Friday, May 10, 2013


So ABC News is telling us that Hillary Clinton's State Department was more involved in removing references to Al Qaeda from the original Benghazi talking points than previously reported.

But I don't get it. The right-wingers are now saying that Hillary deceived the public during a tough reelection campaign for President Obama so Obama could continue touting his successes against Al Qaeda. But a few months before Benghazi, right-wingers were telling us the Clintons wanted Obama to lose:
Does President Obama have a mutiny on his hands orchestrated by President Bill Clinton? "I totally believe this is intention," Sean Hannity told Michelle Malkin and Herman Cain...
And from Dick Morris:
A former adviser says the 65-year-old Clinton does not want Obama to win the November election.

"He never liked him, they never got along," Dick Morris, now a Republican strategist, told Fox News this week of the pair's famously complex relationship.
And Glenn Beck:
Bill Clinton is out to sabotage Barack Obama's reelection chances, right? It seems pretty clear at this point that he doesn't want to see Obama in office come 2013, and is trying to stop him in the most passive agressive manner possible. Why else would he be undermining the President's campaign at every turn?

First, he said that Romney had a sterling business record when he was at Bain. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is trying to paint Romney as a ruthless CEO who sought to maximize profits at the expense of people. That's a pretty significant disconnect.

Now, Clinton is out their touting his own record over Obama's....
And Malkin's Twitchy:
Schadenfreude-licious: Clinton clobbers Obama, continues campaign sabotage theme
Ahhh, but, according to NewsHounds, Hannity now thinks there'll be after-the-fact Clinton sabotage:
All of this is merely the tip of a very large iceberg when it comes to Hillary Clinton's culpability. In other words, Benghazi is her new Whitewater. It is the scandal that threatens her political future. What happens when the Clintons' backs are against the wall? Well, they come out swinging. And they throw whoever they have to throw under the bus so that they survive. Now that includes Barack Obama. And with 2016 fast approaching, and Benghazi quickly becoming her biggest liability, well the president may just want to keep his guard up. Just a thought.
So let's see: The Clintons wanted Obama to lose, so when Benghazi happened, Hillary and her aides did something that could potentially hurt her own reputation so Obama would win. Am I following this so far? Or maybe they were playing a really, really long game, which involved deceiving the public to help Obama win, after which Hillary would be embroiled in scandal, at which point she'd throw Obama under the bus, for which she'd also be attacked by the right, because doing all that would really help her chances in 2016. Now do I have it right?


Four Bs said...

Hillary was playing a succession move. As secretary of state, she was, what, third in line to the presidency? That means she was trying to get Obama reelected, only to have him impeached shortly after inauguration. And how long would Biden last? Bingo. Hillary's our new president, with Bill Clinton wheeling his Samsonite back into the Lincoln Bedroom!

It's diabolical.

Victor said...

Four Bs,
Actually, the Speaker of the House is the one directly in line after VP.

So, after knocking off Biden, she'd have to "Vince Foster" the Orange Man.

Victor said...

Just stay there, and I'll bring an ice-pack and an Ace bandage - by contorting your mind into those positions, I think you sprained your brain!

Ten Bears said...

Did you see the report out yesterday on the DNA study that shows that the Europeans and Amercans - the white people - are much more closely inbred than all the other "peoples", even the Semites (Arabs, Akkadians, Assyerians, Jews, Phoenician and Turk)? That seven degrees to Kevin Bacon is five, nine degrees Morgan Freeman seven.


No fear.

Glennis said...

The logic is impeccable!

A Conservative Teacher said...

Where you come up with garbage posts like this? You cherry pick a couple lines, connect them with a real scandal and coverup that the administration is engaged in, and try to make conservatives out as the bad guys in the whole thing?

Dude, you have your moral compass mixed up here. Republicans supported the impeachment of Nixon, and once upon a time Democrats supported the impeachment of Blagojevich. Get over your partisan bias on this one and start to hold your elected officials accountable for actions which are negligent and maybe even criminal.

Ten Bears said...

See what I mean... inbred.

No fear