Hillary evades capitol hill Benghazi hearings, publishes coffee table book instead . . .

[as seen on tv]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html

The story thus far . . . in one of her final acts secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pounded her fists petulantly on the table, snarling “What difference does it make?” while refusing to answer detailed questions on how our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi.

Fast forward to Hillary’s 2013 and 2014 campaign appearances, er “listening tour”, where she is stunned and unprepared for simple questions like “what is your proudest achievement as secretary of state?” and “how much of the you tube video story was real?” And these are questions from FRIENDLY audiences.

Now the third shoe drops – Hillary is releasing her book “Hard Choices” (full disclosure – no relationship to the more famous book “Hard Choices” by former secretary of state Cyrus Vance. Maybe they had the same ghost writer?)

True believers in Hillary are probably going to buy it, but not read it. Fox news and her indefatigable right wing critics will dissect it for inaccuracies. In the meantime, here’s what Hillary has to say about Benghazi in her book (from the link above) . . .

· “Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Translation - inquiries into murdered ambassadors have no legitimate place in American government, and should be classified as a speed bump on Hillary’s route to the white house. It's unpatriotic to want honest answers.

· “There has been a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media, but new information from a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.” This is actually quite clever. Hillary avoids saying her own account was evasive or deceitful, and opens up some daylight between herself and the white house operatives whose incriminating emails confirm the youtube cover story was entirely contrived. Hillary also inoculates herself against any NEW emails or documents which may be discovered in the future, and can then say “well, I did think there might be new information . . . even if I was unwilling to testify completely and honestly at the time. So there”

This book is going to be a best seller. Most of the people who purchase it will be doing so as an act of political loyalty, and so they can display it to like minded individuals during bridge games, garden parties, straw polls, and over cocktails. Do not expect this to receive serious discussion in any book club gathering hosted at your local libary or bookstore. Most of the 47% of americans who pull the lever for the democratic party automatically won’t buy this book, won’t read anything in the newspaper or see any TV accounts of Hillary’s chapter on Benghazi, and will continue to pull the left hand lever as an act of faith.

It’s up to people who didn’t drop out of high school, or read at the 5th grade level despite having a diploma, or who don’t work for a government bureaucracy to do the heavy lifting and continue to ask why and how, because it DOES “make a difference”, despite what the woman who would be queen would have us believe.

 

[middleview]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html

The story thus far . . . in one of her final acts secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pounded her fists petulantly on the table, snarling “What difference does it make?” while refusing to answer detailed questions on how our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi.

Fast forward to Hillary’s 2013 and 2014 campaign appearances, er “listening tour”, where she is stunned and unprepared for simple questions like “what is your proudest achievement as secretary of state?” and “how much of the you tube video story was real?” And these are questions from FRIENDLY audiences.

Now the third shoe drops – Hillary is releasing her book “Hard Choices” (full disclosure – no relationship to the more famous book “Hard Choices” by former secretary of state Cyrus Vance. Maybe they had the same ghost writer?)

True believers in Hillary are probably going to buy it, but not read it. Fox news and her indefatigable right wing critics will dissect it for inaccuracies. In the meantime, here’s what Hillary has to say about Benghazi in her book (from the link above) . . .

· “Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Translation - inquiries into murdered ambassadors have no legitimate place in American government, and should be classified as a speed bump on Hillary’s route to the white house. It's unpatriotic to want honest answers.

· “There has been a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media, but new information from a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.” This is actually quite clever. Hillary avoids saying her own account was evasive or deceitful, and opens up some daylight between herself and the white house operatives whose incriminating emails confirm the youtube cover story was entirely contrived. Hillary also inoculates herself against any NEW emails or documents which may be discovered in the future, and can then say “well, I did think there might be new information . . . even if I was unwilling to testify completely and honestly at the time. So there”

This book is going to be a best seller. Most of the people who purchase it will be doing so as an act of political loyalty, and so they can display it to like minded individuals during bridge games, garden parties, straw polls, and over cocktails. Do not expect this to receive serious discussion in any book club gathering hosted at your local libary or bookstore. Most of the 47% of americans who pull the lever for the democratic party automatically won’t buy this book, won’t read anything in the newspaper or see any TV accounts of Hillary’s chapter on Benghazi, and will continue to pull the left hand lever as an act of faith.

It’s up to people who didn’t drop out of high school, or read at the 5th grade level despite having a diploma, or who don’t work for a government bureaucracy to do the heavy lifting and continue to ask why and how, because it DOES “make a difference”, despite what the woman who would be queen would have us believe.

So tell me, what difference does it make if the terrorists were pissed about a movie or just wanted to kill Americans? I really want to know.

 

[Bo-4]

So tell me, what difference does it make if the terrorists were pissed about a movie or just wanted to kill Americans? I really want to know.

When taken out of context it makes a dandy talking point for both the not-so-bright and hyper-partisans (although as we all know, our friend ASOT neither subscribes to nor endorses any political party ;-)

 

[as seen on tv]

So tell me, what difference does it make if the terrorists were pissed about a movie or just wanted to kill Americans? I really want to know.

the newspapers say that if the you tube video was concocted to divert public attention from an intelligence failure to protect our embassy and personnel, in the final days before the 2012 election, that might constitute some sort of election fraud.

 

[Dawg]

So tell me, what difference does it make if the terrorists were pissed about a movie or just wanted to kill Americans? I really want to know.

it's not which the terrorist were, it's the LIE 'O' sent Rice out to spew for weeks on weeks.........perfect liberal example of spin the topic which was Hillary.

 

[Dawg]

When taken out of context it makes a dandy talking point for both the not-so-bright and hyper-partisans (although as we all know, our friend ASOT neither subscribes to nor endorses any political party ;-)

one must remember when Hillary said she landed under "sniper fire"..........libs love a liar and that's all she has done since losing her very first job.

 

[as seen on tv]

When taken out of context it makes a dandy talking point for both the not-so-bright and hyper-partisans (although as we all know, our friend ASOT neither subscribes to nor endorses any political party ;-)

this is probably your biggest nightmare, right? when non aligned voters ask questions critical of the obama administration. it completely shatters the myth that only a sliver of people on the right oppose his policies.

 

[bdtex]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html

The story thus far . . . in one of her final acts secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pounded her fists petulantly on the table, snarling “What difference does it make?” while refusing to answer detailed questions on how our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi.

Fast forward to Hillary’s 2013 and 2014 campaign appearances, er “listening tour”, where she is stunned and unprepared for simple questions like “what is your proudest achievement as secretary of state?” and “how much of the you tube video story was real?” And these are questions from FRIENDLY audiences.

Now the third shoe drops – Hillary is releasing her book “Hard Choices” (full disclosure – no relationship to the more famous book “Hard Choices” by former secretary of state Cyrus Vance. Maybe they had the same ghost writer?)

True believers in Hillary are probably going to buy it, but not read it. Fox news and her indefatigable right wing critics will dissect it for inaccuracies. In the meantime, here’s what Hillary has to say about Benghazi in her book (from the link above) . . .

· “Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Translation - inquiries into murdered ambassadors have no legitimate place in American government, and should be classified as a speed bump on Hillary’s route to the white house. It's unpatriotic to want honest answers.

· “There has been a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media, but new information from a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.” This is actually quite clever. Hillary avoids saying her own account was evasive or deceitful, and opens up some daylight between herself and the white house operatives whose incriminating emails confirm the youtube cover story was entirely contrived. Hillary also inoculates herself against any NEW emails or documents which may be discovered in the future, and can then say “well, I did think there might be new information . . . even if I was unwilling to testify completely and honestly at the time. So there”

This book is going to be a best seller. Most of the people who purchase it will be doing so as an act of political loyalty, and so they can display it to like minded individuals during bridge games, garden parties, straw polls, and over cocktails. Do not expect this to receive serious discussion in any book club gathering hosted at your local libary or bookstore. Most of the 47% of americans who pull the lever for the democratic party automatically won’t buy this book, won’t read anything in the newspaper or see any TV accounts of Hillary’s chapter on Benghazi, and will continue to pull the left hand lever as an act of faith.

It’s up to people who didn’t drop out of high school, or read at the 5th grade level despite having a diploma, or who don’t work for a government bureaucracy to do the heavy lifting and continue to ask why and how, because it DOES “make a difference”, despite what the woman who would be queen would have us believe.

Evade? She testified.

 

[as seen on tv]

Evade? She testified.

only someone like you would classify screeching "what difference does it make?" as testimony.

 

[bdtex]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html

The story thus far . . . in one of her final acts secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pounded her fists petulantly on the table, snarling “What difference does it make?” while refusing to answer detailed questions on how our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi.

Fast forward to Hillary’s 2013 and 2014 campaign appearances, er “listening tour”, where she is stunned and unprepared for simple questions like “what is your proudest achievement as secretary of state?” and “how much of the you tube video story was real?” And these are questions from FRIENDLY audiences.

Now the third shoe drops – Hillary is releasing her book “Hard Choices” (full disclosure – no relationship to the more famous book “Hard Choices” by former secretary of state Cyrus Vance. Maybe they had the same ghost writer?)

True believers in Hillary are probably going to buy it, but not read it. Fox news and her indefatigable right wing critics will dissect it for inaccuracies. In the meantime, here’s what Hillary has to say about Benghazi in her book (from the link above) . . .

· “Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Translation - inquiries into murdered ambassadors have no legitimate place in American government, and should be classified as a speed bump on Hillary’s route to the white house. It's unpatriotic to want honest answers.

· “There has been a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media, but new information from a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.” This is actually quite clever. Hillary avoids saying her own account was evasive or deceitful, and opens up some daylight between herself and the white house operatives whose incriminating emails confirm the youtube cover story was entirely contrived. Hillary also inoculates herself against any NEW emails or documents which may be discovered in the future, and can then say “well, I did think there might be new information . . . even if I was unwilling to testify completely and honestly at the time. So there”

This book is going to be a best seller. Most of the people who purchase it will be doing so as an act of political loyalty, and so they can display it to like minded individuals during bridge games, garden parties, straw polls, and over cocktails. Do not expect this to receive serious discussion in any book club gathering hosted at your local libary or bookstore. Most of the 47% of americans who pull the lever for the democratic party automatically won’t buy this book, won’t read anything in the newspaper or see any TV accounts of Hillary’s chapter on Benghazi, and will continue to pull the left hand lever as an act of faith.

It’s up to people who didn’t drop out of high school, or read at the 5th grade level despite having a diploma, or who don’t work for a government bureaucracy to do the heavy lifting and continue to ask why and how, because it DOES “make a difference”, despite what the woman who would be queen would have us believe.

Whada ya gonna say when 50+% pull the lever for Hillary in 2016?

 

[bdtex]

only someone like you would classify screeching "what difference does it make?" as testimony.

You watch too many rw soundbite clips.

 

[as seen on tv]

Whada ya gonna say when 50+% pull the lever for Hillary in 2016?

i concede that at this stage (with no candidates declared, and no commercials aired) that's more likely than not to happen.

here's food for thought though - an article from slate http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2..._democrats_losing_the_midterms_the_white.html

democratic presidential candidates haven't won a majority of white votes in my lifetime, and maybe not yours either. in 2012 obama got only 39% of the white vote. in 2008 it was 43%, and that was the best in years. midterm elections have been even worse for democrats.

so how did obama win twice? block voting by blacks, and to a lesser extent, hispanics, and a huge turnout by newly registered black voters. but black voters didn't turn out as highly in 2012 as in 2008.

will the "blacks vote block" for hillary in 2016? and even if they do, will they turn out in large enough numbers?

it all depends on who the repubicans run - if the VP is a woman, or black, or a hispanic, this might doom hillary's chances of holding onto the white house, since morons consistently vote on the basis of gender or racial identification.

the democrats worst nightmare - a mixed race black/hispanic woman as republican VP. hard to find though.

maybe black voters in 2016 will have forgiven hillary for her 2008 release of obama photos showing him dressed like a muslim? that would be helpful, if she's counting on their support, eh?

 

[Dawg]

i concede that at this stage (with no candidates declared, and no commercials aired) that's more likely than not to happen.

here's food for thought though - an article from slate http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2..._democrats_losing_the_midterms_the_white.html

democratic presidential candidates haven't won a majority of white votes in my lifetime, and maybe not yours either. in 2012 obama got only 39% of the white vote. in 2008 it was 43%, and that was the best in years. midterm elections have been even worse for democrats.

so how did obama win twice? block voting by blacks, and to a lesser extent, hispanics, and a huge turnout by newly registered black voters. but black voters didn't turn out as highly in 2012 as in 2008.

will the "blacks vote block" for hillary in 2016? and even if they do, will they turn out in large enough numbers?

it all depends on who the repubicans run - if the VP is a woman, or black, or a hispanic, this might doom hillary's chances of holding onto the white house, since morons consistently vote on the basis of gender or racial identification.

the democrats worst nightmare - a mixed race black/hispanic woman as republican VP. hard to find though.

maybe black voters in 2016 will have forgiven hillary for her 2008 release of obama photos showing him dressed like a muslim? that would be helpful, if she's counting on their support, eh?

surely blacks will be hip for a woman of white privilege............remember, when Hill needs speak black she has already made that performance...
they weren't even offended when she did that, but, they damn sure are offended by every other thing whitey do.

 

[Arkady]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html

The story thus far . . . in one of her final acts secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pounded her fists petulantly on the table, snarling “What difference does it make?” while refusing to answer detailed questions on how our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi.

Fast forward to Hillary’s 2013 and 2014 campaign appearances, er “listening tour”, where she is stunned and unprepared for simple questions like “what is your proudest achievement as secretary of state?” and “how much of the you tube video story was real?” And these are questions from FRIENDLY audiences.

Now the third shoe drops – Hillary is releasing her book “Hard Choices” (full disclosure – no relationship to the more famous book “Hard Choices” by former secretary of state Cyrus Vance. Maybe they had the same ghost writer?)

True believers in Hillary are probably going to buy it, but not read it. Fox news and her indefatigable right wing critics will dissect it for inaccuracies. In the meantime, here’s what Hillary has to say about Benghazi in her book (from the link above) . . .

· “Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Translation - inquiries into murdered ambassadors have no legitimate place in American government, and should be classified as a speed bump on Hillary’s route to the white house. It's unpatriotic to want honest answers.

· “There has been a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media, but new information from a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.” This is actually quite clever. Hillary avoids saying her own account was evasive or deceitful, and opens up some daylight between herself and the white house operatives whose incriminating emails confirm the youtube cover story was entirely contrived. Hillary also inoculates herself against any NEW emails or documents which may be discovered in the future, and can then say “well, I did think there might be new information . . . even if I was unwilling to testify completely and honestly at the time. So there”

This book is going to be a best seller. Most of the people who purchase it will be doing so as an act of political loyalty, and so they can display it to like minded individuals during bridge games, garden parties, straw polls, and over cocktails. Do not expect this to receive serious discussion in any book club gathering hosted at your local libary or bookstore. Most of the 47% of americans who pull the lever for the democratic party automatically won’t buy this book, won’t read anything in the newspaper or see any TV accounts of Hillary’s chapter on Benghazi, and will continue to pull the left hand lever as an act of faith.

It’s up to people who didn’t drop out of high school, or read at the 5th grade level despite having a diploma, or who don’t work for a government bureaucracy to do the heavy lifting and continue to ask why and how, because it DOES “make a difference”, despite what the woman who would be queen would have us believe.

Hillary Clinton took part in hearings after the events. I can't see any value in continuing to engage in navel-gazing about it, all this time later. At this point, it's just a Republican circus, and if I were her, I'd have no interest in putting on yet another show in center ring.

As for her "what difference does it make" comments, it's important to recall the context correctly. She was responding to hostile questioning by Republican Ron Johnson, who was claiming the public had been misled about the existence of protests preceding the attack. Like most reasonable people, Clinton was frustrated by this looney right-wing insistence that there must have been some kind of conspiracy to deceive people about such an inconsequential detail, when the main story was that we had dead Americans, regardless of whether it was a planned attack or an opportunistic one that used a protest as cover. That detail just doesn't make a significant difference. Either way, we're talking about a serious security failure, and we need to figure out how to protect our people better in the future, and we need to track down those responsible.

 

[as seen on tv]

surely blacks will be hip for a woman of white privilege............remember, when Hill needs speak black she has already made that performance...
they weren't even offended when she did that, but, they damn sure are offended by every other thing whitey do.

i gave this a like. i can see black women voting for hillary. black men? union guys, who work with tools, served in the military? not to the same extent. i dont see them voting for chris christie either. i see them going out for a bud and putting the game on the TV at the taproom, instead.

 

[as seen on tv]

Hillary Clinton took part in hearings after the events. I can't see any value in continuing to engage in navel-gazing about it, .

people were metaphorically saying the same thing about the obamacare fiasco too . . . navel gazing . .. what difference does it make . .. its all a witch hunt.

if democratic senators hadn't piled on and joined the repubican gang tackle of shinseki (who is a republican himself), people would be claiming HE was on tangential figure too.

thats the wonderful thing about american politics. there's more than one party. and once in a great while people break party ranks to do the right thing.

the nation can only hope that this happens on benghazi, and people like white house press secretary jay carney - who keeps referring to this as "old news" get laughed off stage.

 

[Dawg]

i gave this a like. i can see black women voting for hillary. black men? union guys, who work with tools, served in the military? not to the same extent. i dont see them voting for chris christie either. i see them going out for a bud and putting the game on the TV at the taproom, instead.

you may be correct on black women voting for Hill, Christie hopefully will not be considered...........

 

[Dawg]

Hillary Clinton took part in hearings after the events. I can't see any value in continuing to engage in navel-gazing about it, all this time later. At this point, it's just a Republican circus, and if I were her, I'd have no interest in putting on yet another show in center ring.

As for her "what difference does it make" comments, it's important to recall the context correctly. She was responding to hostile questioning by Republican Ron Johnson, who was claiming the public had been misled about the existence of protests preceding the attack. Like most reasonable people, Clinton was frustrated by this looney right-wing insistence that there must have been some kind of conspiracy to deceive people about such an inconsequential detail, when the main story was that we had dead Americans, regardless of whether it was a planned attack or an opportunistic one that used a protest as cover. That detail just doesn't make a significant difference. Either way, we're talking about a serious security failure, and we need to figure out how to protect our people better in the future, and we need to track down those responsible.

investigation just recently got e-mails from that night............you seriously saying new evidence should just be ignored? If they'd came out with the truth immediately, we wouldn't be having these hearings, of course there was an election about and damage control took front and center. What difference does it make if Hill has interest or not, if Hill is called to testify she will have to show even if she doesn't wish too.

 

[MrMike]

The absolute shame in the entire Benghazi scandal is that Hillary and her boss weren't over there doing community organizing that week.

...because then it would have made a difference.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/hillary-clintons-benghazi-chapter-107240.html

The story thus far . . . in one of her final acts secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pounded her fists petulantly on the table, snarling “What difference does it make?” while refusing to answer detailed questions on how our ambassador was murdered in Benghazi.

Fast forward to Hillary’s 2013 and 2014 campaign appearances, er “listening tour”, where she is stunned and unprepared for simple questions like “what is your proudest achievement as secretary of state?” and “how much of the you tube video story was real?” And these are questions from FRIENDLY audiences.

Now the third shoe drops – Hillary is releasing her book “Hard Choices” (full disclosure – no relationship to the more famous book “Hard Choices” by former secretary of state Cyrus Vance. Maybe they had the same ghost writer?)

True believers in Hillary are probably going to buy it, but not read it. Fox news and her indefatigable right wing critics will dissect it for inaccuracies. In the meantime, here’s what Hillary has to say about Benghazi in her book (from the link above) . . .

· “Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Translation - inquiries into murdered ambassadors have no legitimate place in American government, and should be classified as a speed bump on Hillary’s route to the white house. It's unpatriotic to want honest answers.

· “There has been a regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media, but new information from a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.” This is actually quite clever. Hillary avoids saying her own account was evasive or deceitful, and opens up some daylight between herself and the white house operatives whose incriminating emails confirm the youtube cover story was entirely contrived. Hillary also inoculates herself against any NEW emails or documents which may be discovered in the future, and can then say “well, I did think there might be new information . . . even if I was unwilling to testify completely and honestly at the time. So there”

This book is going to be a best seller. Most of the people who purchase it will be doing so as an act of political loyalty, and so they can display it to like minded individuals during bridge games, garden parties, straw polls, and over cocktails. Do not expect this to receive serious discussion in any book club gathering hosted at your local libary or bookstore. Most of the 47% of americans who pull the lever for the democratic party automatically won’t buy this book, won’t read anything in the newspaper or see any TV accounts of Hillary’s chapter on Benghazi, and will continue to pull the left hand lever as an act of faith.

It’s up to people who didn’t drop out of high school, or read at the 5th grade level despite having a diploma, or who don’t work for a government bureaucracy to do the heavy lifting and continue to ask why and how, because it DOES “make a difference”, despite what the woman who would be queen would have us believe.

 

[middleview]

the newspapers say that if the you tube video was concocted to divert public attention from an intelligence failure to protect our embassy and personnel, in the final days before the 2012 election, that might constitute some sort of election fraud.

The newspapers ( AP and Washington Times) both reported that they interviewed Libyans in Benghazi (including the former defense minister) who said that the attack started because they were pissed about the video. There had been attacks in a dozen countries on our embassies and a crowd had done a lot of damage to the US embassy in Cairo...and there is no dispute that it was sparked by the anti-Islam video. So much for concocted.....

Whether people were pissed about the video or not...it was still an intelligence failure....guess what....So was 911.

Election fraud? I have a hard time thinking that anyone in the administration said..."Let's make up a lie and see if we can keep it going for a month and a half to keep people from knowing the attack was terrorists"....