Axelrod Throws State Department Under the Bus
How are those tire treads feelin’, Hil?
Tearing a few pages out of the old Clinton playbook, David Axelrod carefully defined the word “we” this morning for Fox News’ Chris Wallace: when the Vice President said in Wednesday’s debate that “we” weren’t aware of the Benghazi consulate’s requests for increased security, “we” included only the President and the Vice President – not the Obama administration at large or the State Department. You got that, right?
In response to Wallace’s inquiry about whether the President takes personal responsibility for the denial of security requests in Benghazi, Axelrod said, “these were judgments that were made by security folks at the State Department.”
Thanks to dana, who has provided a lot of great tips lately.
Can they really afford a Barcky – Clinton war 3 weeks out from the election?
JD (43ce10) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:19 pmAdam Baldwin…
“Today, Sec. State Clinton stated her agency was not the source of #BenghaziGate misinformation… WH was the source.” http://t.co/UwHvHpMy
Colonel Haiku (7efa05) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:26 pmWallace went after Axelturf pretty hard this morning. Candy Crowley got Baghdad Bob Gibbs to admit that Obama had responsibility on CNN this morning.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:30 pmIn other words, he’s forthrightly stating that the President and Vice President were completely out of touch with what was going on.
And for this we are supposed to admire them.
Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:32 pm…to admire them and vote them in for 4 more years of this incompetency.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:33 pmBiden and TFG are above such things as petty security details, dontcha know. They’re too busy standing guard over Sesame Street.
Pious Agnostic (2c3220) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:35 pmDavid Axelrod appeared pale and drained on the show this morning. Obnoxious of course, but somehow less combative than usual. Also, his face looked thinner, like she’s shed about 30 pounds over the past few weeks. Quite honestly, I don’t think David’s having a very good time in these last weeks leading up to the election.
elissa (ad7deb) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:39 pm____________________________________________
WH was the source.” http://t.co/UwHvHpMy
Wow. I’ve assumed until now that the White House, which includes Hillary “sniper-fire” Clinton, was unified enough in their partisanship and dopey liberalism that they’d happily be the martyr or fall guy (or fall woman) for one another. But then I have to remember that the art (and habit) of scapegoating is a specialty of so many on the left, and Obama is the epitome of leftism. So maybe when it comes to playing the blame game, he one ups even Hillary “vast rightwing conspiracy” Clinton in that regard.
We need adults once again in the White House.
Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:40 pmIf you stick to the truth, you don’t have trouble keeping your stories straight.
Pious Agnostic (2c3220) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:44 pmColonel, the author of that article notes important points:
All ambassadors are appointed by the WH, but not all ambassadors are purely political appointees. Stevens in Libya was a career Foreign Service Officer at State.
Obama bundlers, political insiders, and Chicago cronies don’t lobby for jobs like ambassador to Libya or Uganda. Ambassador to France, Luxembourg, or the UN are the plums they want.
The Obama administration had to pick somebody they thought could credibly pull of the job while being primarily loyal to Obama. Not their own careers.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:47 pmIf a ball-breaker like Hillary runs such a dysfunctional State Department, can you imagine how bad it would be under a nitwit like John Kerry?
JVW (f5695c) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:47 pmWhen Rice appeared on those Sunday talk shows on Sep. 16th it looked like she was completely unaware there was an intelligence organization with DoS.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:51 pmHmmmm. Let me speculate: the classified documents and briefings that can’t be talked about did contain the problems and requests for more security, but were unread and unintended by 0 and Big Grin, so they are indeed blissfully ignorant.
htom (412a17) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:00 pm…as someone wiser than I opined, no doubt the requests for additional security were voiced during all those security briefings that TFG didn’t go to.
Pious Agnostic (2c3220) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:04 pm“Quite honestly, I don’t think David’s having a very good time in these last weeks leading up to the election.”
elissa – It might have been something he ate that caused him to look that way or he may be feeling a little bit of pressure about the election, but probably mostly something he ate.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:06 pmAll of the docs that would prove that this was blamed on the spontaneous demonstration against a YouTube video are classified. So you wingnutz are demanding we compromised our intelligence in order to score political points.
JD (43ce10) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:10 pmI read this last night in The Ulsterman Report.
I usually don’t quote it, just use it as tipper information. But whoever this guy’s source is usually seems to have good inside information. I thought about quoting it last night, but it seems more apropos now after Axelrod’s performance.
I see this as a war of choice, so to speak. I don’t think the media would push this. But it seems to me that there are some huge egos involved, especially Obama’s, that will not allow this to rest.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:11 pmGood God that Axelrod looks more and more ghoulish every Sunday… teh Grey Ghost.
Colonel Haiku (7efa05) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:11 pm==Clinton told reporters that when Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her rounds on every Sunday morning news show to claim the film motivated the attacks, the information had been fed to her by the White House and not the intelligence community in the State Department or the CIA.==
Hmmm—Remember this comment I left on an earlier thread? It looks like we have our answer–and we didn’t even need to wait for the tell-all book!
167.Someday when the serious tell-all book about this “bump in the road” comes out (as it inevitably will) the nation will find out whose idea it was to use Susan Rice as the administration’s face and front person hawking the idiotic video story to the media that first weekend. And that fact will tell us a lot.
If State started the cover-up to protect itself (Hillary) it would have realized that because of Susan Rice’s personal closeness to the West Wing, using Rice would therefore immediately draw in and involve the President in the cover-up (who would then have an investment in keeping it going even as the cover-up disintegrated).
On the other hand, the idea to “use” (and you can take that word several ways) a trusted friend and lieutenant (Rice) may have come from ValJar or Axelrod or Obama himself because they did not trust Hillary to carry their water in an election year– and they wanted to continue to escalate their unfair political attack on Romney’s early comment even as the truth about the attack started to leak out.
elissa (ad7deb) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:14 pmComment by elissa — 10/11/2012 @ 6:00 am
Dude must be chugging teh Pepto Bismol®…
Colonel Haiku (7efa05) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:15 pm== It might have been something he ate that caused him to look that way or he may be feeling a little bit of pressure about the election, but probably mostly something he ate==
daleyrocks–I suppose Axe could also still be reeling and upset about the Nationals game that he had tweeted about. Ya gotta feel for the guy, no? World’s just kinda caving in on him.
elissa (ad7deb) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:28 pm“Ya gotta feel for the guy, no?”
elissa – Prolly needs a great big hug.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:35 pmHillary’s people just tossed this transcript out dated on 10/9. It is a very detailed conference conference with between top level state department people and some AP reporters over the exact events on Sept 11th. Get out the popcorn, Hillary’s about to go nuclear.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/10/198791.htm#.UHmUMQQjpX0.twitter
GhostOnTheWind (a0e0c9) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:38 pmSo Obama, Biden and Axlerod are saying that the POTUS and VPOTUS never got the information as it stopped at State. So once again we have another example of Obama refusing to take responsibility for events that happened on his watch. What happened to “the buck stops here”? Hillary must find this so ironic as it was Bill that was the first to use the responsibility dodging tatic of “the buck never got here” that Obama is utilizing right now.
Thresherman (b808d1) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:48 pmFunny thing, not a lot of trolls on some of the more recent threads.
There’s just no way to deny how bad things are for this admin.
Of course, to keep things in perspective, things are the worst for our our lost consulate personnel, may they R.I.P.
Obambi and Co. can sit and spin for all I care.
kinlaw (2fb87c) — 10/14/2012 @ 2:12 pmdavid axelrod
Colonel Haiku (8407ec) — 10/14/2012 @ 2:25 pmBeetlegeuce just called and he
wants his color back
Probably a given that Obama will lie through is teeth in the next debate. I hope Romney isn’t polite and tears Obama a new asshole. None of that stuff like O inherited Bush’s big mess. Saw Obots on FB complaining about Bush getting a pass for 911. I’m still wondering just why jamie gorelick manages to be in the middle of so much controversial debacles. Her Gorelick wall between FBI and CIA made it difficult to connect pre-911 dots and yet she herself ends up on the 911 commission. Later she makes a bundle in the Housing meltdown mess, along with Barney’s boyfriend. So any bets on who will take the fall for Benghazi? Republican tight purse strings have already been touted for lack of security. And of course Romney making Libya the issue, according to Axelrod and Cutter.
Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8) — 10/14/2012 @ 2:27 pmDid anyone else notice Laura Ingraham and Britt Hume hand the NYT reporter on the panel a scoop?
Sunny (b47ecd) — 10/14/2012 @ 2:29 pmYes, Sunny, let’s see if the Times bites.
I look at Axelrod and I think…zombie, or Wicket Witch of the North. Guy needs to get outdoors!
This story is blowing up. I predict the town hall and the foreign policy debate will be brutal (to Bams).
Patricia (e1d89d) — 10/14/2012 @ 2:51 pmHillary releasing that transcript is a pre-emptive shot across the bow.
JD (43ce10) — 10/14/2012 @ 2:59 pmYes, but he whiffed it, like Arod’s last eleven strike outs;
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2012/10/14/ingrahan-and-hume-scold-nyt-s-zeleny-and-media-not-pursuing-obama-admin
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/14/2012 @ 3:07 pmJD, I agree. It’s going to be fascinating to watch the bottle-rocket fight(or should I say shark feeding frenzy) between the Clinton’s and Obama and Biden. Neither are going to come out of the fight without severe bite marks in their buttocks.
GhostOnTheWind (a0e0c9) — 10/14/2012 @ 3:19 pmSo Obama, Biden and Axlerod are saying that the POTUS and VPOTUS never got the information as it stopped at State. So once again we have another example of Obama refusing to take responsibility for events that happened on his watch.
It depends on your definition of “communicated up to Washington” means.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Are you saying that the administration deliberately misled the American people to make it look as if terrorism is– is not as much of a threat as apparently it is?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: Either they’re misleading the American people or incredibly incompetent. There was no way with anybody looking at all that you could believe five days after the attack it was based on a riot that never occurred. There was no– no riot at all. So, to say that, you’re either very incompetent or you’re misleading. This is the same administration that leaks every detail of classified operations that are successful. Within a week you had three stories about cyber attacks against the Iranian nuclear program, about disrupting the underwear bomber case, about every detail of bin Laden, all over The New York Times, all over the press, showing how strong and effective this administration was. So, yes, they’re very political when it comes to foreign policy.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Where did you get this information that led you to this conclusion? Did you talk to officials there? Did you talk to people in the CIA? Did you talk to people in the administration? How are you so convinced of– of what you have just stated?
SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: The intelligence community on the ground in Libya has told Senator Corker and myself that within twenty-four hours, they communicated up to Washington that this was a terrorist attack.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/14/2012 @ 4:06 pmBrit also asked, in the FNS panel discussion, the key question that nobody has advanced:
AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434) — 10/14/2012 @ 4:23 pmWho briefed Susan Rice prior to her Round-Robin appearances, and did that include input from people associated with the campaign?
If this gets stirred up enough, maybe it will be easier to clean house of some of the career bureaucrats that were a thorn for Bush.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/14/2012 @ 4:29 pmSeriously, anybody know why he looked so bad? Do you think he refused makeup, or could they deliberately have lighted him or adjusted video to make him look that way.
Richard (2c9770) — 10/14/2012 @ 4:46 pmIssa turn “spiking the ball” into Obama’s own “Mission Accomplished” …
Neo (d1c681) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:04 pmIf Hillary publicly objected to this she would guarantee a Romney victory, in effect throwing Obama under the bus.
Probably wouldn’t since the party would never forgive her. But she has Obama firmly by the crotch, and that can not be comfortable for him.
rabbit (b74f60) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:56 pmIt certainly shouldn’t be hard to identify the fall back perimeter, after all the condertina wire is clipped, all the walls busted down, of the WH for Tuesday evening:
State department security personnel wanted to reduce their visibility in country. They made a judgement call and got burned. We were not made aware of this decision and certainly would not have advised such a course of action.
NATO and Berlusconi got us into this mess, we are innocent bystanders and victims.
No wonder Urkel is down to 10 ‘safe’ states.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:05 pmThere are some simple facts that the Obama Administration is ignoring:
First, a US embassy or consulate is sovereign US territory. Any attack is an attack on American soil. National defense is the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, not any cabinet member or government bureaucrat. If the US embassy runs out of strawberry ice cream, it’s a State Department problem. If a US mission is subjected to assault with automatic weapons, RPGs, ZPU-2s and mortars, it is the President’s problem. It’s his job to know what’s going on and act on it.
Second, people on site are in the best position to assess security risks. Overriding a request for security comes with the responsibility for the consequences. Senior diplomats assigned to Libya were awarded the highest danger pay allowance available, 30% tax free bonus, yet requests to keep an 18 man special forces detachment in Tripoli were refused. The Obama Administration created this target by spiking the ball at the DNC and ignored multiple threats from al Qaeda. They own it.
Third, Senator Hillary Clinton lost the nomination in a Chicago style political race in 2008. Serving in Obama’s cabinet made her part of the administration – responsible for what happened. Hadn’t she seen enough Obama supporters thrown under the bus? Unless she resigns before the election, she is just another Obama cheerleader.
Finally, there’s another shoe to drop – the CIA. The Obama narrative on Benghazi is diametrically opposed to the CIA data. Will General Petreaus fall on his sword and lie to protect Obama? I doubt it.
Arch (0baa7b) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:08 pm32. I don’t see the Dim core letting Hill fry for Beavis and Butthead.
This is a decidedly pyrrhic strategy, too short-sighted, by half or better,to save an election victory. The rats have departed the bilges, its throat-slit rhapsody on deck.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:13 pm39. Too much time on the clock to hold the ball for a final shot. Down Low is dead dog meat.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:17 pmWell there is a difference between the collectors and the top management at CIA/ODNI, as Lake has pointed out;
http://thediplomad.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-invisible-secretary-of-state.html
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:20 pm42. And another:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330318/denying-libya-scandal-andrew-c-mccarthy
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:40 pmHadn’t she seen enough Obama supporters thrown under the bus? Unless [Hillary] resigns before the election, she is just another Obama cheerleader.
I think it goes back to her wanting to be elected President in 2016. Unfortunately for her, she’s in an unenviable position. If she does the dignified thing and resigns and Obama loses in November, she runs the risk of important Democrat constituencies blaming her for contributing to his loss. If she resigns and Obama still manages to win reelection, he’ll punish her by making sure the party is organized so that she has no chance of winning the nomination in 2016. If she stays aboard she ends up getting thrown under the bus.
About the only thing she can do is stay loyal until November 6, then if he loses she can have her confederates dump all over him as a horrible and clueless President whose bad decisions hobbled her ability to be an effective Secretary of State.
JVW (f5695c) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:51 pm6-4 Cardinals. Your tears taste great, Axelrod.
JD (43ce10) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:53 pmEvery member of the WH klown kar has publicly weighed in. Amb. Rice has weighed in. SoS Clinton has weighed in. DNI Clapper has weighed in. I’ve even seen SecDef Pannetta publicly weigh in.
Note the name that is absent from that list.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/14/2012 @ 6:58 pmYes, Mark, many feel the same way. That’s what I called the first debate “Dad’s Home.”
And today Wallace confirmed that Susan Rice was sent out by the White House, not State, to the talks shows. So they made her do it. Probably because they knew Hillary wouldn’t.
Patricia (e1d89d) — 10/14/2012 @ 7:12 pmHey, congrats on the Cardinals, JD. For me, watching the Yankees and Tigers duke it out is sort of like watching Hillary and Barack duke it out. (I don’t want to see either of them win.)
elissa (cb10eb) — 10/14/2012 @ 7:35 pmI thought I read where Susan Rice’s position is cabinet level. It would seem strange for one Sec. to tell another Sec. what to do, hence it seems it came from the WH.
Left to his own insight, Obama thought he did well in a debate he looked terrible in. I think he used the same insight and reflexes in deciding to use foreign events as political maneuvering- just as he did with getting bin Laden.
One might have thought the decision to use a small security footprint in Libya was a mistake; but if it was owned as a mistake and Obama had the decency not to refer to loss of life as “a bump in the road” it would not have been the escalating story it has turned out to be.
BUT, I don’t know if anyone has seen a discussion of this, did not the Embassy in Egypt actually start the whole apology of the video thing before the Egyptian Embassy was attacked, with most of the personnel already evacuated? What was that all about? The video had been on YouTube for a couple of months and really hadn’t gotten much attention until the Embassy in Cairo did a preemptive apology strike. Was there a “US” planned stirring up of protest blamed on the video for purely political grandstanding, “See what happens if you let Conservatives and Christians muck up the world” and the attack on Benghazi was an unrelated incident that they thought they could just tuck away into their propaganda narrative? I’m not going to start saying there was some conspiracy to let the Ambassador to Libya be murdered for whatever reason, but I have no problem they would manipulate various things for political gain, and get so lost in trying to establish the narrative that they rally miss the obvious.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/14/2012 @ 7:42 pmWell there is an interesting detail, that three days before, the Cairo embassy sent out a cable,
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/14/2012 @ 7:52 pmspecifically not cc ‘ed to Tripoli or Benghazi, warning of trouble, because some embassy staffer
had caught the clip on Al Nas, the Salafi channel
Conspiracy stuff but I wouldn’t put it pass the fecal stain in the oval office. Doug Ross @ Journal
Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8) — 10/14/2012 @ 7:54 pmhttp://directorblue.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazi-gate-did-two-heroic-seals-ruin.html
Louie I’m not sure if I heard of that before or had my own thoughts about it being a plot to allow the kidnapping of Stevens to trade for the blind sheik, as apparently not only has Morsi been talking about it, but apparently there are people including Andy McCarthy who are seriously worried that something along that line is being contemplated by the one.
The idea that such was the plot but that the two SEALS who “were not counted on” “got in the way” is somewhat plausible, but it sounds like a pretty unruly and large group with the intention of taking an unguarded person alive (I wouldn’t trust a big group to keep him unharmed.)
I’m not willing to go that far, yet anyway, but they say truth is stranger than fiction.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/14/2012 @ 8:10 pmIt is far fetched Calypso, because if that was the plan then the attackers would not have brought the heavier weapons they did.
SPQR (768505) — 10/14/2012 @ 8:12 pmConsider the outfit, behind the attempt back in June, was known as the Abdel Rahman Brigades, which in turn could have been a false flag for
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/14/2012 @ 8:17 pmthe Abu Ahmed network, that Gorman and Entous unoovered.
In Re: #51
That’s a pretty big stretch. I’m thinking not, just because there are too many players involved, and it depends on known crazies acting ‘uncrazy.’
If it is the case, I suspect it will slip out somehow (because too many people would have too much access). Ben Franklin was right when he said (paraphrase)– “Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead.”
More likely it was just the usual incompetence we’ve come to expect from the Obama administration. Unfortunately, that incompetence has cost us four lives, including a highly qualified senior Foreign Service Office.
Bill M (2f7437) — 10/14/2012 @ 8:30 pmBeyond parody, really;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/romneys-distraction-on-libya/2012/10/14/78c84b06-1655-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_blog.html?wprss=post-partisan
narciso (ee31f1) — 10/14/2012 @ 8:42 pmGreetings:
President Truman: “The buck stops here.”
President Obama: “The buck stops there.”
11B40 (f541e3) — 10/14/2012 @ 9:04 pmNot very bright for the Chosen One to present his back to HRC so cluelessly–if he blows up any future political aspirations she has by scapegoating her, she literally has nothing left to lose–and even if Bubba doesn’t really want HRC in the White House due to the “Secret Service tasked to make sure Bubba doesn’t get any for 4 to 8 years” factor, he’ll have no reason not to start gleefully tossing anti-Obama mayhem everywhere if he knows that Hillary is toast regardless. There’s not enough popcorn in the world for this if it goes boom.
M. Scott Eiland (449af8) — 10/14/2012 @ 10:16 pmThe Ambassador to the UN isn’t a cabinet position. The ambassador heads the US Mission to the UN, which falls under DoS’s Bureau of International Organization Affairs.
But administrations frequently award the Ambassador to the UN with cabinet level status.
Which to me seems a bad way of doing business. To have two cabinet level officers, but one just heads a single diplomatic mission in the other officer’s department.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/14/2012 @ 11:13 pmAs an aside, this puts the lie to the Obama administration’s contention it wasn’t responsible for the Cairo embassy’s humiliating statement condemning free speech in exactly the context the SCOTUS has ruled it must be protected by the First Amendment.
As Amb. Rice demonstrated, the role of an ambassador it to execute administration policy. To toe the administration’s line. If an embassy puts out a statement, it is exactly the same as if it is coming from the President directly.
Just as Amb. Rice went on a talkshow lying tour and put out the President’s statement on Benghazi.
When an ambassador speaks in an official capacity, it is speaking on the administration’s behalf. As in, for the President. So does the diplomatic mission that the ambassador heads.
Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/14/2012 @ 11:20 pm” 49. I thought I read where Susan Rice’s position is cabinet level. It would seem strange for one Sec. to tell another Sec. what to do, hence it seems it came from the WH.”
MD in Philly – I believe you are right that the position was elevated under Obama. From the website of the U.S. Mission to the U.N.:
“Ambassador Susan E. Rice is the U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a member of President Obama’s Cabinet.”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/14/2012 @ 11:43 pmAs a former State Department official, I have been writing about the Libya fiasco from day one over thediplomad.blogspot.com
Diplomad (104a88) — 10/15/2012 @ 5:27 amComment by Diplomad — 10/15/2012 @ 5:27 am
Thanks for the notice. I think I will use your site as a primary opinion on State Dept stuff as I use Blackfive on all things military/special ops.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/15/2012 @ 5:46 amHillary should author a tell-all book or interview about the Obama Administration as seen from the inside. It would be better than a Woodward expose.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/15/2012 @ 6:53 amSpeaking of throwing under the bus, did anyone see the SNL version of the VP debate? It does Joe Biden no favors:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/snl-on-the-vice-presidential-debate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OTB+%28Outside+The+Beltway+|+OTB%29
I actually thought SNL did some pretty scathing stuff on Obama as well back in ’08, somehow the only thing that made the public consciousness was Tina Fey talking about seeing Russia from the kitchen window, which somehow took life as an authentic quote from Palin.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/15/2012 @ 6:59 amI believe that both Hill and Bill are, at this point, more internally focused and interested in protecting the Clinton name for Chelsea’s down the road future political aspirations and career than even for themselves. I may be way off base, but I’ve thought that ever since Bill’s rousing convention speech to Democrats which immediately had conventioneers and media revvved and pining (not for Barack, but for Bill). I don’t think any of the Clintons can stand Barack Obama and they couldn’t care less whether he is re-elected. But I think they do want to look somewhat personally honorable and stay in touch with the real Democrats and Democrat power brokers. How that all plays out in this Benghazi mess as the finger pointng and ugliness escalates I’m not sure, but I think it’s sitting in the corner of the room.
elissa (05a102) — 10/15/2012 @ 7:13 amI agree, elissa.
Icy (183ba7) — 10/15/2012 @ 7:58 amelissa,
I think you’re absolutely right. First and foremost, protect the Clinton name (heh) and keep the way paved for Chelsea Clinton, who apparently is not averse to the idea of going into politics.
In order for Hillary to make a run in 2016 or for Chelsea to enter the foray, they’ll need the loyal DNC group in their corner.
Since the 2008 campaign, I think Hillary has just been biding her time and biting her tongue with regard to Obama. There is no respect nor love lost there. The Clintons have long memories, and Obama was brutal to her during the campaign. The score card is always handily nearby.
Dana (292dcf) — 10/15/2012 @ 8:04 amElissa,
I never think of Chelsea in terms of the political games, but even if she had zero desire herself, you make a good point that mom and dad are often eager to see our children aspire to things at times with a bit of our own projection. So even if it gets real ugly, the Clintons may have cause to not employ slash and burn tactics themselves.
Then again, I guess we should never forget plotting for the future. Even if R+R get the WH and Repubs of a fairly conservative bend take the House and Senate, if the future is anything like the past it will be nonstop undercutting by the MSM at al. Unfortunately, we do know that the country is much worse off than the public is being told, though if R+R ever try to tall the public that it will be, “You always complained when Obama said that”.
It is hard to challenge every lie, but unchallenged lies can come back to harm as well.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/15/2012 @ 8:11 amelissa,
At some point, the Clintons will decide it’s in their (and Chelsea’s) best interests to distance themselves from Obama. I think Libya is that point.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 10/15/2012 @ 8:24 amI think you may be right about that, DRJ. I hope so, and I think we can all see that distancing dynamic’s kind of churning and swirling behind the scenes. The WH has simply pushed them too far to not respond. But it would be much easier for them to be clean “whistleblowers” if they were not also reliant on the Democrat party and Dem voters for their future ambitions. This is all so very interesting.
elissa (05a102) — 10/15/2012 @ 8:59 amClinton told reporters that when Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made her rounds on every Sunday morning news show to claim the film motivated the attacks, the information had been fed to her by the White House and not the intelligence community in the State Department or the CIA.
She didn’t use that language “fed to her” and I very much doubt she ever said it was the White House AND NOT the intelligence community.
That quotation is from http://www.examiner.com/article/administration-plays-confusing-blame-game-with-libyan-attacks by Anthony Martin.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/15/2012 @ 2:16 pmThere’s a problem here.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are vouching for the quality and the character of the intelligence community.
Barack Obama and company say they got the information that a protest about a video preceded the assault on the mission in Benghazi and therefore it was a reasonable preliminary conclusion.
Republicans say it was a unreasonable and therefore it didn’t come from the CIA or the intelligence community and the White House presumably made it up.
This is a problem.
Because in reality I think there’s a problem with the intelligence.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/15/2012 @ 2:20 pmComment by DRJ — 10/15/2012 @ 6:53 am
Hillary should author a tell-all book or interview about the Obama Administration as seen from the inside. It would be better than a Woodward expose.
I don’t know about Hillary, but I expect all kinds of things will be coming out after Bill Clinton is no longer alive. Maybe before. This may not last his lifetime.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 10/15/2012 @ 2:23 pm