Bill Clinton ‘Urging’ Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents...‘Exonerate’ Her, Destroy Obama

Ed Klein: Bill Clinton ‘Urging’ Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents That Would ‘Exonerate’ Her, Destroy Obama’s Re-Election Hopes

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered additional security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi ahead of the terrorist attack but the orders were never carried out, according to “legal counsel” to Clinton who spoke to best-selling author Ed Klein. Those same sources also say former President Bill Clinton has been “urging” his wife to release official State Department documents that prove she called for additional security at the compound in Libya, which would almost certainly result in President Obama losing the election.

Appearing on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” on Wednesday night, Klein told host Andrew Wilkow that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been having “big fights” for “two or three weeks” about the issue, according to his two sources on Clinton’s legal counsel. While Bill Clinton wishes his wife would “exonerate” herself by releasing the documents that show she wasn’t at fault for the tragic security failure in Libya, the secretary of state refuses to do so because she doesn’t want to be viewed as a traitor to the Democratic party.

(A video is available at the link above.)

If even remotely true, this alone should drive the man out of the WH.

While I couldn't find a youtube video yet on the second Klein interview (again, follow the link), here are more on the subject that add additional detail worth considering:





I'm sorry, but Obama supporters are nuts to turn a blind eye to this.

And in before everyone questioning the source as it's from Glen Beck in...3...2...1.

Originally posted by loam

Ed Klein: Bill Clinton ‘Urging’ Hillary to Release Benghazi Documents That Would ‘Exonerate’ Her, Destroy Obama’s Re-Election Hopes

Stopped reading at "Ed Klein"...as should anyone else.

He has been accurately called a liar and a scuz by both the left AND the right...

Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton, titled, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005.[2]

Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life." [3].

The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, “Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word.” In National Review James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”[1]

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by loam


What do you want me to do as an independent voter? Vote for Romney? No thanks.

Ok...found a youtube version of the main video.

Interview begins at the 19 min mark:

4 people tragically died. suck it up and get over it. People die in violent crimes on US soil each and every day...where is the outcry?

Seems she's biding her time.
I think she'd stand a chance in 2016 IF she didn't have to follow another four years of Obama.
I don't like her politics but she's pretty smart. I wonder what she's actually thinking.

I guarantee if there is any info as to whose implicated
it's gonna come up as a contractor.
Any billionaire can pay a contractor
to do whatever they want.

reply to post by JDmOKI

Originally posted by JDmOKI
What do you want me to do as an independent voter? Vote for Romney? No thanks.

At a minimum, I would have you NOT vote for the criminal you KNOW you have, verses the one you think you might get.

Out of curiosity, is Romney the only alternative on your ballot??? Likely not.

As long as we refuse to hold these guys accountable for what they actually do, there is no hope for ever fixing our problems. It will only get worse from here. Is that the future you want for our children?

Wake up!

reply to post by LeatherNLace


I believe it is the fact that we were lied to about how they died. Which is actually important, especially coming from our president.

she wants to run in 2016, there done with obama because obama makes the clintons look bad. obama even said that hillary will not be part of his team next year if he gets reelected.

hillary looks run down and wiped out anyways. she needs the next 4 year to get back in shape and rest up so she can run in 2016

In this stunning exposé, bestselling author Edward Klein—a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, former foreign editor of Newsweek, and former editor-in-chief of the New York Times Magazine—pulls back the curtain on one of the most secretive White Houses in history. He reveals a callow, thin-skinned, arrogant president with messianic dreams of grandeur supported by a cast of true-believers, all of them united by leftist politics and an amateurish understanding of executive leadership.


“The Amateur is the best book I’ve read on how Barack Obama is wrecking our country. I urge everyone who cares about America to read Edward Klein’s eye-opening book.”

—Donald J. Trump, world-famous businessman, owner and host of the hit NBC TV shows The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice, and bestselling author of many titles, including Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again

edwardklein.com...

Doesn't seem like Mr Klein has an unbiased opinion. An endorsement from the Donald to help sell his book does not help his credibility.

Originally posted by chiefsmom
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

I believe it is the fact that we were lied to about how they died. Which is actually important, especially coming from our president.

Are you telling me that they didn't die in an act of terror? If that's the case, then I want answers.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


So the fact that the President and administration blamed this on a 'spontaneous event' related to an inflammatory video, NONE of which turned out to be true...and for which the evidence demonstrates they knew they were lying...bothers you?

This electorate is hopeless.

It's entirely possible that Hillary is taking one for the team on this.

I predict sometime next week someone down the line (below Hillary) will get fired over the incident so Obama can move 'forward'.

Poor damage control... Just like in golf, if you hit a bad shot, don't make the next one worse. Obama needs to chip back into the fairway to have a chance.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

So the fact that the President and administration blamed this on a 'spontaneous event' related to an inflammatory video, NONE of which turned out to be true...and for which the evidence demonstrates they knew they were lying...bothers you?

This electorate is hopeless.

Regardless of the reason for the deaths, no matter how carefully our President chose his words, those words can not bring the dead back to life.

Until those responsible for the murder of four brave Americans are brought to justice and have their day in court, then nobody...not you, not me, not our President; nobody knows the motivation behind the attack.

No, nothing our President said about the act of terror bother me. Not in the least bit.

And yes, this electorate is hopeless....those that wish to politicize a national tragedy...it's hopeless and disgusting.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


This is where we differ, I guess. I am appalled at the lengths this President has gone, in *lying*, outright lying. To all of us, you included. If he lies about this, of such importance....what else is he lying about....How am I to trust him, and his decisions, that affect my life, and Family.

Des

If the story were true, why would Hillary have come out and taken full responsibility just a couple of weeks ago? Seriously. If you think for one minute Bill runs Hillary, why would he advise her to do that then if this anecdote had a shred of truth?

This seems like a standard conservative punditry go-to tactic of floating outrageous and absurd stories just to rile up the base, the web and legions of scandalous e-mail forwarders with nothing better to do and tons of hate for Obama.

How many days left of this nonsense?

reply to post by kosmicjack


12.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That's how I feel about the Benghazi thing. The problem is that these things are going to happen, but people inevitably have to lay the blame somewhere. This reminds me of a friend who always gets mega angry when bad things happen and always lives in fear of making mistakes. But the problem I have with this is that adversity itself isn't bad. It's how you react to it that matters. Mistakes and regrets are going to happen, you can't stop them. But learning a thing or two and being level headed after the dust cloud clears are important traits to have in this world. What I'd do is look at how Obama responds to this, not as much at how he acted beforehand. If this were truly a serious matter where Obama has acted irresponsibly, Hillary would, out of duty, be required to say something. The fact that she's holding back probably means it's subjective.

IMHO, our fear of terrorism and our attitude that every terrorist event can be prevented is what's leading to our police state. It's getting worse and worse precisely because of the kind of people who don''t just want to learn from bad turns of fate, but they want to live in a world where there're no bad turns at all. And that's what frightens me.

We have to find a balance between security and freedom and realize that murder and crime and terrorism are always going to exist in some form or another. Of course, where is the balance? I don't think anybody really knows. Ultimately, you have a few kinds of people. One group deals with the punches as they come and learns to be resilient, and the other tries to avoid the punches altogether through prevention and authority. I think those who can take the punches are better off and better able to adapt than those who cannot and/or rely on avoiding them.

Bottom line, I think more people die from prescription drugs than people do from terrorism. I mean if you added up the deaths from terrorism in a year and compared it to other things, I think what it'd show is that terrorism, while it does receive a large amount of media attention and funding towards preventing it, is one of the smaller boxers in the arena and definitely doesn't carry the biggest punch. It's the fear of terrorism that has the much larger influence on the world. This fear can be disabling. I think I'd compare it to a boxer that's been known to cheat or break a few rules even though he's got a weak punch. This fear causes a lot of money to be lost and a lot to be spent on anti-terrorism. (Look at the Department of Homeland Security, as example. While it's probably a smart idea to have it, it's consuming some 50+ billion dollars every year. In the past 10 years, that's over half a trillion. I think that after 9/11 the government HAD to do something to reorganize, but we have to look at how much we're spending or someday we might not have anything in the budget for other things.)

As for Obama, there're many other issues that make him a bad president than this one example. He's haughty and academic, for one. And for another, he doesn't understand what makes a strong middle class in this country, nor does he understand what will produce jobs. I don't honestly know what makes him attractive to people as a general human being. From my perspective, he's hard to like. He's full of himself and can't really relate to anybody. He's very argumentative. Few emotions.