Hillary, incredibly, has decided to defend the "video explanation" on Benghazi. Has she sealed her political doom? Time will tell.

43 share

In Hillary's newly released book,  Hard Choices,  she gives explanation and a defense to "inside politics" during her time with the Obama Administration as well as talking about her political strategy for the near future.  While not declaring her candidacy in this book,  Hillary sets out to control, if not define and limit,  the coming debate about her involvement regarding Benghazi. 

Understand that Libya was Obama's claim to fame, in the pre-election propaganda of 2012,  but,  before this reality,  Libya/Benghazi was Hillary's responsibility as Secretary of State.  I am saying,  "The Embassy murders were first, under her purview,  then Obama's."  That both had reason to lie about the events of 9/11/2012 (just days before the November elections),  and colluded on their fantasy explanation and their "do nothing, after crisis" policy.  Rather than running from the problem, admitting the truth about the video,  and wishing things had not gotten out of hand,    she has embraced the Obama strategy,  and opened the door to the same beating Obama has experienced in these,  pre-Select Committee, days.   

Others have tried to do what Hillary sets forth,  in the following paragraph  . . . . . .   tried and failed,  I might add.  

“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.”

Kind of funny,  don't you think?  To imagine that Hillary,  every bit the Leftist Wacko, Obama is, and just as responsible for the Embassy murders as Obama,  can stay out of the fray that will be the news of the day,  after the November elections,  is wishful thinking on her part.  

The House Select Committee on Benghazi will begin public hearings and closed door depositions, probably just after the November elections.  House leadership has no fear of a Democrat take-over due to the mid-term elections. Waiting until after the elections,  has some risk to it,  but the Select Committee could not finish its work before November, anyway,  so the strategy is well advised.   Of course,  if the Dems were successful in taking back the House,  that would be the end of Bengahzi and Hillary would get a free pass on the issue.  

In her chapter on Benghazi,  Hillary makes a huge mistake,  in my opinion.  Rather than giving up on the video explanation,  she has decided to "double down" on that point,  and,  with that decision,  insures that she will be at the center of the Benghazi revelations,  leading up to the 2016 elections  . . . . .  and deservedly so.  

Politico gives us this summary of Hillary's defense,  with the following:  

Clinton defends the intelligence at the time preceding the attack on the American compound in Benghazi. An anti-Islamic video that had sparked a protest at an embassy in Cairo was proved in “later investigation and reporting,” including by The New York Times, to have been “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi, Clinton writes.

“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.”

Her explanation is no longer credible,  and, by the time she officially enters the presidential contest,  she will have nowhere to turn,  if she continues such stupidity.  

If she wants to swim with this millstone around her neck,  she proves herself to be no more literate, in a political sense,  than Barack,  and deserves to be defeated,  on those grounds,  alone.  

All we can do is hope for the best,  on this account.