By way of background, Mrs. Clinton testified before a Foreign Relations Committee hearing of the United States Senate last week. There is an interesting web article out there – posted by The Blaze – listing what are touted as the “top 5 responses” to the rhetorical question posed by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the murder of Ambassador Chris Stephens and 3 other Americans in Benghazi last year. Following her prepared statement, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin pressed her about the administration’s conflicting explanations for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate. “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans” she replied harshly. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”
“It matters because – contra Hillary Clinton’s tacit attitude, and frankly, contra Barack Obama’s tacit attitude, too – the US government exists for the benefit of its citizens, and it is responsive to the desires and opinions of its citizens. Not the other way around. When one of our people gets killed, the government has no right to hide the reason, despite how personally or professionally embarrassing that the reason might be. And it is especially important that American voters be told what is actually happening, because – and this will be a shock to the Democratic party, I’m sure – American foreign policy is ultimately supposed to be reflective of the will of the American electorate.” – Moe Lane
“It matters because – contra Hillary Clinton’s tacit attitude, and frankly, contra Barack Obama’s tacit attitude, too – the US government exists for the benefit of its citizens, and it is responsive to the desires and opinions of its citizens. Not the other way around. When one of our people gets killed, the government has no right to hide the reason, despite how personally or professionally embarrassing that the reason might be. And it is especially important that American voters be told what is actually happening, because – and this will be a shock to the Democratic party, I’m sure – American foreign policy is ultimately supposed to be reflective of the will of the American electorate.” – Debra J. Saunders
“There’s a big difference between a 9/11 attack that stems from a protest, some guys out for a walk, and a concerted terrorist attack on an American mission. If it was just a protest or guys out for a walk, the U.S. response and efforts to prevent a repeat must be very different than the reaction to a planned, armed attack to kill an American ambassador and staff. If it’s a protest or a rogue attack, routine security changes must occur. If it was a planned terrorist attack — and I think we know it was — Washington has to re-think its assumptions.” – Jenifer Rubin
“It doesn’t matter if the administration lied? Umm. Ooops. That will make the anti-Hillary ads if she runs in 2016. The New Media and conservative Republicans pounced. But more important has been Clinton’s acknowledgement as to how dangerous and widespread al-Qaeda is in Northern Africa. This is directly contrary to the Obama-Hagel meme that we have decimated al-Qaeda and really don’t need that big military any more. Clinton in essence just told the president his idea that we have ‘peace in our time’ is crazy talk. Perhaps Clinton should be brought in as a witness in the Chuck Hagel secretary of defense hearings. By the Republicans.” – Eliana Johnson
”Clinton’s dismissal of the impetus behind the attack also stands in stark contrast to nearly everything senior officials of the Obama administration said publicly about it in the days that followed, including both the president and Clinton herself — that is, when the administration was blaming the attack on a YouTube video. In opening remarks for a strategic dialogue with Morocco — video below — which occurred four days after the Benghazi attack, Clinton said, ‘There is no justification, none at all, for responding to this video with violence. We condemn the violence that has resulted in the strongest terms.’ The idea that the cause of the attack should now take a backseat to other concerns seems all too convenient. “ – Ed Morrissey
These are all reasonably good responses, and I believe Jenifer Rubin’s response hits closest to the mark. Certainly, good points are made by all of them; the distraction and evasion used by the administration to minimize damage to the Democrat’s ongoing presidential campaign, the willingness of the administration to parade Susan Rice out on the Sunday morning talk shows to blatantly lie to the American people – including the families of the victims – about the reason for the tragedy, and so on.
But for me the answer to this question, which is a remarkably stupid question for a woman who is supposed to be quite intelligent, is this:
As Ms. Clinton leaves office under the mainstream media banner of “Most Popular Woman in America”, she leaves behind her a similar trail of deceit, corruption and unanswered questions that have been her modus operandi since the scandals involving her actions at the Rose Law Firm in 1988. I am again reminded of a quote commonly attributed to P.T. Barnum of the Barnum & Bailey Circus: “You will never go broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” The continuing popularity of the Clintons in the aftermath of such staggering public failures and humiliations is a monument to American gullibility.