‘What difference … does it make’?

New York Post front page today.

Now, we are told by the august editorialists at The New York Times, asking questions about why security in Benghazi was so paper thin that four Americans were killed and the administration found it necessary to lie about what happened for at least two weeks is tantamount to beating a dead horse.

Under the headline “Republican Myopia,” the Times dismissed Hillary Clinton’s bluster before a Senate committee as clearly excusable.

Clinton angrily retorted under questioning:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they 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.”

But the Times editorial quoted her only up to the “what difference” part and omitted her talking about it being “our job to figure out what happened …” and shrugged the whole thing off by writing, “She said, rightly, that in the days after the attack, officials were struggling in real time, under crisis conditions, to get the best information they could.”

Of course you could expect a different point of view from the editorial writers at The Wall Street Journal who said of Clinton’s outburst: “Sorry, Ma’am. At this point, or at any point, it matters when Administrations mislead Americans.”

Over at Investor’s Business Daily the reaction to her flustered rejoinder was: “The answer is that it makes all the difference in the world for the future of this country. An incumbent president covered up the truth about the murder of a U.S. ambassador and three other American personnel during the climax of his re-election campaign, even puppeteered his United Nations ambassador to echo the lie on five TV shows, all to cover up the incompetence of the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism policies.”

The Heritage Foundation’s blog, The Foundry, concluded with this: “Rife with inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and bluster, Clinton’s performance yesterday left a great deal to be desired. Not only that, but the American public is no closer to knowing what the Obama Administration is doing to bring to justice the killers of the four brave Americans who lost their lives in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.”

All three are a far more reasoned responses to the Clinton evasion and theatrics than the Times’ dismissive flip of the wrist.

Speaking of beating a dead horse, the Times editorial writers couldn’t resist throwing in a parting word for gun control, taking umbrage with Sen. Rand Paul calling the Benghazi murders the “worst tragedy” since Sept. 11. The editorial said this was insulting to the soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the “many hundreds of Americans killed in senseless gun violence each year.”

20 comments on “‘What difference … does it make’?

  1. Steve says:

    If she runs for President 3 years from now, no one will remember this anyway.

    But this administration hid so many things and got away with it, so is she really that for off?

    Now we have another Obama administration and I wonder how much it will slide under rug and get away with. I bet lots more than the first.

  2. nyp10025 says:

    The question to which she was responding had to do with why she didn’t personally interfere with the FBI interviews at Ramstein Air Force Base during the week of the terrorist attack, and why all the aspect of the attack were not more quickly disseminated to the public.

    As Hillary correctly said, Who cares? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.

    I can’t figure out why you disagree with that.

    Best of luck running against her in 2014, fellas!

  3. nyp10025 says:

    By the way – I see that by gleefully using that front page from a Murdoch newspaper you guys have now abandoned the “Hillary was faking a debilitating concussion because she was too scared to testify about Bengazi” meme, and are back to the classic “Hillary is such a tough, angry bitch she emasculates her husband” message from the late 1990s.

    Great way to close the gender gap.

  4. Steve says:

    (N)ew (Y)ork (P)ost.

    Makes sense now.

  5. Vernon Clayson says:

    The Secretary of State certainly has the power and influence to “interfere” with FBI agents in an international setting. It’s Ramstein Air Base, not exclusively US Air Force, it’s shared with air forces from several nations, who better to focus the investigation than the Secretary of State? While I couldn’t bear to watch the entire episode, I haven’t seen or heard anyone ask this particular stone hearted witch who called off the military after a general in the area said he was sending resources. Whatever her excuses she delayed her appearance while the fire cooled on the issue, basically until she could say “What difference does it make?” I’ve never been a politician but I’ve observed it for 7 decades, it must be nice to feel, like nyp does, that it’s all new and refreshing.

  6. Nyp says:

    “stone-hearted witch”

  7. Milty says:

    What office will she be running for in 2014, Nyp?

  8. Nyp says:

    Chappaqua Library Trustee.

    Warm-up for the big one in 2016.

  9. Milty says:

    And “the big one in 2016” would be chairman of the Chappaqua Library Board of Trustees?

  10. Milty says:

    “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they 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.”

    This statement is perfectly in line with Obama administration policies on other issues. Regarding the cause of the tragedy in Newtown, what difference does it make? It’s their job to follow Mayor Emanuel’s credo to never let a a serious crisis go to waste and to use this tragedy as an excuse to disarm private citizens in this country.

    No one should be surprised by any of this.

  11. Vernon Clayson says:

    Political machinations are all new and refreshing to nyp, he would surely believe that a Republican appointed Secretary of State would delay and obfuscate but never a sainted Progessive holding the office. Not to worry, it will be in good hands when Jaw Kerry takes over, there will never be another terrorist attack and the world, especially the Middle East, will be at peace, Kumbaya. He is an odd looking individual, back in the day when head shape was said to denote personality, he would have been shunned like Frankenstein’s monster.

  12. Nyp says:

    You are really fond of making personal attacks on people in public life with whose tires you disagree, aren’t you?

  13. Milty says:

    Not Frankenstein, Mr. Clayson. Lurch.

    From a UPI story in 2004: “Paul Galanti, a former Navy pilot who spent 2,432 days in captivity and worked on the 2000 primary campaign of fellow former POW Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also remembers the broadcasts.

    “‘It was propaganda. They stopped torturing us after Ho Chi Minh died pretty much, but all that stuff we got banged on — they wanted us to say and to confess to war crimes and killing babies and all this other stuff,’ he said. ‘They kept talking about Vietnam Veterans Against the War, they had seen the right way and blah, blah, blah, and they were on our side, they had crossed over to the peoples’ side and all that stuff.’

    “Galanti said he didn’t know Kerry’s name then, although he had seen a newspaper photograph while in captivity that showed someone who looked like Lurch (a character in ‘The Addams Family’ television show in the mid-’60s). Like others, they had only heard newscasts about a former Navy lieutenant and the anti-war movement. ‘I figured out who it was later,’ he said.”

  14. Nyp says:

    Ah, the return of swift-boating.

  15. Nyp says:

    How dare a veteran who volunteered for service suggest that the war he had been sent to fight was a terrible mistake.

  16. Steve says:

    So the answer to Milty’s question appears to be no. But it is ok for a vet to disagree with a war.

    I like both those positions.

  17. Milty says:

    I also have no problem with a veteran disputing the wisdom of the war he’s been sent to fight in. Once he’s taken off the uniform, of course.

    However, according to the cited article, several former POW’s felt that Mr. Kerry and his fellow Winter Soldiers crossed the line from disputing the wisdom of the war to aiding and abetting the enemy. I look forward to reading Nyp’s thoughts on that issue.

  18. Vernon Clayson says:

    nyp, playboy Democrat JFK sent advisers after interjecting the US in Vietnamese politics and Progressive/Socialist/Democrat LBJ escalated the “terrible mistake”. LBJ micromanaged the war, the aviators taken prisoner were likely on missions approved by him. Peacenik Jane Fonda was another propagandist traitor like Jaw Kerry, playboy Democrat Bill Clinton avoided the draft entirely and is still praiseworthy, George Bush joined the Air National Guard, qualified as a fighter pilot, no mean feat, and is still roundly criticized. John Kerry allegedly spent Christmas on a dangerous secret mission deep inside enemy territory, received medals but threw them over the White House fence in some kind of hippie party. Republican Nixon wound it down, it was a clumsy ending but he did end it.

  19. brucefeher says:

    The spoiled brats are in “charge” and NYP is the local “leader”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s