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.”


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend