HILLARY CLINTON CULABLE FOR BENGHAZI FROM BEGINNING TO END.........

[Whirlaway]

From Paul Mirengoff at Powerlineblog.com

When it first became clear that the CIA’s Benghazi talking points had been altered, many of us viewed the White House as the prime suspect. After all, it served President Obama’s political purposes to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which he was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

It turns out, however, that the State Department was the prime culprit. It was State that pushed back hard against the original talking points. The White House, probably for the political reason cited above, took its side.

Why did State want the talking points changed? Because it had ignored warnings about rising terrorist activity in Libya and had reduced security rather than beefing it up, as our embassy requested.

Under these circumstances, it would not do to attribute the Benghazi killings to the terrorism about which top State Department officials had been warned. Much better to lump what happened in Libya together with the protests that occurred in Egypt, and thereby characterize it as a demonstration that went too far, rather than premeditated terrorism.

Was Hillary Clinton directly involved in this cover-up? It’s difficult to see how she could not have been.

As I understand it, when State pushed back against the CIA’s talking points, a White House meeting was scheduled to thrash out the issue. One can imagine Clinton failing to keep apprised of something as mundane as a mounting threat to be safety of her personnel in Libya. But surely she was in the loop when it came to a bureaucratic struggle about how our U.N. ambassador was going to spin the Benghazi debacle. And surely, her representatives would not attend the meeting in which that bureaucratic struggle was to be resolved without being able to state the desires of the Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton, then, is culpable at the front end of the Benghazi disaster — when she and/or her agents ignored requests for enhanced security — and at the back end — when she and her agents engineered an attempted cover-up. Her culpability during the attacks is doubtful in my opinion, but I would still like to know what she was doing during those tragic hours.

In a serious society, Benghazi, standing alone, would spell the end of Hillary Clinton’s public career. But there is much more.

The signature initiative of her time as Secretary of State — the “reset” with Russia — was a fiasco or a farce, depending on how seriously one took it to begin with. I would have had trouble taking seriously an initiative launched with the aid of a fake reset button, even if Clinton had used the correct Russian word for “reset.”

We should also remember that Clinton managed to lose the presidential nomination in 2008 despite having a huge lead and major advantages over her relatively unknown rival. She lost in part because she and her staff couldn’t figure out the importance of winning caucuses in a host of “off-the-beaten-path” states.

Finally, there should be no statute of limitations on Hillarycare. On big matters, failure is the norm for Hillary Clinton.

Despite all of this, Clinton finds herself the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, if she seeks it. And I gather that she is favored to win the general election, as well.

Will Benghazi derail her? I wouldn’t bet on it. First, it’s far from clear that, in 2016, the electorate will still care much about what happened in Benghazi (did it ever?) and about subsequent lying about the nature of the attacks.

Second, and relatedly, before Benghazi can hurt Clinton, someone needs the courage to raise the issue. Would Clinton’s serious Democratic rivals (if any) have that courage? Or would they fear a backlash from an essentially pacifist base that sees this as a Republican issue, and therefore irrelevant, and that is that may be hell bent on nominating a female.

Would a Republican nominee have the requisite courage? Or would he fear a backlash from female voters offended about suggestions that the first woman candidate for president is, simultaneously, too weak and too conniving for the job?

Perhaps the specter of Benghazi, or simple embarrassment over it, will dissuade Clinton from even entering the race. But I wouldn’t bet on that either.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ing-to-end.php

[Jewish Lawyer]

I hope the hearings this week can substantiate her misdeeds, but she is covered in teflon. I've resigned myself to her Presidency, it is sad but overconfidence is the only thing that can wreck her and the Democrats from ruling the Presidency for the foreseeable future. All that is left for the Republicans are to win House and Senate seats and attempt to derail the liberal anti-white agenda as much as possible. Once the liberals realize they fucked up, it will be too late for them, also.

[JD Barleycorn]

Before you totally resign yourself think about John Edwards, Gary Hart, and Al Gore. All were supposed to be unbeatable and all flamed out. I could put Hillary in the same group for 2008.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

From Paul Mirengoff at Powerlineblog.com

When it first became clear that the CIA’s Benghazi talking points had been altered, many of us viewed the White House as the prime suspect. After all, it served President Obama’s political purposes to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which he was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

It turns out, however, that the State Department was the prime culprit. It was State that pushed back hard against the original talking points. The White House, probably for the political reason cited above, took its side.

Why did State want the talking points changed? Because it had ignored warnings about rising terrorist activity in Libya and had reduced security rather than beefing it up, as our embassy requested.

Under these circumstances, it would not do to attribute the Benghazi killings to the terrorism about which top State Department officials had been warned. Much better to lump what happened in Libya together with the protests that occurred in Egypt, and thereby characterize it as a demonstration that went too far, rather than premeditated terrorism.

Was Hillary Clinton directly involved in this cover-up? It’s difficult to see how she could not have been.

As I understand it, when State pushed back against the CIA’s talking points, a White House meeting was scheduled to thrash out the issue. One can imagine Clinton failing to keep apprised of something as mundane as a mounting threat to be safety of her personnel in Libya. But surely she was in the loop when it came to a bureaucratic struggle about how our U.N. ambassador was going to spin the Benghazi debacle. And surely, her representatives would not attend the meeting in which that bureaucratic struggle was to be resolved without being able to state the desires of the Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton, then, is culpable at the front end of the Benghazi disaster — when she and/or her agents ignored requests for enhanced security — and at the back end — when she and her agents engineered an attempted cover-up. Her culpability during the attacks is doubtful in my opinion, but I would still like to know what she was doing during those tragic hours.

In a serious society, Benghazi, standing alone, would spell the end of Hillary Clinton’s public career. But there is much more.

The signature initiative of her time as Secretary of State — the “reset” with Russia — was a fiasco or a farce, depending on how seriously one took it to begin with. I would have had trouble taking seriously an initiative launched with the aid of a fake reset button, even if Clinton had used the correct Russian word for “reset.”

We should also remember that Clinton managed to lose the presidential nomination in 2008 despite having a huge lead and major advantages over her relatively unknown rival. She lost in part because she and her staff couldn’t figure out the importance of winning caucuses in a host of “off-the-beaten-path” states.

Finally, there should be no statute of limitations on Hillarycare. On big matters, failure is the norm for Hillary Clinton.

Despite all of this, Clinton finds herself the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, if she seeks it. And I gather that she is favored to win the general election, as well.

Will Benghazi derail her? I wouldn’t bet on it. First, it’s far from clear that, in 2016, the electorate will still care much about what happened in Benghazi (did it ever?) and about subsequent lying about the nature of the attacks.

Second, and relatedly, before Benghazi can hurt Clinton, someone needs the courage to raise the issue. Would Clinton’s serious Democratic rivals (if any) have that courage? Or would they fear a backlash from an essentially pacifist base that sees this as a Republican issue, and therefore irrelevant, and that is that may be hell bent on nominating a female.

Would a Republican nominee have the requisite courage? Or would he fear a backlash from female voters offended about suggestions that the first woman candidate for president is, simultaneously, too weak and too conniving for the job?

Perhaps the specter of Benghazi, or simple embarrassment over it, will dissuade Clinton from even entering the race. But I wouldn’t bet on that either.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ing-to-end.php

Finally a somewhat balanced article. It made good points. Better than this anti Obama BS that you have thrown out each and every day.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Before you totally resign yourself think about John Edwards, Gary Hart, and Al Gore. All were supposed to be unbeatable and all flamed out. I could put Hillary in the same group for 2008.

Hillary Clinton might be vulnerable, but Mrs. Bill Clinton will be hard to defeat.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Hillary Clinton might be vulnerable, but Mrs. Bill Clinton will be hard to defeat.

Depending on the economy, I believe that to be a correct statement. The economy will have a ten times larger effect on the 2016 election than this Benfuckinggazi crap these folks are hanging their hat on.
All this shit reminds me of the NFL draft...arm chair GM's calling in with who they should draft and what offense and defense should be run!

In the end, it does not matter wtf we think!

[Jewish Lawyer]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Before you totally resign yourself think about John Edwards, Gary Hart, and Al Gore. All were supposed to be unbeatable and all flamed out. I could put Hillary in the same group for 2008.

I certainly hope you are right. I think they are overconfident, which is one reason to be optimistic.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

From Paul Mirengoff at Powerlineblog.com

When it first became clear that the CIA’s Benghazi talking points had been altered, many of us viewed the White House as the prime suspect. After all, it served President Obama’s political purposes to claim, at the height of a political campaign in which he was taking credit for the fall of al Qaeda, that the death of a U.S. ambassador was down to spontaneous outrage over a video, rather than pre-planned terrorism.

It turns out, however, that the State Department was the prime culprit. It was State that pushed back hard against the original talking points. The White House, probably for the political reason cited above, took its side.

Why did State want the talking points changed? Because it had ignored warnings about rising terrorist activity in Libya and had reduced security rather than beefing it up, as our embassy requested.

Under these circumstances, it would not do to attribute the Benghazi killings to the terrorism about which top State Department officials had been warned. Much better to lump what happened in Libya together with the protests that occurred in Egypt, and thereby characterize it as a demonstration that went too far, rather than premeditated terrorism.

Was Hillary Clinton directly involved in this cover-up? It’s difficult to see how she could not have been.

As I understand it, when State pushed back against the CIA’s talking points, a White House meeting was scheduled to thrash out the issue. One can imagine Clinton failing to keep apprised of something as mundane as a mounting threat to be safety of her personnel in Libya. But surely she was in the loop when it came to a bureaucratic struggle about how our U.N. ambassador was going to spin the Benghazi debacle. And surely, her representatives would not attend the meeting in which that bureaucratic struggle was to be resolved without being able to state the desires of the Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton, then, is culpable at the front end of the Benghazi disaster — when she and/or her agents ignored requests for enhanced security — and at the back end — when she and her agents engineered an attempted cover-up. Her culpability during the attacks is doubtful in my opinion, but I would still like to know what she was doing during those tragic hours.

In a serious society, Benghazi, standing alone, would spell the end of Hillary Clinton’s public career. But there is much more.

The signature initiative of her time as Secretary of State — the “reset” with Russia — was a fiasco or a farce, depending on how seriously one took it to begin with. I would have had trouble taking seriously an initiative launched with the aid of a fake reset button, even if Clinton had used the correct Russian word for “reset.”

We should also remember that Clinton managed to lose the presidential nomination in 2008 despite having a huge lead and major advantages over her relatively unknown rival. She lost in part because she and her staff couldn’t figure out the importance of winning caucuses in a host of “off-the-beaten-path” states.

Finally, there should be no statute of limitations on Hillarycare. On big matters, failure is the norm for Hillary Clinton.

Despite all of this, Clinton finds herself the overwhelming favorite to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, if she seeks it. And I gather that she is favored to win the general election, as well.

Will Benghazi derail her? I wouldn’t bet on it. First, it’s far from clear that, in 2016, the electorate will still care much about what happened in Benghazi (did it ever?) and about subsequent lying about the nature of the attacks.

Second, and relatedly, before Benghazi can hurt Clinton, someone needs the courage to raise the issue. Would Clinton’s serious Democratic rivals (if any) have that courage? Or would they fear a backlash from an essentially pacifist base that sees this as a Republican issue, and therefore irrelevant, and that is that may be hell bent on nominating a female.

Would a Republican nominee have the requisite courage? Or would he fear a backlash from female voters offended about suggestions that the first woman candidate for president is, simultaneously, too weak and too conniving for the job?

Perhaps the specter of Benghazi, or simple embarrassment over it, will dissuade Clinton from even entering the race. But I wouldn’t bet on that either.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...ing-to-end.php

I'd settle for whirly defining the word "culable".

Oh wait, I see it now. He can cut and paste but he can't write his own thoughts about his cut and paste. That and/or he knows it's Op-Ed, which isn't fact no matter how many different ways it's pitched or presented, so what difference does it make if he fucks up the thread name?

He got it right when it required nothing from him.

[LexusLover]

I think it is a misspelling ... should be "cullable"!

[CJOHN]

icanseeformiles....can you see which finger and how many finger? LOL ..... ok, you got the mental sister going to the hospital.... IRONMAN 3?

[Whirlaway]

Culpable: Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious.

Thanks for the typo notice !

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I'd settle for whirly defining the word "culable".

Oh wait, I see it now. He can cut and paste but he can't write his own thoughts about his cut and paste. That and/or he knows it's Op-Ed, which isn't fact no matter how many different ways it's pitched or presented, so what difference does it make if he fucks up the thread name?

He got it right when it required nothing from him.

Hold on there Munchy. While the gist of Trendaway's talents are perfectly captured in the above remarks, this might go deeper than that. Hell, there may even be a conspiracy lurking about somewhere. This could be a simple case of misspelling in that he was going for cullable, as in able to be culled. Of course, cullable or cullible are not words though actual existence of things or proof has never been high on Trendaway's set of priorities. Gullible IS a word but it can only be used in reference to Trendaway so that's out, too. Perhaps he was going for culpable.

Anyway, we have our usual, unintended, unplanned spot of comic relief which leads to reading Trendaway's cut'n'paste jobs with a wry smile that is usually transformed by his purloined articles into either a giggle or outright guffaw.

As WTF said, this is actually a relatively balanced article (Trendy's slipping - there's no way he can rehabilitate himself at this late date) and this unfortunate lead-in diminishes whatever import the article might have had.

Oh well, the pitfalls of "thinking" without either a license or the capability. Heh, another nice cut'n'paste job, Trendaway, on the definition of what you were trying to type although, according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, it seems that you might have monkeyed around with some of the words in his "definition."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culpable

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by WTF

...The economy will have a ten times larger effect on the 2016 election than this Benfuckinggazi crap these folks are hanging their hat on...

Yep, that's the way it's always been.

But regarding the inevitability of Hillary...

If forced to bet, I'd guess that at this time her chances are better than anyone else's. But "inevitable" candidates have a way of ending up looking not quite so inevitable, as was the case with Hillary five years ago.

Check a few of the comments offered by veteran political commentator Jeff Greenfield:

http://news.yahoo.com/maybe-we-shoul...193451754.html

A lot can go wrong somewhere between the salad and the dessert!

[CJOHN]

how did Houston have so many hospital?.... more subject to experiment on?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

But "inevitable" candidates have a way of ending up looking not quite so inevitable, as was the case with Hillary five years ago.

A lot can go wrong somewhere between the hanger and the airplane!

.. so hopefully she will be able to AGAIN dodge that sniper fire while scurrying to the stairway on her next ride to "who cares" where.