Did Hillary make a mistake that can be used against her when she said this?
I understood her point but still cringed when she said it, believing it will come back to haunt her.
Major fuck up on her part -- plus that she wouldn't answer the basic question, how could this happen, except to say it still needs to be investigated.
One thought is that Libya was considered CIA rather than State Department turf, and that she was out of the loop. Then the question becomes, "Why is the CIA being granted turf by the SofS?
I agree with r1, and was sort of surprised that someone as experienced in the public eye as she is, and as rehearsed as she must have been for this testimony and all the possible questions they would ask her, would still say something that could be so easily be used against her as an out-of-context soundbite.
R2, because the CIA has been allowed to do whatever it wants ever since it helped assassinated President Kennedy when he tried to put them under control.
Frankly, I couldn't believe she said it. It almost sounds like an admission of guilt. I wonder if she did indeed fuck up?
I don't think it will come back to haunt her because what she said sums up what people were thinking. The GOP don't care about the 4 dead. They were politicizing a tragic event. The entire hearing was political posturing. Ron Johnson, Rand Paul and even that idiot who called it a death trap had no interest in facts. They were all playing to their base.
As Rachel Maddow said, "Benghazi was an attack on us, it was not a scandal by us." The GOP wanted desperately to make Benghazi the Obama version of Bush's 911. It didn't stick. It never did and never will.
People who read more into what Hillary said are more likely those who would hate her and would never vote for her in 2016.
The real fuck up is the GOP.
R7, we all feel that way. It's a given.
I agree with what she said...I wish she hadn't said it though. That moment is going to live on and on.
yep r7. Look at all these concern trolls and GOProud in this thread.
r8 only in your mind it will live on, concern troll.
Because her popularity is so high right now and the GOP's so low, it might be a blip that she can overcome.
I'm just wondering why she let Sen. Johnson rattle her like that. Why didn't she just remain calm and in control?
Mike Huckabee, on his radio show, was like a dog with a bone about this topic today.
But Mike Huckabee is an ass, as everyone here knows.
Because it is utterly ridiculous for the USA to be bickering about this.
R11, I suspect that HRC doesn't suffer fools gladly and had just had enough.
I think the pros and cons of her making this statement at worst, balance each other, and at best, make the statement a triumph.
On the one hand, it's a very good question. Whether it was a protest or not, the question of whether there should have been greater security in Benghazi and why there was not remains the same. T
And the question of whether it was a terrorist act is the same. Terrorist acts can be premeditated or spontaneous. I doubt any Republican would fail to call a spontaneous killing of an American diplomat or a spontaneous raid on an American consulate a terrorist act.
And this was clearly, in context, Clinton's point.
On the other hand, as the hearing was partly about whether there was a cover up to hide that this was a premeditated act, whether it was in fact a premeditated or a spontaneous act does make a difference.
Now let's look at that difference.
Is it really believable that the administration and Susan Rice deliberately hid from us that this was a premeditated attack? In my opinion, it isn't believable at all.
What makes sense is that, at worst, they didn't have all the intelligence they needed and they made a mistake. Perhaps it was even a mistake that never should have been made.
But it is not a particularly significant one (which was Hillary's point) in the context of an evolving investigation. Especially since the attack on Benghazi occurred at precisely the same time that there were major anti-American demonstrations in Cairo.
Moreover, as Clinton repeatedly said, the intelligence is still - based on both the classified and unclassified documents - unclear as to exactly what the motives of the attackers were.
On that I believe her, and I think most Americans, who overwhelmingly favor her, will do the same.
By the way I say this as someone who did not support Hillary in 2008 but would gladly support her in 2013. I think she ran a dreadful campaign in 2008 and deserved to lose. I think she's proven herself to be an extremely effective Secretary of State and a much more commanding and appealing public figure than she did during the campaign.
And she would most likely prove to be a great president.
In a nutshell, if Bush could be reelected after lying to the American people about weapons of mass destruction, Clinton can be elected after asking a very intelligent question about precisely what difference this spontaneous demonstration-premeditated act difference does make.
r15 is right.
correction: I meant to say I would gladly support her in 2016, although, as it happens, I am happy to support her right now as well.
Totally agree w/ R6
Hillary's point was that all the constant partisan bellyaching the Republicans were doing about who exactly perpetrated the attack was a smokescreen and not actually doing a thing to move everything forward and prevent it from happening again. They know damn well that the ongoing investigation will eventually determine the who and why. The public is sick of Republican bullshit and the statement will not hurt Hillary one bit, no matter how much asshats like Jake Tapper/Fran Townsend and other right wing boosters say about it.
R15 is correct.
Exactly, r15 and r19
It's only a mistake if taken out of context (and, of course, the GOP would NEVER do that!)
I understood what she said, and anyone who heard her full statement would understand. But you know the GOP loves to take soundbites out of context. This could be like Obama's "You didn't build that."