Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Jobless claims jump (just one part of a tragic trifecta) | Main | Steven Hayes on what's in the Benghazi email release from the White House (Video) »

May 16, 2013

Sen. Rand Paul: 'Paul: Clinton's Fingerprints All Over Benghazi Talking Points'

Topics: Benghazi, Political News and commentaries

Paul makes a pretty good case for Hillary having been lying her *ss off all along and has been deeply involved in the Benghazi catastrophe and cover-up from the very beginning.

Via The Washington Free Beacon

Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.) said Thursday that the release of White House emails showing State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland's attempts to shield the agency from Congressional inquiry over failure to heed warnings about embassy security made it clear that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's "fingerprints are all over these talking points."

"I think one thing that's sort of fascinating is we've had several statements from Hillary Clinton saying she wasn't involved," he said on Fox News. "Now it turns out her spokesman was involved. Ms. Nuland was writing statements saying 'You know what? Politically, this isn't going to look good.' So it sounds like Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over these talking points and you know, really her resignation was the beginning but she never really fully accepted culpability."

The emails showed references to al-Qaeda, Ansar al Sharia and Islamic jihadists were scrubbed in the final edits the week after the attack, save for one reference to "extremists," and revealed heavy involvement from the State Department. Then-CIA Director David Petraeus objected to the final version of the talking points at the time, writing he would "just as soon not use them."

Politico reported Nuland sought to omit mentions indicating prior violence in Benghazi to protect her agency: ...

Much more here.

Paul's points make a lot of sense. Their motivation had to be purely political not to call this terrorism. The fact that the State Department was intimately involved in this and they were taking out factual information because they were worried about the political ramifications of that, leaves little doubt as to their true motivation. They failed to provide the needed security for political reasons, then they lied and covered up what really happened for political reasons ... some people need to go to jail!

As John Hinderaker points out at Powerline in his detailed, informative, piece titled "THE BENGHAZI EMAILS: WHAT DO THEY SHOW?":

So the final question is: where was Hillary Clinton in this process? Based on her conversation with Greg Hicks, she knew that the assault was planned, and that it was carried out by terrorists armed with RPGs and mortars. She knew that there was no demonstration over a video, or anything else. And yet she allowed her colleague Susan Rice to spin a web of lies to mislead the American people. Is Hillary Clinton an absent, inept manager who has little to do with what happens in the department she ostensibly runs? Or is Benghazi just one more example of an administration that cares nothing about policy, and everything about politics-an administration that is endlessly willing to subvert the truth for political ends? My own judgment is: certainly the latter, perhaps the former.
I suggest ... both!

Posted by Hyscience at May 16, 2013 10:19 AM



Articles Related to Benghazi, Political News and commentaries: