Image 01 Image 03

Benghazi 2012, Hillary 2016

Benghazi 2012, Hillary 2016

I subscribe to the view that barring something truly unforeseeable, the Democratic nomination in 2016 is Hillary’s for the taking. 

There is no second Barack Obama out there to take the nomination away from her. In fact, the non-Hillary Democratic bench is pathetically weak.

Hillary’s many controversies are mostly ancient history, and mostly the fault of her husband, and are unlikely to derail a general election bid.

Rather, Hillary’s weakness is her time as Secretary of State, an abysmal performance which has left us weaker internationally than ever before.  And foremost among her failures in her own right was Benghazi and the cover up to help Obama’s campaign.

That is why Democrats are fighting so hard to delay and defuse investigations into what happened and who knew what when.

It also is why the rise of a group of veterans seeking to focus attention on the cover-up is being fought with campaign tactics to demonize and marginalize the people rather than addressing the issues.

The investigations must continue … both because the public has a right to know, and because the truth may be the only thing standing in the way of Hillary 2016.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Just to play Devil’s advocate here, the Dems never nominate the guy who is next in line. Republicans do that. Democrats always pick “someone else.”

Pure ad hominem BS…the standard Boehlert.

The fallacy that attacking the author of the question answers the question.

The Obami have gone into full cover-up mode, and the Collective is complicit.

1. IMHO Hillary will get away with it unless a major chicken very conspicuously comes home to roost.

2. From Hillary’s point of view, the unlikable incompetent John Kerry is a great successor at State: ideally suited to stand in front of the fan when the stuff that Hill and Barry flung comes flying back.

If only Hillary were still there! We need her back! the MSM will twitter. The results of her incompetence will be hawked as the reason to make Hillary President.

A shtick like that got Obama reelected.

3. So far I wouldn’t bet that the Republicans will get their act together enough to stop it.

4. Any fallout from Hillary’s tenure will also be ascribed to the fact that women aren’t running the world.

5. If, heaven forbid, it comes to that, President Hillary Clinton could go down in history as the anti-Thatcher. The worthless 1960s Boomers would have seized their last chance to give America the coup de grâce.


“What difference does it make?” Hillary Clinton on Benghazi

Intellectually-Inbred who cannot tolerate Truth=Eric [email protected] Matters

The coming Democrat War (aka Cat Fight of the Century) will be between HERSELF! and Michelle Robinson. Both are (or will be) former First ‘Ladies’, both have very powerful voting blocs behind them. One is certainly younger and far more photogenic than the other (why has HERSELF! been camera shy for the past weeks?).

“What difference at this point does it make?”
This sticks big time in the craw of a lot of people. I hope there are some “outings.”

the worst of all worlds.
hillary was always the end game. she was the thinking behind all bills ideas.she is poison.
and she will be the nominee for sure.
does anyone actually believe she could not have beaten obama in 2008 for the nomination?
she folded for a reason.
the reason is 2016.
obama implemented all the stuff she pushed in the 90’s and any backlash for those items will be on him, safe for her as she planned.

I really hate to say this but with the absolute control of the colleges, media and ownership of LIVs, the Democrats are going to maintain rule over the country for the foreseeable future.

The Repubs, in their role as adversaries are in fact no such thing. The gun control bill in the senate, 16 R votes to open debate. Amnesty? Anyone think amnesty isn’t coming? Reuniting families for newly legal residents, given. How many million more “natural socialists” are we going to be importing and legalizing in the next few years? It’s over folks.

Subotai Bahadur | April 11, 2013 at 12:59 pm

I subscribe to the view that barring something truly unforeseeable, the Democratic nomination in 2016 is Hillary’s for the taking.

With all due respect, I think that you are overoptimistic. With the Constitution under attack constantly, and no resistance from the Republicans, there is no indication that the 22nd Amendment or any part of the Constitution will be left by 2016.

This morning, the Republicans in the Senate voted pre-emptively to prevent any filibuster against a gun control bill written by the Democrats that has not been submitted yet and which thus now can have any provisions inserted voiding the 2nd Amendment that they want at all. Here is the list of the Republicans voting cloture on the bill that has not been introduced yet:


And Boehner has rolled over in the House on every issue that the Democrats wanted this session, and voted with Nancy Pelosi and against the Republican caucus to give Obama victory. We can’t expect any difference in the future.

Obama will be running for a 3rd term, unopposed, in 2016.

Subotai Bahadur

    I agree completely. Everybody seems to forget that Obama has done everything in his power – not even trying that hard – to subvert the Constitution and the law of the land whenever it suited his needs.

    He will make every effort to hang on to power by hook or by crook and be the dictator he’s always wanted to be. Make no mistake!

Midwest Rhino | April 11, 2013 at 1:12 pm

Hillarycare to save Obamacare?

Hillary and Obama both slept through the 3AM Benghazi call together, and lied about it the morning after. She has “Failed Secretary Of State” on her resume, along with “accomplished liar”. (If they weren’t sleeping, they were plotting the coverup, like Ted Kennedy leaving Mary Jo to die as he covered his political arse.)

But half the country is bamBOOZEled along with boozer Hillary, drunk on the free liquor of debt the cocktail party is pouring out. Bernanke infusions will continue, Obamacare will be delayed again, from 2015 to 2017 implementation, border control will be reconsidered five years AFTER amnesty.

No promise ever comes to fruition. The country so far agrees with Hillary … “What difference does it make NOW?” Or maybe it’s “party on Garth”.

When the funding crisis hits, “IT” will make a big difference. Till then, Obama/Hillary play Santa Claus. Taking away any free stuff is like taking candy from a baby heroin from a junkie. But a day of reckoning MAY come well before 2016.

stevewhitemd | April 11, 2013 at 1:23 pm

Delaying the Benghazi story is rather akin to delaying ripping a bandage off. It’s going to hurt regardless: when would you like your pain, Hillary, now or in early 2016?

There are just too many ways for the news to get out now. This isn’t 1992.

The families and friends of our dead diplomats and personnel are going to seek justice. So will the vets. So will others. What Hillary and her supporters don’t get is that they’re going to be pecked to death by ducks.

John Kerry was ‘swift-boated’ by people who told the truth about the man despite every measure being taken by Democrats and the MSM (but I repeat myself) to silence and marginalize them. That was 2004. Does Mr. Boelhert not get that?

    Ragspierre in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 11, 2013 at 1:29 pm

    Count me among the quackers…

    jdkchem in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 11, 2013 at 1:55 pm

    I disagree. Delaying the Benghazi story is more like using a tourniquet to deal with a bloody nose.

    BuckIV in reply to stevewhitemd. | April 11, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    When she left her post she was polled as the most popular politician in the country. Her nomination and election victory is a fait accompli.

    The country doesn’t give a shit about Benghazi, or Fast & Furious or a myriad of other Democrat fuck ups and scandals because no reporters are outraged and the Repubs are too timid to make a stink about any of it.

Benghazi is the new birtherism? Sure if you’re an insufferable gutless twat.

I honestly don’t understand why Obama and Hilary didn’t handle Benghazi better. The impression I get is of top leadership having such a hands off approach to a country that we were actively involved in. Obama bombed Libya for months. You would think he would care about the “peace” afterward.

I think the public should know what our tax dollars are funding and future diplomats and ambassadors deserve to know beforehand what they are getting involved in. Who wants to be the next ambassador of Libya?

Apparently, career diplomat Deborah K. Jones wants to be the next ambassador to Libya. Wow, she is brave. Does she really trust that Barack has her back? Why should she? Barack didn’t have Mr Stevens back. I think it is awful that our president cared so little for the safety of our ambassador and other diplomats to Libya.

What about Janet Napolitano?

Governor of Arizona, Secretary of Homeland Security, Friend of Obama, member of the “8 in ’08” brood… flying under the radar lately…

I spent so much money and time campaigning for Hillary in 2008.


nothing but a power hungry leech, both clintons!

The Hildabeast is just another Obama in a pantsuit. To think otherwise is disastrous.