Hillary Clinton has been insistent that her version of events in Benghazi is the correct one, even if her carefully construted narrative flies in the face of even what little we know about that fateful night in Libya when six Americans died – four members of our consulate (including our ambassador) and two rescuers.
Last night, though, miiiiiight have been the cherry on top of months of denying reality. According to Clinton, our “nation building” in Libya was a rousing success, and after felling a dangerous dictator, we did not give way to a brutal civil war that ended up taking out six of our own people. In fact, according to Hillary Clinton, Libya was a totally new frontier in foreign policy – and we didn’t lose a single person fixing it.
Now, of course, if she were talking about our famously misguided attempt at “leading from behind” during the Arab Spring, which left a vacuum of power, but mostly got only foreigners killed – though that might have been just as bad, since it sort of makes us look like we were willing to sacrifice lots of democracy-minded Libyans in order to achieve our foreign policy goals, only to trumpet that the closest we got to the action was the air overhead.
But nope, she actually means the whole Libyan process. So, she’s including the period of time that our embassy was under attack – an attack she blamed on an anti-Muslim video, and an attack she refused to allow the embassy to prepare for, denying request after request for additional security.
Obviously, I doubt this will make much of an impact with her supporters, but it might prove useful as time goes on when she touts her “national security expertise” as one of her key advantages in the Presidential race. How does someone at the helm of America’s foreign policy make such a terrible decision? And more importantly, how much has she conveniently forgotten about the incident?