Mike Allen reporting Hillary Clinton may delay 2016 announcement, as Democrats float HRC will once again answer questions on Benghazi.  Screen capture from Newsweek cover, February 2013.

Mike Allen reporting Hillary Clinton may delay 2016 announcement, as Democrats float HRC will once again answer questions on Benghazi.

Screen capture from Newsweek cover, February 2013.

One option being considered would be to announce an exploratory committee earlier — perhaps in April, at the beginning of a new fundraising quarter, in the time frame when insiders originally expected her to launch her campaign. Then the actual kickoff would be in July, near the start of the next quarter. By launching at the beginning of a quarter, supporters would have the maximum amount of time to generate a blockbuster total for their first report. – Mike Allen

WILL SHE is not a question, when she will is the subject of the greatest speculation these days, with Mike Allen reporting team Clinton may wait until the summer to announce Hillary Clinton‘s 2016 campaign launch. Ask what the benefits are of announcing this spring and you’ll likely come to the conclusion that there’s no reason for Hillary to be in a hurry. That’s not even the most interesting story on Clinton this week.

Rep. Elijah Cummings chose this week to reiterate that Mrs. Clinton agreed months ago to come before the Rep. Gowdy‘s Benghazi hearing. Cummings telling CNN of Clinton’s willingness, yet again to reiterate already answered questions on the Benghazi terrorist attack that Republicans simply cannot make stick to her.

“The chairman asked me back in September to inquire as to whether Secretary Clinton would testify,” Cummings said. “She immediately said she would and that she wanted to come in December, but if December did not work, she would come in January. She said I’ll do it, period. The fact is she was very clear. She did not hesitate for one second.”

[…] In the past, Cummings has publicly resisted calling Clinton to testify before the committee. The Maryland congressman said in December that he agrees with other Democrats who say they don’t see why she should be called.

Cummings’ comments on Tuesday, however, revealed the clearest indication to date that Clinton was willing to show up before the committee, though many details remain to be agreed upon and the appearance could well never happen.

For those just tuning in, I did a long read article answering Rep. Gowdy’s questions, which is important to read before opining on Clinton, Benghazi and the obvious Republican politicization of this tragedy. A very small snippet

[…] […] Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.

There is also, whether people like to digest this or not, a responsibility on Ambassador Stevens to get the security he needed. From McClatchy, though this has appeared in other reports, including the ARB, a point I’ve made from the start, which is predicated on the fact that Ambassador Stevens had a dangerous job.

“As the chief of mission, he certainly had a responsibility in that regard, and actually he was very security conscious and increasingly concerned about security,” Mullen said. “But part of his responsibility is certainly to make that case back here, and he had not gotten to that point where you would, you might get to a point where you would be considering, “˜It’s so dangerous, we might close the mission.'”

The embassy Stevens oversaw in Tripoli “did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy with Washington for increased security” in Benghazi, the report stated.

4. Rep. Gowdy on Benghazi asks why assets weren’t deployed, then says he’s heard the explanations, but doesn’t accept them, which is the height of arrogance, but also proof that he not only has his own opinions on foreign service matters on which he has no experience to judge, but also prefers his own facts.

The explanations of why assets were not deployed have come from former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dempsey, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, as well as Gen. Dave Petraeus, former Director of the C.I.A. (a Republican), who not only respects Hillary Clinton, the target of Gowdy’s select committee, but says she’d make “a tremendous president,” which includes commander in chief, just in case Mr. Gowdy is unaware.

In his remarks, Panetta said the initial reports of the attack were given “almost immediately” to the U.S. Embassy in the Libyan capital of Tripoli. Within 17 minutes, Panetta said, an unarmed, unmanned surveillance aircraft was dispatched to give U.S. officials a better idea of what was happening. It arrived at the site about 70 minutes after the attack, he said. Soon, Panetta and Dempsey met with President Barack Obama, the secretary told lawmakers. Obama ordered that the Defense Department respond to the attack with “all available DOD assets” and try to protect U.S. personnel, Panetta said. ““ Panetta, Dempsey defend U.S. response to Benghazi attack


“We didn’t have an official DOD presence in Libya. [Ayotte interrupts, asks again about “chartering a plane”] I would just reiterate, we didn’t have an official DOD presence in Libya.” ““ Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dempsey


“The forces were moving”¦ “¦ There was no time or space available to be able to respond in time.” ““ Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta


“Yeah, if I could just help with that one. The process is you tell a unit to prepare to deploy. When they report readiness you tell them to move. That’s just a piece of the process. There is nothing that held them up.” ““ Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey

There are no facts not already on the record that Mrs. Clinton could add at this point. So, why would she agree to sit before yet another politically motivated committee, as the Stop Hillary PAC pressures Rep. Gowdy to subpoena Clinton to testify yet again?

Hillary Clinton isn’t afraid of Republican attacks, even if she is determined not to let them minimize the dangers of foreign service officers, who are themselves soldiers of diplomacy. Let Clinton reiterate

“My biggest regret is what happened in Benghazi,” Clinton said in January 2014. “It was a terrible tragedy losing four Americans, two diplomats and — now it is public so I can say — two CIA operatives.”

If Hillary Clinton does appear before Gowdy’s committee it is a signal to the media that she’s indifferent to questions, probes and general insanity of the media swarm this time around. That there will be a different relationship with them in 2016. That she will let the chips fall where they may and speak her mind.

Anyone who has the stuff of leadership and has ever lost big, had a public failing, is forever changed by it, no matter your profession. It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about politics or the arts or a local election. What it does for people of character is free you of ever worrying about the good opinion of others again, because you’ve already faced failure and survived it and you know you are freer for it.

There’s a sort of genius behind Hillary Clinton being willing to face Republicans on Benghazi yet again.

This is a woman of substance who has been steeled by the fire of intense competition, world interaction in the most difficult of times and places, and moved through it to become a person whose life is forever rich, no matter what happens in 2016.

Destiny awaits Hillary, no matter if she announces in the spring or in July, with Benghazi not having the power to determine her fate, which she holds in her hands herself.