Pondering Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s now well-known response to Senator Ron Johnson in her recent Benghazi hearing, Ann Althouse suggests the phrase may have almost universal political exculpatory applicabilty:
2007 troop surge in Iraq?… What difference, at this point, does it make?
…
Asking for a Florida recount in only select counties instead of statewide?…What difference, at this point, does it make?
…
Claiming weapons of mass destruction as a reason for using military force?… What difference, at this point, does it make?
…
Trading arms for hostages?… What difference, at this point, does it make?
But there is no reason that what worked for Hillary cannot also work for you, any time, anywhere.
Caught by your girlfriend in flagrante delicto? Plaintively, with umbrage:
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Stayed up playing video games instead of completing that term paper? Plaintively, with umbrage:
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Refused to ask directions? Plaintively, with umbrage:
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
Gave the corporate trade secrets to a senior VP your company turned out not to employ? Plaintively, with umbrage:
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
And, ultimately, the Ouroboros of nothingness eats its own tail:
“Nothing is true, everything is permitted…”
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/20/the-loyal-opposition/
My good Steve,
Thank you, but this post was about neither Erick Erickson nor Benghazi, but, rather, nihilism.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
Ms. Clinton’s exculpatory gem can go down alongside such legendarily useful phrases as “Mistakes were made,” “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is,” and (my personal favorite), “My heart and my best intentions still tell me we did not trade arms for hostages, but the facts tell me that we did.” I do think Hillary’s been taken out of context, and/or she spoke clumsily: I think she clearly didn’t mean “What difference does it make what actually happened?” but “What difference does it make what we first thought happened?” Whether that’s a distinction without a difference, I’ll let others decide.
I think Hillary was saying about Benghazi what I keep saying about global warming: can we quit arguing about fault and causation (the past) and start looking at prevention and mitigation (the present and the future)?