It’s what Hillary Clinton is likely most afraid of
And therefore is most likely to be ignored or minimized by the press.
Alex Seitz-Wald, writing on National Journal (Democrats Put Hillary Clinton at Risk by Dismissing Benghazi Criticism):
Democrats have adopted a dismissive, almost bemused posture when it comes to the conservative fixation with the 2012 attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, confident in the knowledge that the facts bear little resemblance to what they see as the Right’s conspiracy theories.
On one hand, they’re correct. Countless congressional committee reports, administration probes, and journalistic investigations have cleared then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing, and found there was little else the Obama administration could have done once the attacks began. “Ghazi” has become shorthand for a partisan-driven scandal.
But Democrats are in denial if they think Benghazi won’t be an issue in the 2016 presidential race, should Clinton run.
Seitz-Wald’s article is one of those piece you can read and, I guess, not disagree with—and still come away realizing the guy is missing all the important points.
Not that there’s nothing in the above snippet to disagree with; there’s actually quite a lot. But my point is that, even if you granted this spin-driven bit more credit than it deserves, all that is not nearly as damaging to Mrs. Clinton as what she did during and after her speech in front of the caskets.
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing do to with.”
When Hillary Clinton spoke those words, in front of those victims’ families and the whole world, she knew full well that the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with any YouTube video. Months later, when she was finally called to account for it, she actually said, “What difference does it make?”
‘…arrested and prosecuted’
To me, the most egregious action by Clinton wasn’t alleged incompetence surrounding the events in Benghazi, but the brazenness of her cover-up—especially her reckless scapegoating of the video producer.
Woods, in interviews earlier this week, also described a series of conversations he had with administration officials at the memorial service held Sept. 14. He said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — despite signs early on that militants were behind the attack — pledged to him at that event that she would pursue the maker of an anti-Islam film that had been linked to other protests.
“Her countenance was not good and she made this statement to me … she said we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted,”
And indeed, less than two weeks later that video producer was, in fact, arrested by sheriff’s deputies in Los Angeles and held without bail for four months on a technical violation of probation.
Is there a more egregious example of abuse of authority in modern American politics?
None of us knows, and it really doesn’t matter, if Hillary Clinton or one of her subordinates got on a phone and pulled strings all the way to Los Angeles.
It does matter that she could have spoken such words in such circumstances, knowing the true nature of the events she was speaking of.
‘What difference does it make?’
Alexis Levinson, writing in the Daily Caller (Clinton on Benghazi story confusion: ‘What difference at this point does it make!?’):
Clinton had a heated exchange with Sen. Ron Johnson during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when he questioned her about the initial reports on the motives behind the attacks on the U.S. Embassy that left four Americans dead. Initially, UN Ambassador Susan Rice blamed the attacks on protests over an anti-Muslim video when she appeared on the Sunday shows, apparently speaking off of talking points prepared by the intelligence community.
On Wednesday, Johnson accused her of “purposefully misleading the American people” by blaming nonexistent protests.
“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. If it was because of a protest or if it was because guys out for a walk decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?” Clinton shot back in a raised voice.
I think it makes a huge difference.
And I hope the voters take that difference to heart come 2016, even if the press does its best to evade or minimize the truth.