In the 34-page chapter about Benghazi in her new book "Hard Choices" Hillary Clinton provides little new information about the 9/11/12 attack that killed four Americans. Instead she aggressively attacks any claim of unanswered questions as partisan politics, “I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”
Politico obtained an early copy of the Benghazi chapter in the Clinton book whose official release date is June 10th. In a column revealing its contents in a column on Friday they explain her account as:
Clinton’s most complete account to date of the attack and its aftermath. Her tone is less defensive than defiant: Clinton takes responsibility for the “horror” of the loss of life in Benghazi, but puts it in the context of “the heartbreaking human stakes of every decision we make” — and she accuses adversaries of manipulating a tragedy for partisan gain.
The chapter seems to be the former Secretary of State's attempt to define the events of the Benghazi attack before the GOP gets a shot at it once she officially announces her 2016 presidential candidacy.
There has been, she writes, a “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media,” but new information from “a number of reputable sources continues to expand our understanding of these events.”
Of her controversial comment made at a Congressional hearing -- "What difference, at this point, does it make?" -- Clinton claims:
“In yet another example of the terrible politicization of this tragedy, many have conveniently chosen to interpret” that phrase “to mean that I was somehow minimizing the tragedy of Benghazi. Of course that’s not what I said,” she writes. “Nothing could be further from the truth. And many of those trying to make hay of it know that, but don’t care.”
Later she adds:
“Many of these same people are a broken record about unanswered questions. But there is a difference between unanswered questions and unlistened to answers.”
The only real new information she addresses in the chapter is that Obama did want to send help to the besieged compound:
Clinton addresses lingering questions about how military assets were deployed to try to rescue personnel at the besieged compound, writing that Obama “gave the order to do whatever was necessary to support our people in Libya. It was imperative that all possible resources be mobilized immediately.
Clinton continues to cling to the myth that the Benghazi attacks began because of the YouTube video "The Innocence of Muslims":
An anti-Islamic video that had sparked a protest at an embassy in Cairo was proved in “later investigation and reporting,” including by The New York Times, to have been “indeed a factor” in what happened in Benghazi, Clinton writes....“There were scores of attackers that night, almost certainly with differing motives,” she writes. “It is inaccurate to state that every single one of them was influenced by this hateful video. It is equally inaccurate to state that none of them were. Both assertions defy not only the evidence but logic as well.”
Hillary has also reportedly hired former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor to help deflect charges on Benghazi -- yes, the same Tommy Vietor who memorably stated that he didn't remember how the Benghazi talking points evolved because, "Dude, this was like two years ago."
If Politico's review of Hillary's chapter is any indicator, she never answers where she was or what her personal actions were the night of Benghazi, why her State Department rejected requests for additional security, why her vaunted Accountability Review Board was stacked with personal Hillary allies who never interviewed her, or why her State Department rewrote the Benghazi story to include a YouTube video instead of labeling it terror.
Clinton's vigorous attacks on the Benghazi critics throughout this chapter is a peek into how she intends to defend herself against the barrage of attacks which most certainly will be coming from the 2016 Republican presidential nominee.