Bad news for Barack. There’s apparently room under the bus for him too.
She had no doubt that a terrorist attack had been launched against America on the anniversary of 9/11. However, when Hillary picked up the phone and heard Obama’s voice, she learned the president had other ideas in mind. With less than two months before Election Day, he was still boasting that he had al Qaeda on the run.
If the truth about Benghazi became known, it would blow that argument out of the water.
“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”
This adviser continued: “Hillary told Obama, ‘Mr. President, that story isn’t credible. Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.’ But the president was adamant. He said, ‘Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.’”
After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.
“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.
“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”
This is so ridiculously specific that it either came directly from Clinton’s people, with her approval, or it was made up without their authorization. And why bother making up a story that casts Hillary in such a positive light when a sizable chunk of your likely audience for Blood Feud, a book about a feud between the Obamas and the Clintons is conservative?
There isn’t one.
Hillary Clinton, despite her vengeful streak, does have a history of converting even vehement critics into supporters, or at least exploiting them with planted material.
It’s plausible that Bill Clinton, who had a better grasp of common sense politics than Obama, would realize that the story wouldn’t hold up. It is however wildly unlikely that Hillary Clinton would be this opposed to it.
It’s not just that Hillary Clinton has never shown any sign of being bogged down by principles, something that even most politically active Democrats will admit, it’s that there’s never been any sign of her dissenting from the core premise of minimizing terrorism.
Hillary probably had little interest in putting herself too far on the line in 2012 for Obama. She was only doing this to run in 2016. But the idea that she cared about the issue, rather than about what it would do to her credibility, is wildly unlikely.
However influencing the book this way gives her plausible deniability. It allows an anonymous source to toss Obama under the bus without Hillary taking the blame for it.
Obama Inc. will see through that deception, but it doesn’t especially matter since while Obama can do a great deal of damage to America, he probably won’t try to damage Hillary. Especially not if Michelle Obama really does have plans to run for the Senate.
And besides the Clintons are notoriously vengeful and hurting Hillary without destroying her would mean a good deal of payback from a White House, that Obama has created a precedent for running on executive orders and abuses of power.
Finally, would Obama have even bothered directly issuing such an order. It didn’t seem to be how the White House did things.