Hillary speaks

Hillary Clinton appeared before a Congressional committee investigating the Benghazi attack, appearing rather more fit and feisty than we were led to believe. Wearing horn-rimmed glasses to take on a more credible pose, she claimed to take “responsibility” for the episode, although that responsibility did not include room for any failure on her part. Despite admitting to “deficiencies” and “inadequacies” at the State Department that led to the failure to adequately secure the Benghazi diplomatic sites—and which continue to be an issue—none of this had anything to do with her personally or the people advising her. Someone forgot to tell her that taking responsibility implies some fault, such as failure to pay attention to the details of the job, or to recognize problems as they occur and correct them. 

While a discussion concerning the disorder and power vacuum that followed the overthrow of Khadafy in Libya is a legitimate issue, to merely say that diplomats “accept a level of risk” and that they "cannot work in bunkers and do their jobs” seems more a dodge than an explanation—particularly given the Benghazi report’s finding that there was disagreements and lack of coordination between diplomats and the State Department in regard to security arrangements in Libya. The security of American diplomats in Arab countries that recently experienced internal upheaval should have been of more vital attention than it appears it was given. Whose fault was it that this did not happen? It is a little late in the day since Clinton abandoned her post to say "So it is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need and to do everything we can to reduce the risks.” 

Taking "responsibility” after almost four years of relative neglect (instead, travelling to more countries than any other Secretary of State) seems too retrospective; if no one “is more committed to getting this right” and is more “determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure” than she is, that doesn’t say much for the attitude that prevailed before. "For me, it's personal." Well, why wouldn’t it when one’s “rock star” reputation is at stake?

I don’t doubt Clinton has a real sense of regret over the deaths of Americans in Benghazi, and some of the attacks made on her made by John McCain and Rand Paul do seem politically-motivated. She also rightly accused House Republicans of holding-up funds for security cooperation in Libya. She also can’t be blamed for the prevailing conditions on the ground. Nevertheless, she can be blamed for a lack of inquisitiveness and not responding to those conditions; for Clinton to point to the Benghazi board’s claim that the “level of responsibility for the failures that they outlined was set at the assistant secretary level and below"—which may have been politically-motivated itself to absolve her of any blame for the security deficit in Benghazi—as a defense for her lack of attention does not pass the smell test. 

In the meantime, while Clinton claims that steps are being taken to improve security for U.S. diplomats, evidence on the ground suggests that there is little to support this claim, at least not in Libya, where “security” still remains in the hands of mercurial local militias.