Hillary Clinton Too Patriotic to Politicize Her Failure to Save 4 Americans from Being Killed
It's a shame that Pat Smith, the mother of one of the Benghazi dead, isn't as patriotic as Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is a patriot. Or least her ghostwriter(s) is. And she’s just too darn patriotic to politicize that time she allowed four Americans to be murdered, while the body of her ambassador was dragged through the streets of Benghazi for some necroselfies.
“Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Hillary’s patriotic ghostwriter writes in her biography.
But ambassadors and diplomatic personnel aren’t supposed to be sacrifices. They are supposed to have proper security. And they are supposed to have military protection in a war zone.
The families of two of the men who died there have repeatedly insisted on answers. Pat Smith, Sean Smith’s mother, has been vocal in holding Hillary accountable.
But according to Hillary, Pat Smith is just “exploiting” the tragedy that Hillary Clinton let her son be murdered while she was spending money that should have gone to security on embassy art in Europe and Asia.
“Hillary cannot be president. Anybody but Hillary. She lied to me to my face,” Smith said.
If only Pat Smith were as patriotic as Hillary Clinton.
“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me,” Hillary Clinton’s ghostwriter writes.
Well that’s very noble of Hillary Clinton to bow out of discussing why four Americans died on her watch. Also Nixon insisted that it was unworthy of our great country to engage in a political slugfest about what he did or didn’t do.
In the book, Hillary or the ghost of Hillary “points out that she ordered an investigation into what happened nine days after the attacks, and that she agreed with and implemented all 29 of the recommendations made by a review board.”
Nine days. Wow.
When what was needed was for her people to respond to Ambassador Stevens’ pleas for security nine days before the attack.
Hillary also neglects to mention that the review board was stacked with her allies and protected her from blame. It was the fox reviewing who killed all the hens and deciding that the fox had no responsibility for it.
Clinton addresses lingering questions about how military assets were deployed to try to rescue personnel at the besieged compound, writing that Obama “gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized immediately. … When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the Commander in Chief has to give twice. Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand.”
The people “suggesting otherwise” were on the ground. They included the highest ranking diplomat in Libya after Steven’s murder.
Hillary is throwing out empty words, the same sort of language that companies throw out after every scandal. “All possible resources.” “Humanly possible.” But what does that actually add up to besides an unarmed drone and a heavily delayed CIA flight?
“Clinton reiterates a point she made during congressional testimony last year: that she never saw cables requesting additional security. The cables were addressed to her as a “procedural quirk” given her position, but didn’t actually land on her desk, she writes: “That’s not how it works. It shouldn’t. And it didn’t.”
Does Hillary understand how this ‘running an agency’ works. You’re not just responsible for the things you see. You’re also responsible for what your people do and for your priorities.
An ambassador in a war zone asking for security should have been one of her priorities. It should have been the priority of her people. It wasn’t.
Are we going to have eight years in which President Hillary insists she learned of all the scandals from the media because they didn’t officially appear on her desk?
And Hillary is back to defending the video lie which resulted in her putting a filmmaker in jail.
Clinton argued it is still “inaccurate” to say none of the attackers were influenced by the video.
“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”
It’s also inaccurate to say that none of the attackers were influenced by their belief in space aliens since it can’t be disproven. You can’t prove a negative especially when it comes to the motives of a group of attackers that Obama refuses to seriously go after.
What we do however know is that this was a series of coordinated attacks against US diplomatic facilities. The Benghazi attack involved enemies who used intelligence, knew the location of a CIA facility and had heavy weapons.
Maybe some of them were motivated by high doses of LSD, but that’s not the point. The point was that they were part of a planned major attack, not a video protest.
Clinton addresses claims that the investigation of the attack was rigged since she appointed some of the Accountability Review Board members and she was not interviewed. The board, she writes, “had unfettered access to anyone and anything they thought relevant to their investigation, including me if they had chosen to do so.”
… if they had chosen to do so.
That says it all.
Clinton also addresses her much-seized-upon remark before a congressional committee in January 2013, when she used the phrase “what difference at this point does it make.”
She adds, “My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved ones and then prevent it from happening again?”
If you’re going to prevent it from happening again, shouldn’t you know the motive? If you ignored repeated requests for help from your family and then lied and claimed that the whole thing was really a misunderstanding, does it make a difference?
1. The family is dead
2. Preventing it from happening again requires an honest accounting of what happened in the first place
Hillary, like Tommy “Dude that was two years ago” Vietor isn’t interested. The only reason her memoir goes into a full bore defense of her actions is because Benghazigate is still being debated.
That was the root of her response.