Benghazi: Hillary Clinton’s political career all but dead and buried

Besides looking haggard, old, and having health issues, Hillary’s angry “What difference does it make?” comment at the Senate and House hearings on Benghazi must be the last nail in her political coffin.

Before and after years of liberal lies and deceit

The hearings on the terrorist attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans including Ambassador Christopher Stevens have clearly been heated. But the real question to ask here this: why is America at this point; why are they having hearings on Benghazi? And the answer is simple: cultural relativity—a central tenet of liberal ideology. Central to Obama’s foreign policy is the belief that all cultures are equal and therefore should be approached equally. In other words, diplomatically he approaches European cultures in the same manner as he approaches radical Islamic cultures. Let’s connect the dots………

Rather than admit his administration’s utopian view of the world has failed; rather than admit Islamic radicals are not equal to us, Obama and his loyal acolytes preferred to hide behind a fake, spontaneous protest; literally for weeks they blamed the attack on the Benghazi consulate on a protest caused by an anti-Islamic video. Even after stark evidence, to the contrary they—including Hillary Clinton—kept on pushing their lies and deceit until finally they were forced into a corner and the hearings began.

The following video gives a background to the saga:  

At the hearings, Hillary said the following in a heated response to Republican Ron Johnson’s questioning:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Watch the video:

“What difference, at this point, does it make?” Well, Hillary, if you can’t answer that, you have no place in politics, let alone being a possible candidate for 2016. Hillary, ask that question to the families of the four dead Americans; I’m sure they will answer it for you.

These comments clearly show Hillary is out of touch with real people, and she failed in her role as Secretary of State. Surely this has got to be the last straw for her; if she runs in the next election; her comments will be hammered by other candidates.

Joseph Farah from WND has another take on this:

Hillary's contempt of Congress

Exclusive: Joseph Farah says Clinton should go to jail for deceit over Benghazi

Does anyone else see Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony before the Senate committee for what it is – contempt of Congress?

That’s what it is called when you lie, make excuses, obfuscate and basically tell members in sworn testimony that matters of national security and life and death are none of their business.

“What difference does it make?” has to go down as one of the classic lines of executive-branch contempt for the more powerful branch – what is supposed to be the people’s branch – of government.

Others have explained in plain language all the reasons the truth makes a difference:

• Because lying to the people by government to cover up ineptitude and bad policy is serious stuff;
• Because the needless and unavenged deaths of an ambassador and other Americans is intolerable;
• Because if the executive branch is permitted to get away with such behavior it is likely to be repeated again and again;
• Because the people have a right to know what actually happened and information is being purposely and arrogantly withheld;
• And because her story makes no sense.

Let me address one of the craziest notions Clinton floated in her testimony Wednesday.

She actually tried to blame Congress for not providing the necessary money to beef up security at the Libyan mission.

Let me point out that Congress has provided about $3.5 trillion – some of it from taxpayers and the rest borrowed – for the administration to spend.

There has not been a budget for nearly four years, so that money is largely fungible – meaning it can be spent in many ways, without congressional approval. The State Department and Defense Department have wide latitude on how money is spent. The president has even conducted military action throughout his first term – rightly or wrongly – without congressional approval.

So how can Clinton sit there contemptuously and suggest action wasn’t taken to ward off the attack on the mission, to rescue Americans or to punish those responsible?

It would be laughable if this were not a matter of deadly seriousness.

For instance, the State Department spent some $525 million on a mosque in the Middle East. Did the executive branch seek permission or authorization from Congress to do that?

I don’t think so. Read more