Hillary Clinton Blames “Imperfect Information” for Lack of Security in Benghazi

Hillary Rodham Clinton

What exactly is the “imperfect information” part? Ambassador Stevens and RSO Nordstrom repeatedly asked for security upgrades and were denied. The State Department employee responsible for this denials has gotten a promotion for covering for Hillary.

There were repeated warnings of Al Qaeda activity. Benghazi was a city controlled by Islamist militias linked to terrorist groups. Other diplomats and diplomatic facilities had been attacked and even the Benghazi mission had been attacked previously.

Ambassador Stevens’ last cable talked of threats from the militias that were supposed to provide security and warned of increasing violence.

What was imperfect or ambiguous about this exactly?

”From April to June, Libya also witnesses an increase in attacks targeting international organizations and foreign interests,” Stevens wrote, describing attacks on a United Nations official in Benghazi, International Committee for the Red Cross buildings in Benghazi and Misrata, and IED at the mission in Benghazi, and RPG fired at the British Ambassador’s convoy, and an attack on the consulate of Tunisia.

But no, after blaming a YouTube video and jailing the filmmaker, Hillary Clinton is now blaming “imperfect information”.

“My biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi,” Clinton said when asked to identify “do-overs” of her time as America’s top diplomat, during her keynote appearance before the National Automobile Dealers Association in New Orleans.

“It was a terrible tragedy, losing four Americans, two diplomats, and now it’s public, so I can say two CIA operatives. Losing an ambassador like Chris Stevens, who was one of our very best and had served in Libya and across the Middle East and spoke Arabic,” she said

“I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information,” she said. “And you make them to, as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.”

Unforeseen? Really?

An American diplomatic facility without proper structural security or security personnel coming under attack on September 11 in a Muslim city where Al Qaeda groups operate openly and control entire areas is not unforeseen.

It’s not some sort of surprise twist ending like a diplomatic facility being overrun by Al Qaeda terrorists… in Brussels.

An American diplomatic facility without proper security being attacked on September 11 in Libya is the least unforeseen event in all of human history.

  • American1969

    This woman takes absolutely no responsibility for anything under her tenure. Sorry, Hillary, but you’re not going to weasel your way out of this issue. The facts repeatedly show that your department ignored or refused to send more security when requested. Why is that?
    Why did your State Department leave those Americans there like sitting ducks to die? Had it not been for the brave actions of Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, along with a third person who was seriously injured, many more would have perished.
    Why did you and the rest of the Obama Administration lie for weeks afterward, blaming some innocent film maker? Why did you lie—-and continue to lie—-to the families of these men?
    You have questions that you have not answered. WHY WERE REPEATED REQUESTS FOR SECURITY DENIED? WHY WAS HELP NOT SENT DURING AN EIGHT HOUR SEIGE OF THE CONSULATE?

    The Obama Administration Lied. Four Died.
    Remember the Benghazi Four.
    9/11/12 Benghazi, Lybia

  • Texas Patriot

    Let’s be fair. Both of the major political parties in America were hailing the so-called Arab Spring as a major triumph for democracy and a vindication of our policies in Iraq. John McCain and Lindsay Graham were as exuberant as school boys. John McCain may still be that way. Unfortunately, nothing could have been further from the truth. America was duped into removing Saddam Hussein, duped into assisting with the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, and duped into assisting with the assassination of Muammar Ghadaffi. Operating on the basis of “imperfect information” is just another way of saying we were all duped and manipulated by misinformation and disinformation into doing the heavy-lifting for Al Qaida, thus removing one of the biggest obstacles to their ascension to power in the middle east.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      True, but this isn’t even about the Arab Spring. It was about providing security to a diplomatic facility under virtual siege

      • Texas Patriot

        There is no question that it should have been done, but I’m not sure we can hold Hillary responsible for not pulling the trigger after the attack began. Isn’t it true that the State Department has only limited authority in authorizing military action? Didn’t Samantha Power send emails to the Pentagon requesting airstrikes with specific GPS coordinates, and wasn’t she rebuffed? As Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.” That means the president is directly responsible for everything that happens on his watch. Obama will not be able to escape having Benghazi attached to his legacy. Where I think Hillary is vulnerable is her cozy personal relationship with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. She will have some serious explaining to do on that, and she probably won’t be able to blame that one on Obama.

        Otherwise, I think the entire Arab Spring facade provides an important backdrop to what happened at Benghazi. America is pro-democracy, right? We helped the rebels, right? Ghaddafi was a terrible tyrant, right? The rebels were our friends, right? We are pro-democracy, we helped the rebels, and Ghaddafi was a tyrant. But the rebels were never our friends, and they were never pro-democracy. They were Al Qaida-affilliated Islamists who used us to get rid of an enemy and then turned on us like a snake.

        Thus, I think it is fair to say that both political parties were profoundly mistaken about the true nature of the Arab Spring, and that gave almost everyone in Washington a false sense of security about what was happening in the middle east, which Al Qaida exploited to the max at Benghazi.

        • Gee

          Considering that her authority over the military is zero – why didn’t she do what she was suppose to do – get her boss to authorize it?

          • Texas Patriot

            It was all about politics. Obama was up for re-election, and his foreign policy “successes” including the great flowering of democracy in the middle east as a result of the Arab Spring were a big part of his campaign for re-election. Even if Hillary had asked for military action, it is highly doubtful that Obama would have authorized it. There is no question that our military could have put a ring of fire around the Benghazi embassy that would have shut down the attack and saved the lives of our diplomats. But there is also no doubt that it would have created a political firestorm throughout the middle east and possibly a major political opening for Romney, and there is no way that Team Obama was about to allow that to happen.

          • truebearing

            The security of all embassies and consulates was Hillary’s ultimate responsibility. She sent Stevens to an undefendable and undefended building in Benghazi that wasn’t up to embassy security requirements. She is immensely culpable.

          • Texas Patriot

            Prior to the attack, both political parties were celebrating the triumph of democracy and freedom in Libya. No one dreamed that the United States had been duped into assisting Al Qaida in overthrowing Ghaddafi and paving the way for yet another Islamist stronghold in the middle east.

            At this point, the neo-conservatives on Capitol Hill are desperately looking for a scapegoat to avoid their own responsibility for the Benghazi disaster, and they think they have found an easy target with Hillary. Like most of their brilliant stratagems in the past, this too will fail. Like it or not, without the direct authority to pull the trigger and send in military force, Hillary was powerless to stop the massacre. Even if she had wanted to send in military force, the ultimate decision was Obama’s and his alone.

            Unfortunately, the “blame Hillary for Benghazi” has the clueless stamp of partisanship written all over it. Do you really think the American people can’t see the two-faced hypocrisy of John McCain and Lindsay Graham?

          • defcon 4

            Um, as Mr. Greenfield stated, she failed to provide a secure facility for the embassy staff and hired islam0nazi pigs as the security contingent for the embassy.

          • truebearing

            Again with your obsession with Rush Limbaugh. Has it occurred to you that people besides Rush might find your reasoning to be faulty? And what business is it of yours who I listen to? I’m going to tell you once more, and I will write slowly, I only hear what Rush has to say on Greta, and once in awhile on The Five. That isn’t an apology, because I think Limbaugh is very bright, but I simply don’t have time to listen to him.

            The part I find most humorous about your theories concerning Rush Limbaugh is that he went after Obama bigtime for the “Arab Spring” nonsense. He, like any intelligent conservative strategist, saw the deposing of an ally to the US, and the removal of a key terror buffer zone for Israel, as the height of stupidity. Somehow you seem to have missed that rather obvious truth.

            “Hillary was powerless to stop the massacre?”

            Is that right? How about not sending Stevens to Benghazi when she knew the place was a hotbed of islamist activity? How about acting on his requests for more security, instead of cutting his security? How about making sure the consulate was both defendable and defended? As SOS, Hillary had defensive assets at her disposal. She just wasn’t willing to answer that call at 3:00 A.M.

            McCain and Graham are Progressive stooges. They don’t speak for all Republicans, nor any conservatives. McCain is buddy-buddy with George Soros. Why do you conflate the perfidy and stupidity of McCain and Graham with the prevailing Republican position on Obama’s disastrous meddling in Egypt? You’ve gotten yourself thoroughly confused. And why are you a Hillary supporter, yet carrying on about McCain and Graham? McCain could hardly wait to stick our noses in Syria, just like your friend Hillary.

            BTW, Rush thinks you’re a clown.

          • Bryan

            Agreed. Political takes precedence over country.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            When should politicians be held accountable for failure? Never? Only when they confess on live cable or network television?

          • Texas Patriot

            When a public official has full knowledge or notice of all the relevant facts; and when such official is fully authorized, empowered, and ultimately responsible for making a decision or taking action; and when, fully possessed of such knowledge and authority, such official fails to discharge their sworn duty in accordance with the best interest of the United States of America; and when, as a direct and proximate result of such failure to properly discharge their duty, American lives are lost, then, in such a case, it is reasonable and appropriate that such official should be impeached or tried for treason before a court of competent jurisdiction; and thereafter, if such official should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of high crimes or misdemeanors against the United States, they should removed from office and/or executed in accordance with the judgment of the court. What happens on live cable or network television is really of very little consequence unless perhaps it constitutes an inconsistent statement or admission against interest which could be used in a subsequent legal proceeding. However, short of an actual indictment and conviction, every American, including every public official serving on behalf of America, is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “However, short of an actual indictment and conviction, every American, including every public official serving on behalf of America, is entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.”

            I’m not asking about strict legal accountability. Obviously we need to follow the law. I’m talking about acting as though short of criminal prosecution there is no cost of failure on the left. It’s all about preserving the team.

            Ever hear of loss of confidence? How about preponderance of evidence? Beyond reasonable doubt is not the only standard to judge performance. And throwing people in jail is not the only way to hold them accountable.

          • Texas Patriot

            The best way to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her supposed errors in judgment, real or imagined, is to make sure that she never wins a presidential election. But we’ll never do that by harping on Benghazi. The American people are sick of it. The only way to beat Team Clinton in 2016 is to nominate a better candidate with a better vision and a better platform for bringing economic prosperity to all Americans. Unfortunately, at this point in time, there is no one on the horizon who appears even remotely capable of doing that.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The best way to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her supposed errors in judgment, real or imagined, is to make sure that she never wins a presidential election.”

            Agreed.

            “But we’ll never do that by harping on Benghazi.”

            We’re harping on Benghazi (at least I am) because I’m not satisfied. I’m not targeting anyone for the sake of political expedience. There’s plenty of time to worry about keeping her out of office later if it comes to that. My point is to wonder why she’s even a serious candidate given her history.

            “Unfortunately, at this point in time, there is no one on the horizon who appears even remotely capable of doing that.”

            Given up on Cruz already? What about Scott Walker?

          • Texas Patriot

            OFM: “My point is to wonder why she’s even a serious candidate given her history.”

            Hillary is a serious candidate because millions of women in America relate to her and share her belief that it’s time for a woman in the White House, and that alone is going to make her almost impossible to beat.

            OFM: “Given up on Cruz already? What about Scott Walker?”

            Cruz had the chance of a lifetime to launch his 2016 presidential campaign during his 21 hour filibuster of Obamacare. The government was shut down, and the eyes and ears of the world were riveted on who he was and what he had to say. Unfortunately, he failed to articulate any concrete vision for a prosperous America with a better future for all Americans, and the moment was lost, probably irrevocably. I don’t know very much about Scott Walker, but he doesn’t really impress me as the kind of fighter who could stay in the ring with Team Clinton.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Hillary is a serious candidate because millions of women in America relate to her and share her belief that it’s time for a woman in the White House, and that alone is going to make her almost impossible to beat.”

            I’m challenging that as shallow, stupid and destructive to the success of our nation.

            “Unfortunately, he failed to articulate any concrete vision for a prosperous America with a better future for all Americans, and the moment was lost, probably irrevocably.”

            You have no way to know that. He can’t start running with all his weapons and ammo now. Why give the enemy so much time to counter your best arguments?

            “I don’t know very much about Scott Walker, but he doesn’t really impress me as the kind of fighter who could stay in the ring with Team Clinton.”

            People need to learn that the best candidates know how to lay low. I’d say Cruz’s biggest problem is that he’s coming on too strong too early rather than not strong enough.

            But I think he’s modeling himself in part after Reagan, who projected his values and idea for many years before running. But if he lays out a program for 2016 in 2014, that’s asking for failure.

            I’m not saying he’s won already, I’m simply saying he hasn’t lost anything as you seem to fear. He’s not trying to “win” for the Republican Party. He’s trying to win the election for himself. And frankly I’m happy he’s being “selfish” about that.

          • Texas Patriot

            I hope you’re right, but I’m not optimistic. There is a real hunger and a real need for positive change in America. If the Republicans can’t field a candidate with a vision for a better future for all Americans, as well as a concrete pathway for making it happen, I think Team Clinton will have a virtual cakewalk to the White House.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            Or worse. We have a lot to worry about, I’ll agree with you there.

            We need to build the base and teach about core values and then a leader will emerge. Or not. There’s not much more we can do.

          • truebearing

            Defending the lives of a United States ambassador, two former SEALS, and another diplomat, while on sovereign US soil, would have helped Romney? Please elaborate. I’m looking forward to your explanation.

            So, you endorse the tuck-tail-and-run approach to defending US citizens?

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “Defending the lives of a United States ambassador, two former SEALS, and another diplomat, while on sovereign US soil, would have helped Romney? Please elaborate. I’m looking forward to your explanation.”

            I’m happy to do so, and hopefully it won’t be too hard for you to understand. Obama was running on the idea that his middle east strategy was working, that the old regime of middle eastern strong men was coming to an end, that democracy was at hand, and that the Arab Spring and his role in deposing Ghadaffi was the best evidence of his pivotal role in the entire process. Under these circumstances, admitting that he had inadvertently supported Al Qaida in overthrowing a secular dictator who had given up his nuclear weapons and made enormous peace overtures to the United States was not in the cards for Team Obama.

            TB: “So, you endorse the tuck-tail-and-run approach to defending US citizens?”

            Not at all. I favor the speak softly and carry a big stick approach to dealing with our enemies, and I could care less if the rest of the world likes it. Preserving American blood and treasure by disposing of our enemies in the quickest and most expedient way possible given all the weaponry at our disposal should be an indispensable part of American foreign policy. If I had been president on September 11, 2012, there would have been a dozen F/A-18 Hornets over Benghazi within 45 minutes of the first signs of an attack. If the attackers desisted, fine. If not, our embassy and our diplomats would have been protected whatever the cost, political or otherwise.

          • truebearing

            By choosing to abandon the Americans at Benghazi, Obama handed Romney the election. Romney completely failed to press the advantage.

            Yes, there is the possibility that Obama’s lies about Al Queda would be outted, but he would also look like a capable CIC if he put down an attack and saved Americans. By not defending them, he ended up with 4 dead Americans, including an ambassador, many wounded, and more questions than he could lie his way out of, successfully. If he had put down the attack, he could have still lied, and you know he would have, but could have claimed they were a renegade band of rebels, yada, yada, yada, and the media would have all sung “Hail to the Chief” in unison. To the victor go the spoils.

          • Texas Patriot

            In order to win the next war it is important to move beyond the last war. There is a well-documented but little understood human tendency always to be looking backward rather than forward. Unfortunately, winning elections has much more to do with the future than the past.

          • Bryan

            It was too close to 3 AM and at least one wasn’t answering the alarms.

        • stevethird

          Hey, They wound up getting Capone for tax evasion. Whatever works to bring her down. She was involved and must atone for this botchery.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          I’m not holding her accountable after the attack began, though if she had wanted to, I imagine she could have applied pressure in the right places, but for failing to provide security for the Benghazi mission long before.

          • Texas Patriot

            From my point of view, Benghazi was more of an intelligence failure than a security failure. After the overthrow of Ghaddafi, it is clear that the entire Washington community was trying to “make nice” with the Libyan rebels. And why not? There was a huge amount of oil to be gained by having Libya in our hip pocket. Why shouldn’t we have expected the Libyan rebels to be friendly toward the government that made their coup possible? At that point, the idea of sending in heavily armed troops and heavy armaments to defend our embassy in Benghazi would probably have sounded absurd to the leaders of both parties. The Massacre at Benghazi on September 11, 2012 changed all that. And if the cold-blooded murder of our diplomats wasn’t enough, the simultaneous worldwide chants of “Obama, Obama, We’re All Osama” left no room for doubt that any group of Islamist rebels anywhere in the world could ever be trusted by the United States again.

          • Bryan

            The people we put in charge of Libya were never pro-America. The oil in question was flowing towards France and England. Before and after. Never America. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. Plenty of Republicans disagreed with an involvement where we had zero interest. Even some Democrats disagreed. It was never about US interest but more about relinquishing US power to foreigners. You can see the same thing with Syria. Pres Obama’s red line, but if others don’t give permission, it’s not a red line.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It was both. But at the basic level, the mission needed to be secured, people in the service in Libya, including Stevens asked for added security, and they were turned down.

          • Texas Patriot

            Perhaps so. But as a political matter, it’s a losing argument. Hillary is not going to be charged or tried or impeached over Benghazi, and there are many, vastly more important issues that could derail her run at the presidency in 2016. If your sole objective is to get Rush Limbaugh fans foaming at the mouth, just mention Benghazi. It works every time. But if you want to make sure that Hillary never sits as president in the White House, come up with a viable alternative that appeals to the vast majority of the American people and offers the prospect of a much better future for all Americans.

            At this point, the war on terrorism is over, and we lost. In the process we have very nearly bankrupted the greatest nation on earth. Americans are fed up with stories about Al Qaida and terror networks and Benghazi. At this point in time, the issue is survival of America as a nation-state and the payment of the enormous debt we have rung up in our hopelessly misguided and futile approach to the global phenomenon of Islamic jihad.

            What most Americans want to know about is where their next paycheck is coming from and will it support their family and allow them to pay their bills and educate their kids for a better future. From my perspective, endlessly harping on Benghazi is a sure formula for a Hillary landslide in 2016.

          • truebearing

            Are you planning on laying down and letting the Muslims have their way? They declared war. You don’t get to decide when it is over. They couldn’t care less what you believe. They want to dominate the entire world. You either fight or submit. Which is it?

            You don’t understand politics very well. A big part of the reason McCain lost is because he wouldn’t attack Obama on legitimate issues. Romney didn’t hammer him on Benghazi when he had the chance. Candidates lose elections when they fail to hang their opponent’s failures around their necks. Name one presidential election in the last 30 years where that wasn’t true.

          • Texas Patriot

            TB: “Are you planning on laying down and letting the Muslims have their way? They declared war. You don’t get to decide when it is over. They couldn’t care less what you believe. They want to dominate the entire world. You either fight or submit. Which is it?”

            Muhammad and his followers declared war on the world 1400 years ago. That declaration of war has never been rescinded, and it probably never will be by the Muslim faithful. Resisting that war machine has been the responsibility of every Western leader since, and very few if any have ever had any real insight with respect to how to deal with it effectively. From my perspective, the key element in the fight to win the war against Islamic extremism is truth. Truth about the incompatibility of the Islamic doctrines of jihad and submission with our Western values of individual freedom, equal rights, and constitutional democracy. Truth about the fact that Muslims have immigrated into the West under the false pretenses of being a religion of peace. And truth about the teachings of Muhammad and his followers which unceasing war against non-Muslims until the entire earth submits to Islam. All of these essential truths have been withheld from the American people by dull-witted and incompetent governments who are either (a) too clueless to see the truth or (b) too scared to talk about it.

            TB: “You don’t understand politics very well. A big part of the reason McCain lost is because he wouldn’t attack Obama on legitimate issues. Romney didn’t hammer him on Benghazi when he had the chance. Candidates lose elections when they fail to hang their opponent’s failures around their necks. Name one presidential election in the last 30 years where that wasn’t true.”

            Romney was leading Obama up until the third debate. Victory was his for the taking, but he failed to drive home the essential truths that I referred to above. At that point, the momentum shifted completely and Obama beat Romney handily. Hard-hitting truth is the key to winning any election, but it’s not only about the failures and shortcomings of the opposition. It’s also about why we offer a better alternative than our opponents.

            Unless and until Republicans can move away from our addiction to unnecessarily negative personal attacks and move towards a positive vision for (a) an American Industrial Renaissance like nothing the world has ever seen, (b) a strong, highly educated, and highly competitive American citizenry, and (c) a vision, a promise, and a commitment to a better future for all Americans in the 21st Century and beyond, we can expect the Democrats to win all the major elections from here on out.

            Leadership is about inspiring and leading and moving the ball forward in a positive way. Without effective leadership, America is dead in the water, and so is the Republican Party.

          • truebearing

            Speaking the truth is obviously necessary, and so is courage, but what you are saying is that the truth Republican candidates speak must leave out all of the negative, ugly truth about Democratic candidates. And you say this right after going on at length about how we must speak the truth about Islam, which is hardly a positive truth. The truth may be negative, positive, or neutral, but we can’t be afraid to hit the Democrats with the entire truth, whatever it may be.

          • Texas Patriot

            What I am saying is that the Benghazi argument won’t accomplish what we want it to politically. It is true that Hillary misjudged the risk that the rebels in Libya would turn on us after we helped them overthrow Ghadaffi. But so did almost every other politician in Washington, DC. Instead of obsessively harping on issues where our own candidates are also vulnerable, we should instead move the focus of the debate to an area where we can win: The nature and causes of the future prosperity and wealth of the American people.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            If we can’t put them in jail we have to let them rule over us.

          • defcon 4

            Has it ever been revealed as to why their pleas for additional security were turned down? I can’t imagine even an extra million dollars being spent would put Shrillery’s panties in a bunch.

          • lyndaaquarius

            I think Charlene Lamb recently gave their cover story.

          • defcon 4

            Would you go to Benghazi without fear of your life? Then, or now?

          • Texas Patriot

            I don’t take the phenomenon of fear very seriously. It’s just an emotional response to danger which must be overcome in order to do what the situation requires. If understood and utilized properly, it can be quite energizing. The important thing is to identify the issues that matter and deal with them aggressively.

          • defcon 4

            THen get energized and take a trip to Benghazi! Or Somalia. Or Pakistain. Or Bangladesh.

          • Texas Patriot

            Sounds lovely.

        • Bryan

          Yes the state department cant declare war and attack a friendly country. Same holds true with the defense department. Still, both need immediate access to the president that can declare actions. Where was he or why wasn’t he available?

          • truebearing

            The State Department has its own security people. They also have standards for what constitutes a safe consulate. Hillary failed in both areas. If the consulate had been defendable, and had been properly defended, it is likely that the terrorists would have failed to get anywhere near Stevens.

        • Bryan

          The Arab Spring was never about democracy. It was about Theocracy. Something liberals usually oppose. Different, sometimes, under this administration.
          Ghaddafi was a tyrant of a desert nation that increased the water supply to his poorest citizens. Hardly makes him terrible.
          Only one political party was pro Arab spring. There were outliers of course from the other. That doesn’t mean the other party supported it. One of those outliers even supported kidnappers in Syria.

          • defcon 4

            At least Ghaddafi had style and flair, the rest of the islam0nazi leaders of the Mid-East and N. Africa didn’t and don’t.

    • USARetired

      Sorry, You are 100% wrong on Saddam, He did have WMD’s!

    • truebearing

      Not all Republicans hailed the “Arab Spring” and McCain and Graham hardly represent everyone in the party. They are both a couple of Progressive patsies.

      America wasn’t duped into removing Saddam. We kicked his arse out of Kuwait and then he refused to live under the sanctions imposed by the UN. He continued trying to acquire more WMDs, even using them on the Kurds and Shiites. There were plenty of good reasons to remove him. Our biggest mistake was in not pivoting right into Iran and destroying the Twlever cult.

      Only the dumb part of America was duped on the overthrow of Mubarak. The same bunch of dummies that voted for Obama or fall for propaganda from the NY Times and MSNBC. There were plenty of people criticizing Obama’s really excellent Caliphate construction project..

    • Bryan

      One party was hailing the Arab Spring. The other party was worried about a Muslim Brotherhood takeover. McCain and Graham are already in trouble with their party for supporting liberal ideas.
      Saddam Hussein was evil like Hitler was evil. Killing his own citizens based on their political beliefs.
      Mubarak was an ally of the US. Despite this, the Obama administration supported overthrowing him in favor of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hardly a strong talking point.
      Ghadaffi was a reluctant ally of the US. The person we helped replace him with isn’t. We knew nothing about the replacement. Not a strong talking point.
      Imperfect intelligence is what led us to war in Iraq. Are you supporting that?

    • lyndaaquarius

      Governor Palin,as you may recall,wasn’t duped.

  • Gee

    I wonder why hiring Al-Qaida for security guards could be considered imperfect information. It’s not like they didn’t know – they did and that is why they hired them

  • truebearing

    “But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.”

    I think by “unforseen consequences” Hillary means the testimony given by people she thought were too intimidated to speak out. Or perhaps the unexpected tenacity of those who refused to let Benghazi die the same way she let Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith die.

    What she means by “unpredictable twists and turns” must be that the people who attacked and killed 4 Americans, including an American ambassador on American soil, were the same Al Queda terrorists Hillary and Obama had Stevens supplying with weapons. Now there is an unexpected twist! Who would have thought that Muslim extremists would bite the hand that fed them? Certainly that never happened before… except when Bin Laden attacked the US after we aided the Muslims fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. What an unexpectedly twisty full circle! You surely wouldn’t expect someone running the State Department to be able to figure out that Muslims hate us and will accept our aid, then stab us in the back. After all, how could an experienced foreign policy expert possibly interpret months of warnings and escalating violence in Benghazi…I mean, at this point, what difference does it make?

  • Anukem Jihadi

    Maybe Hilary wasn’t wearing her reading glasses that day.
    Maybe she misread the situation.
    Maybe it looked liked they’d bought what they paid for on the balance sheet in Libya. Maybe they thought they had some new friends.
    Maybe they didn’t think they needed all that security.

  • Bryan

    Keep in mind that there is no such thing as perfect information.
    She blames pres Bush for the imperfect intelligence leading to the war in Iraq (from the CIA director her husband appointed). Does she blame pres Obama for not providing perfect intelligence?
    When is this lady going to produce something positive?

  • stevethird

    As her rapist hubby used to say, “Mistakes were made.”

  • DVult

    Either she neglected to do her duty even though she was capable of doing so or she did the best she could in which case she had insufficient ability to perform her duties. Negligent or incompetent, how does either one qualify her for president?

    • defcon 4

      In the same way being a Community Organizer does!

  • wileyvet

    I love the placard on the table that reads ” Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton ” Priceless.

    • defcon 4

      She wouldn’t know honor if it bit her on her prodigious heine.

  • oldtimer

    and wasn’t the woman she will likely blame this imperfect information on just promoted?

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The bottom line is it doesn’t matter what information she had as she is a total incompetent and has been one her entire miserable life.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Under normal circumstances the buck always stops with the top administrators in charge, i.e., the Secretary of State and the President, but in this case since the Secretary of State and the President both happen to be an icons of the Left, the information is therefore deemed to be imperfect.

  • veeper

    bill clinton, hillary the murdering hag clinton, obama……

    all LIES and BULLSHEITE…..

    their entire lives have been built on LIES and BULLSHEITE……

    these people are completely incapable of telling the truth about anything…..

    it’s always….what they think their audience wants to hear or what they think will save their butt…..

    sleaze balls and low lifes to the very core…..

  • KikiEm

    “I mean, you know, you make these choices based on imperfect information,” said Clinton, who’s mulling whether to seek the Democratic presidential nomination. “And you make them to, as we say, the best of your ability. But that doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.” ~~ Hillary Clinton ~~ 01/27/14

    ***************************************************************

    This sounds eerily familiar like the circumstances surrounding the Bush Administration when they based the invasion into Iraq on imperfect information about WMD’s, which led to unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns.