Hillary on Causes for Benghazi Attack: “What Difference Does It Make?!?”

what difference

Yep, she said that

So, according to the woman who pushed an innocent video-maker out front as the blame for the Benghazi attack and murders, and then had to climb out over the landslide of mounting evidence to the contrary, the reason we were attacked is not important.

Well, I wonder how the democrats, then Senator Hillary Clinton, and the MSM would have reacted to somebody in the Bush administration for such a disregarding and countering question to the 9/11 Committee?

The democrats on the Senate committee were in full personal praise of Hillary Clinton, and had no real concern for her department’s failures that resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

As I suspected, Sec. Clinton took the Eric Holder low-and-gravel-road of saying she didn’t see/read any alarming memos from Amb. Stevens prior to the Benghazi attack, and his death and the deaths of three other Americans, while on her watch. She, with the help of the democrats on the sitting committee, made claims of budget cuts as being responsible for the lack of security. That contradicts prior testimony from her office

“It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

“No, sir,” said Lamb.

Nor did she take responsibility for the talking points Susan Rice used on Sunday TV talk shows shortly after the attack (*BUMP-BUMP*)

And Sen. Rand Paul reads Hillary a brief list of things her department spent money on, in spite of alleged lack of funding for Benghazi…

Translation: “I would’ve fired your ass…”

And here is another example of more important spending by the State Department (I knew there’d be a way to blame “climate change/global warming” for Benghazi) than security for our ambassador and other Americans hired by our government in a post-overthrown Libya…

In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”

The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”

While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it.

Here is a short list of questions that were NOT asked this morning, but hopefully will be covered by the House GOP this afternoon when they greet Sec. Clinton:

1. Who ordered the “stand down”?
2. Who ordered the “stand down”?
3. Who ordered the “stand down”?
4. Who ordered the “stand down”?
5. Where are the 30 survivors, Sec. Clinton?
6. Where are the 30 survivors, Sec. Clinton?
7. Where are the 30 survivors, Sec. Clinton?
8. Why did you tell one of the parents of one of the fallen Navy SEALS that you would get the director of the video you were holding responsible for their son’s death?

Basically Sec. Hillary Clinton said, This is a hard job, ya know

Here is my summary of Sec. Clinton’s testimony in front of the Senate committee this morning…

Sec. Clinton’s full testimony transcript here.

MORE: Report: “Some Algeria Attackers Are Placed at Benghazi”




12 thoughts on “Hillary on Causes for Benghazi Attack: “What Difference Does It Make?!?”

  1. The woman is what she is and always has been, and it’s worked pretty damn well for her, so she’s not about to change now, especially since she knows she can weasel out of this. All she has to do is go through the motions, play aggressive defense (remember “I did NOT have sex with that woman!” and “vast right wing conspiracy”?), put up with some transient discomfort, and then the thing will blow over and that will be that. Remember Janet Reno and Waco? The system is perfectly set up for certain people to get away with practically anything, and they will absolutely take full advantage of that (see Eric Holder). I mean, otherwise, what’s the point of a rigged game?

    True, it is still deeply disgusting to see such a creature put on this kind of utterly shameless, unrepentant and disingenuous performance as if she were a blameless victim of a “witch hunt,” but again, that’s what such people do. To them it is not only normal but highly functional, because all too often they get away with it–and that is ALL they care about, getting away with it. As to “What difference does it make?”, what difference did her husband’s slimeball behavior make? Did he lose his job? Did he become some sort of disgraced pariah? Uh, NO. What about Barney Frank? Or Ted Kennedy? Or John Kerry? Or (fill in the blank)? Let’s face it, she may be a lying bitch, but she knows the score.

  2. asombra, its recurrence is guaranteed only if it involves a liberal doing it.
    And as you say, it is those who voted for this and celebrate it rather feel disgust for it who are the most to blame.
    If anyone connected with Bush had said,”What difference does it make?”….
    Love the campaign sign.

  3. “I do NOT blame Hillary. I blame what enables her and her kind.”

    The MSM, college academia and the Hollywood idiots…

  4. “What difference does it make”?

    … “Secretary Clinton, we’re the ones asking the questions here, not you”.

  5. “Was it because of a protest or is it because of guys out for a walk one night and they decide they go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    OK…let’s go with that.

    If that’s the case, if the “why” of why it happened doesn’t make a difference, then why was her department’s initial and immediate reaction to spend considerable time and energy blaming a YouTube video for the attacks?

    So if there is a reason why the reason for the attack is important, it is because they prioritized “why” as a response to the attacks, and the “why” they promoted was a total fabrication.

    So “why” makes a difference because we want to know why our government fabricated a story about “why” the attack happened.

    That tells me that they are hiding something. That tells me that they know “why” and that the real “why” was so politically destructive to the administration that they felt the need to create a story out of whole cloth to hide behind while they built up plausible deniability and gave the story time to die.

  6. The key element here is that Hillary, Obama and company know they’ll be given a pass, so they can just keep dancing around the truth until the matter blows over and becomes old news. They know they just have to give it a little time, to make it look like everything was “addressed,” and then they’re off the hook. The media does NOT want to uncover or reveal anything seriously damaging to Obama, and they’re simply providing cover as best they can.

Comments are closed.