…. the only thing the “Clinton” duo are concerned with are The Clinton’s.  P.E.R.I.O.D.

During a discussion last week with Admin Sharon I remarked: “watch Fareed Zakaria for directional intent on the Beghazi coverup“….   Fareed’s Sunday Talker, unknown at the time, would present the primary consideration for optical political positioning.

Why Fareed is an entirely “other story”, but suffice to say “it’s true”.

And who showed up?  Bill Clinton.   Why?  The future Democrat Party ‘risk assessment’ is more weighted toward protecting Hillary Clinton than President Obama.   Again, I repeat these are two ideologically aligned, but yet opposing, contingents within the greater progressive movement.

But, as people hold a favorable opinion of both Bubba and Pantsuits, let there be no doubt how horribly self-serving, manipulative, and self-indulgent the power-hungry Clintons are.   Sharon drops a link to a BuzzFeed article which outlines some of the narrative reasoning:

On Saturday night, State Department spokesperson Philippe Reines slammed CNN for its “disgusting” handling of Ambassador Christopher Stevens’ diary. The diary helped confirm, as the network reported, that Stevens had been worried about the threat of an Al Qaeda attack, and even feared his own name was included on a hit list.  […]

“Perhaps the real question here,” CNN responded to the State Department criticism, “Is why is the State Department now attacking the messenger.”

That is the real question, and State Department’s bizarre criticism of CNN gives clues to the answer. Foggy Bottom is now in full-on damage control mode, with the primary goal of keeping Hillary Clinton’s legacy in Libya — and in Washington — intact.  […]

But in reality, the fiasco appears to be largely — if not entirely — a State Department botch. It was the State Department that failed to provide its ambassador adequate security; it was the State Department that fled Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack, apparently failing to clear or secure the scene, leaving Stevens’ diary behind; and it was State that had taken the lead on the ground after the Libya intervention. […]

Reines’ personal involvement in responding to CNN this weekend — deflecting the blame of the department’s failure to secure the personal effects of a fallen ambassador to a cable network — can be read as more or less an expression of Hillary Clinton’s id.

There is a tragic human cost to what happened: the unbearable pain and grief the family and friends of the four Americans, compounded by intense media scrutiny and competing cover-your-ass agendas within the U.S. government. To publish material against a grieving family’s wishes is a tough call. But in this case, CNN behaved responsibly, and was clearly within any reasonable journalistic standards. Some of the best reporting out of Libya so far has been from CNN’s Arwa Damon —the network’s veteran no-bullshit war correspondent, fluent in Arabic, who is one the best in the business.

Behind the trauma of what happened, however, there are huge questions of politics, policy, and legacy at stake. […]

The question of legacy — who gets the credit for Libya, who gets the blame — has been a contested space between the White House and the State Department from the beginning. It was in Ryan Lizza’s story in the New Yorker — a story that captured a distinctly State Department perspective — where the infamous anti-Obama “leading from behind” quote originated. The piece also laid the groundwork for the narrative of Clinton’s rock star-like revival, though it was at the expense of the president. The New Yorker story was published months before Qaddaffi had fallen, and in glow of the conflict’s aftermath and perceived success among the foreign policy community, State Department officials tried to paint Libya as a Clintonian initiative. (Exhibit A: posing for a Time cover.) The White House, meanwhile, tried to make it clear that President Obama was the true driving force behind the intervention.

Now Clinton’s tenure at Secretary of State is winding down while Obama’s re-election campaign intensifies. With the stunning revelations in the Ambassador’s personal diary, the continued failure to get the Libya story straight, and Team Clinton’s over-the-top response to any questioning of the official narrative, Clinton’s State Department legacy is at risk of being permanently tarnished.  (read full article)

So who showed up on Fareed Zakaria’s show?  Bill Clinton.  Why, the visible optic was to discuss the Clinton Global Initiative.   The invisible optic is to retain control of the Clinton imagery/legacy and future power.

But within the interview itself, and contrasted against the backdrop of the highly accurate Buzzfeed insight, you find the disingenuous protectionism of The Pantsuits.   Consider this snippet:

Bill Clinton Challenges Wal-Mart CEO To Open A Store In Libya?  NEW YORK (AP) — Former President Bill Clinton on Sunday challenged Wal-Mart to open a store in Libya and help create jobs in the world’s most troubled areas.

“If the new president of Libya asked you to open a store in Tripoli, would you consider it?” Clinton asked Wal-Mart CEO Mike Duke at the opening session of the Clinton Global Initiative.  (full article)

Think about this a minute.   Then consider an example of a brutally honest Treeper response:

Gee Mr. Clinton, let’s see, Hmmmm?   If several hundred heavily armed Americans had just stormed the Libyan Consulate Office in Atlanta Georgia, burned the place down, killed an ambassador’s staffer, dragged the Libyan Ambassador to his death, then chased and killed two Libyan military personnel – all next to the downtown park of Martin Luther King;  would the Libyan talk shows be discussing opening up a Taboule factory in, say, Dallas Texas?

Would Justice Mustafa Abdel Jalil be asking the CEO of Taboule Inc., within a week, what his consideration would be for opening such a venue a few days after the bodies of the four Libyans had just been returned and buried?

Sound absurd?   It is.

It is until you understand the entire Clinton family narrative right now is damage control of their power, influence, and political future.    Distract, obfuscate, avoid.    Let’s talk about what the word “is” really means.

Perhaps a little unknown history lesson is in order to help understand the “character” of these Clintons.

When Al Gore lost the 2000 election to George W Bush the Clinton staffers left the White House in little publicly known condition.

Karl Rove revealed much of the condition in his book “Courage and Consequence”, when he describes what it was like to enter the White House after the Clintons.

The Clinton staff had spray painted their angst on the walls of the staffer offices.  In addition they had cut up the upholstery of the seating in various staff and administrative rooms.   They also removed the “W” buttons from the computers on every single terminal in the White House, and the #9 on every telephone (which holds the letter ‘W’).

Perhaps worse than carving on the desks, trashing the offices, and writing on the carpets and walls, was their moving of every single telephone in the White House and residence.   The communications network is obviously highly extensive, and by swapping every single phone from its recognized and addressed outlet, the communications were impossible.   So much so than the entire communication network had to be rebuilt by a private contractor when the Bush administration began.   It cost $$$$$$$.

This example just highlights the “character” of the team surrounding the Clintons.   These are the characteristics of their chosen and hand-picked staff.   What does that tell you about the bosses?

Yeah, it was more than just a Lewinskyesque sexually driven frat party.  It was the most unprofessional, self-serving, arrogant and belittling administration ever.  Well, until the Valerie Jarrett crew moved in (January 2009).   But I doubt even Obama’s team, as bad as they are, would be that hate-filled and disgusting.

So if people want to think Hillary and Bill Clinton are representative of all things good with the Democrat party;   I just say pause a minute, look with a research intended open mind, and peer back behind the protective Clinton curtain the media loves to put in place.

You might just be a little surprised at the toxic swamp behind that curtain.