Ted Kennedy had his Chappaquiddick, Hillary has her …

Mary_Jo_KopechneA November 4, 2013, article by Frank Bruni of the New York Times says about Hillary:

The beginning of the end of her inevitability. It’s about time, because the truth, more apparent with each day, is that she has serious problems as a potential 2016 presidential contender, and the premature cheerleading of Chuck Schumer and other Democrats won’t change that.

So, in an attempt to distance Hillary from the Benghazi scandal, Hillary adviser Philippe Reines said that Benghazi, where four Americans were killed during the September 11, 2012, attack and bombing at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, should not be an issue in the 2016 presidential race. Reines, on Friday (January 17) on CNN, said:

In terms of the politics of it, it’s very — even sitting here — very difficult to shift to talking about people losing their lives in the politics of 2016. For as much as people want to make the two the same and to use one in that context, we don’t see it that way.

And I would think that, again, in the context of trying to be constructive to prevent this from happening again, which is the most important thing, is not to make it a political football.


2 responses to “Ted Kennedy had his Chappaquiddick, Hillary has her …

  1. Yes, it’s no big deal. It isn’t as though four women were killed by presidential inaction, now is it? She would have been first to yell and scream. Obama would have had to grovel on Oprah. But still he would not have lost any of his voters. Hilary would be yelling even today about the ‘war on women’. Thank goodness for both of them that it was only men killed. Their names will be forgotten, if anyone still remembers who they were, while Mary Jo will be known in a hundred years.

  2. Well, as long as we’re pulling up old possible secret coverups…

    Now, I’m not saying Benghazi isn’t a problem, or that particularly the NSA and IRS scandals aren’t a problem – in fact, the latter disturbs me as much just as must as the Patriot Act did, when it comes to right to privacy (and I voted for Obama, but have no problems admitting I may have been wrong).

    However, I AM curious as to why we’re suddenly so interested in what the CIA and/or our secret military and intelligence agencies are doing, when we haven’t been concerned, at least to this degree, previously?

    Does it depend on if the person in office is from the party we support?

    For example – Manuel Noriega was recruited by our CIA to help stop the spread of Communism in Panama in 1970, and then on 12/08/1976, George H. Bush as the Director of the CIA met with him – the end result being the Carter-Torrijos (giving the Panama Canal back to Panama) – until ties were cut with him later in 1977 due to drug trafficking (GHB still as director) – but despite this, we re-established him on the CIA payroll in 1983 anyways, during the Reagan-Bush administration, who formally praised his efforts, at the time – only to try to depose him from power in 1989?

    (Right on the heels of the Iran-Contra scandal (Where we sold arms to Iran in the hopes of releasing hostages and to fund Nicaraguan Communist resistance) – claiming they had no knowledge of his drug-trafficking? 😉

    How many civilians and soldiers were killed in that bloody mess, not just contra-Sandinista skirmishes but drug runs gone bad?

    For more on that, read this link from the History NY Times, which also discusses the NSA Director Lew Allen’s frustration with George H. Bush’s (perhaps feigned and intentional ) ignorance of the situation.


    Also questions raised here:


    And if you want to know if the our military knew of the drug-trafficking, ask any soldier that was in Panama or Latin America, during that time, they’ll tell you – it didn’t matter – the U.S. turned the other way to drug trafficking, some say even helped Noriega and others – as long as we stopped ’em communists, right?

    I’m not saying Benghazi or any of these things is okay – I’m just saying there are lots of “back-scratchings” that have gone on why don’t we care until our party’s candidate is not in office?

    And though I want to know, too, I also wonder how much we should know, about secret operations, without compromising national security in doing so.