Image 01 Image 03

Hillary Book Offers Weak Spin on Benghazi

Hillary Book Offers Weak Spin on Benghazi

Trying to kill the investigation before it begins…

Hillary Clinton and her closest allies know that Benghazi spells big trouble for her in 2016, especially with a select committee poised to launch a new investigation with a fresh round of questions.

With that in mind, it’s no surprise that Clinton is trying to cut them off at the pass by addressing the subject in her new memoir. It’s just an attempt to claim that all the questions surrounding the attack have already been answered. They haven’t.

Jim Geraghty of National Review weighed in recently…

Politico obtains the Benghazi-related chapter of Hillary Clinton’s forthcoming memoir, and describes it here.

You are unlikely to be surprised to learn that she attacks the motives of her critics, contends the intelligence community believed the attack started as a protest — even though she was the one who first issued a statement declaring the attack video-related, while it was still going on — and contends the government did everything it could to rescue those under attack.

Stephen F. Hayes of The Weekly Standard offered this…

According to Politico, Clinton once again attempts to hide behind the findings of the Accountability Review Board and dismisses those who have raised questions about its impartiality. The ARB, she writes, “had unfettered access to anyone and anything they thought relevant to their investigation, including me if they had chosen to do so.” It’s no surprise that Clinton is concerned about the credibility of the ARB. The flawed report, produced after a flawed and incomplete investigation, has been the centerpiece of the administration’s public case on Benghazi. Her defense doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

That the leaders of ARB could have interviewed Clinton doesn’t excuse the fact that they didn’t, as Clinton implies. How is it possible to have a serious investigation of the State Department and the decisions that left the Benghazi facility so vulnerable without talking to the secretary of state? Much of the dispute about the lead up to the Benghazi attacks involves what Secretary Clinton knew—or didn’t know—about the security requests made by those on the ground. But the ARB didn’t even ask her about these issues.

Ironically, Hillary’s book may raise more questions than it attempted to answer.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


If Clintons are good at anything, it is lying.

Hill-larry is no exception, and she has hurt herself MUCH more than she helped herself with this latest load of horseshit.

People can read.

LukeHandCool | June 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm

Any more smokescreen from Hillary and we’ll all die of smoke inhalation.

    Ragspierre in reply to LukeHandCool. | June 2, 2014 at 1:18 pm

    Isn’t THIS a job for the EPA…???

    I mean, talk about your ENORMOUS risk:benefit ratios…

      LukeHandCool in reply to Ragspierre. | June 2, 2014 at 1:25 pm

      I can just see Eleanor Clift nodding rapid fire in agreement while reading Hillary’s alternative history Benghazi chapter. Her yellow highlighter will run dry.

      Hillary has reached the summit of deceit.

How is it possible to have a serious investigation of the State Department and the decisions that left the Benghazi facility so vulnerable without talking to the secretary of state?

The flip side of that is – how is it possible to have a serious investigation of anything which involves talking to a Clinton? Clintons lie about everything. Everything.

This is the wrong climate to continue the lying spinning ways of old. She lacks sufficient charm to get away with what her husband could. I also think that there was sympathy for Bill having married her which doesn’t extend to her having married him.

    DaveGinOly in reply to showtime8. | June 2, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    Correct. Bill was a likable rogue. We knew what he was about and he did not disappoint. On the other hand, people expect more from Hill (and has already failed at State) and she lacks Bill’s charm. Unfortunately, such is her fan base (she doesn’t really have “supporters” because she has no record of success that can be “supported”) that the committee could find that Hill ordered the attack in Benghazi, and they would blame the Republicans for “politicizing” the process.

Henry Hawkins | June 2, 2014 at 2:09 pm

This is good news for any non-Dem candidate looking to run for the WH in 2016. Clinton realizes how bad Benghazi is for her and is trying to nuke it in the crib. It ain’t working. Addressing it so early tells you how it looms over her campaign and reveals her fear that it may be her candidacy that gets nuked in the crib due to Benghazi.

After the 2008 primary loss and after having to forward Obama’s ‘foreign policy’ as SoS for four years, I’m guessing nobody in politics hates Obama more than Hillary Clinton.

Bruno Lesky | June 2, 2014 at 2:29 pm

Benghazi critics and investigators obviously just another part of “…the vast right wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against [me and] my husband since the day he announced for president.”

20-second 1998 Hillary Clinton clip:

I’m happy this is being done before the election. Voters are being reminded of all the “depends what your definition of *is* is” nonsense. We don’t need another 8 yrs of that.

Politico describing an *unpublished* chapter of Hillary’s book is a lot like reading a press release with all of the serial numbers filed off. There’s not enough truth serum in the world to get anything but lies out of the Clintons.