I commend to your attention this piece in The American Thinker concerning Hillary Clinton’s outburst “What difference — at this point — does it make?”
The simple question Senator Johnson revived gained a fever pitch of relevance when President Obama went on television, and to the United Nations, to condemn an anti-Islamic video which by that time he had to know was in no way related to the attacks. (See here.) And of course the precise context which heightened the relevance of this “video protest” lie was on display when, during a debate, Obama refused to answer questions about what he had done to help the Americans under attack, instead glaring condescendingly at Mitt Romney while delivering a carefully prepared (and frequently repeated) diatribe about his supposed “three orders,” none of which addressed the actual question as to what he had done during the assault to rescue the victims.
Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta on Thursday revealed he personally broke the news to President Obama that the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was under attack last year — but he and the president didn’t speak the rest of the night as the assault on the compound unfolded.
Republicans said they were dismayed that the Defense Department’s top officials and Mr. Obama didn’t speak again over the next six hours, during which two attacks claimed the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens.
This is an outrage. It is also outrageous that Mrs. Clinton would stall the Congressional hearing that wants to get to the truth of the matter and then, when she finally appears before the committee, claims “What difference — at this point — does it make?”
If anyone would have used that line, say, after the Sandy Hook attack- “What difference — at this point — does it make?”- people would be gathering their pitchforks.
12. Is your opinion of Hillary Clinton favorable, unfavorable or haven’t you heard enough about her?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Favorable 61% 27% 91% 59% 53% 68% 54% 93% 72% Unfavorable 34 68 5 35 42 27 40 4 22 Hvn't hrd enough 4 3 3 5 4 4 4 3 6 REFUSED 1 2 - 2 2 1 2 - - *****
As you can see, Mrs. Clinton enjoys some favorable numbers- even after her testimony. But look at this: 31. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, or don't you have an opinion on that?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Approve 21% 6% 40% 17% 21% 21% 20% 33% 19% Disapprove 20 37 4 20 23 17 24 2 10 No opinion 58 57 55 62 55 61 56 64 71 REFUSED 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 -
Most people don't have a clue this guy is anti-Israel. Most have No Opinion. This is how Mrs. Clinton's strategy takes hold: uninformed voters kept uninformed by a media that refuses to report the news when it hurts the president. Or when Americans die from complete neglect.
32. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama's nomination of John Kerry to be Secretary of State, or don't you have an opinion on that?
Tot Rep Dem Ind Men Wom Wht Blk Hsp Approve 49% 25% 71% 49% 47% 51% 47% 68% 54% Disapprove 20 40 4 21 23 18 24 5 11 No opinion 30 34 24 29 29 31 29 28 35 REFUSED - 1 - 1 1 - - - -
How could 30% not have an opinion of John F. Kerry? Don't they know he was in Viet Nam? I think the answer lies in the demographic of this poll.
They have the Democrats at +9– they are interviewing a generation of people that are too busy texting their American Idol vote to be bothered with some nitwit pollster asking them about stupid stuff like the future of their country.
When it all comes tumbling down there are going to be a whole lot of people starving to death because they don’t know how to open a tin can.