If there is one thing Hillary Clinton is good for, it is false bravado. During her congressional grilling session regarding Benghazi, she famously retorted in anger, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Privately, however, she weaves a different tale. The Wikileaks dump of those expensive, once-private speeches reveals that Clinton’s “biggest regret” and that Libya’s institutions were totally “destroyed” per Breitbart.com. In a nutshell, Clinton and Obama’s nation-building exercise did not work.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were completely wrong about what would happen after they toppled Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi, and there was a bit of “hindsight is 20/20” in her 2013 speech. She said in that speech that she fully understood how the repercussions played out, but as you and I both know she failed to heed the warnings regarding Ambassador Chris Stevens and those who died with him.
During a Cisco speech in August 2014 Clinton expanded on her comments, and discussed how inadequate the security situation was in that area at the time. In what could definitely be termed a “well, Duh!” moment for the rest of us, she was literally speaking about the venture as if someone else had been secretary of state during the time.
This is not the most galling instance within this whole exchange, however. Remember, this is the same woman who gladly accepted the Invasion of Iraq during the Bush years. She voted to authorize the invasion, and then later abandoned that earlier decision.
Thus, many Democrats including Clinton claimed in the latter years of the Bush administration that it was painfully obvious Iraq would destabilize once the Saddam era was finished. According to Clinton and other Democrat leaders, the cult of personality of Saddam destroyed the institutions, and everyone outside could see this nation-building enterprise would be a failed venture.
There’s just one small problem with that, however. Clinton is now running for president herself, and she is expecting us to overlook the disastrous consequences of her own nation-building exercise in Benghazi. Just like the Iraq invasion, there were literally crowds of people calling for increased security for this Libyan venture, yet Clinton and Obama did not listen. As a result, some good men died during this terrorist attack.
Of course, Clinton seems to have divorced herself from reality simply because another of her private speeches revealed she even boasted about the positive results of the venture. This would include the fact Libya had “one of the best elections in the whole region after the fall of Quaddafi” as she put it to Hamilton College in 2014.
“You try to help, you try to create relationships, and, you know, the hard guys with the guns have a different idea,” she said. “So if you don’t have overwhelming force, it’s difficult.”
In yet another speech, Clinton told the Global Business Travelers Association in 2013 that it was “a terrible crime” that Ambassador Stevens was killed “doing what was really in the best interests of both the United States and Libya.” While this is one of the rare moments where we will wholeheartedly agree with Clinton, there is also yet another small problem with that:
That isn’t the way Clinton and Obama were talking in the days following the attack. It was obvious they did not have a clue how to deal with the situation and did not have a backup plan. One truly has to wonder what kind of foreign policy disasters this country will be led into if the voting public is unwise enough to vote this woman into office yet again.