One of the favorite tricks of politicians is to talk in vague terms about responsibility and regrets, while never really taking responsibility or making it clear just what regrets they mean precisely. Hillary Clinton did her best the other day to continue this dishonorable tradition. In an interview on CNN, she said, when asked about her tenure as secretary of state, “My biggest regret is what happened in Benghazi.” But that’s about as far as it went.
- The diplomats in Benghazi requested more security from their boss at the State Department, i.e., Hillary Clinton; that request was denied.
- Once the attack began, she, in concert with President Obama—if indeed he was truly in the loop at all while preparing for a Las Vegas fundraiser/campaign stop—decided it wasn’t necessary to send troops to protect those in mortal danger.
- After it was over, despite all the briefings revealing it was a terrorist attack, she and the rest of the administration, Obama included, sent out the false message that the whole affair was incited by an internet video about Islam, and that it was simply a spontaneous demonstration, not a planned terrorist attack. The maker of the video was arrested and jailed.
- No one connected with the decsionmaking during the Benghazi episode has lost a job or been disciplined. No one has ever been held accountable.
So what’s this about having regrets? If she were truly forthright and honest, she would admit to her outright failures. Most people have to face consequences when they mess up in their jobs. Not Hillary Clinton.
Of course, she went on the record with her “regrets” because she is running for president. She’s trying to get this trifling affair—in her estimation—out of the way. The media will help her by declaring she has apologized, when in fact she has done no such thing. They will urge voters to move on, nothing to see here. This is all part of what they view as the inevitability of her historic march toward the presidency, one that simply must occur because she is a woman. Now that we’ve had our first black president, it’s only right to anoint a woman. But not just any woman; it must be Hillary because she has the liberal progressive seal of approval.
While the media attempt to portray her rise to the highest office in the land as a done deal, there are great numbers of us out here in the hinterlands who are not adhering to the media theme. We can’t, for the life of us, figure out what she has ever done to deserve the promotion. They only thing she has going for her is her name. And why anyone would pine for the return of a Clinton to the White House is beyond imagining. Only those with an ideological agenda and those with extremely short memories would find that prospect appealing.
I’m not bowing to what some call the “inevitable.” There’s nothing inevitable about President Hillary Clinton. Haven’t eight years of her husband and another eight of the current administration been enough to destroy the prestige of the office of the presidency?