The E-mails and Benghazi

While Hillary Clinton’s public (and, for that matter, her private) life has been marked by one big scandal after another, no incident, event, or happening so completely captures the essence of who she really is -- incredibly incompetent, bereft of the slightest trace of judgment, and ready to engage in any act of deceit (even criminal) to cover over those fundamental deficiencies of character and competence – as her involvement with Benghazi, a tragedy in which, thanks to her failure to act, four Americans needlessly lost their lives. Now, thanks to an unbelievably stupid comment by Kevin McCarthy, formerly the leading contender to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Benghazi has senselessly been made more of a political football. McCarthy, in an apparent effort to demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s vulnerability, pointed out that the House Committee to investigate Benghazi has had a dramatic effect on Hillary’s poll numbers -- the implication (unintended, I’m certain) being that that somehow played a role in the Committee’s creation.

The committee was created for the sole purpose of finding out what happened at Benghazi, i.e. why these four Americans died, and why nothing was done to prevent such a tragedy -- all on Hillary Clinton’s watch as secretary of state. And obviously, because the tragedy happened on her watch, it could certainly have an effect on her political aspirations. But to imply, as McCarthy moronically did, that such an effect played an instrumental role in the committee’s creation was a non sequitur. That said, the Clinton folk, as is their bent, wasted little time in jumping on McCarthy by informing the public that his comment was not an act of terminal stupidity, but rather an inadvertent slip of the truth. The consequences of the McCarthy blunder were several and severe, i.e. they:

  1. were an unbelievable gift to Hillary’s cause,
  2. almost cut Trey Gowdy off at the knees in his already difficult task of accessing the truth from an uncooperative Democratic Administration, and
  3. almost assuredly contributed to McCarthy’s dropping out of the speakership race (clearly, on the basis of this comment alone, the job was above his pay grade).

Failing to quickly quash the matter, since Benghazi had legs, Hillary went into the Clintons’ obfuscation mode -- a mode that they have become quite accustomed to, given their questionable track record for veracity. The steps to be taken go something like this:

  1. Deny; if that doesn’t result in calling off the dogs, then lie; if that doesn’t do it,
  2. stonewall, i.e. say little or nothing, and if that doesn’t work
  3. slow walk the matter, i.e. let things out in dribs and drabs
  4. (preferably on a Friday night to attract as little media attention as possible).
  5. Finally, if the foregoing doesn’t end the matter, assert that
  6. that the opposition’s continued  pursuit of the truth is either old news and/or a witch hunt.
  7. When all of the above fails, and you are called to account, brazen it through, i.e. go on the offensive.

The last step was brilliantly executed -- thanks to the customary amount of Republican cowardice -- when Hillary went before the Senate Committee looking into Benghazi. You may recall Hillary’s brazen response to a question from Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” whether the tragedy was caused by a planned attack by terrorists or just by some guys out for a walk who decided to kill some Americans? Here we have the Clintons’ back-to-the-wall approach, i.e. the best defense is a good offense. Ron Johnson cowered and beat a retreat. Instead, he could have done what was called for, to wit: first, angrily inform princess Hillary that it made all the difference in the world to the people seated behind her -- i.e. the loved ones of the deceased; and, second, in response to her follow up point that what was important was to make sure that it never happened again, Johnson should have made the obvious point that how do we prevent it from happening again if we don’t know how it happened the first time? In short, Clinton succeeded in bludgeoning her way out of a tight spot by taking advantage of Republican ineptitude.

Eventually Hillary grudgingly accepted responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy, but, as is typical with the Clintons, she was not held accountable for the fiasco. How do you have responsibility without accountability? It’s a favorite of the left; I did it, I’m sorry, so let’s move on. Typically, in the private sector, there are consequences for failing to act appropriately where your actions do damage to the operational entity. Not so much in the governmental sector, even less so where lefties are involved, and never where those lefties are the Clintons.

Now how do we get from Benghazi to Hillary’s sagging poll numbers? Simple: the email scandal. When the House Committee was created to look into Benghazi, the public (and the Committee) was unaware of Hillary’s use of a private server. As details with respect to her emails began to be dragged out of the administration, this transgression was uncovered. As it continued to be endlessly slow walked before the public, her polls began to sag with every lie that was revealed.

And make no mistake -- Hillary Clinton is a liar; actually, Bill Safire flattered her when, in 1996, he called her a “congenital liar.” There is no need to go through the parade of Hillary’s lies – Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, the Rose law office billing files, her act of Wall St. alchemy etc., etc. Hillary’s entire life is a lie.

And, more to the point, her current effort to take advantage of McCarthy’s blunder is just another case of her dishonesty. But who can blame her? Her back is to the wall, and McCarthy offered up an escape hatch.

While Hillary Clinton’s public (and, for that matter, her private) life has been marked by one big scandal after another, no incident, event, or happening so completely captures the essence of who she really is -- incredibly incompetent, bereft of the slightest trace of judgment, and ready to engage in any act of deceit (even criminal) to cover over those fundamental deficiencies of character and competence – as her involvement with Benghazi, a tragedy in which, thanks to her failure to act, four Americans needlessly lost their lives. Now, thanks to an unbelievably stupid comment by Kevin McCarthy, formerly the leading contender to replace John Boehner as Speaker of the House, Benghazi has senselessly been made more of a political football. McCarthy, in an apparent effort to demonstrate Hillary Clinton’s vulnerability, pointed out that the House Committee to investigate Benghazi has had a dramatic effect on Hillary’s poll numbers -- the implication (unintended, I’m certain) being that that somehow played a role in the Committee’s creation.

The committee was created for the sole purpose of finding out what happened at Benghazi, i.e. why these four Americans died, and why nothing was done to prevent such a tragedy -- all on Hillary Clinton’s watch as secretary of state. And obviously, because the tragedy happened on her watch, it could certainly have an effect on her political aspirations. But to imply, as McCarthy moronically did, that such an effect played an instrumental role in the committee’s creation was a non sequitur. That said, the Clinton folk, as is their bent, wasted little time in jumping on McCarthy by informing the public that his comment was not an act of terminal stupidity, but rather an inadvertent slip of the truth. The consequences of the McCarthy blunder were several and severe, i.e. they:

  1. were an unbelievable gift to Hillary’s cause,
  2. almost cut Trey Gowdy off at the knees in his already difficult task of accessing the truth from an uncooperative Democratic Administration, and
  3. almost assuredly contributed to McCarthy’s dropping out of the speakership race (clearly, on the basis of this comment alone, the job was above his pay grade).

Failing to quickly quash the matter, since Benghazi had legs, Hillary went into the Clintons’ obfuscation mode -- a mode that they have become quite accustomed to, given their questionable track record for veracity. The steps to be taken go something like this:

  1. Deny; if that doesn’t result in calling off the dogs, then lie; if that doesn’t do it,
  2. stonewall, i.e. say little or nothing, and if that doesn’t work
  3. slow walk the matter, i.e. let things out in dribs and drabs
  4. (preferably on a Friday night to attract as little media attention as possible).
  5. Finally, if the foregoing doesn’t end the matter, assert that
  6. that the opposition’s continued  pursuit of the truth is either old news and/or a witch hunt.
  7. When all of the above fails, and you are called to account, brazen it through, i.e. go on the offensive.

The last step was brilliantly executed -- thanks to the customary amount of Republican cowardice -- when Hillary went before the Senate Committee looking into Benghazi. You may recall Hillary’s brazen response to a question from Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson: “What difference, at this point, does it make?” whether the tragedy was caused by a planned attack by terrorists or just by some guys out for a walk who decided to kill some Americans? Here we have the Clintons’ back-to-the-wall approach, i.e. the best defense is a good offense. Ron Johnson cowered and beat a retreat. Instead, he could have done what was called for, to wit: first, angrily inform princess Hillary that it made all the difference in the world to the people seated behind her -- i.e. the loved ones of the deceased; and, second, in response to her follow up point that what was important was to make sure that it never happened again, Johnson should have made the obvious point that how do we prevent it from happening again if we don’t know how it happened the first time? In short, Clinton succeeded in bludgeoning her way out of a tight spot by taking advantage of Republican ineptitude.

Eventually Hillary grudgingly accepted responsibility for the Benghazi tragedy, but, as is typical with the Clintons, she was not held accountable for the fiasco. How do you have responsibility without accountability? It’s a favorite of the left; I did it, I’m sorry, so let’s move on. Typically, in the private sector, there are consequences for failing to act appropriately where your actions do damage to the operational entity. Not so much in the governmental sector, even less so where lefties are involved, and never where those lefties are the Clintons.

Now how do we get from Benghazi to Hillary’s sagging poll numbers? Simple: the email scandal. When the House Committee was created to look into Benghazi, the public (and the Committee) was unaware of Hillary’s use of a private server. As details with respect to her emails began to be dragged out of the administration, this transgression was uncovered. As it continued to be endlessly slow walked before the public, her polls began to sag with every lie that was revealed.

And make no mistake -- Hillary Clinton is a liar; actually, Bill Safire flattered her when, in 1996, he called her a “congenital liar.” There is no need to go through the parade of Hillary’s lies – Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, the Rose law office billing files, her act of Wall St. alchemy etc., etc. Hillary’s entire life is a lie.

And, more to the point, her current effort to take advantage of McCarthy’s blunder is just another case of her dishonesty. But who can blame her? Her back is to the wall, and McCarthy offered up an escape hatch.