Hillary Clinton Is Already Being Cloaked In Bubble Wrap

Did You Know Hillary and Bill Clinton Were Born Under The Same Sign? What Sign? For Sale...Leno

• Let's be clear. Four years ago, Hillary was the anointed one until a young, articulate man decided to run for the presidency. He also happened to be black. Yet, even with the massive Clinton machine behind her; it began to wither. Many abandoned her. Obama beat the Clinton machine. Chicago trumped Arkansas.
• It's now certainly clear that Hillary is being promoted for her alleged "greatness" when there is little evidence of it (even during her tenure as a senator). And even though the Benghazi scandal points to serious failed leadership on her part (several hearings into Benghazi have reinforced that claim), it's now Hillary's turn according to those supporting her, many of whom had abandoned her 5 years earlier. Who cares? It's politics and no one knows it better than the Clintons.
• It's also becoming increasingly clear Hillary's gross incompetence is not stopping those who want her to run for president of the United States. 
• For example, this week Hillary was honored with the inaugural Warren Christopher Public Service Award in Beverly Hills, CA. Warren Christopher served as Bill Clinton's Secretary of State. How convenient. (By the way, Susan Rice was also honored this week with the Louis E. Martin Great American Award. That's not a report from The Onion. It's absolutely true). This reminds me of someone who won the Nobel Peace Prize four years ago without earning it. 
• And further evidence of the wagons circling to protect Hillary, most of the networks failed to cover the Benghazi hearings this week (Fox News covered most of the hearing).  They preferred to divert and distract attention from the hearings by running stories over and over again of the Cleveland abductors and the LOCAL murder trial of Jodi Arias. In fact even the print presstitutes buried news of the hearings in back pages. For example, The Philadelphia Inquirer today, put the story on page 7A today. Also, when Hillary testified last January, the NY Times buried that story on page 11. And even though her outburst---"What difference does it make?---appeared apathetic to those Americans killed in Benghazi, most of the media praised her performance. MSNBC charged this week's hearing as a "new vast-right wing conspiracy" mimicking Hillary's charge of the impeachment hearings against her husband almost two decades ago.
• It's certainly understandable that the Democrats want Hillary to run for president. Again, that's politics. But watching the presstitutes shielding her is a disgrace and shameful  especially from those who continue to call themselves journalists. We watched them do the same thing with Pres. Obama five years ago. And we will witness them doing the same thing with Hillary Clinton. They have already begun cloaking her in bubble wrap.

Today's Hearings On Benghazi + Previous Hearings Show Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Set Foot In The White House

Most of what Gregory Hicks testified to today at the hearing was already known to many of us who have been following the entire Benghazi scandal from the beginning. On this blog, I've written about it many times.

One major outcome of this hearing (and previous hearings) was very clear: Hillary Clinton should never set foot in the White House as president of the United States and certainly as Commander-in-Chief.

Even before the attack on Benghazi, Trudy Rubin in the Philadelphia Inquirer (a progressive publication) wrote the following regarding Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State: "Clinton produced no diplomatic breakthoughs nor any strategic doctrine...She has no major foreign policy success."

During the same period, Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post wrote: "Where is the record of accomplishment let alone greatness?" (again, referring to Clinton's tenure). In addition, it's clear she was a failure in foreign police considering what is now happening in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood and in Syria to name just a few major hot spots.

And today's hearing reinforces my claim (she should never set foot in the White House as president).

• Greg Hicks testified one of the last things he heard from Amb. Stevens was the consulate was under attack. It was not a spontaneous attack. In fact, we learned Hicks spoke to Clinton at approximately 2 a.m. and mentioned nothing about the video. When Hicks heard the administration was using the video as reason for the attack he was "stunned and embarrassed."
• In fact, Hicks prior to today's testimony said "everyone in the mission" knew it was a terrorist attack.
• We learned there was more than one "stand-down." In fact, there were several. Hicks did not know who ordered the standown. He referred that question to Lt. Col. Gibson, Africa Special Operations Command.
• We learned, when asked about additional assets to help our guys in the battle, Hicks was told they were not available.
• We still don't know who ordered Amb. Rice to keep peddling the bogus story about the video. Question: why has not Amb. Rice testified about her role and told her to lie about the attack?
• We still do not know who ordered the initial CIA talking points to be edited that indicated the attack was a terrorist attack.

So what did we learn today? At a minimum, it's clear there was gross incompetence. However, it appears there were also efforts by somebody in the administration to stonewall the investigation. It also clear Amb. Rice did not tell the truth in her many TV appearances the following Sunday. As indicated above, we still do not know who told her to push an obviously bogus narrative.

The Benghazi Scandal Is Not Like Watergate--It's Worse

"Are they going to call Hillary again? She needs to know for concussion planning." Tweet by David Burge

It's clear that the Benghazi scandal is not like Watergate. It's worse. While there are many similarities in process, e.g. possible cover-up, stonewalling, etc., as far as we know no one died in the Watergate scandal. So as I await the hearing in about one hour from now, my interest is in process. And it takes the form in the following questions---I believe---need answers:

• Who specifically changed the CIA initial talking points? It's been reported the CIA knew the attack on Benghazi was a terrorist operation. In fact, Gregory Hicks, who took over immediately after the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens, said he knew immediately it was a terrorist attack. Hicks also said he asked twice whether an F-16 or some other "fast mover" could fly over Benghazi during the attack. According to Hicks, the response he received was it would take 2-3 hours to scramble jets over Benghazi. The attack took place over a period of 6-7 hours.
• Who gave the order for military to stand-down? The military had special operations assets in Tripoli, about an hour away. The State Department never activated their foreign emergency response teams which are suppose to assist diplomats who are under attack.
• The U.S. military also has special response teams to be used in incidents such as these. Why have these teams if we're not using them FOR INCIDENTS SUCH AS THE ONE IN BENGHAZI?
• Why did the administration send out Amb. Susan Rice to all of the Sunday news shows (the weekend after the attack) to say the attack was "spontaneous" and a response to a non-existent Muslim film when the White House already knew that was a bogus reason?

How Obama Conned His Own Voters

"President Obama is brewing his own beer at the White House. Actually, the White House beer is a lot like the Obama administration--great buzz, weak finish." Leno

All politicians make promises. And many of those promises are broken. However,  President Obama made breaking promises an art form. Unfortunately, about half the country believed in his promises even though his track record during his first term was pathetic. It still amazes me, as well as many others, how the GOP blew this one. But we do know this: Republicans have this unfortunate knack for fumbling the football five yards from the goal line.

This piece is not about Republicans. It's about the Obama administration's con job on their own voters (those who didn't vote for him recognized the con in 2008). We're all too familiar with the conspicuous failures of this administration from a weak economy to on-going failures in foreign policy. Let's look at the key demographics of most of those who voted for Pres. Obama and how they are faring:

• Black unemployment is now at 13.2%. For black youth, it's over 40% nationally. In some cities it's over 50% for black working-age adults.
• The unemployment rate for Hispanics is about 9.2%. (Keep in mind, for both blacks and Hispanics, the real unemployment rate--U-6 that also includes underemployment---is much higher. Last February, the U-6 stood at 14% for all unemployed + underemployed).

• Over 42  million Americans now live in poverty or 1-4. In fact, poverty rates have also climbed in the suburbs.
• Almost 44% of people living in America today have no savings.
• Almost 46 million Americans now live on food stamps.
• 49 million Americans under the age of 65 have no health insurance. Nearly 80 million Americans did not seek health care because they could not afford it. In fact, 28% of those with health insurance did not seek health care because it was too expensive.

• In the last 4 years, the middle-class lost 40% of its wealth.
• More than 1 million Baby Boomers are secretly unemployed. The financial crisis forced many to retire early.
• The number of discouraged workers---those who just stopped looking for work because of poor job prospects---is at approximately 800,000. Over 3 million are considered just hopelessly unemployed. These are people who have just completely given up looking for work.

• The dark side of the current unemployment picture? There was a big drop in hours worked in the last month.

• Over 40% of recent graduates are underemployed. Those grads who do have work, 41% are overqualified for the jobs they currently have.
• Unions have lost big under Obama.
• Taxes raised on everyone including those who voted for Obama.

Some might argue that Obama has done some things right like ObamaCare. However, it appears the promises made regarding ObamaCare like reducing costs, not losing your current health insurance and more do not appear to be panning out.

As I have in the past, I will give him some credit for using drones to whack many terrorists and ordering the hit on Osama.

Note: Since this was written 6 months ago, we now know the Obama administration lied about losing health insurance. To date, several million have been dropped from their health insurance too. In addition, we now know that Obama administration policies have hurt Blacks, single women and Hispanics the most---the very people who supported him twice.

Postscript: The 2014 elections showed that the Obama administration was caught in playing this con game. It appears more Americans finally learned the game is rigged.



Sources: US Census, CNN Money, AOL Jobs, Market Watch

"Leading From Behind" = A Leaderless Nation

"Well, 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is back. Not about gays in the military. It's Obama's new policy for questions about Libya: Don't ask, don't tell." Leno

In 2011, one of Mr. Obama's key advisers described the president's doctrine as "leading from behind." That was followed by many in the presstitute media who attempted to defend that "style" of leadership. For example, the Washington Post attempted to defend the administration with it when it came to Libya in 2011. I wonder if they are now whispering, "Oops."  Unfortunately for the country, that's not a doctrine. It's a style of leadership, a style that leads to failure on many fronts as we've seen in the past 4 plus years. This is  more evident  in foreign policy. Over and over again, we watch this administration react to one crisis over and over again without any clear strategy. No where has this been more apparent than the attack on Benghazi. in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012. We've now seen evidence of this administration's failures before, during and after the attack. But Benghazi is just one example (refer to my previous post on Benghazi). We've also seen the following:

• We've also witnessed how this administration's politically correct response to Islamist attacks have been complicit in these failures. Not only from the recent Boston Marathon bombings but also going back to the attack on Ft. Hood. In fact, recent intelligence reports surfaced that show as early as 2004, Homeland Security warned: "Many Chechen rebels are trained and supported by al-Qaeda." Yet, the first response from the administration and its enablers in the media was these guys were either "lone wolves" or "radicalized" domestically. Both absurd claims yet made after every attempted or successful terrorist attack.
• Even when it came to taking Osama out, Pres. Obama had to be forced into taking that action by none other than Hillary Clinton. According to Richard Miniter's book, Leading From Behind, the president was listening to his adviser Valerie Jarrett not to take Osama out. Panetta, Gates and Hillary were stunned that the president was listening to Jarrett rather than his national security team. Of course, after Osama was killed, Obama didn't hesitate to spike the ball.
• In Syria, it now appears the president's leading from behind may lead to radical Islamists infiltrating the Syrian rebels. As Ralph Peters once wrote, "Strategy is not about doing the right thing, but about doing the right thing at the right time." And with Syria, it just might be too late. In fact, with Israel's latest bombings in Syria, we're might be witnessing a larger regional war breaking out.
• After Mr. Obama accepted his party's nomination on Sept. 6, 2012, he actually said "Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat, and Osama is dead." Only one part of that statement was correct. We now know what happened just one week later in Benghazi, Libya. But now we've seen al-Qaeda not only in the Middle East but also infiltrating parts of Africa including Egypt. Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation reported there are now al-Qaeda cells in more than 30 countries on four continents.
• And I haven't even touched on the issues facing us with Iran.
• Leading from behind also results in a country like China gaining more influence globally than the United States.
• And many of our current domestic ills---from the economy to the debate on immigration---can also be attributed to the president's leading from behind. As Peggy Noonan pointed out so well recently, "Powerless Obama would rather complain than lead."
• The problem with a style like leading from behind is that eventually no one will be following you.

The Benghazi Primer: What Do We Now Know?

John Kerry Lost Somewhere In The Gobi Desert...The Onion

Preface:  Since this was posted, a final report on Benghazi was released today.  It details the specific failures of the administration and of Hillary Clinton.  There are new details.

This coming week, Rep. Darrell Issa, chair of the House Oversight Committee, will resume hearings on Benghazi. What makes these upcoming hearings exceedingly important and significant will be the testimony of witnesses (now being referred to as "whistleblowers").

As the hearings approach, let's take a look at what we now know regarding events leading up to the attack, the attack itself and the aftermath.

• We now know, from a bi-partisan Senate report last December, there were "systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies." These pointed to inadequate security prior to the attack. In fact, we now know that in-country consulate staff had requested additional security but were denied. This request for more security was in response to intelligence reports indicating the area was becoming more unstable and dangerous. In fact, earlier attacks had occurred in the area of the consulate grounds. We know the State Department was negligent in providing for more security.
• The same report contradicted all of the initial claims the attack was "spontaneous" and/or the result of a response to an anti-Muslim film. If you recall, Susan Rice appeared on several Sunday morning news shows peddling that erroneous story.
• We also know that many of the accounts about the attack on Benghazi were in conflict including the "talking points" regarding the attack on the consulate and aftermath. In fact, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported this week there were "significant" revisions made to the CIA talking points just weeks prior to the 2012 election. He asserts this through emails that reveal efforts by the administration to change the talking points. More disturbing, it appears the talking points were edited purely for political reasons.
• We now have---in evidence---a cable bearing Hillary Clinton's signature on a request from the U.S. Ambassador to Libya requesting more security.
• We also know, from Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary, that he was up all night monitoring the situation at Benghazi but he never heard from Obama. In fact, the very next day, the president flew to Vegas for yet another fundraiser.
• From Panetta's testimony we also know the president never asked what military assets could be used (last week, an unidentified former special operation's operative said military assets were available if needed). Panetta added that Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of State, never spoke to him at all.
• We need to know if Hillary Clinton was aware of the security threats prior to the attack on the consulate (remember, she allegedly signed off on cables that requested additional security).
• To date, we've arrested no one responsible for the attack on the consulate. In fact, it was only this week---7 months after the attack---that photos  of three men were released of persons of interest.
• In addition, the State Department's Inspector General is now investigating the Accountability Review Board that reported on Benghazi last December. The IG wants to know why the panel ever called any key witnesses. There were also reports last week that whistleblowers were threatened by reprisals.

• While Hillary Clinton testified before going out to pasture, it was she who infamously said of the attack on Benghazi, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" Well, we now know it made a big difference.
• But, to date, we do not know what exactly Pres. Obama and Clinton were doing on Sept. 11, 2012, the day of the attack. We need to know when she was told of the attack and how she responded. We also need to know if she requested assistance. If she did, was that request denied and by whom?
• And just as important, we need to know why and who came up with the bogus narratives immediately after the attack.
• When taking all of these accounts and more into consideration, it appears, at a minimum,  there's been gross incompetence. But, as more reports surface, it now appears there's been stonewalling and cover-up as well as outright lies.

• So when the president's spokesperson, Jay Garney, said last week the attack "happened a long time ago," it didn't. And when that fake, phony and back-stabbing fraud John F. Kerry said, "We got a lot more important things to move on to and get done;" I'd like to see and hear him say that to the families of the four dead American heroes of Benghazi.
• All of these and more make Rep. Issa's hearings next week that more important. And perhaps, we'll finally get a taste of the truth.