WALLACE: Senator Graham, how important is it for Secretary of State Clinton to testify under oath before she leaves office about the Benghazi terror attack?...With all that assurance that Hillary Clinton would testify, later that day, we heard the news that Hillary Clinton had entered the hospital with a blood clot. We weren't told the site of said blood clot. Was it her brain (recently concussed)? Was it her leg (where she had a blood clot back in 1998)? The former is a big deal, the latter, not so much. Why not specify the site, since it make such a big difference, medically? Oh, but we're told we must not display any skepticism, any hint of suspicion that the SOS is trying to avoid having to testify about Benghazi. The woman is ill. Only a clod would say a clot was a plot.
GRAHAM: Absolutely essential that she'd testify....
WALLACE: Some of your Republican colleagues say they are prepared to hold off the confirmation of John Kerry as secretary of state, until Secretary Clinton testifies as secretary, before she leaves office.
GRAHAM: That's going to happen. I've been told by Senator Kerry he wants that approach also. He needs to hear what she says so he can make comments about, I agree with her/I don't agree with her. It makes sense to have her go first.
WALLACE: Do you agree with that, Senator Feinstein, that she needs to testify first, as an -- and have you been assured she will testify, though it has been 3 1/2 months since Benghazi and she still has never really answered questions, about Benghazi, her role before, during, after the attack? Do you have reason to believe she'll testify as secretary?
FEINSTEIN: She has said she will and I believe she will. You know, she's had a very real accident and she's recovering from it, and, she will be back. I gather, her first day, of work may well be next week. So, I think that's good news.
Here's medical expert Kent Sepkowitz:
Unlike the relatively bland “concussion after fainting” pronouncement from earlier this month, this terse press release from her spokesman smells a little fishy. First it is odd that we are not told where the clot is—usually the clot, referred to as thrombophlebitis, occurs in the leg, a condition suffered by former president Richard Nixon after leaving the White House.Maybe you can remember — if not, guess! — how sensitive we were to Nixon's phlebitis, which conveniently flared up in the midst of Watergate. Ha! That bastard thinks he can get our sympathy. Pathetic! (That's what I said at the time.)
The clot [in the leg] can be uncomfortable but is only dangerous and even life threatening if it breaks free and travels downstream into the lung—a pulmonary embolus, in medical parlance.... Given that Clinton already has had this condition and those who have had one episode have a predilection to recurrence, the lack of a reminder of the 1998 clot from her press people seems a strange oversight.The suppression of information — the site of the clot — suggests 2 radically different theories: 1. fakery/exaggeration to evade testimony, or 2. something horribly serious. I read Sepkowitz to exclude the middle ground.
Another problem with the “concussion then clot” story is this—the concussion, if indeed it came after a faint, should not directly predispose Clinton to a clot....
Alternatively, is it possible that the clot in question is one in the lining of the brain that can form after head trauma.... But anticoagulation is never given to persons with clots around the brain. They are either watched without intervention or surgically evacuated. So this possible explanation is out.
We are left with a story that is not easy to connect up with sparse information from the inside crowd, who could easily deflate speculation with two or three more measly facts. The National Enquirer has already declared Clinton to be suffering from a brain tumor, linking her observed weight gain, possibly from treatment for the putative cancer, and not-exactly-explained need to leave Obama’s Cabinet to the grim diagnosis. Such a story no longer seems to me as implausible as it did after the faint and concussion reports.
UPDATE: Email from CNN says: "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a blood clot between her brain and skull behind her right ear, her doctors said." This seems to be the option that Sepkowitz excluded because "anticoagulation is never given to persons with clots around the brain." If that's correct, then something is still, to use Sepkowitz's word, fishy.
UPDATE 2: Here's the Washington Post, on January 1st, noting the site of the clot and saying "The conventional treatment is an anticoagulant drug for at least six months." So that directly contradictions Sepkowitz's statement that "anticoagulation is never given to persons with clots around the brain."
AND: I've got a bit more to say here.
Posts
266 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 266 of 266You aren't interested in anything but propaganda.
A doctor's report is not propaganda. Unless you think the doctor and the entire hospital staff is lying. Which is the next conspiracy theory I'm sure.
"one day I'm " whore", the next I'm a "prude". "
They are not mutually exclusive.
I wan't talking about a doctor's report.
Everything you say is party propaganda, garage. You're a bitter partisan who has absolutely no interest in anything but pushing your partisan agenda.
The fact that you have presented this "news" that Hillary's doctor made a statement is almost enough to discount that news as propaganda.
Tell me, now, about all those indictments against Gov. Walker that you were so sure were imminent.
Make up your mind ST one day I'm " whore", the next I'm a "prude".
I've never called you a whore.
Somebody else might have. You're a pretty irritating, sanctimonious old hag.
I have a lot of respect for an honest whore, Inga.
I can't imagine you succeeding at that.
Tell me, now, about all those indictments against Gov. Walker that you were so sure were imminent.
Refresh my memory. I don't recall saying that.
I suppose it's verboten to mention Lawyers Guns and Money also has something on this matter and Althouse.
Lawyers Guns and Money
Go right ahead.
You're sinking down the food chain pretty rapidly.
The sexual tension b/w ST and Inga has gone on long enough. It's time for them to fuck.
2013: Just do it.
Ach du Lieber, halts Mund!
LOL @ 4:17
Pretty funny, Chip!
I would only do her as a double.
You want the other end?
Are you partial to which end you take?
ST, just make her wear a ball gag.
Pervert.
ST, just make her wear a ball gag.
Won't get the job done, Chip.
It's gonna take deep penetration on both ends to break her down and get her off.
Well. Turns out to be a blood clot between the skull and the brain, revealed by MRI.
Virtual rape, nice, very admirable.
Can't you get one of the Dawgz to do that, ST?
@Unknown, t&p to HRC.
But we're on a topic of much more LT importance to the blog now.
So, let me get this straight. You engage in sexual harassment as a form of shutting up a female liberal commenter.
I might find this exchange humorous, except I detect a very real attempt to shut me up. Why don't ya rape Garage instead? ;)
You must be new to Wonkette.
Here we go with Inga's nightly martyrdom weeper.
Just as I foretold!
I think that Althouse herself may find it amusing that she was mentioned in several places around the blogoshere today, as I said earlier, hey it's publicity. I'm sure she's weathered worse.
The fact that she's weathered worse is not necessarily better.
ST you really do not know me, I was chuckling, all the while knowing just what you two were up to.
Anyway, get off of me.
Not on you yet, Inga.
As I said, that would require reinforcement with more troops.
Blah, blah, whatever.
Pervert.
Anyway, what do you mean by that unknown? I doubt this will hurt her brand, she is who she is.
As I said, that would require reinforcement with more troops.
Man Card REVOKED.
I'd hate to have to agree w/garage, ST. This should be a DIY project.
I'm gettin' my gun.
edutcher said...
Hey, Allen, I hear you and Roger were her security detail when those snipers opened up. She gave each of you a pantsuit. You still have it, you have the pantsuit.
All I got was this stinkin t-shirt, man. I wear pantsuits often. Around here, they're called coveralls.
weathered worse is when you've been rode hard, and put up wet.
The clot is in her head (between the skull and brain, just above her right ear). The primary danger is stroke.
Richard, that's terrible news. Where in the fuck is Bill?
He is off getting a blowjob.
This is the second fainting episode, and isn't it the second blood clot?
Seems she is not physically well enough to be president.
From the people who broke the John Edwards imbroglio...
"The 65-year-old former First Lady fainted earlier this month and after an exhaustive investigation by The ENQUIRER, we broke a bombshell cover story that hit newsstands a few days ago that revealed insiders believe Hillary is battling brain cancer, and sources said she was facing a hush-hush battery of medical tests to confirm the diagnosis.
“Behind the scenes,Hillary has suffered blinding headaches, problems with her vision and memory, plus terrifying blackouts – and those closest to her say she’s hiding a brain cancer secret,” a source revealed, according to our bombshell report.
“If Hillary is indeed diagnosed with brain cancer, the fear that she could die in a manner of months has devastated those in her inner circle.
"This has been covered up for months, but details of Hillary’s cancer situation are beginning to leak out, and it’s the real reason she’s giving up her position as Secretary of State.”
National Enquirer
" Blogger Richard Simpkins said...
The clot is in her head (between the skull and brain, just above her right ear). The primary danger is stroke."
She apparently has a cavernous sinus thrombosis which is not usually a trauma related condition. It does cause problems like 6th cranial nerve palsy, causing one eye to be partially paralyzed. It would be treated with anticoagulant and can have serious consequences.
The reason is still a mystery but the story makes more sense than it has before.
I am not quite sure why I am posting on this... because arguing with a bunch of people who obviously lack knowledge about politics is basically dumb...here it goes...
1. Using words like whore, old hag, etc is disgraceful and disgusting. You should actually be quite ashamed with yourself. Using words with little intelectual meaning shows your inability to have an intelligent political discussion. When you reach that level of desperateness and cannot articulate a REAL comeback, you have basically lost your argument.
2. Hillary Clinton does not have cancer. The National Enquirer also once reported that Britney Spears was an Alien. I don't think I need to give this any more thought.
3. Benghazi testimony will not be earth shattering. She will testify, but believe me... it will not change anything.
4. The lack of information coming from Hillary's camp is not outrageous and frankly it should not anger any of you or lead you to believe such ridiculous theories.
Medical information is always slow and technically none of our business. Medical situations like these are serious, personal and family matters. There are certain people that have a right to know the information about Hillary's condition before the media does. She also has a right to privacy on these matters and while her family and staff are dealing with the situation, time and patience is needed as all involved deal with the situation on a personal level.
Thanks, Dunnzo. It's always nice to get input from people who believe in fairies, whose idols include Britney Spears and Nancy Pelosi, and who "hate John Boehner and Eric Cantor and have a deep disgust for the Tea Party."
I'll heed your call to believe you. You seem really smart and well-informed.
are you unable to respond to my actual response Chip? Not sure how to? oh no!
What, exactly, is there to reply to?
I get it. You're a sanctimonious grrl who's among the 50.6% of the voting population that has decided that striking a pose is all-important, while actually knowing what you're talking about is cause to be hated.
I note that you don't even feel embarrassed by your expressions of hatred toward those who disagree w/ you.
Ciao, bambina; I've got somewhere else to be now.
Come back any time and we can chat.
AllenS: He was spotted at the same hospital more than once. You'll have to look for that scandal elsewhere, I'm afraid.
At this point, I think Clinton should set up a direct feed in her hospital room and do hearings from there. The GOP has earned that shame.
Richard Simpkins
How would that be a Republican shame?
Ann: I think you are just one step away from connecting this blood clot to Vince Foster...please stay on the case!
wyo sis: The pressure for her forego her doctors' advice and go testify has been so great, that the optics of her testifying from her hospital room would be pretty brutal.
Many within the GOP believe (hope?) that they are losing so much on the national stage because of optics (not substance). That being the case, it's hard to deny that the optics of attacking a woman with a blood clot in her head are pretty unfavorable. Just like 47%, self deportation, big bird, and women full of binders, the GOP is letting themselves look mean and out of touch by engaging in this sort of attack. It sidelines genuine policy proposals and give the other side something to grouse about.
Say what you will about these perceptions, but remember, many Republicans denied all of this would hurt them in 2012. We are possibly on the verge of passing a budget deal that includes zero entitlement cuts (not even chained CPI reform). The GOP needs to get back in the game and stop seeing conspiracies around every corner.
Nice to see you're keepin' it classy, conservatives!
“Behind the scenes,Hillary has suffered blinding headaches, problems with her vision and memory, plus terrifying blackouts – and those closest to her say she’s hiding a brain cancer secret,” a source revealed, according to our bombshell report.
To be a bit snarky, the memory loss and blackouts are nothing new - but maybe inherited from her husband?
What's inappropriate about right now?
I don't know, but I'm sure the administration has its reasons, which probably have a lot more to do with national security than anything else. But I do know that the vast majority of people who are just asking questions at this time are people to whom nothing is owed. So they get nothing. I'll start worrying when more credible and serious people start pushing the issue.
I think that you are the one who is starting to sound childish, and not the adult in the room, that you somehow want to be.
Yes, you, I, and the rest of the commenters here cannot ask the President or the Secretary of State these questions, but our representatives in Washington can, and probably should.
The idea that the Administration cannot tell Congress what went on in regards to Benghazi (or, Fast and Furious for that matter) because of national security is somewhere between naive and egregious. Sure, all of Congress is not to be trusted, but there have long been procedures in place to divulge even the most secret of our national secrets to very select members of Congress. (And, last time that was violated, it was by Dem. Sen. Rockefeller, who was immediately replaced by a more trusted Dem. Senator) And, that was for access to information that is probably much more critically secret than this.
One of the jobs of Congress is oversight of the Executive Branch. Not so much the White House, but the rest of it, which is part of why President Obama isn't being asked directly what he knew, when, and what did he order or not order that night, or what was or was not ordered in his name (most likely, I think, by V. Jarett).
As with Fast and Furious, Congress seems to be being told "trust us" by the Obama Administration, when their requests for information are denied. In the case of F&F, that was supposedly so that AG Holder's hand picked IG could finish her investigation.
The problem is that if Congress isn't going to be able to investigate the operation of the government, then who is? Who has subpoena power? And is independent of the government being investigated?
Continued...
Also keep in mind that what goes around, comes around. An independent prosecutor was appointed, and Scooter Libby ended up a felon, for not remembering not telling the Novak that Plame was a former CIA spy flying a desk at Langley, after her Dem political operative husband had embarrassed the Bush Administration after getting a CIA junket at her suggestion. No one died, and Plame was able to retire early as a result of this outing.
Now we have another CIA/State scandal, but this time 4 Americans died as a result, with the President and his top security staff apparently watching in real time in the WH Situation Room, and someone at the top of the food chain most likely having given a stand-down order. This was after security had been seriously downgraded a couple of weeks before, over strenuous objections of those on the ground, including the now dead Ambassador. And, then the Administration, including President Obama and esp. his U.N. Ambassador, blatantly lied to the American people about it in order to aid his reelection.
So, we get a report where four bureaucrats are called out for not being zealous enough, or something like that. A breakdown in the system. And, we are told that they have been fired or reassigned. But, then, find out that that was pure window dressing, and they are back at their jobs, or something like that.
So, I guess, under the next Republican Administration, the you, the MSM, Dems in Congress, etc. can be told that it is childish to expect answers to scandals, and that it really isn't any of their business, and if it is like Plamegate, that no one died, as they did with Fast and Furious and with Benghazi, and if those scandals couldn't be investigated, then lesser Republican ones shouldn't be.
But, I do think that we have a right to know the answers here. In this country, the government works for the people, and not the other way around. Its legal basis is the consent of the governed. And, from the first, our Founders distrusted government, as do many in this country now.
"Try to remember
My brain's in a blender.
It's jello"
3. Benghazi testimony will not be earth shattering. She will testify, but believe me... it will not change anything.
Maybe I will turn out to be naive, but I somehwhat agree here, in regards to Hillary! While some of the pro-Muslim orientation of the State Department maybe coming from her, I would expect that it is more coming from the President, who for a time was raised a Muslim. And, ditto for the anti-American stand of the Department - that is more keeping with the Dreams of his Father. In other words, I think that when the dust settles, and the archives are finally opened up in a couple of generations, that we will find that much of the direction of the State Department was coming from the White House, and that this was one of the few departments that wasn't being allowed to function as a mini-fiefdom with a committed ideologue at the helm.
Or, alternatively, the department was running itself. Because it is one of the oldest departments, it apparently has a bureaucratic culture that is close to impossible to control. Probably exceeds even the Defense department for having an uncontrollable entrenched bureaucracy. Dr. Rice admitted that she couldn't control it, no matter how hard she tried, and I would be quite surprised if Hillary! were any more successful.
I am not excusing her really. The buck has to stop somewhere, and that means either with her or her boss. Or, more likely, both. But, it is still a sad state of affairs when a U.S. Ambassador is murdered, on soil that is officially American, along with three other Americans, and the bureaucracy goes on, claiming bureaucratic error, and gets away with it.
I think that when the dust settles, and the archives are finally opened up in a couple of generations, that we will find that much of the direction of the State Department was coming from the White House, and that this was one of the few departments that wasn't being allowed to function as a mini-fiefdom with a committed ideologue at the helm. -- Bruce Hayden
Do you really think that our government institutions will be that open in a couple of generations? Notice the difference in openness between this short time frame from Bush to Obama.
And, may I add, if the next POTUS is Hillary, her administration will be less open than the Obama one.
If that's correct, then something is still, to use Sepkowitz's word, fishy.
Is there no end to Althouse idiocy?
Bruce Hayden said...
In this country, the government works for the people, and not the other way around. Its legal basis is the consent of the governed. And, from the first, our Founders distrusted government, as do many in this country now.
Anyone who trusts government today, including the military above the rank of Colonel, is foolish. Well meaning perhaps, but just foolish.
Work there for a bit and the obvious screams at you. Don't "think"...just perform your routine and shut up.
Regarding that blood clot:
It's common knowledge that:
A) Bill Clinton is a playa
and
B) sometimes a playa's got to keep his pimp hand strong.
So my question is: when did Bill Clinton stop beating his wife?
Just my opinion, but I think that believing Hillary will add anything to the body of knowledge of what happened in Benghazi is a false hope. Neither she nor her husband are known for there veracity.
If she is ill, or just shows symptoms, I say leave her alone...pay her no attention, for privacy reasons and primarily for the fact that she's done nothing to warrant attention in the first place. Like her boss, she covers her tracks with a clumsy precision.
Next, very senior executives in government do NOT actually "DO" anything, they direct, coerce, or outright threaten minions. If you seek full disclosure of Le Affair' Benghazi Congress will need to subpoena every supervisory "minion" in foreign service, intelligence services, military service, and civil service with any involvement...including especially United States Agency for International Development [USAID]....with any even remote connection to Libya and Benghazi, even Syria.
USAID is the **go to** cloak agency for foreign service, intelligence and military clandestine operations....and its compliment of staff includes all the federal personnel classes cited above.
Now I know what I propose isn't going to happen. It would hugely cumbersome and confusing...although there are some personnel who would tell the truth on principle, they would be drowned out by the litany of prevarications by the majority, who are trying to keep their jobs.
If you want historic examples of how it all works, this institutionalized control, and who can reveal it...read "A Bright Shinning Lie" by Neil Sheehan and also, "Decent Interval" by Frank Snepp. Lt Col John Paul Van, Frank Snepp, and Daniel Ellsberg were "minions" ... and ultimately the source of some truth regarding Vietnam. USAID was in South Vietnam from the beginning until the very last day...and is still there in Hanoi today at 15/F, Tung Shing Building
2 Ngo Quyen Street
Hanoi, Vietnam.
We can wait for a real whistle-blower....and that is about it. We might even learn, for starters, why we had an essentially unsecured Consulate and CIA facility in Benghazi in the first place.
Of all the departments to throw into conspiracy theories, you choose USAID?!?!?!?!?! USAID is probably the one agency here in the U.S. that actually helps people around the world. The work it is doing is instrumental to our FP goals . The partnerships it has built in the last 10 years and the work being done in the developing world is outstanding. Few Americans know about the amazing work our government is doing abroad. It is not a partisan issue either - helping other countries makes us a good guy.
USAID is the **go to** cloak agency for foreign service, intelligence and military clandestine operations....and its compliment of staff includes all the federal personnel classes cited above.
USAID has nothing to do with intelligence gathering or military operations. USAID provides foreign assistance to countries in need. Assistance in the forms of food, healthcare, vaccines, education and family planning services.
USAID was in South Vietnam from the beginning until the very last day...
USAID was created by JFK in 1961 - thus it is impossible for USAID to have been there from the beginning. USAID actually did not start working Vietnam until 1989 and was there to provide assistance to those with disabilities, help build economic growth and help with HIV/AIDS. Don't believe me? Here you go...
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/vietnam/8621/pdf-forms/15anniv-USAID-Factsheet.pdf
I encourage everybody to learn more about the courageous work USAID is doing:
http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do
Dunnzo alleges ...
USAID has nothing to do with intelligence gathering or military operations...[snip]...
USAID was created by JFK in 1961 - thus it is impossible for USAID to have been there from the beginning. USAID actually did not start working Vietnam until 1989.
Are you intentionally lying or just duped by agency blarney? You are unaware of the Mac-V/CORDS connection with USAID in Vietnam? Unaware of the distinctly political/military Phoenix Program under CORDS...very similar to Obama's "drone program" of today, in fact.
The US covert but substantial active combat involvement in S. E. Asia began 1959, and extended to 1962, as Operation White Star. One of my current close friends was part of Operation White Star and quite privy to who was who doing what when in those days. USAID was a conglomeration of earlier agency efforts. Period. Not new.
It would be fair to say our overt involvement began in 1962 and USAID was there officially from at least 1965 onward (to today) with the arrival of LTC John Paul Vann, originally an advisor and participant in the disastrous battle of Ap Bac.
How you determine USAID didn't arrive in Vietnam until 1989 baffles me. I suggest you read and listen to those of us who were there ....when you were not. Start with the books I suggested, and the Pentagon Papers.
BTW...I never said USAID didn't perform good works. They do. It is just that it is not ALL they do. I did say they cloak clandestine work by the military and intelligence communities. One does not preclude the other. As far as how "secret" this all is....that went in the loo with the Pentagon Papers.
If you actually believe USAID has no military or intelligence functions then you are a delight to our enemies...all of whom know precisely what USAID does. Perchance "Rural Development" doesn't mean what you think it does?
Do you ever admit that you don't know what you're talking about and should have just said nothing. Maybe your medical knowledge comes from one of those audiobooks you "read" daily while you're sleeping.
J Malone ...who are you addressing? since I gave no medical comment or conclusion I presume it is not me. There are at least a couple medical doctors who comment here. Your comment might be worth discussion if we knew what or who you are remarking upon.
As the sun sets slowly in the west on the first day of a new year ...
I picture a scene of Montana Urban Legend and Allie Oop sitting in a comfortable living room, fire in the fireplace, glass of wine each, reminiscing what a good year 2012 was, especially last November with the triumphal second presidential victory of Barack Obama over George Bush.
Some advice on this post: "Step back and read it with the eyes of someone who has never heard of you. You sound like a raving conspiracy theorist."
Post a Comment