How Americans reacted to the Benghazi Report, which excoriated the State Department and by extension then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for ignoring the deteriorating security situation in Libya, for fatally delaying a rescue mission, and lying about the cause of the massacre, depends on where one is at. The New York Times claims that she was “unscathed” by the report. Clinton herself declared that it was time to “move on” from the disaster that took the lives of American Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others. Thus, Clinton supporters are claiming that their candidate was vindicated while everyone else who read the report concluded that it proved how incompetent she is when handling foreign crises.

Even though recent polls show Clinton ahead of Donald Trump, though the most recent Quinnipiac Poll shows them neck and neck, she remains stuck in the mid to low-40s. The poor standing leads one to suspect that Benghazi and a number of other issues, including the email server scandal, remains a drag on Clinton. The problem for Trump is that his standing with the voters is slightly worse, though not unrepairable. Both candidates have been well known for decades. Americans are still getting used to the idea of the mercurial real estate tycoon as a potential president.

The Benghazi Massacre and a number of other Foreign Policy disasters that occurred on Clinton’s watch provides an opportunity for Trump. The recent terrorist outrage in Istanbul illustrates how unsettled the world has become in the last seven and a half years of the Obama presidency.

Top Videos of the Day

Americans are looking for someone who will destroy the terrorists and lift the danger of dying in a hail of gunfire or a suicide explosion. Hillary Clinton will have a hard time convincing people that she is that person. Her dismissive attitude toward Benghazi suggests that she was and is more concerned about her political standing than four dead Americans. “What difference does it make?” Trump, with his tough-talking persona, could convince people that he could be to the terrorists what Ronald Reagan was to the Soviets. His naming the sort of people who could be on his national security and foreign policy team, just as he did his judicial selections, would be a good start.