Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Don’t think Hillary is Running? Despite her Benghazi failures, think Again

677px-Msc2012_20120204_408_Clinton_Hillary_Frank_Plitt

677px-Msc2012_20120204_408_Clinton_Hillary_Frank_PlittHillary Clinton has stayed largely out of the campaign spotlight after her failed presidential bid in 2008 and the catastrophic attack on the American consulate in Benghazi – it would seem that Americans have forgiven her mistakes and that things have changed in her favor.

Mrs. Clinton spent Saturday evening at a campaign event for Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Terry McAuliffe. While her appearance was intended to help Mr. McAuliffe get elected, it seemed very much like an early Presidential campaign stop.

Clinton spent some time jabbing at Republicans (without mentioning them) and praising the fiscally irresponsible Democrats.

Recently in Washington, unfortunately, we have seen examples of the wrong kind of leadership, when politicians choose scorched earth instead of common ground,” Clinton then bemoaned Republicans saying “they operate in what I call the ‘evidence-free zone,’ indicating that Conservative  ideology is trumping everything else.

Hillary chose to toe the Obama line. “If you don’t think like me, you are evil and we cannot negotiate with you,”  but can America survive another four years of divisive leadership from the White House? Mrs. Clinton seems to think so.

While the majority of her comments were spent praising Virginia’s gubernatorial hopeful, several were aimed at trashing politicians from other viewpoints – something we’ve seen time and time again from President Obama.

If you thought Hillary wasn’t running for President, you may have missed a few signs – she is.

ZoNATION: Hillary-ous Feminism

zonationhillaryprez

Think Hillary Clinton should be considered a hero by feminists? Alfonzo Rachel certainly doesn’t, and for the big reasons that most liberals seem to ignore. What is so empowering about a woman that “stands by her man” in spite of his publicly humiliating her with his extra-marital dalliances while literally in the Oval Office? But, like all the other hypocrisies that the left hold dear, no doubt they will stand by their Hillary.

Time to crown Hillary Clinton as heir-apparent

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)

Donkey Hotey (CC)


Rumors about the 2016 presidential elections are flying on both sides of the aisle, and on the Democrat side, all talk is of Hillary Clinton, if she decides to run – at least if you listen to Donna Brazile.

So while I do think it’s too early to handicap the race, there is no question, if Hillary Clinton gets into the race, there will be a coronation of her, because there are so many Democrats who last time around supported her, who I think are anxious to see her back out there again.

Of course, Brazile did mention other potential candidates before saying that – even mentioned Joe Biden twice. But the reality is that the most likely result is a Hillary Clinton victory in the 2016 primary. Unless she can’t manage to shake free of the questionable cast of characters she and Bill Clinton have kept in their inner-circle over the years. Terry McAuliffe is running for Governor in Virginia, so of course the Clinton’s will be helping him raise funds for his campaign. It’s not anything that Hillary has to worry about for 2016 – the voting public’s memory is very short. However, it remains to be seen if there will be any other questionable “friends” of the Clinton’s that steal headlines ahead of the election.

The Left’s Continuing War on Women

war on women

New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin attend a news conference in New YorkHuma Abedin learned from a young age that as a woman, she’s a second class citizen. Her value is not equal to that of a man, therefore she must tolerate whatever painful, humiliating or otherwise unpleasant treatment the man in her life decides to unleash upon her. Not only must she tolerate it, she must accept it as her due. She must not question it, fight it, or be seen to be upset by it.

Many people are wondering why she is standing by her philandering, pervert of a husband, Anthony Weiner. Some assume she’s taking notes from another “feminist”, Hillary Clinton, who’s also accepted second class status in favor of her powerful husband and that is probably true to a certain degree. But there is a far more sinister reason. Not only is Abedin a practicing Muslim, she was raised by a mother who is an ardent defender of Sharia Law, supporter of female genital mutilation, and a founding member of the Muslim Sisterhood, a Muslim Brotherhood women’s group.

In addition, Abedin’s mother Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is the longtime chairwoman of the International Islamic Committee for Women and Children (IICWC) which calls for, among other things, decriminalizing female genital mutilation, child marriage, polygamy for men, and child abuse. They also seek to disallow women from registering their newborns for a birth certificate by themselves because, according to Sharia Law, a child’s lineage belongs strictly to the father.

Huma Abedin has not actively participated in such blatant anti-woman advocacy, but neither has she distanced herself from it. For that matter, neither has her “feminist” mentor Hillary Clinton. During Clinton’s trip to Saudi Arabia last year, the Secretary of State visited and spoke at the Islamic college of Dar El-Hekma along with Huma, where Dr. Saleha Mahmood Abedin was a vice-dean and one of its founders.

While it’s unlikely that Huma is as big a fan of Sharia Law as her mother, there is no doubt these destructive and dangerous beliefs have heavily influenced her worldview, both personally and politically. While the left pretends women having to buy their own birth control is a “war on women”, the real war is being waged by those who don’t vehemently denounce the despicable behavior of men like Weiner and the mindset of women who are coerced by a perverted religion to embrace it.

The Confederate Corner with George Neat July 23rd – Drugs, Cross-dressing Boys, and Hillary-gate

confedcornercdnlogo

confedcornercdnlogo

When: Tuesday, July 23rd, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Confederate Corner with George Neat on Blog Talk Radio

What: Yes there are Confederates north of the Mason-Dixon line, and George Neat is one of them. And we’re happy to bring his views to you in the “Confederate Corner” radio show.

For more information on George and his political views, please drop by the Confederate Corner at GoldwaterGal.com. (http://goldwatergal.com/goldwater-gal-media/confederate-corner/)

Tonight: George will be talking about drugs, cross-dressing boys, George Zimmerman, and Hillary-gate. Of course there will also be a Soldier Salute, and a “nearly-infamous” Crack Pipe Moment.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Benghazi Testimony: What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make?

ignoring benghazi

Today the Right watched as the Left ignored the beginning of shocking and damning testimony from eyewitnesses on the ground during the 9/11 terror attacks in Benghazi. Testimony from Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant Secretary of State for counterterrorism; Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya; and Eric Nordstrom, former regional security officer in Libya confirmed what we on the right have known almost from the very beginning: there was no protest. The YouTube video, for which its creator is still unjustly imprisoned, had nothing to do with the attack. Help was ordered to stand down not once, but twice. The Obama Administration knew this was an act of terror from the beginning.

The question is, if a Fact Tree falls in Leftist Forest, does it make a sound? While celebrations of vindication are beginning to stir among the Right and people are beginning to speculate on the political fallout for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and others who were complicit in abandoning four Americans to die and then lying to the American public about it, I have to wonder what difference, at this point, does it make? When has the Left cared for facts? When has the Left embraced reality?

Indeed, the “coverage” in the mainstream media has been mostly devoted to smearing the whistleblowers and running cover for the Obama Regime. Since the “blame an obscure YouTube video” narrative has failed, the Left is now pretending it’s rational to blame sequestration (never mind the fact that it took place nearly six months after the attacks) for inadequate security though the State Department confirmed “budget cuts” had absolutely nothing to do with it. The Left in this country and their pet media will stop at nothing to ensure Obama and Clinton face no consequences for their corrupt, deadly actions.

The sad fact is, though it is imperative that the truth come out, we no longer live in a country where truth matters. While there was once a time that scandals of half this magnitude brought down presidencies, the Benghazi debacle will be but another notch in Obama’s belt of scandals he’s emerged from unscathed.

Still, all is not lost. While the impeachment he’s earned is little more than a pipe dream, we can use this disaster of a president to motivate us to crush the evil that is leftism. We can do the job the media refuses to, and hammer home the reality of the corruption, the devaluing of life, and the abandonment of Americans and American values that has been the hallmark of this presidency. We can remind midterm voters in 2014 and presidential voters in 2016 of what came to light today in addition to Obama’s countless other failures in hopes that, perhaps, it will eventually make a difference after all.

Remember – This is what Benghazi is about

ChristopherStevens

The media is having fits over the Benghazi hearings. Either they will bring everything to light, or they are just so much nonsense about nothing. Either the administration engaged in a cover-up, or there’s nothing odd going on at all. Either Hillary Clinton severely screwed up, or she didn’t. Either the calls for assistance were willfully ignored, or they weren’t. None of that has anything to do with what Benghazi is really about.

Even those two minutes of film that have become an icon, showing Christopher Stevens in the hands of the Libyans after he was attacked aren’t clear cut. Are they rejoicing because they found his dead body, or are they rejoicing because someone saw a sign of life in him? We probably will never know the truth. The best we can hope for is some degree of closure, and get as close to the truth as we possibly can.

Defense Issues Weekly

United_States_Department_of_Defense_Seal.svg (1)

Russia builds up, US cuts unilaterally

The Obama administration is preparing to announce a new round of deep, unilateral  cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal, writes Bill Gertz of the Washington Times.
United_States_Department_of_Defense_Seal.svg (1)
Writing in his weekly Inside the Ring column, Gertz states it will happen “soon” and that a Pentagon “review”, written precisely to “justify” these new, deep, unilateral cuts, will be used for that purpose. The cuts, as many outlets have already announced, may bring the arsenal to as few as 1,000 (or fewer) warheads. Gertz states this “review” was completed, and the decision to cut was made, months ago, but have been withheld from the public so far to prevent Obama from losing the 2012 presidential election.

Obama, having been reelected by the American electorate in 2012, will not to have to face voters ever again.

The result will be not just a deep, unilateral cut in America’s nuclear deterrent, but also a possible cancellation of warhead modernization programs, a replacement for the B-52’s aging cruise missiles (the B-52 has such a huge radar signature it cannot safely enter enemy airspace itself), the new “boomer” (ballistic missile submarine) class, and a plutonium pit producing facility in New Mexico, all of which were promised by Obama in 2010 during the New START ratification debate and in the New START ratification resolution. Construction of the said facility is also mandated by the FY2013 NDAA.

(NOTE: In 2010, this writer warned not to believe or accept President Obama’s modernization promises on the grounds that his word cut not be trusted under any circumstances; however, this writer’s warnings were roundly ignored and 13 Republicans foolishly voted for the treaty. Some of these Republicans are now the same individuals complaining about Obama’s failure to fulfill his promises, even though Obama never intended to keep those promises.)

Meanwhile, the Russian Ministry of Defense has announced it will continue growing its nuclear arsenal and modernizing it substantially, including the development of a new road-mobile ICBM (the Yars-M, tested successfully last year) and a rail-based ICBM (thus further adding to Russia’s arsenal of ICBMs). It also plans to develop a heavy ICBM (the “Son of Satan”) and an ICBM called the “Avangard”, as well as a “pseudo-ICBM” with a range of 6,000 kms, to counter China’s large nuclear arsenal of 3,000 warheads.

The US, on the other hand, does not have any road- or rail-mobile ICBMs and has no plans to develop any, although the USAF is studying such options.

Rail-mobile ICBMs were prohibited by the first and second START treaty, but are not forbidden by the one-sided New START treaty negotiated by the Obama State Department and signed by Obama in April 2010. Russia is now taking advantage of this huge loophole, as well as of the loophole (also found in previous START treaties) that does not count its 171 Tu-22M strategic bombers as such under these treaties. It’s also taking advantage of New START’s extremely weak verification regime, which gives it ample opportunity for cheating.

Concurrently, Russia is modernizing the other legs of its nuclear triad: its next generation bomber is scheduled to enter service in 2020 (as are the forementioned ICBMs), and the first of its new class of ballistic missile submarines, the Yuri Dolgoruki of the Borei class, joined the Russian Navy’s fleet last year.

Historically, Russia, and before it, the Soviet Union, has never complied with any arms control treaty it has signed.

Critics have charged that by cutting the US nuclear arsenal deeply and unilaterally below New START levels, Obama is inviting Russian nuclear blackmail of the US and dramatically undermining US national security, while needlessly dismantling the only weapon type that has never failed for its entire 67-year-long existence.

 Dempsey appeases China

During his visit to China last week, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, an Obama appointee, asked China for help in combating cyber attacks.

Despite the well-documented fact that many, if not most cyberattacks on the US originate from China and have been perpetrated by the PLA and other Chinese government entities, Dempsey put his faith in China’s benevolence, asking its leaders for help and proposing Sino-American “cooperation” on the matter.

Such “cooperation” would mean that Chinese government and military personnel would gain intimate access to US computer networks and thus be able to find out how to navigate – or disable – them and how to steal more information from the US government.

Yet, Gen. Dempsey called a Sino-American “working group” recently established “to combat cyber attacks” “both timely and appropriate”, and claimed that cyber attacks do as much damage to the Chinese as to the US economy.

Similarly, last year, Hillary Clinton claimed that both the US and China have been “victims of cyber attacks”, suggesting moral equivalence moral equivalence between the two countries.

Heritage Foundation analyst David Inserra commented recently:

“By turning a blind eye to China’s obvious bad cyber behavior, Dempsey and others are encouraging China to keep hacking, since there will obviously be no consequences from Washington. Even worse, by recommending more cooperation with China on this issue, the Obama Administration is actually rewarding the Chinese for their hacking by allowing them to become more familiar with our cyber systems and cybersecurity responses—and thus better prepared to spy on or disrupt them.(…)

The U.S. should change its approach to China on cybersecurity. China is not a victim on this issue; it is the perpetrator, and the U.S. should take actions that make its hacking more costly and painful—for instance, by calling out Beijing for its bad actions and ceasing to cooperate. The U.S. should also pursue legal and economic actions against Chinese companies that trade in stolen U.S. intellectual property. On top of that, the U.S. should break down Chinese censorship of the Internet and support the free flow of information within China.

Failing to change the U.S. policy toward China’s cyber crimes will only encourage more crime and attacks. It’s time to stand up to China and defend American interests.”

Ray Mabus: cutting warships, playing with boats

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus still insists on decommissioning 7 of the Navy’s newest cruisers while building 55 littoral combat ships that lack appropriate combat power, survivability, and are very vulnerable to cyber attacks.

The Navy’s released FY2014 budget proposal still insists on decommissioning the cruisers .

At the same time, Mabus insists on continuing the Littoral Combat Ship program of building 55 poorly-armed, easy-to-sink boats armed with nothing more than a gun and a few short-range missiles and costing $440 mn each, without counting the cost of their combat modules.

Mabus has hailed the LCS program as “one of our very best shipbuilding programs”, even though it is grossly overbudget and behind schedule and produces poorly-armed boats that cannot defend themselves. Think-tanks such as the CNAS and the Heritage Foundation have called for truncating LCS production.

The Navy’s own shipbuilding plans and girues also show that the service will not reach even its meagre goal – set last December – of reaching 306 ships, let alone the 313 ships the Navy said it needed as recently as December 2011. Indeed, the service’s plans show its ship fleet – especially the fleets of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines – shrinking deeply during the next 2 decades. During and after that period, the Navy’s total ship number will be significantly inflated by LCSes.

Critics, such as House Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee Chairman Randy Forbes (R-VA-04), have charged that the Navy is woefully underinvesting in its ship fleet and leaving it too small for the missions of today, let alone those of the future. They claim that, as the US “pivots” to the Western Pacific and continues to attempt to deter Iran in the Gulf, a large ship fleet is needed to keep the peace in both theaters, which are predominantly maritime.

Currently, the Navy is able to meet only 59% of Combatant Commanders’ requests for ships and only 61% of their requests for submarines.

theconsequencesofdefensecuts

Partial remedies have been suggested by think tanks such as the CNAS and Brookings. The former proposes establishing “red teams” to evaluate what it calls the “unconstrained” requirements of COCOMs, while Brookings proposes to station more warships abroad to make more available where they’re needed. It points out that one warship forward-deployed abroad (e.g. in Japan) is worth 4 warships based in the US.

Congressman Forbes proposes to increase the annual shipbuilding budget from $15 bn to $23 bn per year. That budget has been stagnant at $15 bn per year for several years.

Hillary and Obama’s 60 Minute Commandment: Cover Thy Negligent Ass

 Obama-Hillary one

 

During Sunday’s 60 Minutes interview, Hillary Clinton and President Obama morphed into one another while covering each other’s negligent asses.

The one-time presidential opponents, who tore each other to shreds during the 2008 presidential run, are now in a race to hide their September 11th disgrace and save themselves.

When caught in a lie, lie. And behave like two star-crossed lovers.

 

hillary obama umbrella kiss

 

Four years-ago these two progressive cutthroats went for the jugular, hurling  racial accusations and insults that make military combat look like a well-mannered “Downton Abbey” dinner.

Who really believed either one of these snake oiled, back-stabbing progressives during that farce of an interview? Both have thrown their own families under the biggest bus to save their own careers.

The entire 60 Minutes interview with Steve Kroft was a sham.

 

60 min

 

Kroft posed gentle questions, never bothering to put either cold and calculating bureaucrat on the spot for the obvious disdain and indifference  that caused the September 11th massacre of four Americans by Islamic militants.

Kroft’s interview enabled Obama and Hillary and helped them cover for each other.

The interview was nothing more than a left-wing love-fest by two people who obviously found the best plastic surgeon available and had their lips surgically attached to each other’s rear-ends.

Concerning Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of the State, Obama said:

Well, the main thing is I just wanted to have a chance to publicly say thank you, because I think Hillary will go down as one of the finest secretary of states we’ve had. It has been a great collaboration over the last four years. I’m going to miss her. Wish she was sticking around. But she has logged in so many miles, I can’t begrudge her wanting to take it easy for a little bit. But I want the country to appreciate just what an extraordinary role she’s played during the course of my administration and a lot of the successes we’ve had internationally have been because of her hard work.

 

Take it easy a bit! Hillary avoided the press for months. The only time she spoke about Benghazi was to blame an innocent filmmaker for the slaughter. Because of Hillary and Obama, that innocent filmmaker was thrown in prison–where he remains–for exercising his First Amendment rights.

Not until last week’s Senate and Congressional Hearings, where Hillary was given a verbal concussion by Republican Senators Rand Paul, John McCain and Ron Johnson, did she finally open her mouth. And then Hillary let the world know it doesn’t make a difference to her that four men are dead.

It obviously doesn’t make a difference to 60 Minutes either, because Steve Kroft went easier on Obama and Hillary than a blue dress on Bill Clinton.

Kroft had one hour to grill the two and failed as miserably with this interview as Obama and Hillary did with Benghazi.

The adulation fawn-fest set the stage for both to cover each other’s behinds and dodge Kroft’s easy questions about Qaddafi, Syria, Arab Spring, while turning Libya into an accident.

Worse, Kroft facilitated both frauds by making the majority of the interview about the phony working friendship and a Hillary-health-issue. After all, what difference does it make that four Americans were massacred in Benghazi, we need to know if Obama loves Hillary and if Hillary’s brain is doing well? And its imperative we know why Hillary’s wearing those bizarre Bette Davis horror movie magnifier glasses: “I still have some lingering effects from falling on my head and having the blood clot.”

Just listening to this rubbish gave me a concussion.

Obama swooned:

I was a big admirer of Hillary’s before our primary battles and the general election. You know, her discipline, her stamina, her thoughtfulness, her ability to project, I think, and make clear issues that are important to the American people, I thought made her an extraordinary talent. She also was already a world figure…Hillary’s been one of the most important advisors that I’ve had on a whole range of issues.

 

Hillary adoringly said she and Obama are “very warm, close.”

You weren’t “warm” or “close” during the 2008 South Carolina Primary Debate.

Hillary in 2008:

You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

 

Obama slapped back at Hillary:

I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes, Senator Clinton and President Clinton.

 

Hillary shouted:

I’m here, not my husband!

 

And who can forget Bill Clinton’s remarks to Charlie Rose about Obama’s lack of experience:

I mean, when’s the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? I mean, he will have been a senator longer by the time he’s inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for president full time you don’t have time to do much else.

 

Measure those comments to Hillary’s 60 Minutes kiss-up to the man who stole her chances at being president.

Hillary:

[W]hen I got to Chicago and he [Obama] asked me if I would consider being his secretary of state, I immediately said, ‘Oh, Mr. President, there’s so many other people. Let me give you some other names.’ Because it just took me by surprise…And he kept saying, ‘Well, I want you to think about it again…’ I’ll tell you what I finally thought. I thought, ‘You know, if the roles had been reversed. And I had ended up winning. I would have desperately wanted him to be in my cabinet. So if I’m saying I would have wanted him to say yes to me, how am I going to justify saying no to my president?’ And it was a great decision, despite my hesitancy about it.

 

We can heave a sigh of relief! Had Hillary won the 2008 presidency, events in Washington and Benghazi would still be the same.

And we can relax knowing Hillary and Obama have some emotions concerning the four massacred men.

Hillary told Kroft she “deeply regrets what happened to those men,” whom she and Obama ignored. Benghazi has made Obama “realize what makes a team succeed and fail.”

I feel much better now. Benghazi is explained and finally solved!

America, we need not ask further questions about why four men were left begging for help while being slaughtered. We don’t need answers telling us why those men never received aid or answers to their pleading calls to the president and State Department.

Just knowing Hillary feels “regret” in her lingering blood clotted mind, and Obama understands “failure and success,” should tell Americans: Stop worrying about security and military might. Just move on and get over Benghazi. Our backs are covered by “thoughtful” and “warm” people who have enough “stamina” to fail us successfully.

Sen. Paul to Hillary: I’d Fire You

rand paul

After numerous health delays Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finally appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Predictably Derand paulmocrats offered praise and sympathy to the Secretary. Republicans asked more pointed questions. Senators from both parties took the opportunity to share the concerns of their electorate.

Senator Rand Paul, reflecting the thoughts of many Americans, told Secretary Clinton that while he was glad to hear Clinton take responsibility, had he been president he would have fired her for failure of leadership.

In the clip below you can watch the exchange. Hillary Clinton tells Paul she was responsible but then states the responsibility for errors fell to her assistants.

What Really Happened to Hillary?

hillary clinton

No, it’s not a slow news day. Critical talks continue as key members of Congress work to stave off the country’s fall over the fiscal cliff.  The market watches in breathless anticipation. The IRS waits to tell employers what tax rates they’ll need to use next week. Even Joe Biden has been called in to pinch hit for the stalling Harry Reid.

And yet…

According to my Twitter feed, the real question this weekend was, “What really happened to Hillary?”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Gallup’s 2012 Most Admired Woman, has not been seen in public for more than three weeks. Just in time to cancel her already rescheduled meeting on Capitol Hill, where she was to testify and help Senators finally learn the truth about the tragedy at Benghazi, Mrs. Clinton developed a stomach flu. Which then caused her dehydrated body to faint resulting in a concussion and a further delay to speak. Now, after another week of illness Hillary is reported to have a blood clot and is now hospitalized.

As a result of the ever evolving story, even the venerable Charles Krauthammer pressing for information on Benghazi said, “We haven’t heard anything. We know as much about her concussion as we know about (Venezuelan president) Hugo Chavez. This is an open society, she is the Secretary of State, she has disappeared.”

So. What has happened to Hillary? Could these things, as reported, be true? Sure. There is plenty of plausibility. But do you believe in coincidences? Yeah, me neither.

The theory espoused by many conservatives this weekend is that all Clinton’s illnesses are faked. That she’s not really sick but that she is hiding out until the new Secretary of State is approved so that she will not be compelled to testify.

Could this be real? Yes. Of course, the whole hospitalization line does give more credibility.

Still, it’s not a very romantic theory.  Here’s one that carries much more intrigue and all the makings of a dramatic spy novel. The following is a condensed version from the EU Times: A US Military airplane, of which Hillary Clinton was a passenger, flew into Bahrain. There they picked up a number of Navy SEALs, who were based in Afghanistan and whose function often is to safeguard US diplomats in combat zones. One of the SEALs was Commander Job Price. The flight was en route to Bagdad when they ‘deviated’ and headed towards an Iranian airbase. Coincidentally, Iranian President Ahmadinejad was also at that airport. Something happened during the landing causing the plane to crash land. Commander Price was killed and the Secretary was severely injured. After receiving emergency aid from the Iranians, another US military plane was dispatched and the survivors flown out.

Too much to believe? The EU Times provides links to Russian intelligence reports as well as a Reuters story which mentions the damaged plan in Iran. Additionally, published reports in the US did relate the new world orderNavy SEAL died mysteriously in a non-combat incident. Some will argue that the EU Times has a biased agenda. Of course, many will argue that the main stream media also promote their personal agenda.

Personally, I hope Hillary recovers quickly and finally testifies as to the State Department’s role in Benghazi. The families of those killed deserve the truth. Like you I don’t wish Mrs. Clinton ill health.

In the end, is this just fodder for late night talk radio?

Or is it more? Calling all conspiracy theorists…

3:00 pm Update: To add to the questions, Fox News is now reporting on the American plane in Iran incident.

Did Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack cover up

Will Hillary Clinton damage 2016 presidential run with Benghazi attack cover up Congressional committee testimony

 

Typically, when most liberal political kingmakers pontificate about the next Clinton to grasp the presidential mantle, it is done with an air of obvious entitlement.  Hillary Clinton has positioned herself for this office ever since her days as a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee, which was investigating Watergate.

It was in the congressional backrooms that Hillary, began a pattern of alleged deceitful behavior that would serve her through many a state and federal prosecutorial investigation.  These investigations followed her and her husband, Bill Clinton from Arkansas to the White House, and now beyond.

Yet, the most onerous of Hillary claims has been linked to a web of mangled White House storylines concerning Benghazi Consulate security, attack, murders and what the president knew and when did he know it.

Fabrication of events is not new for Hillary Clinton, and according to her former boss Jerry Zeifman, who was “counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee,”  Hillary Clinton was fired from her position on the committee as a staff attorney for lying.

The mainstream media kept this embarrassing side note out of the public eye when her husband, Bill Clinton ran for President in 1992 and in her own run for the U.S. seat from New York in 2000.

Yet, Jerry Zeifman, seemed compelled to alert the nation about Hillary Clinton, who in 2006 was making coordinated moves to run for President in 2008.  In his book, “Hillary Pursuit of Power,” he stressed, while working on the Judiciary Committee, Clinton, … engaged in a variety of self-serving unethical practices in violation of House rules.”

Therefore it should be of surprise to no one that she was caught up in purported lies while First Lady of Arkansas as well as First Lady of the United States.  These scandals included in Whitewater illegal activities, the Travelgate cover up and her conveniently manufactured lie about coming under attack while visiting Bosnia.

Even though scandal and cover-ups seem to follow her like a bad penny, it is the string of Watergate style congressional performances which may actually be informative as well as the undoing of her presidential aspirations.

Fast forward to September 12th when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared in the White House Rose Garden with President Barack Obama to spin yet another web of tangled storylines.  This time, Hillary Clinton was joining another president who was involved in denying the truth about the murders of Americans in Benghazi, and not just a break in or a presidential fling.

This time, Hillary Clinton was not manufacturing lies against President Nixon’s ability to obtain legal counsel.  Nor was she trying to think up strategic avenues for covering up her sexual predator husband’s dalliances.  Americans died!  This time, it is congress that is in the driver’s seat, not the mainstream media or liberal pundits trying to cover up the truth.

In December Hillary Clinton will go before congressional committees to investigate what the president knew, when did he know it and what did he do about it.  This third time, it may very well be not only Hillary’s presidential aspirations on the line. Perhaps after nearly forty years since the Watergate hearings, she will learn to tell the truth and say, “No, Mr. President, I will not continue to promote a false narrative, because it is illegal and it is wrong to lie to the American people.”

( Click to let me know what you think )

« Older Entries Recent Entries »