By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--November 3, 2015
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
If you paid attention to the substance of Hillary's Benghazi testimony the week before last, you know she was shown beyond all doubt to have lied to the American people about the terrorist attack that killed four Americans on September 11, 2012. If you just read the dinosaur media's analysis, of course, you think she "won" and it was a "disaster for Republicans" that essentially ended Benghazi as a news story forever.
And Hillary's banking on the latter narrative big time now, because she knows that as more of her e-mails are released, the clear nature of her lying will become even more evident. Her only hope of surviving that is for the media to treat it as a doesn't-matter-nobody-cares story. Yesterday we got yet another test of whether that's going to happen, as newly released e-mails clearly show two things:Regarding the dozens of emails from him, which in many cases were forwarded to her State Department team, Clinton testified: "He's a friend of mine. He sent me information he thought might be of interest. Some of it was, some of it wasn't, some of it I forwarded to be followed up on. He had no official position in the government. And he was not at all my adviser on Libya." But a newly released email from February 2011 shows Blumenthal advocated for a no-fly zone over Libya, writing, "U.S. might consider advancing tomorrow. Libyan helicopters and planes are raining terror on cities." The email was forwarded by Clinton to her deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan with the question, "What do you think of this idea?" A second email from former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in March 2011 also advocated for a no-fly zone, with Blair stating, "Please work on the non-fly zone, or the other options I mentioned. Oil prices are rising, markets are down. We have to be decisive." In the end, Clinton advocated for the no-fly zone and was able to gather support within the Obama administration to implement it. In another email from March 5, 2012, Clinton appears to use Blumenthal as what is known in intelligence circles as a "cut out," a type of intermediary to gather information, allowing the policymaker plausible deniability. In this case, the emails focused on the increasingly chaotic and fragmenting political landscape in Libya after dictator Muammar Qaddafi was removed from power. In the one-page document, Blumenthal writes that Jonathan Powell, a former senior British government adviser to Blair, is "trying to replicate what we did in Northern Ireland by setting up secret channels between insurgents and government, and then, where appropriate, developing these negotiations." This type of backchannel discussion helped bring about the 1998 Good Friday peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Clinton responded two hours later. "I'd like to see Powell when he's in the building," with her staff responding, "Will follow up." In both instances, Clinton's actions further undercut sworn testimony to the Select Committee that Blumenthal was “not at all my adviser on Libya.”
Another area of conflict involves security and aid requests. In an exchange with Republican Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., Clinton told the House committee none of the requests for diplomatic security reached her. "That's over 600 requests," Pompeo said. "You've testified here this morning that you had none of those reach your desk; is that correct also?" Clinton responded, "That's correct." However, the State Department website, under a section on embassy security, states that the secretary has overall responsibility for the well-being of personnel on assignment. The buck does not stop with “security professionals” as Clinton has testified. It states: “The Secretary of State, and by extension, the Chief of Mission (COM), are responsible for developing and implementing security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all U.S. Government personnel (including accompanying dependents) on official duty abroad.” Yet, the new emails show a request for humanitarian aid sent by the late Ambassador Chris Stevens did reach her desk. The Aug. 22, 2011 email from Stevens was circulated among Clinton staff and delegated for action in under an hour. With the overthrow of Qadaffi, Stevens wrote that the Libyan opposition, known as the TNC, would soon release a statement saying it would "insure the delivery of essential services and commodities (esp. addressing the acute shortages of fuel, children's milk, and medication for blood pressure and diabetes)." Seventeen minutes later, Clinton responded, "Can we arrange shipments of what's requested?” While the request for humanitarian aid from Stevens did reach her office, during her testimony, Clinton emphasized, "Chris Stevens communicated regularly with the members of my staff. He did not raise security with the members of my staff. I communicated with him about certain issues. He did not raise security with me. He raised security with the security professionals."So if Hillary is to be believed (yeah, I know), Stevens had no trouble e-mailing her directly to ask for children's milk, and she responded within 17 minutes. But 600 times he reached out for beefed up security - an issue for which the Secretary of State had direct responsibility, and she knew that - and never once did he reach out directly to her for help in securing it. There are only two possiblities here: 1. She's lying. Obviously, if you want something so badly that you have to ask for it 600 times, and you have access to the person who has ultimate responsiblity for it, then at some point you reach out to that person. Maybe Stevens called her rather than e-mailing, but there's simply no way he didn't ask her. 2. Stevens knew that Hillary was so hostile to the request that he figured it wasn't worth wasting his time asking her, so he tried to appeal directly to the "security professionals" rather than waste his time with a Secretary of State who was supposed to provide for his security but clearly had no interest in doing so. My money would obviously be on the first scenario. You will never go broke betting on Hillary being a liar. But if it turns out to be the second one, that doesn't exactly reflect well on her either. Then again, when has anything she's ever done reflected well on her? This looks bad because it is bad, so the media's only hope of rescuing her is to ignore these details entirely on the premise that the story has gotten old and the public's moved on from it. Of course, the most the public follows the media's lead. Presented with these details in a clear and unmistakable fashion, the public would absolutely care that the Secretary of State - who now wants to become president - constantly lied about a terrorist attack. But if the media refuses to present them with the details, maybe enough of the public will continue to believe it's all just a political witchhunt and that the Republicans are just jerks. That's why sites like this one need to do everything we can to make sure you know this stuff, and you need to share it with as many people as you can. We have to do the job that Hillary's publicists in the mainstream media refuse to do. Otherwise the woman who behaves in this manner becomes president.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.