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

By Michael Thomas
May 11, 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.

[video=youtube;Ka0_nz53CcM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka0_nz53CcM[/video]​

(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://www.storyleak.com/benghazi-commission-end-hillary-clintons-political-career/

The difference that is made simply becomes the fact that Hillary Clinton and those she managed within the State Dept., failed to listen to Ambassador Stevens and blatantly disregarded his pleas for increased security. Anyone can objectively see that Ms. Clinton, based on all the information that is available in the public domain, appears to be guilty of criminal negligence in her capacity of Secretary of State. The conclusion 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. IMHO the story of Ms. Clinton falling and injuring her head was also part of the conspiracy to keep the truth from the people.

 

You cant blame hillary for that, no one expected al queda to attack American interests on the anniversary of September 11th.

 

Who could have seen it coming? It wasn't like she and Barack Obama were warned in advance and asked for support.... oh wai....

 

...and when it doesn't end her political career the RW will blame the media, like they always do.

 

I predict that this whitchunt will backfire on republicans. Attempting to keep this going until november is going to do more harm that good for them.

 

Congress denied requests for security before the Benghazi incident started

Hillary sent in a CIA security force 25 minutes after the incident was discovered.

 

Then encourage the Democrats to stop stonewalling and lets have the honest answers. Their refusal to do so is whats keeping this going. Notice how quickly Christies bridge went away?

 

did she send them on foot?

 

Hillary controls the CIA? I'm not sure that's true. Can you provide a legit link saying that Hillary sent in a CIA security force?

 

it is over for her. if she knows better. she better not run. I can see the oppositions campaign commercial already

the campaign commercial will start out with her blaming the attack on a video.

then cut to all the testimony by the all the ones that was there in real time under oath saying the attack wasn't about a video.

then it will cut to her lying to the grieving mother about her sons death blaming it on a video and vowing to put the ones responsible in jail

then it will show the only arrest made was to the video maker that the attack wasn't even about.

then they will cut to her saying we did everything we could to help.

then it will cut to Lovell under oath testifying they was waiting for orders from the state department to move in militarily that never came

the closing cut will be Hillary Clinton screaming "what difference does it make" with the picture of those four dead Americans

it is over for Hillary Clinton

 

How many times in how many different fashions does the adminstration have to answer the same questions? I do not see any false answers and the now 13 seperate investigations have yet to uncover a single one.

that is 13 consecutive strike outs for the conspiracy theorists and republican political gamers.
And yet they demand a 14th time up to bat to ask the exact same questions that have already been answered.

Sawwwwinnngggggggg battabattabatta.

 

Well, obviously the questions havent been answered. IMO, It isn't the Republicans that are going to get burned by this one lingering. Polls show the American people don't feel adequate answers have been given either, so this ones going to hang around awhile longer.

 

The title of the thread points to the only reason this commission exists.

The truth may turn out to be as inconvenient for this panel as it was for Issa's.

That won't stop the noise machine.

 

what questions haven't been answered? Of course those involving the CIA are not going to be made public, but other than what are all these unaswered questions of relevance?

And polls are certainly not an indication of whether the questions have been adequately answered, its merely a measurement of the effectiveness of partisan communications.

 

then explain
after 13 investigations why is evidence still being brought forward? why wasn't that e-mail presented to any of those 13 investigation? there would only been one investigation needed if this administration would have provided all the evidence that was requested and all the witnesses that was asked to be brought forward was

 

LOL, I hope you're being sarcastic.

 

Q1. Can you tell me why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi the night that he was killed? Do you know? Does it bother you whether or not you know why Chris Stevens was in Benghazi?

Q2. Do you know why we were the last flag flying in Benghazi, after the British had left and the Red Cross had been bombed?

Q3. Do you know why requests for additional security were denied?

Q4. Do you know why an Ambassador asking for more security days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do YOU know the reason why those requests went unheeded?

Q5. Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation, which defies logic frankly, that we couldn’t have gotten there in time. But you know they didn’t know when it was going to end. So how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?

Q6. Do YOU know whether the president called any of our allies and said “can you help, we have men under attack”? Can you answer that?

Q7. Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked? The Secretary of State did not go, she said she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like. If that’s true. Why was Susan Rice on the five Sunday talk shows?

Q8. Do you know the origin of this mythology that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started? Do you know how we got from no evidence of that, to that being the official position of the administration?

 

Not true. Two CIA agents DEFIED ORDERS TO STAND DOWN when they went in to assist. The Butcher of Benghazi had nothing to do with their actions, in fact, if anything, her office tried to obstruct their aid.

 

Heres a few of the questions that Mr Gowdy feels have not been answered. Noone in the media audience put up their hands, or offered an answer to any of them...so we can assume they dont know either.
[video=youtube;5i4tuuy1jsw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i4tuuy1jsw[/video]


As to the polling, I only mentioned it becausse a statement was made about how persuing this could hurt the GOP. The people, those who both parties represent, seem to want answers...so I dont think it's the Republican side that risks being hurt by this one.

Finding out the info is what the people want. It's the obstructionists who are going to be harmed by this one the longer it plays out.

 

To beef up security on 9/11 anniversary would make Obama's victory laps, celebrating defeat of Al Qaeda, a little premature?

 

no kidding. Seems the left is very concerned about the Republicans destroying themselves with this issue. Never knew they had such compassion for the other team.

 

How about one more time? Special commission is nothing to sneer at...

 

You can only be convinced there's nothing to pin on either her or Obama to make that prediction. Is the GOP stupid, or do they have the dirt and they know it? I think they have the dirt. It's not a gamble at all. They know it will hurt Clinton. They got something on her. Wait and see.