Abuse of Authority

For John, BLUF:  I am not sure how far back this kind of thing goes, but maybe back to the early Presidents, although I doubt zG Washington did it.  For sure it needs to be held down.  It is unseemly.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'Obama Personally Asked the FBI to Investigate Someone on Behalf of George Soros,' Says Alan Dershowitz

From PJ Media, by Ms Megan Fox, 17 February 2020.

Here is the lede:

In an interview with Breitbart News, Alan Dershowitz claimed he is in possession of documents that will show Barack Obama asked the FBI to investigate an unnamed person on behalf of George Soros.  Those documents, he says, will come out during a lawsuit that will be filed in the future.  Dershowitz said the only difference between Trump and other presidents influencing the Department of Justice is that Trump is open about it while the others "whispered."

I hope this report is wrong, but I am doubtful.  Given the IRS efforts to suppress the Tea Party Movement this would not be out of line with other Obama Administration actions.  take Benghazi, for example.  Abuse of the legal system.

Is there any reason for those outside the DC Beltway to not doubt the integrity (integrity) of the upper echelons of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

Are the Democrats in Congress blind?  Or don't they care, as long as Nancy Pelosi can be Speaker.  Her of the "Impeached for Ever."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

I am Shocked, Shocked

For John, BLUF:  Buried in here is a violation of the First Amendment.  The Federal Government, and a State Government, locking someone up as a foreign policy move.  It makes one think of John Adams, or Woodrow Wilson or FDR.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Benghazi attack organizer gets 22-year sentence in U.S.

From Reuters, by the Reuters Staff, 27 June 2018.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the organizer of the deadly Sept. 11, 2012, attack on U.S. diplomatic compounds in Benghazi, Libya, was sentenced on Wednesday to 22 years in prison on terrorism and other charges, the Justice Department said.

Government evidence showed Khatallah led an extremist militia named Ubaydah bin Jarrah, which he directed to carry out the violence in Benghazi, the Justice Department said in a statement.

A friend of mine commented:

I could have SWORN that Benghazi was entirely due to an American-made/-released video that insulted Islam.

I could have SWORN, under oath, that Benghazi was spontaneous and not preplanned.

I'm pretty sure that USG officials, senior ones, did so, in an Administration famed for having NO scandals.

Mr Nakoula Basseley Nakoula could not be reached for comment.

Regards  —  Cliff

Benghazi Follow-Up

For John, BLUF:  Under President Trump we are not letting the criminality of terrorism time out.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

US captures key militant in Benghazi attack

The report is by Reporter Lucas Tomlinson of Fox News, today, 30 October 2017, with contributions by the Associated Press.

As one person said a while ago, "What difference, at this point, does it make?".

On the other hand, President Trump said:

Our memory is deep and our reach is long, and we will not rest in our efforts to find and bring the perpetrators of the heinous attacks in Benghazi to justice.

No visit to Club Gitmo for Mr Mustafa al-Imam.  He is apparently going to D.C., to face Federal prosecution.

As Fox News Points out:

The attack, on September 11, 2012, killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Can We Examine This Puzzle?

For John, BLUF:  I wonder if there is a belief out there that if President Trump was forced from Office that Mrs Clinton would magically ascend to that place?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

I admit I am in the "Basket of Deplorables", and thus part of the crowd of the undereducated, so I am confused by this current Susan Rice / Russian Hacking Imbroglio.

First, what is "Hacking the Election"?

1. There is the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and Campaign Chairman Leon Penetta.  That is hacking, where the security on the computer is weak and folks just walk in.  If you think it doesn't happen everywhere, you are naive.  We, the US Government, do it all the time.
2. Then there is the theory that the Russians, or whoever,♠ dumped materials to influence voters.  This is a bit more edgy, but it is what the Obama Administration used to do, as did others before it.
3. Finally, there is the actual "hacking" of voting machines or vote counts, in order to change the outcome.♥  We have been assured by competent authority that this did not happen.♦

But, now to the contradictory stories on then Mr Trump and President V Putin, and thus President Obama and Ms Susan Rice.

The Main Stream Media, in an act of mental gymnastics, tell us that (1) Mr Trump and President Putin were working together to swing the election, but that (2) no one "wire tapped"♣ Mr Trump.

My question is, if they didn't do (2), how do they know about (1).★  I would say that they wouldn't know, but also the whole story of Russian meddling represents a logical inconsistency if there was no "wiretapping".

There is, of course, the comment of the late F. Scott Fitzgerald:

The true test of a first-rate mind is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time.

And, Reporter and Author George Orwell gave us the term doublethink in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I find it interesting that all of a sudden Mr Julian Assange is a Russian stooge.  At one time he was a hero of Democracy, but, alas, he was converted into an enemy for the convenience of the Democratic Party in the United States.
♥  This reminds me of the joke in which Moscow buys a whole bunch of old voting machines from the City of Chicago and in the first election for Mayor of Moscow, the winner is Richard J Daley.
♦  There was a theory going around that Mr George Soros owned a company that had made voting machines for 16 states, but Business Insider debunked that idea.
♣  Or otherwise eavesdropped on Mr Trump or his family or his campaign staff.
★  I am not saying I believe (1), but that even if it were true, the various holdovers from the Obama Administration, from FBI Director James Comey, to DoD Official Evelyn Farkas, to former National Security Advisor Susan Rice would not know anything unless they were spying on Mr Trump, which seems a pretty un-American kind of thing to do.  This is the stuff of novels and movies, and now of real life politics.

Covering For Ms Susan Rice

For John, BLUF:  From poor misled to misleading.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

MSNBC’s Matthews, Corn Meltdown, Claim Susan Rice ‘Unmasking’ Controversy Is Racist and Sexist

From Newsbusters and Mr Curtis Houck, Yesterday, 4 April 2017

Here is the lede:

On Tuesday’s edition of Hardball, MSNBC host Chris Matthews and MSNBC political analyst/Mother Jones D.C. bureau chief David Corn were unglued over the Susan Rice “unmasking” controversy, suggesting that it was racist and sexist for these accusations to be leveled at the former National Security Adviser because she’s never done anything wrong.

And, straight from the InstaPundit, as posted:

HOWIE CARR:  “If I ever get in a jam, I ask for no special treatment.  Just treat me like Susan Rice.”

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Susan Rice Did It

For John, BLUF:  The New York Times was basically correct, back on 20 January.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Susan Rice Requested Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration Officials

MASKING:—NSA has wide discretion to conduct surveillance on people outside of the US, but there are supposed to be legal barriers to snooping on US citizens. If the NSA picks up communications from a US citizen in the course of monitoring a foreign national, it is practice to "mask" the identity of the US person. Additionally, the identification of a US citizen mentioned in discussions between two foreign nationals is supposed to be masked.
Source is CNN.

UNMASKING:  When the Government exposes who these "masked" people are.

This is from Mr Mike Cernovich and The Medium.

Bloomberg, here.

Remember the line "When in charge, take charge."  In the Obama White House not so much.

I apparently will be needing a tag for Ms Susan Rice.  I used to think that she was a smart woman, abused any her masters in the White House.  Like when she was put out on the weekend talk shows to defend the Administration position on Benghazi.  I am moving away from that position.  And making her the fall guy for this action is just part of the pattern of her being abused, and her accepting it.

Maybe we need a new Church Committee.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Fears For The First Amendment

For John, BLUF:  Then there are the people out there who think there is some impartial way of divining the truth.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Gawker’s Fall & the Trump-Era Threat to 1st Amendment.

That is The New Yorker and Reporter Jeffrey Toobin.

The fear is a loss of the First Amendment protections for the Press and for Free Speech.

Here is the quote Blog Post Author Steven Green pulled from the article:

For decades, the news media benefitted from the deference paid by courts to the judgments of newspaper editors. The judge in federal court treated Gawker’s editors as if they were running a newspaper, and he declined to second-guess them about what constitutes the news.  The jury in state court did the opposite.  The question now is whether the law, instead of treating every publication as a newspaper, will start to treat all publications as Web sites—with the same skepticism and hostility displayed by the jury in Tampa.  The new President and his fellow-billionaires, like Thiel, will certainly welcome a legal environment that is less forgiving of media organizations. Trump’s victory, along with Hulk Hogan’s, suggests that the public may well take their side, too.

Yes, what is it about "Trump=Era Threat"?  With Mrs Clinton, who threw the First Amendment under the bus over Benghazi, as President, it would have been worse.

Here is part of Mr Green's comments:

Hillary Clinton was the subject of the movie in the Citizens United case, which as a candidate she promised to see overturned — silencing political filmmakers for generations to come. It was on Clinton’s behalf (following her blunder at Benghazi) that an innocent YouTube videomaker was jailed for nearly a year. Just last week it was Clinton who urged “that Congress should take action against” purveyors of what she deems to be “fake news.” And forget mere threats, what about two years ago when Democrats tried to repeal the First Amendment? That, too, was backed by Hillary Clinton.

When I was young we used to talk about people having their head in the sand.  I see that activity here.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Retreat Under Fire

For John, BLUF:  Free speech is a muscle and if we don't exercise it it will atrophy.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

WOULD ANYONE PUBLISH THE SATANIC VERSES TODAY?

This discussion is by Mr Patrick West of Spiked, a British on-line publication with Libertarian leanings.

The question being posed is very important for a free society.  For me the first indication of this slow implosion was when the Yale University Press refused to include the Danish Cartoon sketches when it published its book on that sad episode (The Cartoons That Shook the World).

Here are the first two paragraphs of the article:

In 1989, the Western world got its first real taste of Islamic extremism when the Indian-born British writer Salman Rushdie was sentenced to death.  It was the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran who issued the fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie on account of his book, The Satanic Verses.  Most people were horrified, not merely because of the effrontery of the Ayatollah, but because it seemed so anachronistic.  Here we were, still in the midst of the Cold War, and up had popped some religious throwback exhorting murder on account of what someone had written.  The concept of death for blasphemy, we assumed, belonged to different times.

Three decades on, furious rage at the behest of the religiously righteous and the easily offended is all too commonplace.  Were The Satanic Verses published today, we wouldn’t be surprised at the outrage it would generate. Not in the slightest.  Rather, we’d be astonished that anyone would dare write it at all, or that any publisher would release it.  In our post-Charlie Hebdo times, every publishing house and editorial office is haunted by the spectre of aggrieved fanatics bursting through the doors with machine guns.

The world seems to be full of people who would shun you, or censor you, or put you in jail, or execute you, for holding an opinion they disagree with.  We see this in the Middle East, in Russia and even here in the United States.  The point is, you have a right to be stupid or ignorant or just plain contrarian.  Those who would wreck havoc over your comments, ideas or thoughts are the ones who need to be in jail.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Equal Time for Equal Suffering

For John, BLUF:  The final test may be in November.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

May I Have Five Minutes of the Left’s Time?

This is from the Blog The Resurgent, by Mr Erick Ericsson, today.

It is about the hypocrisy of the Democrats when you look at the Khan Family vs Mrs Pat Smith.

And, it is about the First Amendment.

Oh, and as for the Mainstream Media, it is 50 to 1 in reporting.

Hat tip to the Rob Eno, on Facebook.

Regards  —  Cliff

Benghazi Report

For John, BLUF:  Here are the high points and they are bothersome.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Seven key findings in the Benghazi report

This is from The Hill, and Reporter Julian Hattem, the evening of 28 June.

The seven:

• Stevens wanted to make the Benghazi facility permanent
• The military never got moving
• Troops changed clothes four times
• YouTube video dominated White House meeting
• Americans were transported by Gadhafi loyalists
• Clinton blamed terrorists in private
• Rice went 'off the reservation'

I would note that the Report says the President, and the Secretary of Defense, ordered forces moved to the point of crisis.  Subordinates did not act on that direction.  It reminds me of President Truman's quip about Dwight D Eisenhower as President:

He’ll sit here, and he’ll say, ‘Do this!  Do that!’  And nothing will happen.  Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army.  He’ll find it very frustrating.

The other thing is that all this time I had thought that Ms Susan Rice was sent out to the weekend news shows with direction to blame the Videographer.  Perhaps not.

Regards  —  Cliff

Threat to Our Way of Government?

For John, BLUF:  It is OK if you let a trained college professor do it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say

So says Mr Adam Liptak in a 3 June 2016 article in The Old Gray Lady. Here is the lede, plus three:

Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

“Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asked Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.

With five months to go before Election Day, Mr. Trump has already said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics.  He has encouraged rough treatment of demonstrators.

That last sentence, in the linked article, sounds more like San Jose, California, Mayor Sam Riccardo, who blamed Mr Trump for the riot in San Jose.  The reasoning seems to be that if Mr Trump hadn't shown up, nothing untoward would have happened.  I guess that is correct, but if raises the question of if we want a "brownshirt" type of democracy in the US.

But, back to the article from The Old Gray Lady, isn't this the kind of stuff our Constitutional Lawyer President has been doing?  Are the Democrats and their Press Friends just waking up to this danger?  Or do they believe it is only unsafe when Republicans do it?

And wasn't it then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who threw the Free Speech under the bus over Benghazi?

Regards  —  Cliff

Hillary Condemns The Donald re Foreign Policy

For John, BLUF:  It just gets better and better.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Read Hillary Clinton’s Speech on Donald Trump and National Security

The sub-headline is "'Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent'." At the link to Reporter Katie Reilly's article in Time is the released text of the speech.

Here is the lede of the story:

Hillary Clinton tore into presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump during a speech on national security Thursday, casting him as “unfit” for the presidency and offering a preview of her general election campaign message.

“Donald Trump’s ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent,” she said.  “They’re not even really ideas – just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.”

Now this is from the person who, as Secretary of State, talked the President into moving on Libya and deposing the leader there, Muammar Gaddafi.♠  This isn't about Benghazi.  That was merely a fallout from the civil war in Libya intensified by the the US President authorizing the use of force, along with some of our European Allies.♥

By the way, Colonel Gaddafi gives up his nuclear weapons program and then we back some rebel group against him and help track him down so he can be killed.  How does this look to Kim Jung-un.

In the mean time, "Chinese foreign minister berates Canadian reporter for asking about human rights".

And the sub-headline for Mr Mike Blanchfield's article is "'Please don't ask questions in such an irresponsible manner,' Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said". Here is the lede:

China's visiting foreign minister publicly berated a Canadian journalist on Wednesday for asking a question about his country's human rights record.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said it was "irresponsible" of a journalist from the web outlet iPolitics to ask about human rights and the jailing of a Canadian, Kevin Garratt, who is charged with espionage.

Wang appeared visibly angry as he delivered the scolding in the lobby of Global Affairs headquarters at a joint news conference with Foreign Affairs Minister Stephane Dion.

"Your question is full of prejudice against China and arrogance ... I don't know where that comes from.  This is totally unacceptable," Wang said through a translator.

Do we really see Former SecState Clinton standing up to the likes of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi?

And, finally, via the Janesville Gazette, we have "Paul Ryan:  Donald Trump can help make reality of bold House policy agenda".

Endorsement.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I was actually in Libya when the revolt against King Idris was staged by Colonel Mummer Gaddafi. The coup was in the morning and I was one of the ones who flew us fighter aircraft out of Wheelus Air Base, outside Tripoli.
♥  For the paranoid Democrats, this is not about Benghazi, although the fact that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threw the First Amendment under the bus over that attack should be worrying to all.

Limiting Government

For John, BLUF:  Yes, the Press would cover for a President Hillary Clinton, rather than doing their job.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"Why the president needs to be white, male and Republican: Glenn Reynolds"

The sub-headline:

Media watchdogs snoozed while Obama expanded executive power. They'll wake up and bite when it's Trump.

Here is the lede:

The press has done a lousy job of protecting American freedoms in recent years.  But I have a modest proposal♠ for improving press performance:  Elect a white male Republican.

Like Benghazi, where the press totally ignored how the Administration stepped all over the Freedom of the Press.  It was a little item, a 14 minute movie trailer, but those little precedents can be used against the big boys later on.♥♦  Short sighted on the part of the Press.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Note for Jack:  "modest proposal" is a Republican "dog whistle" for political satire.
♥  Lawyers have no shame.
♦  No, I do not think the Administration's actions lead to the death of the four Americans in Benghazi.  Do I think they should have been more forward leaning?  Yes, in the event the terrorists had other targets in mind.

Ms Clinton and the Benghazi Imbroglio

For John, BLUF:  Trust is hard to establish and easily lost.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The [Lowell] Sun "Backtalk" section we have:

ENOUGH ALREADY:  How many Republican congressional committees have to investigate Benghazi and find that Hillary did nothing wrong before the right wing stops using it to rile up their base?  Accept it and get over it.

Let us be clear right at the beginning.  The Administration execution, the actions by Defense, State and CIA, was well inside acceptable parameters.

There was nothing that could have been done during the attack, since external forces were not available.  And, the US approach, as is the approach of almost everyone, is to depend on local forces to protect our Diplomatic Missions.  And, to insert forces without Host Nation approval would be illegal under International Law.

Having said that, I do think moving some reaction force toward the action, in case it went on longer, would have been prudent.

So, "ENOUGH ALREADY", from Lowell, is correct that Ms Clinton, as Secretary of State, did nothing wrong with regard to the ongoing action, at the time.♠

Which raises the question as to why the Department of State took many months to get requested records to the House Committee.♥  Was there something being hidden?  Or, were the people at Foggy Bottom just showing contempt for the Congressional Committee.  The second option would be impolite.

However, the real problem for Ms Clinton, and the Obama Administration, is that they threw Mr Nakoula Basely Nakoula under the bus, claiming his First Amendment Rights didn't matter.  That action suggests that Ms Clinton, as President, would be more like Woodrow Wilson than Thomas Jefferson.  That is, she would not respect the rights of Americans if it got in the way of what she was trying to accomplish.  Which is why we wrote down and voted in our Bill of Rights.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  And, I do NOT fault Ambassador Chris Stevens for being there, doing the work of Diplomacy.
♥  Another "BackTalk" item today. again from Lowell, made this very point.

Foreign Policy Creds

For John, BLUF:  We give the benefit to the former Secretary of State, but should we?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

OK, so it is The New York Post and Opinionator Jacob Sullum, but there is some wisdom here—"The warmongers’ vote goes to Clinton over Trump".

The piece doesn't say that Mr Donald Trump is perfect on Foreign Policy, but it does point out how he is quicker to conclude we have made some mistakes.  Quicker than Ms Clinton by about a decade.

There is a lot of rubbish out there about Mr Trump and foreign policy, but there is a grave need to examine the record of Ms Clinton, from the "Reset Button" to Libya to Benghazi.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  With regard to Benghazi my concern is the willingness to trample the First Amendment.  And, that no one suggested we move forward forces, in case the incident turned out to be even worse than was known in DC.
♥  For those wondering, "Foggy Bottom" is a nickname for the headquarters building of the Department of State, based upon the geographical name of the area—Foggy Bottom.  There is a Metro stop of that name.

Janus in the Department of State

For John, BLUF:  Janus?  No big deal, except for the US Constitution.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing for the InstaPundit, Mr Ed Driscoll pointed us to The Washington Examiner and the following article—"Emails show Clinton had 2 Benghazi stories:  1 for Libyans, 1 for Americans".  The reporter is Ms Sarah Westwood.

The lede:

An email released by the House Select Committee on Benghazi Saturday suggests Hillary Clinton's State Department was advised to tell two different stories about what sparked the 2012 Benghazi terror attack: one to the U.S., and another in Libya.

As I have said.

The Republican in Congress don't get it and the Democrats in Congress don't want to talk about it.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Representing the Values of America

For John, BLUF:  A callous Federal Government, throwing the little guy overboard.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Mr Sarah Westwood, reporting for The Washington Examiner, gives us "Benghazi hearing resurrects YouTube controversy".

In the article it is noted that Presidential Candidate Carly Fiorina picked up the real problem, the real injustice.  The four lives lost were never going to be saved, no matter what was done in Washington.  Forces could have been moved forward, incase this became more than an isolated attack, but they were not.  Lesson learned.  But, as Ms Fiorina notes Secretary Clinton put the blame on a videotape that wasn't part of the problem, and let the weight of government fall on the videographer.  Why?

"She never answered a fundamental question, and the fundamental question is this:  knowing that this was a purposeful terrorist attack on the night it occurred, why did you go the next morning and address the American people and talk about a videotape that didn't represent the values of America?" Fiorina said of Clinton.  "And why did you continue to do that over the bodies of the fallen and for many weeks thereafter?"

So what are the values of America the video failed to represent?  It was apparently not Freedom of Speech.  Apparently not Freedom of Religion.

This was all about signaling to our friends in the Middle East that we would do nothing to stir up trouble, even if it meant stepping on our own citizens.  Not that I credit the videographer involved with a lot of common sense, but he was treated as a pawn.

It is enough to make one wonder if the people in Foggy Bottom actually believe in the Bill of Rights, or if they think it is not for the little people, the great unwashed.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

The REAL Issue WRT Benghazi

For John, BLUF:  Maybe they stopped teaching Civics before Ms Clinton entered High School.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From The New York Post we have the Editorial Board talking about "Hillary’s horrid Benghazi-hearing howlers".♠

If you believe, as I do, that the reason our Ambassador was there was to meet with people who have salvaged the remains of an alien space ship, the secrecy makes sense.

However, the real crime regarding the Benghazi imbroglio is that the US Federal Government:

1. Tried to use a private videographer as a scapegoat for the attack (and did so for several days, even though the truth was known from the beginning).
2. Tried to use the scapegoated videographer as a way to "signal" to Muslim Governments, and Muslims, that while we have Freedom of Speech, it will not be allowed to extend to comments on The Prophet Muhammad.
3. And, worst of all, used its assets to bring attention to the videographer, and perhaps encourage local California authorities to arrest him on a parole violation and put him in jail for six more months.  For Justice?  No, to support the signaling being done by the Department of State over disparaging videos, cartoons or comments on The Prophet Muhammad.

To give us some perspective, what happened to American artist and photographer Andres Serrano for his infamous Piss Christ?  Perhaps you don't see the two as basically the same.  Shame on you.

Here is the Department of State Mission:

Advance freedom for the benefit of the American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly within the international system.

With regard to Benghazi, they ignored the mission and went with damage control.  Sad.  I wonder how Ambassador Chris Stevens would have felt about it?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I guess that passes for alliteration.

Ms Clinton and Libya

For John, BLUF:  Benghazi isn't Ms Clinton's real Libya Problem.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

At CNN on Monday, Reporter Stephen Collinson talks to "Hillary Clinton's real Libya problem".  Note, not FOX News, but CNN.♠

Hillary Clinton has another Libya problem.

She's already grappling with the political headaches from deleted emails and from the terror attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi.

But she'll face a broader challenge in what's become of the North African country since, as secretary of state in 2011, she was the public face of the U.S. intervention to push out its longtime strongman, Moammar Gadhafi.

Libya's lapse into the chaos of failed statehood has provided a breeding ground for terror and a haven for groups such as ISIS.  Its plight is also creating an opening for Republican presidential candidates to question Clinton's strategic acumen and to undermine her diplomatic credentials, which will be at the center of her pitch that only she has the global experience needed to be president in a turbulent time.

I do think the real issue with regard to Benghazi is the violation of the First Amendment.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Which used to be known as the "Clinton News Network".

Mr Ralph Nader on Ms Clinton

For John, BLUF:  I would venture to say that Mr Ralph Nader is straying to the sexism side here.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing, again for PJ Media, via a Drudge Headline, we have Mr Ralph Nader's take on Ms Hillary CLinton, "Hillary Tried to ‘Overcompensate’ for Gender with ‘Shocking’ Militarism".  The author of the piece, which includes video, is Mr Nicholas Ballasy.  The summarizing subhead is a quote from Mr Nader:  “I think Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old. She made peace with the power structure."

Here is the lede:

Former Green Party and independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader labeled 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton a “deep corporatist and a deep militarist” who has made peace with the nation’s power structure.

“I think Hillary is not the Hillary of when she was 30 years old. She made peace with the power structure and she is a deep corporatist and a deep militarist.  One can almost forgive the corporatism.  She moved to New York with Bill because that’s where the power is and Wall Street but her militarism is absolutely shocking,” he said during a discussion about his new book, Return to Sender, which focuses on unanswered letters Nader wrote to U.S. presidents about an array of issues.

Nader cited the war in Libya during President Obama’s first term to support his position on Clinton.

So, perhaps when Secretary of State Clinton said, "What difference, at this point, does it make," she wasn't just talking about the attack on the compound in Benghazi.

Hat tip to My Wife.

Regards  —  Cliff