What Difference at This Point Does it Make? As it Turns out – Quite a Bit!

Clinton What difference at this point
The honorable Hillary Clinton? Not so much.

What Difference at this point does it make? Well, Democrats might want to stop hitching their wagon to Hillary 2016.

In light of recent details compiled from State Department and White House emails that show how Clinton and Obama (State and White House) scrubbed the CIA details on Benghazi, it makes all the difference in the world.  What started as a planned terrorist attack, complete with al-Qaida operatives in the mix, on 9/11, that killed four–including our Ambassador to Libya–was reduced to a spontaneous riot that got out of hand because of a YouTube Video.

One more time.  Smartest President Ever?  Really?

This is all, 100%, pure politics.  Obama was heavily invested in his legacy of ‘having put al Qaida on the run.’  Clinton, despite her comments to the contrary, was gearing up for a 2016 Presidential run.  Having your thinly secured embassy attacked on 9/11 by terrorists, possibly with US weapons supplied to Libyan Rebels who destabilized that country enough to allow terrorists new inroads with your assistance, and left to burn when US military resources were near enough to help, could look bad for both a  legacy and the pursuit of higher elected office.

So they scrubbed the memo and proceeded to lie to Americans for as long as they could.  And when the appeared to have gotten caught, Secretary of State Clinton defends her actions by saying what difference at this point Does it make?

Democrats are beginning to wander away from Clinton and the White House on the Benghazi cover up.


Removed from the CIA’s so-called talking points were references to “Islamic extremists” and Al Qaeda in Libya. And five days later, Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, made the Sunday talk show rounds to say the attacks were “demonstrations” sparked by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islamic video on YouTube.

However, the video is never mentioned in the numerous talking-points drafts, according to a Weekly Standard story last week, based in part on a 43-page House report and records of official emails.

“Well, it was scrubbed,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Steve Lynch told “Fox News Sunday.” “It was totally inaccurate. There’s no excuse for that. It was false information.  And what they try to do is harmonize what happened in Benghazi with what happened everywhere else across the Middle East.”

And we should expect more whistelblowers to come forward like this one.

That witness is Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s counterterrorism bureau. Sources tell Fox News Thompson will level the allegation against Clinton during testimony on Wednesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Thompson considers himself a whistle-blower whose account was suppressed by the official investigative panel that Clinton convened to review the episode, the Accountability Review Board (ARB). Thompson’s lawyer, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, has further alleged that his client has been subjected to threats and intimidation by as-yet-unnamed superiors at State, in advance of his cooperation with Congress.

And then there is the already noted fact that Obama disengaged himself from the entire affair and left it to Clinton and Panetta, never even bothering to check in to see how things were going.  But he ertainly did invest himself fully in the cover-up.