The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Hillary Clinton’s woes continue

Recent events have not been kind to Hillary Clinton, but she is far from an innocent victim in what surely is one of the worst revival tours in memory.

Hillary Clinton, still unwilling to acknowledge her and her boss’s failure to accurately assess the threats from al-Qaeda and the spread of jihaists into Libya, stubbornly insists we really don’t know why the jihadists attacked and killed our people. Oh, puhleez. While not a supporter of civilian trials for enemy combatants, I must admit there is something satisfying about the prosecution’s version of events laid out for all to see.  The New York Times (which fell for the maybe-it-was-the-video rationalization from the administration) delivers the blow:

[The indictment] said that in the days before the attack, he voiced “concern and opposition to the presence of an American facility in Benghazi,” the government said.
On the night of Sept. 11, 2012, a group of at least 20 men armed with machine guns, handguns and rocket-propelled grenades gathered outside the United States Mission in Benghazi and “aggressively breached” its gate, according to the document.
The men went on to set fire to the United States Mission. It was that fire that killed Mr. Stevens and a State Department employee. A little later, Mr. Abu Khattala “entered the compound and supervised the exploitation of material from the scene by numerous men, many of whom were armed.”
He then went to one of his militia’s camps, where many of its members had gathered and prepared a second attack, on another American outpost. Fearing that the United States was going to retaliate after the attacks, he tried to obtain weapons in the following days.

Hmm. Sounds like an al-Qaeda terrorist didn’t get word that “al-Qaeda is Dead, G.M. is alive” (an Obama campaign slogan).

Regardless of when we knew this — and the weight of evidence from administration intelligence officials is that it was within a day — we certainly know now that the administration didn’t have al-Qaeda on its heels. And we know, just as we know from the rise of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, that the Obama-Clinton-John Kerry team hyped al-Qaeda’s demise and convinced themselves they were “ending” wars. In doing so, they let al-Qaeda come back, more widespread than ever before.

Then there is the money. Lots and lots of money. The Post reports:

At least eight universities, including four public institutions, have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for Hillary Rodham Clinton to speak on their campuses over the past year, sparking a backlash from some student groups and teachers at a time of austerity in higher education.
In one previously undisclosed transaction, the University of Connecticut — which just raised tuition by 6.5 percent — paid $251,250 for Clinton to speak on campus in April. Other examples include $300,000 to address UCLA in March and $225,000 for a speech scheduled to occur in October at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
The potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate also has been paid for speeches at the University at Buffalo, Colgate University and Hamilton College in New York, as well as Simmons College in Massachusetts and the University of Miami in Florida.
Officials at those five schools refused to say what they paid Clinton. But if she earned her standard fee of $200,000 or more, that would mean she took in at least $1.8 million in speaking income from universities over the past nine months.
Since stepping down as secretary of state in early 2013, Clinton has given dozens of paid speeches to industry conventions and Wall Street banks. But Clinton’s acceptance of high fees for university visits has drawn particularly sharp criticism, with some students and academic officials saying the expenditures are a poor use of funds at a time of steep tuition hikes and budget cuts across higher education.

Despite all this and the horrendous publicity she has been receiving, she can’t seem to give up the cash. One speaking fee after another, Clinton trudges on. She cannot bring herself to say, “Enough.” It is bizarre really that her greed overwhelms her ambition, but the speaking tours suggest that is exactly what is going on. Out of touch doesn’t begin to describe her political problem.