Tag Archives: ambassador stephens

It’s not that You Lie…

…it’s how much time you can put between You and Your Lie, until Nobody Cares Anymore.

Benghazi does not seem to want to go away.

I have made my position on this debacle very clear.  Just tap “Benghazi” into my search window.

But this new development is different.  (Abandon hope if you are seeking answers.  This is about a weak President with a small nod to the 2016 race.)

What interests me now is the dynamic between a past Secretary of State who is a Socialist Presidential Hopeful and a current Socialist White House.  It is not secret that these two simply do not like each other.  They never have.  And with Hillary’s declared interest in the Presidency removing the “choice” President Obama had in regard to whom he will support, it should be interesting as to how the Benghazi issue plays out.

What I mean here is that it typically takes the power of the Executive to put as much time as possible between the “Lie” and the “Discovery of the Lie” in order to dampen public interest regarding the event “Lied” about.  Only TIME will let the public “not care”… in other words the old go-to line of “That’s Ancient History so Who Cares!?” only works with a Liberal application of time.

Remember, all political malfeasance is judged in the court of public opinion.

Hillary does not appear to have even the paltry Executive support she had when she was acting Sec. State.  She also does not have the warm fuzzy relationship which might aid her in acquiring help from that Executive.  It’s important to remember that the idea of Biden stepping aside for Hillary to assume the VP slot was seriously considered, but somewhere it was quashed… and there was a reason, either Hillary refused or the President refused.  This is not how a Village raises it children to behave.

(It is my assessment that this idea was quashed somewhere within the White House as it would only benefit Hillary to assume “pole position” in the 2016 Presidential Race by being VP.  She would not have refused this contrary to supporter assertions… she is not stupid.  May be one day we’ll know for sure and it will only interest idiots like me.  Time…)

So this leaves a couple of fun possibilities.

The Clinton’s are a Machine… they know where the skeletons are and have shown in the past that they are not afraid to let them “accidentally” fall out of the closet.

This latest “discovery” of the talking points regarding Benghazi being altered by someone could be a shot across the bow in terms of Hillary not feeling she is receiving the help she should expect from the current Administration.  (Granted, this Administration is finding stormy seas as far as advancing their own agenda… but this is about Hillary!  At least that’s how Hillary sees it.)

As this moves forward, which it will because the Republicans smell blood and know a few weeks of hearings regardless of outcome burns yet more time the President might have to push his ideas, we should expect to see some “discoveries” of White House involvement.  That is, of course, if the White House doesn’t get its mind right and jump on board the Hillary Express.)

The Clintons are not above throwing those they don’t get along with under the bus if it serves their needs, even if they are Fellow Travelers.

The other possibility is a full-throated defense of Hillary by the White House… which would be the largest overt example of Obama’s weakness we may have yet seen.

Close your eyes and picture a wrestling match between Barack and Hillary in Singlets.  All sweaty… grunting… with Bill sitting nearby watching with a strange, oddly fascinated leer…

You’re Welcome.


“What difference does it make?!”

– Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State. 1/23/13

This was the answer provided to Senator Ron Johnson when he asked why the State Department fabricated the reason for the Benghazi attack.

Yes… what difference does it make?

Why is it important to know why your government lied to you? Really… who cares?

Well, Democrat Senator Dick Durban cares. He, in an attempt at moral relativism, brought up WMD’s and our inability to find them. (At least ones that would satisfy Democrats.) So apparently it does matter. Unless it’s Liberals who are doing the fabricating… then we should all just move on.

(And, Mr. Durbin, there is a stark difference between the lack of WMD’s and the Benghazi murders. While no one put eyes on the WMD’s, the State Department watched the assassination of our Diplomat and those surrounding him real-time. They watched.  And furthermore, the actions you find so disturbing in regard to WMD’s are an odd choice to justify the current actions of our State Department. Just because someone you didn’t like, in your opinion, did something wrong does not warrant errant behavior by someone you do like.)

It’s appears to be a room full of children.

I feel deeply sorry for the families of those killed having to watch this.


When in Trouble, Blame Congress.

If you’re a Secretary of State, and you know your answers will not play well… with anyone. You can always blame Congress.
The line from Secretary Clinton is that Congress killed Ambassador Stephens and the men trying to come to his aid by denying “funds” for State Dept. expenditures.

While this is a “too clever by half” approach to handling a Congressional Inquiry… it’s the other missing half that matters.

Did Congress embargo the truth? In other words, was it Congress that was responsible for the State Department making up inane reasons for the “spontaneous attack” that occurred in Benghazi and then feeding it to the American People?

Was it Congress that hung our Ambassador out to be killed? In other words, if the excuse now being offered is that Congress was not giving enough taxpayer dollars to the State Department to defend our Diplomats… then why was the State Department putting them in harm’s way? If the State Department doesn’t have enough money to defend our diplomats why are you sending them there?  Could Ambassador Stephens been loaned your security detail Madame Secretary?  Could we have sent one of the myriad Armed Defense Department Drones actively flying five minutes away to aid in the defense against this ultimately successful 9/11 assassination attempt?  Is it not an indictment of the Secretary of State that she was sending our “best and brightest” into places where she could not guarantee their safety?

“I never saw security requests for Benghazi.” – Secretary Clinton.  Then Congressional funding is not relevant.

So which is it?

The attempt to blame Congress for this is juvenile. Nothing about the Benghazi attack was unprecedented, nor unexpected. The complex had been repeatedly attacked over recent months leading up to the September 11th debacle.

If there is nothing to fear here, and the lack of security was not by design to show how “nice” we are… then release the e-mail exchanges surrounding this matter in their entirety without redaction.

Bad people do bad things. I’m willing to focus my ire upon the Terrorist A-holes that committed the act, but I will not ignore the apparent fact we put people in harm’s way and left them there to die.

We left them there to die.

As I sit here and watch this live, is there really any part of this… any version of events, yours or anyone else’s, that merits laughter?  Even a smirk… the smirk you are currently wearing?  Is there something funny about this that we are missing?

You left them there to die.

Mrs. Clinton?