Gaffe Track: Clinton's Benghazi Amnesia

[Purveyor]

The candidate: Hillary Clinton, a recent repeat offender.

The gaffe: During an MSNBC town hall Monday night, Clinton defended the U.S. intervention in Libya, which she strongly supported as secretary of state. “Libya was a different kind of calculation. And we didn't lose a single person. We didn't have a problem in supporting our European and Arab allies in working with NATO,” she said. As many people quickly pointed out, that overlooked the four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, killed in Benghazi on September 11, 2012.

The defense: In context, it appears Clinton was referring to the actual military intervention, rather than the aftermath. In contrast to the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. deployed ships, drones, and planes around Libya, but not significant ground forces.

Why it matters (or doesn’t): To borrow a phrase, what difference, at this point, does it make? For one thing, it suggests that Clinton is either trying to distract from the deaths or else insensitive to them. She seemed to have largely quelled questions about Benghazi after her marathon day of hearings in the House; why reawaken the issue?

The lesson: Never underestimate the cultural currency and influence of Michael Bay.

Gaffe Track: Hillary's Employment Plan for Coal Miners

more...

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/all/2015/09/gaffe-track/403855/#note-473802

[blm]

1. Apparently, context no longer matters, now that people PREFER distortions

over truth.

This was no gaffe - the RW distortion (lie) is being accepted by people who should know better.


Shame.

[NWCorona]

3. Hillary should have been smart enough not to have said that

Regardless, I already know we will disagree.

[blm]

4. Right - she should have been more calculating instead of giving the correct answer.

Because…..BENGHAZI!!!

Nah…because AGREEING with RW propaganda is SO much easier than telling the truth for some here these days, right?

[NWCorona]

5. Well it's not really the correct answer tho

[blm]

6. In context, YES, it was the correct answer.

But why let a little thing like CONTEXT get in the way of a RW propaganda effort against this WH's decisions that GOP can frame against HRC?

[NWCorona]

8. Well the context was Libya

She covered the whole gamut the topped it of by saying it was unique and that we didn't lose anyone. Libya didn't go away for us once we called the air raids off.

[blm]

9. Matthews referred to the decision to help overthrow Quaddafi. You prefer twitchy's version….

and twitchy is a Moonie News site.

Pick a side. RW propaganda or the truth even when you don't like it.

[NWCorona]

10. No I actually didn't even click on that link as it's too one sided

I actually watched live and called it out here right when it happened.

You can keep on spewing RW propaganda but that doesn't make it so. The fact is she misspoke again. I and most rational people can understand what she really was trying to say and what she meant but that doesn't mean this wasn't a bad gaffe.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Aftermath? We don't need no steenking aftermath.

How dare you suggest our politicians need to actually consider the ongoing destruction following in the wake of their glorious decisions to promote violence around the world!

[MerryBlooms]

7. The first words out of her mouth should have been about Stevens and our

other losses... then moved onto her talking points.

imo, she needs to make a change in her media staff.

[blm]

11. Stevens wasn't part of overthrow of Quaddafi.

.

[MerryBlooms]

13. You and I both know that, but she needs to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[blm]

14. Then that would be us, too, wouldn't it? BECOME the lowest common denominator because it works?

Hmmmm….Nope….I'd rather work my ass off to expose the RW lie machine.

[BlueStateLib]

15. don't confuse people with the facts

[Cheese Sandwich]

12. She must think people are really stupid