Ed Klein claims that "Bill Clinton advised his wife to resign over the possible criminal fallout of the Benghazi massacre. Today we learn from sources that not only did Hillary ask for added security, and was denied, but her closest advisers strongly suggested she seek legal counsel just days after the attack. Why? Why did “they” deny Hillary’s requests for added security to Benghazi, and why is this a situation in which a Secretary of State would need personal legal counsel? Could the Benghazi fallout, go beyond what a Public Relations firm can handle? I’d say YES. Could this be a criminal act, negligence, dereliction of duty, which resulted in murder? I’d say YES. And I’d say that Hillary is telling the truth as the “source” of these latest developments come straight from her “legal counsel”. Hillary did prior to September 11th, 2012 order added security for Benghazi, and those requests were denied—but by who?"
The Daily Caller carried this back on Oct 12th: As Benghazi blame nears Hillary, Clintons grow furious
"With tensions between President Obama and the Clintons at a new high, former President Bill Clinton is moving fast to develop a contingency plan for how his wife, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, should react if Obama attempts to tie the Benghazi fiasco around her neck, according to author Ed Klein."
According to Breitbart's Big Peace; Obama-Clinton rift threatens re-election
State Department let White House know after two hours that Benghazi was a terrorist operation
"They can claim ignorance all they want, but the evidence is now overwhelming that they sought to cover up or obscure the truth about the attack because the president had been saying that al-Qaeda was on the run and that a terrorist attack so close to the election would have been politically damaging.
"It will be intersting to see what Romney does with this new information."
So far nothing.
State Department let White House know after two hours that Benghazi was a terrorist operation
"They can claim ignorance all they want, but the evidence is now overwhelming that they sought to cover up or obscure the truth about the attack because the president had been saying that al-Qaeda was on the run and that a terrorist attack so close to the election would have been politically damaging.
"It will be intersting to see what Romney does with this new information."
So far nothing.
1 comment:
I, too, struggle with the position of Christian involvement in politics. My folks' generation voted but political involvement by the "evangelical" or "fundamental" Chrisitan was taboo. It was during this time that the secular atheistic humanists made great inroads in taking over the culture of our country. Back in the 1970's I read some of Paul Kurtz's writings after the signing of the 2nd Humanist Manifesto. As far back as the 1930's they made it very clear that their goal was to take over the fields of education, media and the judiciary which would give them the success they sought. And "voila" while the Christians were silent, they have almost accomplished it all.
After my mother died in 1973 I inherited a bit of family tree info which intriged me and I went on to search out my "roots." Both my mother and father descended from a narrow conservative branch of Presbyterianism which were those "Covenanters" who were strong adherents of the teachings of John Knox in Scotland. They were those who suffered persecution in Scotland because they refused the idea of the king as church head. To escape they went to Northern Ireland where again they suffered discrimination and came on to the New World in the mid 1700's along with thousands of their compatriots. Without the Scot Irish Covenanters or Presbyterians there would never had been a United State of America. They produced a Declaration of Independence ten years before Jefferson wrote his. (In fact Jefferson supposedly had their's before him when he wrote, for it contains some of the same language.
http://www.archive.org/details/historyofreforme00glas ) They preached revolution from the pulpit and the pastors were the captains who led their congregational militia into war. King George III called it a "Presbyterian War." Were those Covenanters wrong to fight for their religious freedom and the freedoms that no other country has enjoyed???? (James Webb in his more recent book posits that it has been the Scotch Irish that have been the majority who have volunteered to fight in all our major US wars.)
Because John Knox peaked my interest several years ago I went on a Reformation tour in Europe. Government and Religion were essentially one in the same---intertwined and filled with corruption. Were these reformers wrong? Zwingli, one of the heroes of that era, even went to battle on the Lord's behalf.
I attend a Reformed church (in the manner of John Piper and John MacArthur) with a pastor who reveres the Reformation but is not too sympathetic to political involvement today. I agree with the fact that the main task of the church is preaching the gospel, but---are we not to influence culture??
Even though Todd Atkin made a very stupid remark, he has pulled into striking distance of our very arrogant Senator Claire McCaskill, (who skipped paying some taxes, and whose husband has made millions off of a low income subsidy housing empire---even hanging out around the Senate to accomplish some of this.) The Lord is in control but I am praying for reprieve from what we now endure.
Have a good day and keep up the good work.
Post a Comment