Yea, yea I know ‘falling on a sword’ is the appropriate rhetorical flourish. Secretary Clinton did not do exactly that. “It was my responsibility” but it was really the “fog of war and combat confusion”; even though Assistant Secretary Lamb followed the events in real time according to her testimony to Congress. Typically the ability to follow an event in real time exposes the exact nature of the situation, not this time; somehow!
Madam Secretary took responsibility but did not address the key questions surrounding the entire episode. She did just enough to be a good soldier, but not enough to assuage the concerns of those paying attention and wondering at the raging incompetence.
Why has it taken 35 days for her to speak to her responsibility? What changed? Was not her responsibility the same a month ago as it is now?
Why is the intelligence community still bearing the implication that the problems were with their assessments when real time intelligence was available? What justifies the considerable amount of dissembling, and change in stories, again in the context of real time intelligence being available. State has their own intelligence apparatus, their own people were begging for more security. Why is it that State Department officials were so frustrated at being denied and ignored that they described the situation as “the Taliban being in the building” referring to the State Department.
Susan Rice’s “that’s the intelligence I had” has been proven to be false to the point of distraction. As noted in prior posts Ms. Rice does not work for the State Department, she reports directly to the President as a Cabinet Member.
What culture existed at State that would make the ‘security professionals’ think it was OK to remove the Ambassador’s security detail? Everyone on the ground was asking for additional security, it never came; why?
Why was the Ambassador even in Benghazi without adequate security? Why was the Ambassador denied the plane he requested?
How is it that with $2.2 billion in unspent State Department security funds we took security in Libya on the cheap?
How is it that despite Jihadist internet postings, prior attacks on the compound, prior attacks on British interests, prior attacks on Red Cross facilities, warnings, requests for additional security, requests that the existing detail not be eliminated fell on deaf ears? Taking responsibility is one thing, feasible answers are another.
There are some very interesting theories out there. They are more complex than a political thriller. They are focused on a ‘set up’ to deliver an October Surprise; proving the President’s machismo and maintaining his edge on Foreign Policy over his opponent. The problem here is that these theories seem to be the only explanations that address all of the know facts and general context.
That, is a sad state of affairs. Pun intended.