Clinton Is Wrong
It Does Make A Difference
Posted: January 28, 2013
As an alternately emotional and combative Hillary Clinton deftly worked her rhetorical broom Wednesday, sweeping the Benghazi attack under the rug, the Senate, save for Ron Johnson, R-Wis., gave her what amounted to a pass on an incident that left four Americans dead, and the public without an honest explanation on how it all came down.
During Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Mr. Johnson, to his credit, tried to ascertain why, even weeks after the mayhem, the administration insisted the attack was the work of a mob spontaneously protesting an anti-Islamic video and not an al Qaeda-inspired assault, as correctly presumed by most people. The secretary of State arrantly dismissed the question with this offhand, and rather snide (and cynical) question for an increasingly cynical age: “What difference does it make?”
Examined from a short-term political perspective, Mrs. Clinton is right: It doesn’t make a whole heckuva lot of difference, now that the administration has gotten away with this outright lie and the president has been safely reelected.
But, taking a longer view, it does make a difference. Is it any wonder cynicism has hardened on the part of Americans vis-a-vis their government? Four Americans are brutally murdered and the administration will not come clean on the matter because it fears a campaign meme — i.e., that al Qaeda is “on the run” — might be compromised? The American voter deserves better.
And he deserves better, frankly, from Hillary Clinton. Not only did she not face the Sunday talk-show music five days after the fact, leaving that task to talking-head U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, but she also, as Mr. Johnson learned, failed to “expeditiously” debrief the 25 Americans evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. How might a nation — and its State department — learn from its mistakes if such obvious steps are not taken?
What’s more, no explanation, from Mrs. Clinton or anyone else, has been forthcoming as to why the U.S. delegation in Benghazi was 1) not afforded better security or 2) removed from that volatile area altogether.
Mrs. Clinton receives low marks for forthrightness — but high marks for sweeping.
During Mrs. Clinton’s testimony, Mr. Johnson, to his credit, tried to ascertain why, even weeks after the mayhem, the administration insisted the attack was the work of a mob spontaneously protesting an anti-Islamic video and not an al Qaeda-inspired assault, as correctly presumed by most people. The secretary of State arrantly dismissed the question with this offhand, and rather snide (and cynical) question for an increasingly cynical age: “What difference does it make?”
Examined from a short-term political perspective, Mrs. Clinton is right: It doesn’t make a whole heckuva lot of difference, now that the administration has gotten away with this outright lie and the president has been safely reelected.
But, taking a longer view, it does make a difference. Is it any wonder cynicism has hardened on the part of Americans vis-a-vis their government? Four Americans are brutally murdered and the administration will not come clean on the matter because it fears a campaign meme — i.e., that al Qaeda is “on the run” — might be compromised? The American voter deserves better.
And he deserves better, frankly, from Hillary Clinton. Not only did she not face the Sunday talk-show music five days after the fact, leaving that task to talking-head U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, but she also, as Mr. Johnson learned, failed to “expeditiously” debrief the 25 Americans evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. How might a nation — and its State department — learn from its mistakes if such obvious steps are not taken?
What’s more, no explanation, from Mrs. Clinton or anyone else, has been forthcoming as to why the U.S. delegation in Benghazi was 1) not afforded better security or 2) removed from that volatile area altogether.
Mrs. Clinton receives low marks for forthrightness — but high marks for sweeping.