As reported Thursday by National Review — according to South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham — “Hillary Clinton’s management of the Benghazi crisis could cost her a ‘promotion’ to the presidency.”
In other words — Benghazi could prove to be a real “corkscrew landing” under “sniper fire” for Clinton in 2016.
“How in the world could she have believed that the death of Chris Stevens was a spontaneous riot motivated by a hateful video?” Graham asked rhetorically.
Either she is completely disconnected from reality or that was political spin.
“Ultimately, the voters will decide,” Graham conceded, “but if you’re running to be commander in chief, people are going to judge you by the job you’ve done.”
As The Hill reported Wednesday, “new revelations about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, are pulling Hillary Clinton back into a political firestorm that the presumptive 2016 candidate had so far managed to escape unscathed.”
As reported Oct. 26, 2012 by FactCheck.org — despite a coordinated effort by President Barack Obama, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney and U.S. United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice to push the story — questions that “administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video” refused to go away.
In a move that seemed to be a calculated effort to salvage her chances for a run at the presidency in 2016, Clinton announced through her spokesman in Nov. 2012 that she would be stepping down from her position as secretary of state.
On Oct. 24, 2012, Ed Klein – author of “The Amateur,” described by The New York Times as “a book about an inept, arrogant ideologue who maintains an absurdly high opinion of his own talents even as he blatantly fails to achieve his goals” (Obama) — told Glenn Beck that it was her husband Bill who “encouraged” her to resign to avoid becoming Obama’s “scapegoat.”
As reported by NPR, Hillary did just that — “formally” — on Feb. 1.
However, against Klein’s assertion that Hillary “ordered beefed‑up security in Benghazi” and that her order “was never carried out,” The Washington Free Beacon reported Thursday that “an April 19, 2012 cable –signed by Clinton – “denied requests for additional security at the mission and ordered the planned removal of security elements.”
Moreover, because testimony at Wednesday’s Benghazi hearing contradicts the accounts offered by Clinton and other Obama administration officials, USA Today reported Thursday that Graham also said that Clinton should return to Capitol Hill — under subpoena if necessary — to answer new questions about the attacks.”
Ironically, as the Benghazi survivors exposed Clinton’s deleterious dereliction of duty in protecting the lives of American lives in Benghazi during Wednesday’s House Oversight Committee hearing, CBS local Los Angeles reported that Clinton was accepting the inaugural Warren Christopher Public Service Award — named after the former secretary of state who served under her husband, former President Bill Clinton, from 1993 to 1996 — from the Pacific Council on International Policy “at a Beverly Hills gala to much fanfare.”
According to the National Review report, Graham also recalled Clinton’s “3 a.m. phone call” ad from her 2008 presidential campaign.
“That was a pretty clever move, asking if Barack Obama was ready,” Graham admitted. “But when Greg Hicks made a 2 a.m. call, she said, ‘Here’s what I’m going to do to help you,’ rather than asking, ‘what do you want me to do to help you?’”
On Thursday, ABC News also recalled the play on Clinton’s “3 a.m.” ad, which Republican Mitt Romney “scrapped” during the 2012 presidential campaign.
The Romney campaign ad begins with the question: “Remember This Ad?”
After replaying Clinton’s famous “3 a.m. phone call” commercial from the 2008 campaign, the screen cuts to images of the burning U.S. consulate in Benghazi Libya.
Over the images of the flaming –in which four Americans were killed–words appear on the screen:
The Call Came … On September 12, 2012.
The screen fades to black, but the words continue:
Security Requests Denied.
Four Americans Dead.
And an Administration whose story is still changing.
The Call Came.
Americans Deserves Answers.
Unfortunately, obtaining “answers” from Clinton about Benghazi proved to be a bit of a challenge.
Remember, Clinton was supposed to testify before Congress about the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi on Dec. 20 2012.
However, as reported Dec. 31, 2012 by The Washington Post, Clinton had become “severely dehydrated with an intestinal infection.”
She fainted, fell and hit her head, suffering a concussion.
Nearly three weeks later — as Clinton was “recuperating” from the “fall and concussion” — a blood clot was discovered during a routine MRI at New York-Presbyterian Hospital.
The general diagnosis used for Clinton’s condition — Cerebral venous thrombosis — is extremely rare. It occurs in about four out of every million adults per year.
Still, as a result, Clinton didn’t testify until Jan. 23.
During her testimony before the Senate Committee, frustrated by relentless questions about her actions before, during and after the Benghazi attacks — and requests to an explanation of why she said the attacks were a “spontaneous” response to “a video” when mounting evidence showed it was a planned terrorist attack — Clinton made her now famous, jaw-dropping response:
With all due respect, the fact is, we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.
On Tuesday, CNN’s Jake Tapper played a clip of that rant for Pat Smith, whose son Sean Smith — a State Department information officer — was among the four Americans killed during the attack.
“What was your reaction to that?” Tapper asked.
“Well,” Smith said, “that’s what I want to know. Why did it happen? And she is in charge. Why couldn’t she do something about it? I blame her.”
When Tapper asked “why” she blamed Clinton, Smith’s answer was similar to the one that most likely floated through the minds of most other Americans.
Because that’s her department. She is supposed to be on top of it. Yet she claims she knows nothing. It wasn’t told to her. Well, who is running the place?
Clearly, what Clinton doesn’t seem to grasp is that – in order “to figure out what happened – you have to find out who did what, when and why. Only then can you “prevent it from ever happening again.”
On Thursday, while “stirred by all the talk around town about the possibility that JPMorgan will strip Jamie Dimon of his job as chairman” and fantasizing about “who would make a good independent chairman of JPMorgan Chase” — Gary Silverman mused for The Financial Times that Clinton – “the former secretary of state (and one-time cattle futures maven)” might be a perfect fit.
One could even imagine Mrs. Clinton bonding with Mr. Dimon over Barack Obama anecdotes and using her private sector experience as a credential in a 2016 presidential run.
It’s curious that Silverman would consider Clinton’s “cattle futures” investment would qualify her as “a good independent chairman” of a financial firm.
As reported by Charles R. Babcock of The Washington Post on May 27, 1994, trade records — released by the White House the day before — showed that “Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time.”
As Quin Hillyer noted for The American Spectator in March 2007, “Hillary made a $100,000 windfall on a $1,000 investment in risky cattle futures, in trades that appear to have been backdated for just that purpose.”
Then there’s Whitewater.
Curiously, as she faced scrutiny over that debacle, her response was similar to the one she clings to for her role in Benghazi.
“She has asserted that she has done nothing wrong,” David Maraniss and Susan Schmidt reported for The Washington Times in June 1996, “and that ‘at the end of the day, the American people will know that we have nothing to cover up.’”
Considering her financial indiscretions, one might think Silverman’s idea — that Clinton would “make a good independent chairman” — to be a bit naïve.
Then again, considering her apparent incompetence when it came to watching over the lives of Americans in Benghazi — and her fierce determination to absolve herself of obvious fault — there may be another reason why she would feel quite at home at JPMorgan Chase, in a position “to watch over its chief executive.”
As Silverman said himself:
US Senate investigators found that JPMorgan executives had mismarked positions, dodged regulatory oversight and misinformed the public as they lost $6 billion in last year’s ‘London Whale’ trades.