Even as she expresses her regrets, she pretends that the reason she did not act to beef up security at the compound, and that she lied afterward, blaming the attack on an Internet video, was “imperfect” intelligence information. She had all the relevant facts before her — and just ignored them.
“Unforeseen consequences” and “unpredictable twists and turns” had nothing to do with her failure to secure the compound or to send adequate security to protect it. Rather, she got every sort of warning from her own ambassador, the State Department, the CIA and the Defense Department. She just failed to act on them.
When you read the various pieces and bits of information she received in the weeks and months prior to the attack. On June 12, 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report titled “Libya: Terrorists Now Targeting U.S. and Western Interests,” citing “growing ties between al-Qaeda regional nodes and Libya-based terrorists.”
These terror attacks were not “unforeseen consequences” or “unpredictable twists and turns.” They were both predicted and foreseen in numerous intelligence documents that the Senate Intelligence Committee has unearthed and made public.
The cascade of evidence continued when the Pentagon’s Joint Staff daily intelligence report predicted that terror attacks “will also increase in number and lethality as terrorists connect with [al Qaeda] associates in Libya.” Indeed, the report predicted that Eastern Libya would become a terror “safe haven” by year’s end.
A month before the attack, Ambassador Chris Stevens sent a cable to State Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., noting that there were “approximately ten Islamist militias and AQ training camps within Benghazi” and asking for more security.”
But this is Clinton at her most typical — she takes an accusation and, while seeming to take responsibility and express her regret, she in fact tries to deflect it, in this case by blaming the quality of the intelligence she received.
None of the intelligence released thus far substantiates this account of the cause of the attack. Yet, despite all indications to the contrary, the ex-secretary of State continued to maintain for two weeks that this was not a pre-planned attack on the anniversary of 9/11 but an overly vigorous reaction to the online film.
Sources—the hill, dick morris