Archive | Benghazi Coverup RSS feed for this section

Lesbian Democrat Questions Hillary’s So-Called ‘Accomplishments’

21 Aug

Camille Paglia is a feminist, lesbian, and author. She made some very interesting comments on Hillary Clinton’s thin record of accomplishment in a recent interview on

As a registered Democrat, I am praying for a credible presidential candidate to emerge from the younger tier of politicians in their late 40s. A governor with executive experience would be ideal. It’s time to put my baby-boom generation out to pasture! We’ve had our day and managed to muck up a hell of a lot. It remains baffling how anyone would think that Hillary Clinton (born the same year as me) is our party’s best chance. She has more sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train. And what exactly has she ever accomplished — beyond bullishly covering for her philandering husband? She’s certainly busy, busy and ever on the move — with the tunnel-vision workaholism of someone trying to blot out uncomfortable private thoughts.

I for one think it was a very big deal that our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi. In saying “I take responsibility” for it as secretary of state, Hillary should have resigned immediately. The weak response by the Obama administration to that tragedy has given a huge opening to Republicans in the next presidential election. The impression has been amply given that Benghazi was treated as a public relations matter to massage rather than as the major and outrageous attack on the U.S. that it was.

Throughout history, ambassadors have always been symbolic incarnations of the sovereignty of their nations and the dignity of their leaders. It’s even a key motif in “King Lear.” As far as I’m concerned, Hillary disqualified herself for the presidency in that fist-pounding moment at a congressional hearing when she said, “What difference does it make what we knew and when we knew it, Senator?” Democrats have got to shake off the Clinton albatross and find new blood. The escalating instability not just in Egypt but throughout the Mideast is very ominous. There is a clash of cultures brewing in the world that may take a century or more to resolve — and there is no guarantee that the secular West will win.


Hillary, Here’s what Difference it Makes

27 Jul

Doing The Benghazi Shuffle

21 Jul

July 6, 2013

Whilst our beleaguered non-commander-in-no-chief used his teleprompter early on to vow to “not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act,” Americans are still waiting to find out who actually orchestrated the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi that killed two of our brave former Navy Seal heroes (Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty), our Ambassador to Libya (Christopher Stevens), and Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, and just why known imminent threats to security were not properly addressed by our government in time to avoid this bloodletting on designated American soil.

In fact, we are still waiting for the non-commander-in-no-chief Barack Hussein Obama and former Secretariat of Statism Hillary Clinton to be held accountable for their gross incompetence and their willful negligence in upholding their sworn duty to protect and defend our Constitution, with the primary focus of protecting the lives of American citizens the world over. That accountability is the only justice that will satisfy many of us. What we are witnessing instead is an ongoing cover-up that looks like a newer version of just another old government dance. This one should be called The Benghazi Shuffle.

Let’s take a look at the early steps of this new dance.

Of course, the day after the Benghazi attack, our no-chief danced around the issue by making a Clintonesque speech about “terror.” These are his exact words: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.” He continues: “I want people around the world to hear me. To all those who would do us harm: No act of terror will go unpunished. It will not dim the light of the values we proudly present to the world.”

If you study his prepared speech carefully, you will see that never once did he call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism. He called it “this terrible act.” He mentioned the term “terror” twice, but in a general sense of our resolve in the face of terror. We have known for a long time that specific words can lose their precise meaning as we remember the now-infamous words of another shamed and shameful non-commander-in-no-chief, William Jefferson Clinton, when he said in a grand jury testimony: “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If the—if he—if ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.” Looks like our first mulatto president studied well the dance steps from our first black president, and justice was denied again.

That same day, our former Secretariat of Statism Hillary Clinton came under scrutiny with her own prepared speech that began by adding more intricate steps to The Benghazi Shuffle with the following spin of cause and effect: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith. And as long as there are those who would take innocent life in the name of God, the world will never know a true and lasting peace.”

I would first like to point out that no one, anywhere in the world, claims this murderous attack was committed in the name of God. Excuse me, Mrs. former Secretariat of Statism, it is Allah to whom you should have given attribution, and Allah does appear to condone the taking of innocent life in his name.

Further, notice how Hillary immediately parses her words by stating that “some have sought,” when not one person she spoke to in those first twenty-four hours has come forward and said that they told her this attack was in response to “inflammatory material posted on the internet.” No doubt this was a deliberate choice of words so that she could not be left standing without a chair when the music finally stops. Never let it be said that truth might get in the way of one of the most famous Shuffle dancers in the world today.

Sadly then, shortly after the beginning of The Benghazi Shuffle, Clinton fainted and bumped her head, so she wasn’t able to complete the dance steps and testify while the embers were still smoldering.

The ensuing MRI results showed that a blood clot in her brain was discovered. But, according to Aaron S. Dumont, director of cerebrovascular surgery at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia “head trauma can cause blood in a venous sinus to clot, but it almost always has to be severe enough to cause a skull fracture … It’s probably a coincidence,” he said of Clinton’s fainting spell and the clot.

Being something of a skeptic when it comes to leftist politics and their two-step media, with all due respect for the health and well-being of former Secretariat of Statism Clinton, I can’t help but find myself wondering how these most convenient moves happen at just the right choreographed time and place. But then, really, what difference does it make?


Hillary Clinton is About to Find Out What Difference Benghazi Makes

21 Jul

Mark Whittington, Yahoo! Contributor Network
May 8, 2013

COMMENTARY | With the Benghazi hearings preparing to detail Obama administration malfeasance surrounding the massacre of four Americans, according to CBS News, the person with the most to lose may be former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That would be just fine with Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, one of the four victims along with Ambassador Chris Stevens and two special ops officers, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods. According to RealClearPolitics she told CNN’s Jake Tapper that she personally blames Hillary Clinton. Clinton was in charge and needs to be held responsible not only for what happened in Benghazi, but during the aftermath with the lies and cover up.

Clinton is being haunted by her ill-considered statement during congressional statement. “What difference at this point does it make?” It demonstrated a certain callousness for the dead Americans and a clear desire to put the scandal in her rear view mirror. Ms. Smith recounts how Obama administration officials are freezing her out, claiming that she is not a member of Sean Smith’s immediate family, a remarkable statement considering that she suffered labor pains bringing him into the world.

To be sure Clinton is an old hand at deflecting scandal, dating back 20 years to the travelgate and cattle futures imbroglios and including her husband’s various instances of in flagrante delicto. The difference is that the all the other scandals were cases of financial misconduct or her husband’s sexual embarrassments. This time there are dead people involved. That is not something that can easily be waived away. It’s not just about sex any more.

Americans are going to want blood for what happened to Stevens and his companions. Thus far the terrorists who murdered them have not been caught or killed. So someone or more than one someone is going to have to be the person overboard to be offered up as sacrifice. Hillary Clinton may well fit that bill.

All depends on how well Clinton can tap dance and how fervent her enablers in the media and in Democratic political circles are to shield her. But dead Americans are not so easily swept under the rug.

What difference does it make? Clinton and the rest of us are about to find out.


Hillary Clinton, the Law of Karma, and Shattered Dreams

21 Jul

After the last several days of major damage control efforts by the Obama administration concerning the murders of  US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans at the US Consulate in Benghazi, the law of karma has finally found Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton at State Dept – Alex Brandon (A/P)

From the time she spoke as valedictorian at Wellesley College in 1969, Hillary Clinton’s ultimate goal was to be the first female President of the United States.  When she met Bill Clinton, she recognized in him her alter ego, and with his unmatched political skills, they crafted their road to the White House.  Scandals went with the territory, from her legal work at the Rose law firm, Whitewater, Travelgate, and cattle futures trading, to her post-White House move to New York, so she could run for the Senate.  Nothing tainted the steely Hillary brand.  When she decided to run for the White House, the public was weary of yet another round of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, and she had to watch her campaign shredded under the buzzsaw of Barack Obama, along with the betrayal of none other than Mr. Democrat himself, Ted Kennedy.

When she accepted the offer to become Secretary of State, the news media gushed over her unique qualifications, and yet what exactly were those qualifications.  She served as First Lady accompanying her husband overseas, met heads of state, and hosted many of them at the White House.  Yes, she’s always been very sagacious, dedicated, and well read, however, when Hillary’s foreign policy credentials are compared to those of Madeleine Albright, or Condoleeza Rice, you find her serious lacking.  During her time at the White House, she always positioned herself as an advocate for women, children and families, not foreign policy.  But yet, her star was on the ascent once again, heralded as a team player, the most popular member of the Obama Administration.

Now, after almost four years of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy, we’re facing a debacle in the Middle East.  Syria’s Bashar al-Assad continues to be armed by Iran and Russia, interested in establishing regional hegemony with Lebanon’s Hezbollah.  Assad’s army has killed, wounded or displaced thousands of citizens, while the US remains sidelined.  Iran is slowly enveloping Iraq into its sphere of influence, while the Taliban regains footholds in Afghanistan as the US withdraws, with a Vietnam-like redux only too likely to play out.  Iran has put its efforts on steroids to develop a nuclear weapon, while our own Administration officials issue waivers and the Senate waters down sanctions.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world,  Japan and China are saber rattling over the Senkaku Islands, which might have repercussions for the US, as in 1960, we signed the “Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between Japan and the United States of America.”  China’s incursions into the South China Sea are escalating tensions, as  it continues to lay claim to vast tracts rich in oil and gas, while rejecting international arbitration over territorial claims.  Venezuela and Iran, have been collaborating since 2007, providing a corridor into Latin America for Iranian agents and Hezbollah operatives.  How many of them have already crossed over into the US via Mexico, establishing sleeper cells.

But the buck stops on Hillary’s desk for the apparent gross incompetence and mis-handling of the Benghazi Consulate debacle.

More evidence and confirmations are coming out from different sources that the attack on the US consulate at Benghazi was pre-meditated.  Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif interviewed this morning by Face the Nation host, Bob Schieffer, contradicted the ridiculous explanation put forth by the Obama administration that the violence was due to a video.


In another interview, a Libyan guard who was at the Consulate at the time, and is now recovering from wounds suffered in the violence, gave his account supporting the assertion of pre-meditation (h/t PowerLine).

Earlier this week, the US Marine Corps spokesperson, Capt. Kendra Motz, confirmed to Breitbart, in response to an article appearing in PowerLine, that “no Marines are stationed at the Embassy in Tripoli or the Consulate in Benghazi. Security in Libya, such as it existed, apparently was provided by contractors. The Rules of Engagement under which they operated are unclear.”  More specifically, in an email to Breitbart, Motz wrote:

Regarding no Marines at the embassy/consulate in Libya:

Embassy security in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi fall under the Regional Security Officer with the State Department.  The U.S. maintains over 285 diplomatic facilities worldwide.  MCESG (Marine Corps Embassy Security Group) provides 152 security detachments provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.  Perimeter security is the responsibility of the host nation police/security forces.  The embassy in Tripoli and the consulate in Benghazi do not have a MCESG detachment.  Typically, when a new embassy is established, it takes time to grow a new MCESG detachment.  In coordination with the State Department, there was discussion about establishing a detachment in Tripoli sometime in the next five years.  Overall, the plan is to grow the number of MCESG detachments worldwide to 173.

Regarding ROE [Rules of Engagement]:

The Marine Corps does not establish ROE for MCESG detachments or other embassy security forces; that is the responsibility of the State Department and/or operational commanders depending on the command relationship.  Regardless, ROE are classified and release of that information would jeopardize the Marines and U.S. interests.  Any further inquiry should be directed to the State Department, since Marine security guards report to the ambassador not to a military commander.

Breitbart has confirmed that they have filed a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain a copy of the “State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya,” which would have to be signed by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.

While she’s been on her final ’round the world rock-star tour, with a hip, cool persona captured earlier this year with “texts from Hillary,” her legacy may yet be determined by what happens over the course of the next several weeks.  Formal investigations by Congress into the Libya and Egypt violence, which has fired up the Middle East and Muslim communities throughout the world, may show no one was at the helm of the good ship State, when a firm, experienced hand was needed most.

For Hillary, who has publicly disavowed any future run for the Presidency, 2016 may indeed be beyond reach, a shattered dream.  Shattered like the lives, hopes and dreams of the four dead Americans at the Benghazi consulate.  Shattered for their families.  Shattered for the thousands of service members killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.  Shattered for the thousands killed throughout the Middle East because of misguided foreign policy.

The Law of Karma — what goes around, comes around; you reap what you sow — has found Hillary Clinton.


The Clinton Scandal Playbook and Benghazi

21 Jul

The punditocracy is pulling out its collective hair, wanting to know why there have apparently been multiple layers of cover-ups in the evolving Benghazi story.  An early scandal from the Clinton administration, the so-called “Travelgate” scandal, may be instructive.

Recall that in the 1993 firings of employees at the White House Travel Office, a determination was made early on by the new president Bill Clinton and then-First Lady Hillary Clinton that the Travel Office workers, who served at the pleasure of the president, could be fired and that the Travel Office business, and the commissions that came with it, given to a cousin of President Clinton’s, Catherine Cornelius, who had a travel agency of her own.

But simply handing over government business to a relative would have been politically embarrassing, so the Clintons concocted a story whereby the Travel Office was rife with corruption and the workers there needed to be fired.  An audit was conducted on Travel Office finances, and while the record-keeping at the office was found to have been pretty inadequate, there was no smoking gun of corruption or embezzlement.  No matter.  The FBI was pressured to make arrests, and the local US Attorney was charged with prosecuting the employees for corruption.

White House denials of any scheme, and leaks by those involved, led to a firestorm of media criticism.  Most of the Travel Office employees were eventually given other government jobs or retired.  A prosecution for corruption of the head of the Travel Office, Billy Dale, ended in an acquittal.  Clinton’s cousin was removed as new head of the Travel Office.  A later report written by Independent Counsel Robert Ray concluded that, while she did not make any knowingly-false statements under oath, First Lady Hillary Clinton had made a number of inaccurate statements concerning the firings and her role in them.

In retrospect, it is kind of funny that the Clintons would ever complain about corruption from anyone.  Pot, meet Kettle.  That kind of thing.

But the point is that the initial decision to replace government employees with the president’s cousin, so that she could make commissions from arranging White House travel, was a bad decision.  Everything following that decision — the firings, the made-up charges of corruption, the federal prosecution, and the denials from the Clintons that later proven to be untrue — were an effort to distract people from the initial bad decision.

Fast forward to the fall of 2012, when the State Department repeatedly denied requests by officials at the American consulate in Benghazi for more security.  This was the initial bad decision from which flowed all other obfuscations.

Who would make such a bad decision?  In his recent congressional testimony, consulate security officer Eric Nordstrom blamed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, pointing to a memo signed by Secretary Clinton, denying additional security.

What would lead Clinton to make such a bad decision?  Remember that in the summer of 2008, when her presidential campaign had ended and the Russians invaded South Ossetia, Hillary Clinton was formulating what would later be her “reset” policy towards Russia.  Such a policy assumed that whatever frostiness existed between the United States and Russia had been caused by American belligerence.  If only the American side would initiate a fresh “reset,” then the Russians would be more accommodative to United States interests, like our policies concerning Iran’s nukes.

It may be difficult to grasp, but liberals, Hillary Clinton included, actually believe that bullies like Russia can be appeased by weakness of others, hence the “reset” policy towards Russia, and the later denial of more security for the consulate at Benghazi.  Clinton probably thought that a strong American military presence at the Benghazi consulate would be provocative.

Obviously this was a bad decision.  On September 11, 2012, the American consulate was attacked and overrun by terrorists in a planned, coordinated attack.  While under attack, officials at the consulate called for help, which could have made it from Italy in time.  But if provided, this military help would have highlighted the earlier, bad decision to keep security there weak, so the request for military help during the attack was denied.

When the smoke had cleared, an American ambassador and three other Americans were dead.  Anything besides a narrative that this attack was a spontaneous uprising because of an anti-Muslim You Tube video would have led people to question the initial, bad decision by the State Department to keep consulate security weak to begin with.  The following week, UN Representative Susan Rice appeared on five television news shows to reiterate the story that the deaths were caused by a spontaneous uprising related to the video. A few days later, President Obama stated at a forum hosted by Univision, and again later at the United Nations, that the Benghazi attacks were provoked by the video.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton even filmed their own public service announcement, played in Pakistan, apologizing for a private American production of the anti-Muslim video and calling for calm.  This PSA later became a self-fulfilling prophecy, when its reference to an anti-Muslim video caused riots in Pakistan that led to the deaths of 18, and scores of injured Pakistanis.

All these actions were taken to distract people from the initial, bad decision made by Secretary Clinton to keep consulate security in Benghazi weak.  Apparently, when defending a bad decision by Hillary Clinton, anything goes.  The standard operating procedure was apparent as far back as 1993.


Hillary’s Benghazi cover-up—diplomatic illness and Travelgate

21 Jul

Yesterday, John Bolton, President George W. Bush’s former U.N. ambassador, alleged that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concocted a “diplomatic illness”avoid testifying this week on the September 11 anniversary attack in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans: Ambassador Christopher Stevens, former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith, a computer expert.

Over the weekend Clinton reportedly fainted and suffered a concussion. She continues to work from home (where she could also testify by a live feed). While it might sound callous to some people, there is very good reason for Ambassador Bolton’s skepticism considering the last time Hillary avoided testifying it was due to ‘scheduling conflicts’ which included a wine tasting in Australia. But it goes much deeper than that. Hillary turned dodging indictments and perjury charges into an art form during the Clinton era. The question is will lawmakers on both sides of the aisle finally hold her accountable or allow Hillary to continue making a mockery out of the rule of law?

Rewind to the first Clinton scandal, Travelgate.

Excerpted in part from The Whistleblower: How the Clinton White House Stayed in Power to Reemerge in the Obama White House and on the World Stage (One Rock Ink Publishing).

It was May 1993 when the Clinton administration fired the White House travel office staffers to ostensibly give the travel office business to the Clinton’s friends.

As Linda Tripp, of President Bill Clinton impeachment fame, who served in Hillary’s White House counsel’s office at the time, recounted to me, “[Travel Director] Billy Dale was escorted out of the White House by the FBI, put into a paneled van with no seats and told to sit on the floor the day the Clintons removed him. And I watched Hillary orchestrate that whole thing; siccing the FBI on them, getting them out. Careerists, while they’re not political, do serve at the pleasure of the president. All President Clinton had to say was, ‘We’re replacing you.’ It would’ve been unheard of, but was within his legal purview to do.” Instead the Clintons did what Linda said they always did: “Destroy their enemy and ruin them.”

In December 1994, Billy Dale was indicted on two counts of embezzlement.

Hillary described Travelgate with cool indifference in her memoir, Living History, as, “perhaps worthy of a two-or-three-week life span, instead, in a partisan political climate, it became the first manifestation of an obsession for investigation that persisted into the millennium.”

But for Billy Dale, it wasn’t a partisan manifestation. It was the termination of a thirty-plus-year career, and a fight for his freedom. If convicted, he faced a maximum of twenty years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines. After fighting his criminal charges for almost three years, Dale was exonerated after a jury deliberated for one hour.

Meanwhile Hillary repeatedly denied having any involvement in the firings, in public and under oath.

Three years after the firings, a staffer’s memo (the Clinton White House had previously withheld) revealed, that Hillary had insisted that “the travel office staff be replaced.”

The memo read in part: “Once this made it onto the First Lady’s agenda, [Vince] Foster became involved, and he and Harry Thomason [friend who wanted White House travel business] regularly informed me of her attention—as well as her insistence that the situation be resolved immediately by replacing the travel office staff.” Hillary conveyed “her desire for swift and clear action.”

Seven years after the firings Special Prosecutor Robert Ray (who succeeded Ken Starr in the Office of the Independent Counsel), concluded in his final report that Hillary’s sworn testimony was “factually inaccurate.” “The overwhelming evidence establishes that she played a role in the decision to fire the employees. … Thus, her statement to the contrary under oath was factually false.”

Seven years later, the public had tuned out. Ten years later, the Clintons re-wrote the facts about Travelgate in their respective memoirs absolving Hillary of any wrongdoing or of telling falsehoods to investigators—a prosecutable offense.

After Ray’s report on Travelgate was released, Dale said, “Everyone, especially Robert Ray, knows Hillary Clinton lied under oath about her role. It is disappointing that the Office of Independent Counsel … would not prosecute her simply because of a fear of what a Washington, D.C., jury might do.”

Billy Dale was absolutely right. Indeed it was. When perjury and law breaking are not held to account it is emboldened and grows more lethal. Hillary, (with President Obama, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and David Petraeus) already misled the public when they falsely blamed a YouTube video for the deadly attack in Benghazi. No wonder Ambassador Bolton believes that it is possible that Hillary has come down with diplomatic illness to avoid testifying.

To find out how the Clinton White House covered-up the death of Vince Foster and what really happened to him click here. To get the inside scope in Benghazi follow Director of Northeast Intelligence Network and Senior CFP columnist Doug Hagmann’s exclusive “intelligence insider” reporting.

Watch Linda Tripp describing Hillary’s role in Travelgate in The Whistleblower’s Audio Accompaniment #1.