The Clinton Chronicles


Madame Clinton winking…

Clinton’s presidential chances threatened by her own blundering

A popular theme on Planet Clinton is that poor Hillary is always in danger of being undone by her charming cad of a hubby. Michael Goodwin argues there might be more to the story.

On a long list of possibilities, that scenario must be included. But my reading of the Clinton Chronicles points to a much bigger threat to the restoration of the family monarchy.

That would be the stumbling performance of the lady herself.

Human Abedin, Clinton’s long time top aide, said her boss is “often confused” and needs plenty of guidance to understand her schedule according to fresh  e-mails revealed . Who would vote for a president that is “often confused” ? Most likely the terrorists would be willing to vote for her, even meeting with her at the White House.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, released new e-mails from Abedin that show concern among State Department staff that then-Secretary of State Clinton didn’t know who to call.  In one-email exchanged from June 26, 2013, Abedin asks fellow staffer Monica Hanley whether Clinton knows to call then-Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

On top of the tactical blunders, there was an overarching reason why sure victory eluded Hillary Clinton in 2008. She simply was not a very appealing candidate, offering neither charisma nor a compelling message. She ran with a sense of entitlement that the Oval Office was owed to her. Abedin stresses the importance of reviewing the schedule with Clinton: “Very imp to do that. She’s often confused.”

It’s not the first time the word “confused” has been used to describe the Democratic presidential front-runner. Clinton herself has admitted in e-mails that she gets “confused” and even apologized to her staff for mix-ups while she was secretary of state.

If anything has changed, it’s a well-kept secret. Already, her run this time is marked by mistakes, gaffes and reports of ethical corner-cutting, which adds up to watching the same bad movie twice.

It’s a strange way to make a fresh start given the dreary end of her time as secretary of state. To describe her four-year tenure as empty of accomplishment doesn’t do justice to the damage. She was complicit in the foreign-policy disasters now erupting around the world.

Remember her clever Russian reset? Benghazi, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Israel, China — the list of things that got worse on her watch is long, while it is a challenge to name one significant advance in America’s favor.

That record is who she is. Once viewed as a smart, passionate woman whose brilliance would shine when she was liberated, she is, at 67, getting long in the tooth to be talked of in terms of potential.

To justify faith in a big upside from here, there should be abundant evidence of recent “excellence”. But what has she accomplished other than winning two elections as senator and losing one for president?

There’s no breakthrough doctrine or novel idea or even a successful policy or law identified with her. After 25 years in the circus, she’s still a celebrity guest, not a star performer.

Her new campaign is more of the same. Instead of offering coherent principles and establishing a message, she’s running the Rose Garden strategy of a favored incumbent.

Let the other candidates scrape for attention by responding to the world’s woes. She’s still giving paid speeches, believing she can float above it all like a giant balloon in the Thanksgiving Day parade.

In another sign that she sees herself as president-in-waiting, she’s got a reported 200 advisers, suggesting she’s already staffing an administration.

I wouldn’t bet the house she’ll get the chance. Sure, she’s a lock for the nomination — unless another Barack Obama comes along. Far-lefty firebrand Sen. Elizabeth Warren says she’s not running, but any more head-shaking revelations about the Clinton Foundation’s sleazy fund-raising could change her mind.

The foundation accepted millions of dollars from foreign governments while Hillary was America’s top diplomat, The Washington Post found. It said that at least one gift, $500,000 from Algeria, violated loose ethics rules drawn up by the Obama administration to separate her duties from the foundation.

The Wall Street Journal also found a suspicious pattern of corporate giving. General Electric, Exxon Mobil, Microsoft and Boeing were among 60 companies that lobbied the State Department during her tenure and donated a combined $26 million to the family foundation, the paper reports.

It found several cases where her lobbying of foreign governments on behalf of specific American firms came just before or after those firms made hefty donations to the Clinton Foundation or another nonprofit she created, Vital Voices. Walmart gave to both groups, and to a separate fund Clinton established at the State Department.

Any claim that there was no quid pro quo should be made under oath. Most of the corporations have their own foundations, so why would they give their money to the Clintons to spend? Who suggested they do so?

Because a black hole doesn’t yield much information, Clinton beat reporters often turn spin into news. A New York Times story went big with the “news” that Clinton would “spotlight gender” this time.

Wow, stop the presses. The Times must have missed that 2008 movement to “shatter the glass ceiling” and the talk of the “pantsuit posse.”

In fact, gender pitch redux shows Clinton once again waving group identity as her chief qualification. In that case, she should go all the way and just say this: I want to be president because I deserve it.

That at least has the virtue of honesty.


Madame Clinton



BREAKING: SMOKING GUN Docs Show What Hillary Clinton Knew About Benghazi All Along (WHOA!)



Petition Image
Judicial Watch
Government Reform
U.S. Congress : Demand Answers on Clinton Corruption
News Editor
Petition By:
Judicial Watch

The conservative lawyers at Judicial Watch just blew the lid off of the massive Obama White House cover-up after the Islamic terrorist attack at the American Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. This is Earth shattering news, and has devastating consequences for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The damning files obtained by Judicial Watch show State Department officials under Hillary Clinton’s command blatantly lied about the attack which killed four Americans in November 2012. It was not, as once stated, an escalation of a demonstration against an absurd YouTube video but rather a coordinated assault by Islamist terrorists on the US Embassy in Tunisia.

The State Department’s Diplomatic Security Command Center, also know DSCC, produced a memo obtained by the Washington-based government watchdog group entitled, “Emergency Message to U.S. Citizens: Demonstrations.” The DSCC would have known the true nature of the attack since it monitored the situation via drone.

Read more:


The message is identical to the emergency message issued by the U.S. Embassy in Tunis and archived on the embassy’s website.

The emergency message reads in the first paragraph: “On September 11, 2012, violent demonstrations took place at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt and at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in damage in both locations and casualties in Benghazi. Media reports indicate that demonstrations may take place at the U.S. Embassy in Tunis on Wednesday, September 12, 2012.”

‘They knew’

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the DSCC “clearly knew in real time that a full-fledged terrorist attack was taking place on September 11 at the U.S. compound in Benghazi, and the American people deserve to be told the truth.”

“We are now into the fourth year of a massive Obama administration cover-up,” Fitton said.

He said the DSCC communiqués “may further help unravel the Obama administration’s growing web of deceit.

Read more:

via World Net Daily

Fitton goes on to explain how this was a coordinated effort to isolate the potential damage this could cause to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Judicial Watch cites testimony from Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb under oath to the House Oversight Committee on Oct. 10, 2012, to make the case that the DSCC bureaucrats knew EXACTLY what was the cause of the attack:

Read more:

The attack began at approximately 9:40 pm local time. Diplomatic Security agents inside the compound heard loud voices outside the walls, followed by gunfire and an explosion. Dozens of attackers then launched a full-scale assault that was unprecedented in its size and intensity. They forced their way through the pedestrian gate, and used diesel fuel to set fire to the Libyan 17th February Brigade members’ barracks, and then proceeded toward the main building.

Read more:

Judical Watch’s Fitton replied to what that testimony (above) means:

Read more:

You are making people think they only needed to worry about demonstrations, when the truth was Americans in North Africa needed to know the night before Benghazi was hit by an intense terrorist attack, that came on violently, with heavily armed al-Qaida-backed militia carrying AK-47s and RPGs. ‘Be Warned’ should have been the message, ‘There was a terrorist attack, and you should be very careful right now.

The Benghazi story is now out in the open for all to see. And it’s clear that Hillary Clinton is at fault.

Are you ashamed by how poorly this White House has handled foreign policy? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.

Read more: