Hillary Clinton Too Patriotic to Politicize Her Failure to Save 4 Americans from Being Killed

Pick your patriot

Pick your patriot

Hillary Clinton is a patriot. Or least her ghostwriter(s) is. And she’s just too darn patriotic to politicize that time she allowed four Americans to be murdered, while the body of her ambassador was dragged through the streets of Benghazi for some necroselfies.

“Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,” Hillary’s patriotic ghostwriter writes in her biography.

But ambassadors and diplomatic personnel aren’t supposed to be sacrifices. They are supposed to have proper security. And they are supposed to have military protection in a war zone.

The families of two of the men who died there have repeatedly insisted on answers. Pat Smith, Sean Smith’s mother, has been vocal in holding Hillary accountable.

But according to Hillary, Pat Smith is just “exploiting” the tragedy that Hillary Clinton let her son be murdered while she was spending money that should have gone to security on embassy art in Europe and Asia.

“Hillary cannot be president. Anybody but Hillary. She lied to me to my face,” Smith said.

If only Pat Smith were as patriotic as Hillary Clinton.

“I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me,” Hillary Clinton’s ghostwriter writes.

Well that’s very noble of Hillary Clinton to bow out of discussing why four Americans died on her watch. Also Nixon insisted that it was unworthy of our great country to engage in a political slugfest about what he did or didn’t do.

In the book, Hillary or the ghost of Hillary “points out that she ordered an investigation into what happened nine days after the attacks, and that she agreed with and implemented all 29 of the recommendations made by a review board.”

Nine days. Wow.

When what was needed was for her people to respond to Ambassador Stevens’ pleas for security nine days before the attack.

Hillary also neglects to mention that the review board was stacked with her allies and protected her from blame. It was the fox reviewing who killed all the hens and deciding that the fox had no responsibility for it.

Clinton addresses lingering questions about how military assets were deployed to try to rescue personnel at the besieged compound, writing that Obama “gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized immediately. … When Americans are under fire, that is not an order the Commander in Chief has to give twice. Our military does everything humanly possible to save American lives — and would do more if they could. That anyone has ever suggested otherwise is something I will never understand.”

The people “suggesting otherwise” were on the ground. They included the highest ranking diplomat in Libya after Steven’s murder.

Hillary is throwing out empty words, the same sort of language that companies throw out after every scandal. “All possible resources.” “Humanly possible.” But what does that actually add up to besides an unarmed drone and a heavily delayed CIA flight?

“Clinton reiterates a point she made during congressional testimony last year: that she never saw cables requesting additional security. The cables were addressed to her as a “procedural quirk” given her position, but didn’t actually land on her desk, she writes: “That’s not how it works. It shouldn’t. And it didn’t.”

Does Hillary understand how this ‘running an agency’ works. You’re not just responsible for the things you see. You’re also responsible for what your people do and for your priorities.

An ambassador in a war zone asking for security should have been one of her priorities. It should have been the priority of her people. It wasn’t.

Are we going to have eight years in which President Hillary insists she learned of all the scandals from the media because they didn’t officially appear on her desk?

And Hillary is back to defending the video lie which resulted in her putting a filmmaker in jail.

Clinton argued it is still “inaccurate” to say none of the attackers were influenced by the video.

“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”

It’s also inaccurate to say that none of the attackers were influenced by their belief in space aliens since it can’t be disproven. You can’t prove a negative especially when it comes to the motives of a group of attackers that Obama refuses to seriously go after.

What we do however know is that this was a series of coordinated attacks against US diplomatic facilities. The Benghazi attack involved enemies who used intelligence, knew the location of a CIA facility and had heavy weapons.

Maybe some of them were motivated by high doses of LSD, but that’s not the point. The point was that they were part of a planned major attack, not a video protest.

Clinton addresses claims that the investigation of the attack was rigged since she appointed some of the Accountability Review Board members and she was not interviewed. The board, she writes, “had unfettered access to anyone and anything they thought relevant to their investigation, including me if they had chosen to do so.”

… if they had chosen to do so.

That says it all.

Clinton also addresses her much-seized-upon remark before a congressional committee in January 2013, when she used the phrase “what difference at this point does it make.”

She adds, “My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved ones and then prevent it from happening again?”

If you’re going to prevent it from happening again, shouldn’t you know the motive? If you ignored repeated requests for help from your family and then lied and claimed that the whole thing was really a misunderstanding, does it make a difference?

1. The family is dead

2. Preventing it from happening again requires an honest accounting of what happened in the first place

Hillary, like Tommy “Dude that was two years ago” Vietor isn’t interested. The only reason her memoir goes into a full bore defense of her actions is because Benghazigate is still being debated.

That was the root of her response.

 

  • glpage

    “how best to rescue your loved ones”… Uh, Hillary, the loved ones are already dead in your analogy, so, they will be rescued just as we did with Stephens and the others, we recovered their bodies. As far as preventing a reoccurrence, perhaps that’s why we need an investigation to find out what happened. We know there is info that has not been provided to anyone outside of Obama’s administration. Is it not possible that some of that info will help us prevent the murder of other ambassadors? The real issue here is that Hillary does not want us to know how to prevent future occurrences because we will find that she was a total incompetent as SoS.

  • Atikva

    If Mrs. Clinton had “only” allowed 4 Americans to be killed, it would already be tragic.

    But what she and her political pals did was to condemn the entire staff of the consulate, about 20 people, to fall into the hands of a frenzied mob of disgusting barbarians. It is only thanks to Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty that “only” four were killed, for if these heroes had not chosen to disobey her and her political friends’ shameful orders, the entire Consulate staff would have been shot, burned, teared into pieces and some of them used as hostages to free more of the disgusting pieces of garbage that are the islamists.

    And that’s an example of her patriotism!

  • Elizabeth Cape Cod

    Clinton is actually writing this stuff? She has a sickness.
    Her housebreak analogy is insane! If your neighborhood is riddled with violence, you ARE negligent if you ignore pleas to beef up security!!
    Does she think we should curb our free speech because it incites the savages? What a stupid cow!

    • Daniel Greenfield

      I’m sure Media Matters developed that analogy for her

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Adding security would have perpetuated the cycle of violence.

      You guys really need to brush up on your neo-Marxism.

  • elise

    If she can go to bed every night and not see the faces of the four dead Americans, the burning consulate, and the Ambassador’s body dragged through the streets, she is evil.

  • Taelyn

    WOW.. The deconstruction, and hypothericals of those reviewing her Book are In the Crazy Zone.. First.. Why are we alluding to a Ghost writer? Is there a place on her book that says written by Hillary Clinton & Ghost Writer ??

    Thats one of the most outrageous things Ive ever read about ANY book.

    And the lack of knowledge, regarding Security, War Zones, and The delegations in Washington are Sadly Highlighted in this “piece”

    I think its terribly Sad, and my condolences go out to Patricia Smith, But she is doing her son and his memory and service a Dishonor.

    Also why on EARTH would she assume Mrs Clinton was directing the comment

    {“Those who exploit this tragedy over and over as a political tool minimize the sacrifice of those who served our country,”} to her or any Victims Family, Is preposterous.

    Its Clear to any and everyone in Washington and the Press.. And Most citizens That Hilary is referring, and aiming that Comment to the Republican Machine.
    It is sadly very clear that this grieving woman has a fly with a political agenda in her ear.. I find that even worse than The GOP making Money off the Tragedy.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      These books are hardly ever written by the politicians, whether on the right or the left. Hillary Clinton was caught using ghostwriters and lying about them before.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Pat Smith isn’t the only one.

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/347830/father-slain-seal-benghazi-%E2%80%98i-knew%E2%80%99-clinton-was-lying-when-she-told-me-it-was-about

      “The father of one of the ex-Navy SEALS killed during the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi says yesterday’s House Oversight Committee hearing offered “encouragement.”

      “Woods, whose son Tyrone died in the attacks, also urged political leaders to be more truthful about the issue, comparing that with what he’d heard from former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. “When I was approached by Hillary Clinton at the coming-home ceremony of the bodies at Andrews Air Force Base, and she said, ‘We’re going to go out and we’re going to prosecute that person that made the video,’ I knew that she wasn’t telling the truth, and I think the whole world knows that now,” he explained. “She’s smarter than I am, she probably knew that well.”

      … are you really going to insist that the parents are the villains here and Hillary is the hero?

    • Libslayer

      So four people died due to Hillary and obama’s inaction, and let’s just sweep that all under the rug and make her president.
      No.

    • Habbgun

      WOW…..you sure showed who you are didn’t you. Its Clear to any and everyone in Washington and the Press..That is really who you think the military answers to? Is that for whom they serve? Pat Smith is not questioning if her sons death politically (in which case she would be a Cindy Sheehan type although I bet you just love yourself some Sheehan). Pat Smith is questioning whether her son’s death was the result of political convenience for the Obama admin or whether he simply fell taking the risks that military personnel take on. It should be a simple answer. Military parents understand better than civilian parents what a true military risk is. This did not meet that criteria from what anyone can tell. If it did it would be a yes or no answer and combat soldiers live with those answers every day. It can be obvious that the WH cared and were prepared if they just show they were prepared and cared.

      Do you feel important being an unpaid Democratic mouthpiece? If so mission accomplished.

    • truebearing

      “Thats one of the most outrageous things Ive ever read about ANY book.”

      You don’t read many book reviews, do you. The review isn’t outrageous. The truth about Hillary’s unerring tendency for being in the middle of controversies that obviate her psychopathic tendencies isn’t what is outrageous. Those who have paid even the slightest amount of attention to Hillary’s career as a professional schemer and liar, know that.

      Your phony sadness is duly noted, but what is truly sad is that you think an honest review of a self-apologetic book written for the sole purpose of getting elected is more worthy of your contempt than the Secretary of State and President coldly abandoning Americans who were being attacked. And even more coldly, they refused to send them help once the inevitable attack came. You are only slightly above the contempt they are beneath.

    • SoCalMike

      Read much?

    • Drakken

      Silly libtard, you ignorant folks ignore facts so you can praise this God forsaken woman at all costs, God help this country because it is full of useful idiots like you.

      • truebearing

        Maybe it’s time…

  • Ban Liberals

    Actually, we now have TWO Clintons who were complicit in the slaughter of Americans!

    Let’s not forget Bubba’s incompetence when the savages in Mogadishu dragged our troops through the streets and chopped them to pieces.

    What did HE do?

    Precisely the same thing as Hillary: NOTHING!

    Must be all in the family…

  • RSnyder

    Hillary wanted to be President. She was pulled aside and put into her place; it was The One who was going to the WH, not her little white, blond self. To assuage some understandably hurt feelings, she was appointed head of State. A nice enough job but not the one she wanted. She didn’t want the job, was not qualified for it and that’s why she never accomplished anything other than the failure of Benghazi while she was there. And now she’s bitter about the experience. What difference does it make? I didn’t want the stupid job anyway! Can’t you see? It was just a stepping stone! How dare you talk about accountability! What planet are you from?

    • carpe diem 36

      i would like someone to tell me what job she is qualified for , she never did anything worthwhile, she is as ignorant as they come and she is a lefty to boot, with all her money. so she should definitely be our president, after all she cannot be worse than Obama, can she, can anyone????

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “Also Nixon insisted that it was unworthy of our great country to engage in a political slugfest about what he did or didn’t do.”

    It’s funny how often leftists get away with it too.

  • WhiteHunter

    If the head of Hillary’s Secret Service detail requested additional armed bodyguards or heavier armor on her limousine before she was to visit a dangerous neighborhood, would those requests be ignored? Would they be denied with the explanation that the Service’s budget had been cut “by the Republicans” and therefore couldn’t cover the additional security measures he felt necessary?

    And if something then happened to her, would it be “finger-pointing” or “partisan politics” to demand a thorough investigation of what happened, who did it, and who denied the requests–with no Fifth Amendment dodges allowed? Or would a dismissive “What difference, at this point, does it make?” be an acceptable response?

    ‘Nuff said, I daresay.

  • carpe diem 36

    anyone who buys this book is a bigger moron that Hillary is.