, been used as a shorthand indictment by Clinton’s critics. Writing now, she says, “In yet another example of the terrible politicization of this tragedy, many have conveniently chosen to interpret [those words] to mean that I was somehow minimizing the tragedy of Benghazi. Of course that’s not what I said.….Nothing could be further from the truth. And many of those trying to make hay of it know that, but don’t care.” Fair enough, except that Clinton then adds,

My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved ones and then prevent it from happening again?

Which isn’t really parallel; motives are not the same thing as “how the intruder spent his day.” Did it seem impossible to own up to some verbal clumsiness or frustration?

Bee Tee Dubs: When the New Yorker is explaining what KIND of scandal it is...it is no longer possible to be grounded in reality and continue to scream, "It is NOT a scandal! It is not a SCANDAL, Dammit!"

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Keep it up you ghouls. The world needs another thread showing how you politicize the dead.

 

[Que]

Keep it up you ghouls. The world needs another thread showing how you politicize the dead.

Kind of missing the point aren't you? Hi(l)ary's handlers are focused on this. Hi(l)ary is promoting the sale of her book on her push back on Benghazi.

No one is interested in anything about her book yet EXCEPT her 34 page non-explaination of Benghazi.

 

[Busybody]

Keep it up you ghouls. The world needs another thread showing how you politicize the dead.

THIS is the best you can do?

GlowBULL Warming fried your "brains!"

 

[Busybody]

Gingrich: Boko Haram ‘Going to Come Back to Bite’ Hillary More than Benghazi




Newt Gingrich believes opponents criticizing Hillary Clinton for her handling of the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi are focusing on the wrong foreign-policy blunder.

“I actually Boko Haram is going to come back to bite her much more than Benghazi,” he said on Meet the Press. Failing to designate a group like the Nigerian militant organization, which recently came into the news for the mass kidnapping of young Nigerian girls, as a terrorist group was “a trait of the State Department” for years, Gingrich said, but one Clinton did “nothing to correct.”

 

[Busybody]

Carney, who is leaving the White House after more than three years, said, "In a situation like this, you have a prisoner of war, a uniformed military person that was detained. The United States does not leave our men and women behind in conflict. It was absolutely the right thing to do."

except of course the BENGHAZI peeps

 

[miles]

Gingrich: Boko Haram ‘Going to Come Back to Bite’ Hillary More than Benghazi




Newt Gingrich believes opponents criticizing Hillary Clinton for her handling of the September 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi are focusing on the wrong foreign-policy blunder.

“I actually Boko Haram is going to come back to bite her much more than Benghazi,” he said on Meet the Press. Failing to designate a group like the Nigerian militant organization, which recently came into the news for the mass kidnapping of young Nigerian girls, as a terrorist group was “a trait of the State Department” for years, Gingrich said, but one Clinton did “nothing to correct.”

NOTHING is going to come back and bite Hillary. The media isn't going to do it. Who else is there?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

NOTHING is going to come back and bite Hillary. The media isn't going to do it. Who else is there?

The next bright, clean, articulate young minority to come along and swift boat her again.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Maybe even Elizabeth "Cherokee" Warren.