That’s Hillary’s sentiment on the Benghazi-gate. How is a majority of the electors supposed to vote for Hillary in good conscience? I’d sooner die than vote for that …
I would consider Benghazi-gate to be the witch hunt that the GOP is conducting, so it doesn’t make a difference. Her failure as SoS to adequately prepare for the actual incident at Benghazi would be something that makes a difference, too bad no one wants to address that.
Well she sure does come across as pretty nonchalant on all the lives lost. Great quote to chase you to 2016.
Just for fun let’s include the whole quote.
Do you get your news through some sort of weird system with an eight month lag?
But let me guess. You’re an open-minded independent voter who was considering voting for Hillary Clinton up to now.
The reality is Benghazi is only important to people who decided who they’re going to vote for decades ago.
… OK, I give in : what difference *does *it make ?
1% at the polls, not more.
Gee, when the quote has a little context, it doesn’t seem that outrageous.
I’m stunned.
I’m pretty stunned myself. With just a little more effort they could have edited her original quote down to “the fact is we … decided to go kill some Americans”. A golden opportunity was missed.
Really? I don’t think the context helps much at all, and I remember thinking that when I heard it on the news the night she said it.
Now, on a scale of 0-10 in terms of how this will impact her candidacy, I’d say it’s about a 1 at most. I don’t think this issue resonates with anyone who isn’t already biased against her. Still, I don’t think it was a good or wise thing for a politician to say. Of course we should care what caused the deaths. How else the ensure we don’t see more of the same?
I’ll go with it actually *helping *her in 2016 by a point or two, since it (among many other things) demonstrates the hollowness and irresponsibility of the opposition to her.
I don’t understand how you can read the sentence that follows this quote and then understand it to mean anything other than “what difference does it make what the administration said in the early aftermath of the incident.” She obviously thinks “It is our job to figure out what happened,” so she is not suggesting that finding out the actual cause doesn’t matter.
And she’s right that what the administration said–which was explicitly couched as preliminary information–doesn’t matter to anyone but the witch hunters.
I like a candidate that says refreshingly honest things. Christie comes to mind, even though I don’t agree with him much. Secretary Clinton was responding to criticism that the administration didn’t identify the attackers are “terrorists” soon enough, and tried to imply that it was a demonstration that got out of hand. Her point is that, either way, security was insufficient. It doesn’t make any difference if the administration called them terrorists or not on day one. I also doesn’t make any difference whether they were “terrorists” or demonstrators. I agree 100% with her comments. Security should be sufficient to repel any reasonably expected terrorist attack or demonstration that might get out of hand. We can “ensure we don’t see more of the same” by increasing security generally, and by fighting terrorism (whatever that means) and by avoiding pissing off the rest of the world when possible. If this was a demonstration that got out of hand, it wouldn’t mean we should reduce our concern about terrorism. If this was terrorism, it doesn’t mean we should forget about demonstrations. Thus, what this particular attack actually was doesn’t make much* difference* in what we should do going forward.
Notice the continuous use of the word “difference”? Clearly, she is trying to deflect attention from the growing threat of the Whitewater scandal. Is too growing! It is!
I assume they’re waiting for a time closer to the primaries to hold another Vince Foster hearing.
Frankly, Obama and Clinton should be applauded for keeping the count of embassy attacks on their watch down to a mere one.
It is better than that as the Benghazi attack was on the consulate, and the Cairo and Yemen ones were contained, the embassy in Tripoli was under high alert but was not attacked.
I think the context is immense. The right wing pundits are taking her question out of its context and trying make it sound like Clinton was saying she is indifferent to the death of Americans. But what she was actually saying was she is indifferent to the motives of the killers; that the fact that people killed Americans was what was important and their specific motives for doing so was a minor issue.
It’s like this:
“Governor, what’s your response to Psycho Smith killing all those children?”
“I don’t care.”
“Governor, what’s your response to Psycho Smith killing all those children?”
“I don’t care if he’s insane like his lawyers are claiming or if he’s just faking insanity like the prosecutor is saying. The important thing is that he’s a dangerous killer who’s been caught and we are going to make sure he spends the rest of his life locked up where he can never harm anyone else.”
Gretchen quit trying to make “benghazi” happen. It’s not going to happen.