As the Benghazi scandal heats up, evidence that Obama himself denied extra security

How reliable is Edward Klein?  I don’t know.  I don’t believe anyone challenged the facts in his book The Amateur, even if they disagreed with their import.  One thing that was immediately clear from reading The Amateur was that Klein got a lot of his information from Hillary Clinton’s camp.  Klein’s reliability is very important today, because he now claims that he’s gotten some new information from the Hillary camp, and this information, if true, is staggering in its implications:  lawyers close to Hillary claim that Hillary asked for more security in Benghazi and that the Obama White House denied that request.

According to Klein’s sources, Hillary has been keeping mum about this to stay loyal to the Democrat party, while Bill has been urging her to go public with the information to save her reputation.  Here’s what I think happened:

Events played out exactly as Hillary’s leakers claim.  Hillary was silent about the White House’s culpability when it still looked as if Obama could win, because she needed to be on Obama’s good side in the event he won the election.  Now that Obama has the stale smell of failure about him, two things have happened.  First, Hillary doesn’t believe that Obama’s coat tails will be very useful.  And second, the Democrats are launching a preemptive strike against Bill Clinton, claiming that it was his bad advice that led to Obama’s disastrous campaign decisions.

The Obama administration won’t be the first to learn that you don’t mess with Bill Clinton, especially if there’s nothing in it for Bill.  And so the leaks begin.  This way, Hillary still looks loyal, but Bill gets to destroy someone who is trying to destroy him.  Even if it’s not war in the Middle East, there’s going to be a war in Washington, D.C.

This leaked report also makes sense from both a military and a security standpoint, as Wolf Howling explains:

Why should we believe this might be true? I have enough experience in the military and with providing security with weapons loaded to know that the people administratively charged with making decisions on security would not possibly have denied the requests absent a policy decision made at a much higher level. And indeed, I cannot see any career employee in the chain of command denying a request for more security in Benghazi, given the availability of assets and all that was known about the deteriorating situation. In other words, I would bet my last dollar that the decision to deny more security was made pursuant to a policy decision in the political chain of command – and that means Clinton and / or Obama. And if there is any truth to the story above, then that person was Obama.

(You can, and should, read the rest of Wolf Howling’s analysis here.)

Assuming that concrete evidence surfaces quickly, the real story is whether the MSM will be able to sit on this story until after the election.  If the media can’t control the narrative, this story should be the last nail in the Obama campaign coffin.

UPDATE:  My post about today’s news — that the administrrefuse refused to send help — is here.)

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. jj says

    Is there anyone in the United States of America more foul than Bill Clinton?  Possibly David Axelrod runs him a close second in the out-and-out shitweasel stakes, but as a walking, talking, putrid stench in the nostrils of decency Clinton stands triumphantly alone.
     
    And if Hillary thinks she “still” looks loyal, she better think again.  There has not been one second of that dame’s life when she’s ever been loyal to anyone or thing but herself, and what she perceives as her long-range self-interest.  It’s why she stayed with the pile of crap she’s married to, it’s why she signed on to “enhance” her resume by being the worst and most inept Secretary of State the country’s ever seen, and it’s why she’s now doing what she can to torpedo the jackass in the white house while dancing desperately to keep her own louse-infested hands some semblance of “clean.”
     
    How these two ever ended up as more than two Okies nobody ever heard of, chewin’ and spittin’ off the back porch somewhere in Buttbite Arkansas is beyond me.

  2. Libby says

    Just like Hillary claiming a few weeks ago that she was ultimately responsible for the security while not actually personally responsible for the Benghazi security, Hillary is continuing to play politics with the murder of Amb. Stevens and 3 other Americans. Her actions are all about how best to position herself for the coming accountability storm instead of making sure the families of the murdered and the American public have a full explanation of how this occurred.
    Regardless of Obama’s involvement in the security prior to the attack, what did Hillary do when the attack was first reported – did she argue for sending assistance or side with Obama on just sitting tight for the entire 7+ hour duration? And what of her blaming the video, repeatedly, even to go so far as to do so as she stood in front of the caskets. According to the father of one of the slain former SEALs, she promised she would arrest the video maker and prosecute him to the fullest. All while knowing that this was a planned terrorist attack.

  3. Bill C says

    Bookworm,

    I am convinced that the only reason we are getting any information out of the gov’t about Benghazi is because of the civil war between the Clintonistas and Obamaites.   I think it is in Clinton’s best interest for Obama to get re-elected, running against a successful Romney would be harder than taking over from Obama in 2016, so the original blame shifting towards Hillary was probably done to torpedo her by bitter Obamaites.  Now she is defending herself just enough to protect her reputation but not mortally wound Obama.  That’s my theory.  

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply