Hillary Clinton Slams Partisan Nature of Benghazi Inquiry

She compares the GOP-led inquiry to past attacks on American facilities overseas.

 

On Thursday, as former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified in front of the Republican-led House subcommittee on Benghazi, she spoke about the political nature of the hearing and compared it to what transpired after other terrorist attacks on American facilities overseas. Several hours into the hearing, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) noted that “the ambassador was a friend of yours,” and he wondered “if you would like to comment on what [it] is like to be the subject of an allegation that you deliberately interfered with security that cost the life of a friend.” This was the opportunity for Clinton to begin talking more personally about the deaths of the Americans.

“I would imagine that I’ve thought more about what happened than all of you put together,” she said. “I’ve lost more sleep than all of you put together. I have been racking my brain about what more could have been done, and what should have been done.”

She went on to compare the current inquiry to those that followed the attacks on Benghazi that killed four Americans, and the 1983 attacks on the US Marine barracks and the US embassy in Beirut, in which nearly 260 American Marines, sailors, and soldiers were killed. She pointed out that the level of political vitriol flying back and forth today was not in evidence then, and opposing political forces worked together after major incidents that cost American lives.

I would like us to get back to those times, congressman. Whereas I think one of you said [that in] Beirut we lost far more Americans, not once, but twice within a year. There was no partisan effort. People rose above politics. A Democratic Congress worked with a Republican administration to say, “What do we need to learn?” Out of that came the legislation for the Accountability Review Board. Similarly, after we lost more Americans in the bombings in east Africa, again, Republicans and Democrats worked together and said, “What do we need to do better?”

She then described herself “an optimist…hoping that that will be the outcome of this and every other effort, so that we really do honor not only those that we lost, but all those who, right as we speak, are serving in dangerous places representing the values and interests of the American people.”

 

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate