Not that I expect you to take a step back here and honestly look at the issues but I'll post it anyway.
The GOP is manufacturing outrage: Obama won't say Islamic terrorism. After Benghazi they tried to cover up the fact it was a terrorist act and not a spontaneous act.
On both counts, what difference does it make? I know the right wingers want this to be some big deal and a big coverup. It's idiotic, semantics, contrived outrage. You and others though just drink that koolaid right up.
Benghazi happens. The GOP would have just loved to find some way to blame Clinton. It's their life's mission.
But after a couple of years of trying and trying there wasn't anything. It was Congress that didn't fund their safety, not Clinton. And no one looked the other way when they sent out a call for help, no help was close enough to get there.
But lacking any actual thing to blame Clinton on, they contrived this supposed cover up, like Obama was trying to hide terrorism to make himself look better.
That's what the GOP would do, they project it onto Obama. There might be legitimate differences in how people perceive the progress we are making (or not making) against ISIS. But Obama has nothing to gain by such deception.
The 2012 election was not won because people saw Obama making great progress against terrorism. He got Bin Laden in 2011, and no one was crying out for handling the Middle East mess any better than he was, certainly Romney wasn't running on being a better Commander in Chief.
Obama described the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack the next morning in the Rose Garden.
But this entire contrived coverup kept rolling along focusing on Susan Rice's Sunday morning talk shows talking points.
Do you know how many times the Bush admin sent liars around to the Sunday morning talk shows when they were faking it about Iraq's WMDs. They leaked a story to the NYT then Cheney went on the talk shows the next day and referred to the NYTs confirming their story when they were the ones that fed it to them. The implication was the Times found corroborating evidence independently.
That's the kind of sleaze and deception the Bush Admin carried out. Trying to make the difference between reporting a spontaneous vs a planned attack against the Ambassador in Benghazi is such a ludicrous minute contrived coverup. It was such a coverup, Obama must have forgotten and spilled the beans the day after the attack. You'd think if this was some kind of coverup he might have been given the same talking points.
I can't see any realistic evidence that Obama has been trying to cover up ongoing acts of terrorism. Yes, maybe he believes a rosier picture than someone else might see. But there is no concerted effort to cover up acts of terrorism going on around the world. There is no prize in such a coverup. None. Zilch.
So to answer your question, yes, I think that statement not only reflects well on Clinton, she was absolutely right.
