How will Benghazi affect Hillary's run?

[Teggy]

Assuming she is running, of course, what do you think is going to be the effect of Benghazi on the campaign? Will her taking responsibility for it be the lasting impression of her time in office? We may be seeing a sneak preview of what's in store here:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... peech?lite" target="_blank

Speaking at the Iowa GOP’s annual Lincoln Dinner, Paul questioned the initial response to the attacks and asked, "First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?"

"It was inexcusable, it was a dereliction of duty, and it should preclude her from holding higher office," the Kentucky Republican added to loud applause.

It will be a few years from now, but given the GOP fetish with the issue, it wouldn't surprise me if FOX talks about it every day for the next 3 years just to keep it fresh.

[Kraken]

It depends on whether the constant investigation and re-investigation yields anything besides suspicion and innuendo. So far it hasn't, but I don't consider the matter completely closed, either. I'm always open to new information.

Most likely the right will just keep picking at the wound so that it can't scab over, never finding an infection but never letting it heal, and three years from now we'll divide as we usually do along our own political prejudices.

[Captain Caveman]

The GOP suffers from crying wolf syndrome, and are often their own worst enemy at times. It gets really difficult to differentiate legitimate criticisms from all the crazy paranoid delusions.

[Little Raven]

It depends on whether the constant investigation and re-investigation yields anything besides suspicion and innuendo.

Exactly. Unless something more substantial than what we've seen so far comes up, then the only people who will find Benghazi scandalous are people who were never going to vote for Hillary anyway.

Frankly, I'm much more concerned about her health than Benghazi.

[RLMullen]

then the only people who will find Benghazi scandalous are people who were never going to vote for Hillary anyway.

Wrong!! Both my wife and I had Hillary in our list of possible candidates for 2016. Her, and the Administration's abysmal handling of Benghazi changed that. The two things that changed our minds were her ignoring the calls for additional security in the months leading up to the attack, and the out right lying by the administration in the weeks after.

[Little Raven]

Wrong!!

So you'll be voting for Cruz, then?

[YellowKing]

I don't think it will have much impact. It will be a distant memory by the time the campaign swings into full gear. I'm sure it will be brought up again in 2016, but it's going to be really tough making a 4 year old national security issue the top priority in voter's minds. I think it dings her credibility a bit, and that certainly has to pay some minor dividends, but I don't see it as a game-changer.

[gbasden]

I don't think it will have much impact. It will be a distant memory by the time the campaign swings into full gear. I'm sure it will be brought up again in 2016, but it's going to be really tough making a 4 year old national security issue the top priority in voter's minds. I think it dings her credibility a bit, and that certainly has to pay some minor dividends, but I don't see it as a game-changer.

I agree. I just don't see that this has legs.

[malchior]

I don't think it will have much impact. It will be a distant memory by the time the campaign swings into full gear. I'm sure it will be brought up again in 2016, but it's going to be really tough making a 4 year old national security issue the top priority in voter's minds. I think it dings her credibility a bit, and that certainly has to pay some minor dividends, but I don't see it as a game-changer.

I agree. I just don't see that this has legs.

Especially since largely...no one really cared then or even now (politically). Not saying that is right but it did not affect the election and it likely won't affect an election 4 years later.

[Kraken]

I don't think it will have much impact. It will be a distant memory by the time the campaign swings into full gear. I'm sure it will be brought up again in 2016, but it's going to be really tough making a 4 year old national security issue the top priority in voter's minds. I think it dings her credibility a bit, and that certainly has to pay some minor dividends, but I don't see it as a game-changer.

I agree. I just don't see that this has legs.

If they can keep it in and out of the news for years, they can establish in the back of people's minds that Bengazi = scandal. Much like Whitewater -- we remember that Bill Clinton did something sleazy, and maybe we remember it had something to do with real estate...but the details were as murky then as the Bengazi accusations are now, and nobody remembers the particulars.

To the extent that "Bengazi" becomes the property of the conspiracy fringe it could even validate Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy".

[Rip]

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

[Combustible Lemur]

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

I think the problem (which is indicative of a much larger and more pressing issue) is that it's expected. Politicians have been lying and manipulating the populace about foreign policy forever. It is terrible and maybe real credible criminal acts will come out of it, but people are fairly numb to their Government spinning what went down in other countries. In the larger scheme of things though this may be deplorable it's fairly small potatoes next to propping dictators, Torture, wars based on wrong intelligence, domestic surveillance.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[Exodor]

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

Partisan politics is funny. Watching Republicans feign outrage about Benghazi while accepting Powell peddling blatantly false intelligence to start a war that resulted in at least 100,000 deaths is predictable but still entertaining.

[LawBeefaroni]

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

I think the problem (which is indicative of a much larger and more pressing issue) is that it's expected. Politicians have been lying and manipulating the populace about foreign policy forever. It is terrible and maybe real credible criminal acts will come out of it, but people are fairly numb to their Government spinning what went down in other countries. In the larger scheme of things though this may be deplorable it's fairly small potatoes next to propping dictators, Torture, wars based on wrong intelligence, domestic surveillance.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

It's indicative of a rotten government. Not a specific administration, mind you, but a decades old system of governing.

People might not think Benghazi is a big deal by itself. They'll blow it off by saying "Well, it's not as bad as what [Bush/Bush/BClinton,Regan/etc] did." That's falling victim to the illusion. It's not a lesser offense than Powell. It's the same damned thing from the same damned government. They sit there and lie and we sit here and take it. Again and again and again.

One day it's WMD in Iraq. The next it's about cluster bombing a hundred civilians. Then it's about selling automatic rifles on the street. Then about condoning banks laundering drug money. Then it's about the response in Benghazi.

It's not Powell/Bush vs. HClinton/Obama. It's Powell, Bush, Clinton, Obama vs. you. Your team is just as bad as the other team.

It's like if there were two guys on your street shaking your business down for money every day. Your partner says, "Man, you've got to stop paying Paulie, he smashed up the front window last week." You disagree, saying, "Oh yeah, you pay Tommy and he stole the last shipment of vegetables!" So you each pay your guy, complain about the other guy, and shake your head at the stupidity of your partner. Meanwhile Paulie and Tommy, the Johnson brothers, laugh together as they bleed you dry.

[Pyperkub]

The GOP suffers from crying wolf syndrome, and are often their own worst enemy at times. It gets really difficult to differentiate legitimate criticisms from all the crazy paranoid delusions.

This. Is there a decent article with all of the allegations and not a Rand Paul puff piece?

I tend to think that not leaping to ' terrorist!' is a good thing, but I don't know enough about the newer allegations

tapatalkin'

[Anonymous Bosch]

It's not Powell/Bush vs. HClinton/Obama. It's Powell, Bush, Clinton, Obama vs. you. Your team is just as bad as the other team.

Amen.

[dbt1949]

There's also the fact she'll be 70 years old in 2016. Do the people really want that? Remember Reagan and his naps and memory loss?

[Kraken]

There's also the fact she'll be 70 years old in 2016. Do the people really want that? Remember Reagan and his naps and memory loss?

That's going to be her biggest hurdle. That, and the question of whether voters want Bill back in the White House again. If the election were being held this year I think it would be a cakewalk for Team Clinton (at least as far as getting the nomination). But three more years is an eternity in politics.

[Combustible Lemur]

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

I think the problem (which is indicative of a much larger and more pressing issue) is that it's expected. Politicians have been lying and manipulating the populace about foreign policy forever. It is terrible and maybe real credible criminal acts will come out of it, but people are fairly numb to their Government spinning what went down in other countries. In the larger scheme of things though this may be deplorable it's fairly small potatoes next to propping dictators, Torture, wars based on wrong intelligence, domestic surveillance.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

It's indicative of a rotten government. Not a specific administration, mind you, but a decades old system of governing.

People might not think Benghazi is a big deal by itself. They'll blow it off by saying "Well, it's not as bad as what [Bush/Bush/BClinton,Regan/etc] did." That's falling victim to the illusion. It's not a lesser offense than Powell. It's the same damned thing from the same damned government. They sit there and lie and we sit here and take it. Again and again and again.

One day it's WMD in Iraq. The next it's about cluster bombing a hundred civilians. Then it's about selling automatic rifles on the street. Then about condoning banks laundering drug money. Then it's about the response in Benghazi.

It's not Powell/Bush vs. HClinton/Obama. It's Powell, Bush, Clinton, Obama vs. you. Your team is just as bad as the other team.

It's like if there were two guys on your street shaking your business down for money every day. Your partner says, "Man, you've got to stop paying Paulie, he smashed up the front window last week." You disagree, saying, "Oh yeah, you pay Tommy and he stole the last shipment of vegetables!" So you each pay your guy, complain about the other guy, and shake your head at the stupidity of your partner. Meanwhile Paulie and Tommy, the Johnson brothers, laugh together as they bleed you dry.

+1

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[Canuck]

Wrong!!

So you'll be voting for Cruz, then?

LOL

[Exodor]

Interesting

The latest survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling found that nearly half of voters nationwide — 49 percent — trust Clinton more than Congressional Republicans when it comes to Benghazi. Thirty-nine percent said they trust Republicans more.

Those findings may be seen as an extension of the disparate popularity between Clinton and the GOP. Fifty-two percent of voters said they have a favorable opinion of Clinton, compared with 57 percent who said they have an unfavorable opinion of Congressional Republicans.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Mark Steyn aptly lit into Clinton and the administration over the weekend:

Shortly before last November's election I took part in a Fox News documentary on Benghazi, whose other participants included the former governor of New Hampshire, John Sununu. Making chitchat while the camera crew was setting up, Gov. Sununu said to me that, in his view, Benghazi mattered because it was "a question of character." That's correct. On a question of foreign policy or counterterrorism strategy, men of good faith can make the wrong decisions. But a failure of character corrodes the integrity of the state.

That's why career diplomat Gregory Hicks' testimony was so damning – not so much for the new facts as for what those facts revealed about the leaders of this republic. In this space in January, I noted that Hillary Clinton had denied ever seeing Ambassador Stevens' warnings about deteriorating security in Libya on the grounds that "1.43 million cables come to my office" – and she can't be expected to see all of them, or any. Once Ambassador Stevens was in his flag-draped coffin, listening to her eulogy for him at Andrews Air Force Base, he was her bestest friend in the world – it was all "Chris this" and "Chris that," as if they'd known each other since third grade. But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

Now we know that, at 8 p.m. Eastern time on the last night of Stevens' life, his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was now missing. An hour later, Gregory Hicks received a call from the then-Libyan Prime Minister, Abdurrahim el-Keib, informing him that Stevens was dead. Hicks immediately called Washington. It was 9 p.m. Eastern time, or 3 a.m. in Libya. Remember the Clinton presidential team's most famous campaign ad? About how Hillary would be ready to take that 3 a.m. call? Four years later, the phone rings, and Secretary Clinton's not there. She doesn't call Hicks back that evening. Or the following day.

Are murdered ambassadors like those 1.43 million cables she doesn't read? Just too many of them to keep track of? No. Only six had been killed in the history of the republic – seven, if you include Arnold Raphel, who perished in General Zia's somewhat mysterious plane crash in Pakistan in 1988. Before that, you have to go back to Adolph Dubs, who died during a kidnapping attempt in Kabul in 1979. So we have here a once-in-a-third-of-a-century event. And at 3 a.m. Libyan time on Sept. 12th, it's still unfolding, with its outcome unclear. Hicks is now America's head man in the country, and the Cabinet secretary to whom he reports says, "Leave a message after the tone and I'll get back to you before the end of the week." Just to underline the difference here: Libya's head of government calls Hicks, but nobody who matters in his own government can be bothered to.

What was Secretary Clinton doing that was more important? What was the president doing? Aside, that is, from resting up for his big Vegas campaign event. A real government would be scrambling furiously to see what it could do to rescue its people. It's easy, afterwards, to say that nothing would have made any difference. But, at the time Deputy Chief Hicks was calling 911 and getting executive-branch voicemail, nobody in Washington knew how long it would last. A terrorist attack isn't like a soccer game, over in 90 minutes. If it is a sport, it's more like a tennis match: Whether it's all over in three sets or goes to five depends on how hard the other guy pushes back. The government of the United States took the extremely strange decision to lose in straight sets. Not only did they not deploy out-of-area assets, they ordered even those in Libya to stand down. Lt. Col. Gibson had a small team in Tripoli that twice readied to go to Benghazi to assist and twice was denied authority to do so, the latter when they were already at the airport. There weren't many of them, not compared to the estimated 150 men assailing the compound. But they were Special Forces, not bozo jihadists. Back in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty held off numerically superior forces for hours before dying on a rooftop waiting for backup from a government that had switched on the answering machine and gone to Vegas.

[Isgrimnur]

"1.43 million cables come to my office"

But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

We're equating each cable with a person now? Man, I guess you need to make sure that one cable you get every year is really well written.

[Pyperkub]

There's also the fact she'll be 70 years old in 2016. Do the people really want that? Remember Reagan and his naps and memory loss?

That's going to be her biggest hurdle. That, and the question of whether voters want Bill back in the White House again. If the election were being held this year I think it would be a cakewalk for Team Clinton (at least as far as getting the nomination). But three more years is an eternity in politics.

McCain was 72 in '08, and maybe could have won if he hadn't blundered through August/September and left the door wide open.

[hepcat]

"1.43 million cables come to my office"

But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

We're equating each cable with a person now? Man, I guess you need to make sure that one cable you get every year is really well written.

Yeah, that wasn't what I would call "aptly written" in any sense. It was more opportunistic than anything else.

While there were some failures in communication during Benghazi, they weren't any more egregious than, say, those that occurred during 9/11. This is a politically motivated attack job that cares very little about the facts...at least beyond picking and choosing those that will get the results they want.

[Isgrimnur]

Agreed. Given that the Republicans in the house specifically cut embassy funding after they took over in 2010, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's the tears of our Congressmen mourning the loss of our citizens.

[LordMortis]

Wow, you guys are awfully accepting of being manipulated and then lied to about it.

So does everyone accept now that they did keep response forces from deploying?

How about that the talking points were scrubbed of references to it being a planned terrorist attack rather than a demonstration gone awry?

Which of course means that Carney was then told to lie about that fact?

I think the problem (which is indicative of a much larger and more pressing issue) is that it's expected. Politicians have been lying and manipulating the populace about foreign policy forever. It is terrible and maybe real credible criminal acts will come out of it, but people are fairly numb to their Government spinning what went down in other countries. In the larger scheme of things though this may be deplorable it's fairly small potatoes next to propping dictators, Torture, wars based on wrong intelligence, domestic surveillance.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

It's indicative of a rotten government. Not a specific administration, mind you, but a decades old system of governing.

People might not think Benghazi is a big deal by itself. They'll blow it off by saying "Well, it's not as bad as what [Bush/Bush/BClinton,Regan/etc] did." That's falling victim to the illusion. It's not a lesser offense than Powell. It's the same damned thing from the same damned government. They sit there and lie and we sit here and take it. Again and again and again.

One day it's WMD in Iraq. The next it's about cluster bombing a hundred civilians. Then it's about selling automatic rifles on the street. Then about condoning banks laundering drug money. Then it's about the response in Benghazi.

It's not Powell/Bush vs. HClinton/Obama. It's Powell, Bush, Clinton, Obama vs. you. Your team is just as bad as the other team.

It's like if there were two guys on your street shaking your business down for money every day. Your partner says, "Man, you've got to stop paying Paulie, he smashed up the front window last week." You disagree, saying, "Oh yeah, you pay Tommy and he stole the last shipment of vegetables!" So you each pay your guy, complain about the other guy, and shake your head at the stupidity of your partner. Meanwhile Paulie and Tommy, the Johnson brothers, laugh together as they bleed you dry.

So how do we get another team? There were glimmers of hope in the Tea Party and they both went off the deep end and got co opted by the Republicans. There were glimmers of hope their nemesis, OWS. But they took populist hush money from the democrats and the ones who didn't take it were marginalized out of existence.

What is amazing to me is that we have the Internet, the exact wake up call tool we need to stand this myth of opposition on its head and not only do we still accept that the dichotomy is between democrats and republicans but the heartbeat of this instance of us vs them continues to grow stronger with the exercise its getting. That OWS did not find any real champions, any modern Teddy Roosevelt's banner to rally behind is heart breaking.

[hepcat]

There was a glimmer of hope in the Tea Party? When? They were just a more vocal and extremist arm of the GOP from day one.

[Isgrimnur]

The level of discontent isn't high enough. If you want to change things, you need to re-launch Rock the Vote and actually get the youngsters to vote and start driving change, but then, you also have to combat their indoctrination by the parents/schools to just go along with whichever team they're being pandered to.

[Anonymous Bosch]

"1.43 million cables come to my office"

But up till that point he was just one of 1.43 million close personal friends of Hillary trying in vain to get her ear.

We're equating each cable with a person now? Man, I guess you need to make sure that one cable you get every year is really well written.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of flippancy in a satirical op ed? It certainly did not read to me as if Steyn genuinely believed each cable equated to a seperate individual.

[hepcat]

If we don't accept that premise, the bite is removed from the piece.

[El Guapo]

Could someone recommend a neutral(ish) analysis on Benghazi to get me up to date?

[LawBeefaroni]

The minutae doesn't really matter. They screwed up and they lied about it. And it will be forgotten, except to trot out occasionally in defense of a Republican in a "well, at least they didn't do that thing that Hillary did..." argument.


But here's the context of the "1.43 million" FWeIW:

Spoiler:

MCCAUL: Were you aware of this cable -- this August 16th cable?

CLINTON: Congressman, that cable did not come to my attention. I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant secretary level where the ARB placed responsibility. Where, as I think Ambassador Pickering said, "the rubber hit the road."

Now, I think...

MCCAUL: Can I ask the question: When -- when were you aware of this cable?

CLINTON: After the ARB began to, you know, gather information and material, which, of course, we cooperated with.

MCCAUL: Who within your office -- who within your office did see this cable?

CLINTON: I'm not aware of anyone within my office, within the secretary's office, having seen the cable.

MCCAUL: Within the National Security Council?

CLINTON: I have no information or awareness of anyone in the National Security Council having seen that cable.

MCCAUL: Was this cable a surprise to you?

CLINTON: You know, Congressman, it was very disappointing to me that the ARB Concluded there were inadequacies and problems in the responsiveness of our team here in Washington to the security requests that were made by our team in Libya.

And I was not aware of that going on, it was not brought to my attention, but obviously it's something we're fixing and intend to put into place protocols and systems to make sure it doesn't happen again.

MCCAUL: I certainly hope so. I think when you have a United States ambassador personally warning about the situation over there, sending this cable to your office...

CLINTON: Well if I could -- 1.43 million cables a year come to the State Department. They are all addressed to me. They do not all come to me. There are reported through the bureaucracy.

MCCAUL: Well certainly somebody within your office should have seen this cable, is my -- in my judgment.

Can I ask one last question?

CLINTON: Also, I just want to clarify. You know, as -- with regard to the security requests subsequent to the August 16th cable, our personnel in Libya had not submitted any additional security requests to Washington at the time of the September 11th attack. Now, there was an ongoing dialogue, as you know, between Libya and Washington. I think it is...

MCCAUL: Reclaim my time is very limited -- an emergency meeting was held and a cable sent out on August 16th by the ambassador himself. Warning of what could happen. And this meant this cable went unnoticed by your office. That's the bottom line.

CLINTON: Well the facts -- the facts as we have them, Congressman, and I will be happy to have people give you this in detail. The August 16th cable stated the security requests for Benghazi would be forthcoming. The RSO in Benghazi submitted to Tripoli a preliminary list of proposed security recommendations on August 23rd, but no requests were submitted to Washington before the attacks.

Now, this sound -- this sounds very complicated and to some extent it is, we're trying to simplify it and avoid the kind of problems that are identified.

MCCAUL: I hope we can fix that.

[El Guapo]

Well, the assertions aren't really "minutiae". I don't really care about the alleged "spin" afterwards - that the administration was labeling it a protest when they knew or should have known that it was a terror attack. The most serious accusation from what I can tell is that they kept the marines from responding to the attack, so I'm most curious about the substance on that.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, the assertions aren't really "minutiae". I don't really care about the alleged "spin" afterwards - that the administration was labeling it a protest when they knew or should have known that it was a terror attack.

I was talking about dissecting the oped where the guy says 1.43 million ears when it was 1.43 million cables. That's just aftermarket partisan bickering. I think it's pretty clear how I feel about the actual facts of the matter.

[Anonymous Bosch]

If we don't accept that premise, the bite is removed from the piece.

No it isn't. Satire, by definition, is ridicule intended to expose truth. Steyn made a flippant remark to ridicule Clinton's denial that she ever saw Ambassador Stevens' warnings about deteriorating security in Libya as it was simply one of the "1.43 million cables" that came into her office, which seemed somewhat incongruent with her subsequent eulogies that implied they regularly interacted on a first-name basis. With the truth being, although his deputy in Libya spoke to Secretary Clinton and informed her of the attack in Benghazi and the fact that the ambassador was missing, he only got voicemail when the shit hit the fan, and nobody who mattered in his own government could be bothered to return his call.

[hepcat]

Flippant? Yes. Satire? Not really. He disagrees with Clinton's assertions outright.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Flippant? Yes. Satire? Not really. He disagrees with Clinton's assertions outright.

sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr]
noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

It certainly reads to me like it fits well within that definition. If we're to read every remark in Steyn's op ed literally, you'd also have to believe that when Steyn wrote "It was such a great act of misdirection Hillary should have worn spangled tights and sawn Stevens' casket in half", there was no sarcasm in what he wrote at all.

[hepcat]

Little bits of sarcasm in an op ed does not make the piece a work of satire. However, we're diving into semantics now.

I still disagree that it was apt.

[Rip]

Sounds like we will eventually hear the part that I am interested in.

The former diplomats inform PJM the new revelations concentrate in two areas — what Ambassador Chris Stevens was actually doing in Benghazi and the pressure put on General Carter Ham, then in command of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and therefore responsible for Libya, not to act to protect jeopardized U.S. personnel.

The former diplomat who spoke with PJ Media regarded the whole enterprise as totally amateurish and likened it to the Mike Nichols film Charlie Wilson’s War about a clueless congressman who supplies Stingers to the Afghan guerrillas. “It’s as if Hillary and the others just watched that movie and said ‘Hey, let’s do that!’” the diplomat said.

He added that he and his colleagues think the leaking of General David Petraeus’ affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell was timed to silence the former CIA chief on these matters.

Regarding General Ham, military contacts of the diplomats tell them that AFRICOM had Special Ops “assets in place that could have come to the aid of the Benghazi consulate immediately (not in six hours).”

Ham was told by the White House not to send the aid to the trapped men, but Ham decided to disobey and did so anyway, whereupon the White House “called his deputy and had the deputy threaten to relieve Ham of his command.”

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/05/ ... and-obama/