Howard Chandler Christy Depicts The Founders Signing The U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787. "Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States" (1940)

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Book Study: Blood Feud -The Clintons Vs. The Obamas (Ed Klein) Part II



Product Details


Part II: Hillary Clinton and Benghazi

        The main theme of Ed Klein's Blood Feud: The Clintons Vs. The Obamas is that the Clintons and the Obamas do not just dislike each other's camp, they do not simply detest the other side - they are actively at war with each other for control of the Democratic Party and its nominee for president in 2016. 

The notion that these two rival Democrat families hate each other shouldn't surprise anyone. The thirst for power breeds jealousy and contempt between those competing for the same prize. Nonetheless, in reading Klein's book, I was haunted by the thought of what possible consequences might befall our country as a result of the inter-Democrat war between these factions; if we haven't been affected by it yet, Klein's book tells us it's just now shifting into high gear.

Many people assume Hillary Clinton will be the heir apparent of Barack Obama and that the media has already anointed her as the president in waiting. This analysis ignores the fact that the party has yet to nominate her. As in 2008, Hillary is most vulnerable from the left wing of her party. Ed Klein's sources tell him that the Obama camp intends to exploit this vulnerability once again and deny her the presidency for a second time.

The Clinton camp - for their part - grudgingly supported President Obama's re-election in 2012 for two reasons. Above all, the Clintons didn't want to alienate their party by breaking with Obama and sabotaging their own projected campaign for 2016. Moreover, when 2016 came, Bill Clinton didn't want Obama throwing his weight behind Joe Biden or John Kerry. On the contrary - Clinton looked for an opportunity to make Obama beholden to the Clintons and campaign for them. 

Thus, Clinton could be assured the left wing of the party could be brought behind Hillary in 2016. Later, I'll discuss Bill's strategy for making Obama owe him the favor of support for 2016 but for now, let's have a look at how Hillary comes off in Blood Feud.

In addition to being a sequel to The Amateur (2012), Ed Klein tells us Blood Feud is also a sequel to The Truth About Hillary  - an earlier book he authored in 2005. It is not necessary to read these previous books in order to follow the thread of Blood Feud; it more or less stands on its own. Although I have read and enthusiastically recommend The Amateur, I am unfamiliar with The Truth About Hillary although the impression I get from its synopsis is that Ed Klein painted a pretty unflattering portrait of the former First Lady in that book. One might expect him to continue to characterize her so in the new book - but after having read it - I came away with the feeling Klein had treated her with a great deal of sympathy, empathy, fair-mindedness - if not uncritically.

Hillary comes across as a tragic figure. She is caught between the insatiable ambitions of her power-crazed husband and those of his rival - her boss for four years while she served as state secretary - President Obama. You get the feeling she is a woman who really would like her husband to love her unconditionally and for him to support her agenda without strings attached. But apart from campaign-strategy, Bill Clinton is largely absent from Hillary's life. The only glue that gives the Clinton marriage chemistry is their mutual love of politics. 

To this reader, they seem like the couple that has nothing in common except when they go to the concert of that favorite rock group they both happen to like. Or perhaps, they both love that same college football team and only bond when the game is on. For the Clintons, that common hobby is politics.They are never close except for when they are in the campaign trenches together. 

Klein's sources tell us that apart from the 2008 primary race, Bill and Hillary have lived separate lives. She and Chelsea have their own operation in New York where they have a lavish mansion bought for 2.5 million. It has a ballroom, scenic gardens, and serves as the preeminent political salon. The home is used for large fundraisers and parties designed to revamp the Clinton machine and re-establish its dominance of the Democrat party.

Bill Clinton is largely absent from the New York scene. He spends a lot of time in Little Rock, Arkansas, where he party's-it-up at his apartment atop his presidential library, a monument to his legacy which doubles as the ultimate bachelor pad. Locals reported to Klein that wild parties happen there, while the library's restaurant caters the food and drink.

Klein makes it clear that Bill Clinton still has an active sex life with numerous women in the Little Rock community. His sources tell him that Bill and Hillary have not had sex together for nearly twenty years, especially not since the Lewinsky affair. Bill has tried to come on to her, but Hillary refuses him. They are rarely together unless they are meeting for political strategy. Even their visits with Chelsea are most often done individually.


Politically, on some level, Hillary is pushed and jostled between Bill and Barack, as a chess piece in their alpha male battle to dominate the Democrat party. Barack uses Hillary to do his own bidding even though it works against the Clintons' long term plan of getting back into the White House. Klein brings this to dramatic life in his treatment of the Benghazi fiasco. Here's the summary of who did what when the consolate called for help:

Hillary's aide, Cheryl Mills, informed her of the terrorist attack on the consolate at 4 p.m. on 9/11/12. Ambassador Stevens was reported to be alive though in critical condition at a hospital. Mills kept feeding Hillary updates while she contacted the other cabinet heads, CIA director Petraeus in particular. Hillary wanted to know what the CIA was doing to protect its people at the annex and her people at the consolate.

For the last two years, the American public has wondered why Hillary Clinton didn't move forcefully to protect the Benghazi mission. Klein's book tells us that she was under the impression that the CIA accepted the responsibility for keeping our people there safe because she was a partner to the CIA's secret mission to use the annex as a base to illegally smuggle weapons to the Syrian rebels (which would have the inevitable consequence of arming Al-Qaeda type militants there). The CIA operation bore all the resemblance to the Iran-Contra triangle that scandalized the Reagan presidency in 1986. 

Hillary agreed to give the CIA mission cover, by placing Ambassador Stevens' diplomatic mission in close proximity.  A tragic storm was building because the CIA weapons scheme was located amidst a deteriorating political situation in Benghazi in which America-hating gangs swarmed around the premises while Ambassador Stevens and his staff were placed in harm's way without the means to defend themselves from the coming assault.

Hillary thought she had a deal with Petraeus - she would provide the legitimate cover, he would provide the security. Sadly, when the you know what hit the fan, the armed personnel received stand-down orders (from the CIA) while Hillary spent precious time wondering why the CIA was doing nothing. In the meantime, Stevens was killed and the rest is history.

Klein's sources claim Obama called Hillary Clinton after a short while and wanted her to put out a statement that an offensive YouTube video was responsible for the tragedy and that the attackers were not terrorists but spontaneous demonstrators. Bill was furious. He told Hillary that this lie would not hold up with the American people. He begged her to refuse Obama's order, that this was a cynical ploy to misinform the public so as to not jeopardize Obama's re-election, and that the truth would come out soon.

Ultimately, after hashing it over, Bill and Hillary decided as despicable as the Benghazi lie was, their chances of a 2016 win was better served by going along with Obama's policy on the matter. Alienating the president over Benghazi would hurt Obama's re-election and the Democrats would take it out on the Clintons. Politics trumped doing the right thing.

And yet, the Clintons shrewdly fought a rearguard action against the Benghazi deception. Valerie Jarrett (Obama's political oracle) called Hillary and asked her to spread the YouTube lie by going on the Sunday talk shows. Bill got on a plane and flew to Washington where he begged Hillary to refuse. He told her, "It's a trap. They're trying to hang the whole mess on you!"

Hillary took Bill's advice and Valerie Jarrett had to get UN Ambassador Susan Rice to do the talk shows instead. Consequently, Rice became the focus of the public's outrage over Benghazi until Hillary made a huge blunder when she testified before the Senate committee early in 2013 where she flailed her arms in frustration at their badgering, and declared, "Whether it was terrorists or a guy out for walk, we have four dead Americans. What difference at this point does it make!"

A friend was with Bill watching this disastrous PR moment on television. Bill was horrified and went pale. With 2016 in mind, he said, "The Republicans will make ads replaying that line in a loop" with the images of the attack in the background. He added, "I would if I were them."

On Saturday, I will discuss Part III of this study: Bill Clinton and the deal he was betrayed. Happy Fourth of July!

Patriot Thought




No comments:

Post a Comment

Visitor Comments

The dated links and statements below show interaction between the readers and makers of this blog to further the marketplace of ideas that enrich the education of patriots. Certain opinions made to posts are excerpted and re-posted here to highlight interesting discussions by fellow patriots.

Chris CJuly 28, 2013 at 12:31 PM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I think it is absurd to draw a moral equivalence between innocent until proven guilty and guilty until proven innocent. It should be clear that one is far more protective and respectful of individual rights than the other. It's ironic that you attack the American system here, when it obviously takes more into account that someone could be falsely accused. Hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution rather than the defense.

DonaldJuly 28, 2013 at 8:27 AM[writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

It is interesting because the American Justice system goes from a innocent until proven guilty point of view. It definitely is no better in China where it is from a guilty until proven innocent point of view. Both are flawed because both lend themselves to being tainted with corruption as well as the norms of society.

Living the JourneyJuly 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

I found it interesting that Donald's perception of how America out to be was originally influenced by American fiction. This reminds me of when I arrived in China the first time expecting to see sword toting warriors running on the roofs of ancient temple like buildings. I was definitely surprised by reality.

Donald
July 26, 2013 at 9:09 AM [writing in response to Thursday, July 25, 2013: Moral Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial and on the Right to Self Defense]

Long before Zimmerman was pronounced innocent, people in my country were laughing at the thought of a white man (yes he is white Hispanic really) being found guilty of killing a black teenager. That will never happen they say. When things like that happen, it is the stuff of legend and stories and hollywood scripts. Look at some of the greatest literature found out there (to kill a mocking bird for example). It is the stand of the downtrodden black defendant who triumphs over the hard and brutal white man. This in itself is a tragedy as well because of the stereotypical vision people then have of the US as in the case of many of my country people as well as others from other countries in their view of America.

Anonymous
December 28, 2012 12:13 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I do believe in evil but I also believe that Adam Lanza had mental issues that weren't being addressed. Also, he had been abandoned by his father whom he hadn't seen in over 2 years and who had a second family which Adam was not a part of. Adam had been assigned a school psychologist but somewhere along the line he dropped through the cracks and didn't get the care he needed that could possibly have prevented this tragedy. We'll never know...

Living the JourneyDecember 31, 2012 7:16 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

How can evil be defined in a pluralistic society? Is morality something decided by vote? And then following that question, how can evil be "treated"? Jason, I think you're trying to open a door that very few want to walk through because if we do, we are forced to make choices about things many would like to leave "relative".

Anonymous
December 31, 2012 7:36 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

I think we should stop offering up drug store psychology and focus on the one common denominator- GUNS. Psychotic people exist in all cultures, nations and religions. Look at the countries in the world with strict gun control laws; such as Japan, Australia, Canada to name a few, and they have far less violence involving guns. Are you blaming secularism? Science? The devil made him do it! Right? Simply, Adam Lanza and other mass murderers are mentally ill. So let's make it impossible for people like him to obtain guns of mass destruction.

Jason Aldous
December 31, 2012 10:56 AM[writing in response to Friday, December 28, 2012: Beyond Gun Control: The Real Reason For Sandy Hook (A Moral Analysis)]

Dear Living the Journey, We will always have tragedies so long as there is evil. Evil as such can not be cured through government policy. On the contrary, its work can only be limited through choices made by individuals.

Dear Anonymous, I do blame secular reasoning for making it difficult for us to address the problem. If you take good and evil out of your worldview, morally you can not say there is anything wrong with what Adam Lanza did. You may be horrified at what he did, but you can not judge it against any standards, if good and evil are removed as avenues of inquiry.

Jason AldousDecember 27, 2012 6:39 PM [writing in response to Wednesday, December 26, 2012: Gun Control Part 3: The Second Amendment (A Legal Analysis)]

Let's see, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Even if the wording implies that the populace must be armed when called up for militia service, it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed." Since the amendment states that bearing arms is a "right" and "not to be infringed" it is an open and shut case for anyone taking an objective reading of it. "Rights" are entitlements. Privileges can be taken away, but not rights. It matters not if this right was given with militia service in mind. Good work, Mr. Emma.


AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 3:46 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

On my part, I think that all guns should definitely be regulated and strictly controlled. Its interesting that almost all Americans point to the 2nd amendment. From my point of view, this 2nd Amendment was written in a time when there was 'trust' among people and their government. Today this trust has been flushed down the drain

AnonymousDecember 17, 2012 5:26 PM [writing in response to Monday, December 17, 2012, Gun Control Part 2: Would Society Be Better Off If All Guns Were Made Illegal? (A Reasonable Treatment)]

In 1959, 60% of the American public favored a ban on handguns. Today, the majority of the American people don't even support a ban on assault rifles. Why? Because since 1959, the argument that tighter gun control would reduce crime has been effectively refuted in the mind of the public. The change in attitude toward gun control is primarily due to fear of crime rather than distrust of government.


GeoDecember 8, 2012 2:11 PM [writing in response to Friday, December 7, 2012, Pearl Harbor: Was It Japan's Fault, or America's? (Conspiracy Theory vs. History)]

FDR campainged on keeping the US out of the war but when he wanted to get into the war he needed an excuse. He may very well have been tempted to withhold information from his top commanders at Pearl Harbor. They certainly suspected he did.

GeoDecember 8, 2012 at 1:28 PM[writing in response to Saturday, December 1, 2012, Voting In A Bad Economy, Recession Myths: De-Constructing Historical Falsification]

Can't argue with your observations, Jason, but even with the limited space no mention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs in any discussion of Hoover/Great Depression/FDR is to ignore an elephant in the room.

Chris CDecember 7, 2012 at 4:40 PM[writing in response to Tuesday, November 27, 2012, The Next Great American President: Who We Need To Look For In 2016]

One qualm: I don't think Suez can be regarded as a long-term success for Eisenhower. It bought us no credibility with the developing world and managed to alienate important Allies. As a result, we got no real help from Britain in Vietnam and plenty of hostility from France in the 1960's. France's desire to oppose or sabotage us on key issues has continued to this day.