The latest manufactured Beltway media "scandal" has Hillary Clinton allegedly falling on her sword to 'protect' Barack Obama from the fallout of the Libya attacks.
Hence the CNN breaking news bulletin that appeared on their website as follows:
The accompanying CNN article begins, "Hillary Clinton said the buck stops with her when it comes to who is to blame for security ahead of a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya." It also quotes Hillary as saying:
"I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," she added, noting that it is close to the election.
Smart power. Yet again, the Clintons and the Obamas get it.
Yet again, Romney, craven right-wing bloggers, and gullible Beltway media types do not. The right has desperately yearned for a West Wing vs. Foggy Bottom rift over Libya, evidenced by last week's desperate, and (shock of shocks) anonymously sourced howler, "Clinton-Obama rift intensifies after Libya, Obama’s debate performance":
My sources tell me that Clinton is working on a strategy that will allow Hillary to avoid having Benghazi become a stain on her political fortunes should she decide to run for president in 2016.
Bill Clinton has even gone so far as to seek legal advice about Hillary’s liability in terms of cables and memos that might be subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee...
Finally, I’m told that Bill is playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary should consider resigning over the issue if the Obama team tries to use her as a scapegoat...if relations between Obama’s White House and Hillary’s State Department rupture publicly over the growing Benghazi scandal, that could damage the Democratic ticket and dim Obama’s chances for re-election.
First things first, the only thing that's going to dim Obama's chances for re-election is if Romney wins Ohio, which both
polls and
early voting indicate he cannot do.
Second, the Obamas and the Clintons like each other. Bill and Hillary want Obama to win re-election. Their mutual comity drives the right and the mainstream media bonkers -- that's probably why Chappaqua and Chicago have gone overboard lately in their public displays of affection, just to anger the crap-stirrers.
There, there is nothing to even have a rift over. As explained already in multiple investigatory news reports, the "denied security requests" conservatives keep harping on were not -- I repeat not -- for the Benghazi compound. It was for Tripoli, some 400 miles away. So even if the requests had been granted, they wouldn't have made any difference. But the facts don't matter to Mitt Romney, or to CNN apparently which writes:
The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after Vice President Joe Biden said during last week's vice presidential debate that the White House did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi, contradicting testimony by State Department employees that requests had been made and rejected.
If the Obama administration has been "heavily criticized" it has only been criticized by people who think a security team can stop an attack 400 miles away. Biden was right: the White House "did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi" because there were no such requests.
The requests were for Tripoli.
In the face of Romney's looming defeat -- and by extension the humiliation of the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, and every other rich Bircher trying to buy this election -- Republicans want so badly for Obama to have botched Libya, along with a Clinton food fight. Bill and Hillary are not playing along, and neither are the facts of what happened on September 11, 2012.
CNN should issue a correction telling the people the facts about these security requests, rather than helping the Romney campaign politicize the tragic deaths of US diplomatic personnel by parroting discredited Fox News talking points.