IT'S BACCCKKKKKK; THE CLINTON SCANDAL MACHINE !!!!!!

[Whirlaway]

By: Paul Mirengoff at Powerlineblog.com

At a Senate hearing in January, Hillary Clinton responded to questioning from Sen. Ron Johnson about the nature of the Benghazi attack with this rant:

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

Given what we now know, the question is best put to Clinton herself. After all, she (through her spokesperson) initiated what the Washington Post has called a “bureaucratic knife fight” over how the attack would be characterized in talking points prepared for Congress and used by Susan Rice.

The original talking points spoke of a “direct assault” and mentioned the militant group Ansar al-Sharia. Clinton’s agents insisted that these references be removed, and they were. So were references to warnings by the CIA about the mounting threat posed by extremists in Benghazi and previous attacks there against foreign interests.

Clearly, these references made a difference to Clinton. I figure it was the difference between a State Department that was criminally negligent and one that justifiably was surprised that anyone would attack the Benghazi facility. As Clinton’s spokesperson said in an email pushing back against the CIA’s version of the talking points, that version “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”

If there’s a different explanation for why the talking points made enough of a difference for Hillary Clinton to start a bureaucratic knife fight, she should identify it. In any case, she should explain why she told Congress that the reasons for, and nature of, the Benghazi attacks make no difference, even though she knew her agents had struggled mightily over what the talking points would say about this.

Finally, let’s note that Clinton didn’t simply ask what difference the talking points make; she fairly shouted the question. What was the source of her anger?

I would like to believe that it’s rooted in guilt over not having beefed up security in Libya, as those on the ground there had requested. More likely, though, the anger stems from dislike of being challenged and the sense that her presidential ambitions may have been compromised.

This is the real Hillary Clinton, one suspects — the one we saw back in the days of Whitewater. She even dusted off her old, derisive characterization of questions asking her to explain her actions:

Whitewater news conference, May 1994:

Q. [There was] the suggestion in the R.T.C. memorandum . . . you and your husband knew or should have known that Whitewater was not cash-flowing and that notes or debts should have been paid?

HRC. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. We didn’t.

Senate Benghazi hearing, Jan. 23, 2013:

HRC. Nobody wants to sit where I am and think now about what ‘coulda, shoulda, woulda’ happened in order to avoid this.

The best way for Clinton to avoid future annoying coulda, shoulda, woulda questions is to remain outside of public life.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...water-mode.php

[Randy4Candy]

Meh, the only thing back is the Republican't fixation on all things Clinton. I can't imagine anything more productive than spending a few million on another Ken Starr-like wild goose chase.

I guess that we are now going to have to endure two new threads per day (or more) from you on Hillary. Can't wait.

[Whirlaway]

Feel free to skip my threads...............your a whiner with no backbone...............

Whine about my threads on Hillary all you want.........you are fucking loser if you whine about them but feel compelled to respond............

[Randy4Candy]

Uh, I think that your continued whining has left you with a permanent case of tinnitus and the echo in the adjacent chamber must be, and is obviously, deafening. Trendaway, for one who never gets anything right and jumps on the bandwagons to oblivion, you sure are full of.......

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

By: Paul Mirengoff at Powerlineblog.com

At a Senate hearing in January, Hillary Clinton responded to questioning from Sen. Ron Johnson about the nature of the Benghazi attack with this rant:

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?

Given what we now know, the question is best put to Clinton herself. After all, she (through her spokesperson) initiated what the Washington Post has called a “bureaucratic knife fight” over how the attack would be characterized in talking points prepared for Congress and used by Susan Rice.

The original talking points spoke of a “direct assault” and mentioned the militant group Ansar al-Sharia. Clinton’s agents insisted that these references be removed, and they were. So were references to warnings by the CIA about the mounting threat posed by extremists in Benghazi and previous attacks there against foreign interests.

Clearly, these references made a difference to Clinton. I figure it was the difference between a State Department that was criminally negligent and one that justifiably was surprised that anyone would attack the Benghazi facility. As Clinton’s spokesperson said in an email pushing back against the CIA’s version of the talking points, that version “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”

If there’s a different explanation for why the talking points made enough of a difference for Hillary Clinton to start a bureaucratic knife fight, she should identify it. In any case, she should explain why she told Congress that the reasons for, and nature of, the Benghazi attacks make no difference, even though she knew her agents had struggled mightily over what the talking points would say about this.

Finally, let’s note that Clinton didn’t simply ask what difference the talking points make; she fairly shouted the question. What was the source of her anger?

I would like to believe that it’s rooted in guilt over not having beefed up security in Libya, as those on the ground there had requested. More likely, though, the anger stems from dislike of being challenged and the sense that her presidential ambitions may have been compromised.

This is the real Hillary Clinton, one suspects — the one we saw back in the days of Whitewater. She even dusted off her old, derisive characterization of questions asking her to explain her actions:

Whitewater news conference, May 1994:

Q. [There was] the suggestion in the R.T.C. memorandum . . . you and your husband knew or should have known that Whitewater was not cash-flowing and that notes or debts should have been paid?

HRC. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. We didn’t.

Senate Benghazi hearing, Jan. 23, 2013:

HRC. Nobody wants to sit where I am and think now about what ‘coulda, shoulda, woulda’ happened in order to avoid this.

The best way for Clinton to avoid future annoying coulda, shoulda, woulda questions is to remain outside of public life.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...water-mode.php

There was a investagation into this that found it stopped short of the Secretary of State. however you being one of those who won't quit beating a dead horse keep hoping if the outcry is kept up she won't run and some lame candidate your side comes up with will have a shot.

[Whirlaway]

HAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!

Hillary's fingerprints are ALL over the You Tube Benghazi lie; the Benghazi security failure !!!!!!!!!

It is un-believable you are still clinging to the notion that the testimony and facts clear Hillary ! Just the opposite !

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

There was a investagation into this that found it stopped short of the Secretary of State. however you being one of those who won't quit beating a dead horse keep hoping if the outcry is kept up she won't run and some lame candidate your side comes up with will have a shot.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Feel free to skip my threads...............your a whiner with no backbone...............



Whine about my threads on Hillary all you want.........you are fucking loser if you whine about them but feel compelled to respond............

There is no bigger whiner on this board than you are Whineaway.

HOW MANY BENGHAZI THREADS HAVE YOU STARTED NOW?

Your hysterical name calling threads ignore the truth and are nothing more than negative spin meant to create in others the profound hatred of America that you spew day in and day out.

I'm glad you have no children.

[Whirlaway]

HA; defend Obama by attacking those who oppose him........you are playing the Obama game oh so well AssUp !

You even disguise yourself as someone else............who are the scum in the Sandbox.

[Whirlaway]

Flashback:

IRS likely source of Romney donor information to Human Rights Campaign Group....................

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

HAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!

Hillary's fingerprints are ALL over the You Tube Benghazi lie; the Benghazi security failure !!!!!!!!!

It is un-believable you are still clinging to the notion that the testimony and facts clear Hillary ! Just the opposite !

Only in your hateful little mind only investigation so far has cleared her the witch hunt going on now is getting debunked daily by more informed people.

[Whirlaway]

Hello Eva; just the opposite is going on in the real world !

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Only in your hateful little mind only investigation so far has cleared her the witch hunt going on now is getting debunked daily by more informed people.

[Texas Contrarian]

It didn't occur to you to post this copy & paste in another already-existing thread -- like perhaps the one whose title says that Hillary is "culable" [sic] for all the events related to the Benghazi fiasco? That one was ready-made for you, since it even has Hillary's name in the title!

[Whirlaway]

Different story; You are just trying to limit the discussion on the topic...so stop hijacking my thread !

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

It didn't occur to you to post this copy & paste in another already-existing thread -- like perhaps the one whose title says that Hillary is "culable" [sic] for all the events related to the Benghazi fiasco? That one was ready-made for you, since it even has Hillary's name in the title!

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Different story; You are just trying to limit the discussion on the topic...so stop hijacking my thread !

Uh, excuse me, but the story is about Hillary's Benghazi-related testimony, and nothing else. (The mention of Watergate testimony was just an aside.) I mean, really. How clueless are you?

I'm not trying to "limit discussion," I just suggested that you would have done well to utilize another thread that you recently created on the same subject.

[Whirlaway]

The thread links the old Clinton scandals with the new Clinton scandals..........You are trying to win an argument by telling me what to post (not post) and how to post it !

Maybe you should just ignore my posts and threads.....you offer nothing of substance and only whine about typos and thread topics.

And again, you are deflecting from the thread topic and attempting to hijack the thread into another topic.........