Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton testified in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi on Oct. 22. The committee is investigating the 2012 U.S. compound attack that took place in Benghazi, Libya where four Americans were killed. Being grilled by lawmakers, Clinton defended her response to the attack.

The Daily Orange spoke to Shana Gadarian, assistant professor of political science and Kristi Andersen, professor of political science in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs about the outcome of the hearing.

The Daily Orange: What was your reaction to the hearing?

Shana Gadarian: I think that this is the Benghazi Committee … we’ve seen one in the Senate and now we’ve seen one in the House and this is an issue that has been perhaps overwrought in terms of the amount of new information we gained from 11 hours of testimony from Hillary Clinton about this incident, which, while important, is probably its importance has gotten more attention and has been perhaps overblown compared to other areas that could be investigated.

Kristi Andersen: I think that Clinton handled herself very well. I mean, she never got flustered, she never got defensive. She sort of rolled her eyes, but she kept to her narrative which was, “I’ve thought about this, I’ve wondered about what I could do differently, we should’ve done differently, but at the same time, people who go into the diplomatic service know that they may be in danger and this was a horrible circumstance, but I didn’t do anything wrong.”

The D.O.: What has the committee discovered so far?

K.A.: They seem to be focusing on two things: One is kind of timing during when this attack on the embassy was happening and (second is) what information the State Department and the Obama administration were giving out as to who was behind this and what was happening. … The deal was whether it was people, a protest over this anti-Muslim video, which had gotten out of hand or whether it was independent of that, planned by elements of al-Qaeda or other groups.

The D.O.: Do you think the objectives of the committee have been met?

S.G.: It’s hard for me to say that what a full and complete investigation would be like but it’s more than just bringing Secretary Clinton. … Again I am not sure it’s completely reached the objectives but I don’t believe it is just partisanship. There are real questions about what happened in Benghazi.

K.A.: Unfortunately, I am not sure it has because presumably what the goal of such an investigation, if it was done thoroughly and well, would be was to say, “What we’ve learned from this and what could we do to prevent this from happening again?” And my sense is, I have not listened to every one of these, is that they never focused on that, they were always focusing on the culpability of Clinton and people in the State Department rather than more general questions.

The D.O.: What are repercussions of the hearing on Clinton’s presidential campaign?

S.G.: It depends on who you are. I think for Democrats, they are unlikely to see Benghazi as a big negative issue for Clinton as she runs for president. Because of this perception that what this committee is doing is really using this as a partisan game, that allows Democrats to say, “Well Benghazi, while again tragic as not really an issue that we should be evaluating Clinton on, she did her job as a secretary of state.” I think for Republicans, the continuing salience of the committee is going to allow them to work with this kind of train of thought that Clinton isn’t trustworthy and she misspoke or she lied or she was trying to cover up what was happening in after the terrorist attack.

Published on November 2, 2015 at 11:12 pm

Contact Satoshi: ssugiyam@syr.edu | @SatoshiJournal