Benghazi Commission: The End Of Hillary Clinton’s Political Career

Benghazi Commission: The End Of Hillary Clinton’s Political Career Michael Thomas Infowars.com May 10th, 2014

There are very ‘good’ reasons why the House Democrats are making threats of boycotting the recently approved commission on the Benghazi attack. All of them know that President Obama and the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, did not properly discharge their duties during the attack.

“Unforeseen consequences” and “unpredictable twists and turns” had nothing to do with her failure to secure the compound or to send adequate security to protect it. Rather, she got every sort of warning from her own ambassador, the State Department, the CIA and the Defense Department. She just failed to act on them.”[1] Four Americans may have died needlessly including John Christopher Stevens, an American diplomat and lawyer who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Libya from June 2012 to September 12, 2012. His death was not only a humiliating defeat for the USA, it was a violent spectacle which most Americans do not understand how it could have happened.

Happen it did on Hillary Clinton’s watch, a prospective presidential candidate who just could become the Commander-in Chief. Her reaction to cross examination during the first Senate inquiry

by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) is perhaps the best evidence that something very wrong happened during that fateful evening of September 11, 2012. Her behavior does not seem to be demonstrative of a future leader of the US Armed Forces. The following YouTube video captures the heart of her testimony which will surely come back to haunt her for years to come.

Anyone watching this video can easily see the dissembling and evasion by which Secretary Clinton answered the questions put forth to her. Many of her former Senate colleagues were mortified by her conduct in light of the seriousness of the investigation. The Republican side is now fully aware that

evidence exists which will incriminate Ms. Clinton in the mishandling of the whole affair. And that the ensuing cover-up is always what does the most political damage.

The Benghazi debacle is much more serious than the media has reported.

Time does have a way of revealing the truth of the matter, and the slow drip of Benghazi revelations will only increase until the midterm elections. Because Ms. Clinton has not come clean since the very beginning, she now sits in a very awkward and vulnerable position. How so?

Any political pundit would objectively observe that Ms. Clinton, based on all the information that is available in the public domain, appears to be guilty of criminal neglect in her capacity of Secretary of State. That verdict is based on the fact that the predicament was allowed to occur in the first place.

Simply put, a US Ambassador’s many solicitations for protection were ignored by his boss in DC. “When you read the various pieces and bits of information she received in the weeks and months prior to the attack, it is hard to see how they could have been any more blunt or explicit in warning of the likelihood of future terror attacks in Benghazi.”[1] And that is the best case scenario for Secretary Clinton. The worst case is where she and her office ignored every plea for help up to and including the night of the attack on the American diplomatic mission at Benghazi, in Libya. Someone going even so far as to order available units to stand down makes this situation even worse.

Of course, the cover-up is where things have really gotten messy for Secretary Clinton. Which is why her Republican inquisitors are so determined to get to the bottom of things. They can only tolerate so much obfuscation, non-compliance and irresponsible behavior on the part of the White House before the American people start to call them on it. The longer this whole sordid affair drags on, the worse it’s going to be for everyone involved in the Obama Adminstration, especially Hillary Clinton.

Benghazi Hearing Promises to be Clinton’s Political Waterloo

As an aspiring presidential nominee, candidate Clinton will necessarily be held up to a much higher standard than she has been in her previous roles. Her stint at State is the only one she can point to as demonstrating her abilities to handle foreign affairs. In light of President Obama’s string of foreign affair fiascos, she will be hard-pressed to bring the necessary gravitas to the role of president in this particular regard.

Even for diehard Democrats, there is the distinct sentiment that Ms Clinton is not up to the task. Her responses to so many challenges, both personal and political, over the years reveal a woman who is often petty, vindictive and unaccountable. Truly, her place in the White House is as an ex First Lady who gave it her best.

“For Clinton now to say that she did the best she could on the basis of “imperfect information” and to blame the tragic outcome on “unforeseen consequences and unpredictable twists and turns” is such an act of distortion of the record that it takes one’s breath away.”[1] Ms. Clinton ought to look at the Benghazi hearing as an opportunity to listen to the many reasons she should not even consider running for president. Undoubtedly, she will hear things that will embarrass her and her office at State. Truly, so many things happened that should not have under her watch. Just as many things did not occur in Benghazi that should have for the protection of four Americans who died.

Things have made much worse by the White House response.

Subsequent attempts to acquire pertinent correspondence from the White House about the Benghazi attack and US Government response have been met with continual stonewalling and denial. The Press Secretary has lost all credibility with the both the Press Corp and the public. The key players have only acted in a way which would lead those investigating this serious matter that a full scale cover-up has been operative since day one.

At the end of the day, both Secretary Clinton and President Obama will be held directly responsible for this cover-up, as well as the obvious negligence up to and including the attacks. Each ought to be held

accountable for their actions by the Congress and the Mainstream Media (MSM). Unfortunately the MSM has both supported Secretary Clinton’s narrative and enabled her reprehensible conduct at every turn.

However, with the midterm elections around the corner pointing to a GOP landslide, the political chessboard is about to be rearranged in a way that will not bode well for Candidate Clinton. The US electorate is not so clueless that they would elect a nominee who has baggage of this serious nature.

Truly, the whole Benghazi affair does not reflect well on anyone in the Obama Administration, especially the Secretary of State.

The question remains: Does Hillary Clinton understand that the powers that be are using the Benghazi Commission to send her a message? Perhaps she will get it before her first answers are rendered before a congressional inquiry that promises to be bigger and badder than Watergate. How do you spell C O VER–UP? Benghazigate — here we come!

Hillary Clinton at Benghazi Hearing: 'What Difference, Does It Make?' VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM

Greenwald Bashes ‘Neocon’ Hillary Clinton: ‘She’s A F— Hawk’ Matt Wilstein mediaite.com May 12th, 2014

Glenn Greenwald’s new book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, is hitting “stands” this Tuesday, which helps explain why he’s even more ever-present than usual across the media landscape today. He stopped by the Today show Monday morning for a somewhat contentious chat with Matt Lauer and GQ released an extended interview with him online that will appear in the June issue of the magazine.

The Q&A session covers a large swath of topics, from his relationship with Edward Snowden (they still talk almost every day) to the possibility of a James Bond-like movie of his NSA leak story (“I was actually a little worried about that, because James Bond is stupid.”) But one of Greenwald’s most impassioned answers comes after a question about all the “early presidential jockeying” for 2016: “Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere.

But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.

I hope this happens so badly, because I think it’ll be so instructive in that regard. It’ll prove the point. Americans love to mock the idea of monarchy, and yet we have our own de facto monarchy. I think what these leaks did is, they demonstrated that there really is this government that just is the kind of permanent government that doesn’t get affected by election choices and that isn’t in any way accountable to any sort of democratic transparency and just creates its own world off on its own.”

Greenwald did not tell the magazine if there is a presidential candidate he would be supporting instead, but it seems pretty safe to say he will not be voting for Clinton if she ends up getting the Democratic nomination.

Read the full interview at gq.com.

INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND