America Rising wasted no time maligning the facts and using the death of four Americans as a political tool this morning after Politico reported on a chapter of Hillary Clinton’s coming book, “Hard Choices,” that focuses on the attack in Benghazi. The reality is, Secretary Clinton took responsibility, she took action to make sure these tragedies could never happen again, and she’s been transparent about it from day one.
In case the right wing political attack machine should grow a concern for the facts, they are provided below.
FALSE ATTACK: “CLINTON’S CLAIM NOT ONLY THAT SHE WASN’T AWARE OF SECURITY REQUESTS, BUT ACTUALLY SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN BOTHERED WITH THEM, IS NOTHING SHORT OF APPALLING.”
FACT: Sec. Clinton only noted that it would be inefficient for the Secretary to review every single diplomatic cable. According to Politico’s coverage of the chapter in “Hard Choices” about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, “Clinton reiterates a point she made during congressional testimony last year: that she never saw cables requesting additional security. The cables were addressed to her as a ‘procedural quirk’ given her position, but didn’t actually land on her desk, she writes: ‘That’s not how it works. It shouldn’t. And it didn’t.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
FACT: Secretary Clinton was not aware about the request for additional security, nor did she know about the decision to turn down any request. In her testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary Clinton stated: “I didn’t see those requests. They didn’t come to me. I didn’t approve them. I didn’t deny them.” [Clinton testimony, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 1/23/13]
Washington Post Fact-Checker: The claim that Clinton denied funding is “absurd” and a “whopper.” “One of the headline items in the [House Republican] report was the claim that an April 19, 2012, State Department cable acknowledged a request from the embassy in Libya for additional security assets but ordered that a planned drawdown would proceed as scheduled. ‘The cable response to Tripoli bears Secretary Clinton’s signature,’ the report said, referring to the message as ‘the April cable from Clinton.’ […] [Congressman Darrell] Issa presented this as a ‘gotcha’ moment, but it relies on an absurd understanding of the word ‘signature.’ […] [T]he State Department is a vast organization and even office directors can send out a cable that ends up with the secretary’s ‘signature.’ At this point, Issa has no basis or evidence to show that Clinton had anything to do with this cable — any more than she personally approved a cable on proper e-mail etiquette. The odds are extremely long that Clinton ever saw or approved this memo, giving us confidence that his inflammatory and reckless language qualifies as a ‘whopper.’” [‘Issa’s absurd claim that Clinton’s ‘signature’ means she personally approved it,’ Washington Post, 4/25/13]
Official: As a general rule, “every single cable sent from Washington to the field is sent over the secretary of state’s name.” “It’s not clear who in the State Department sent the April 19 response. But as a general rule, ‘every single cable sent from Washington to the field is sent over the secretary of state’s name,’ a former State Department official noted, adding, ‘Though they are trying to make this new, it’s not. After 30+ hearings and briefings, thousands of pages, this has all been addressed.’” [Foreign Policy, 4/23/13]
FACT: As Secretary, Clinton worked to strengthen embassy security by beginning implementation all of the Accountability Review Board’s security recommendations. Secretary Clinton accepted and began implementation of all the Accountability Review Board’s 29 recommendations. As a result, the State Department has created the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for High Threat Programs in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. This post is responsible for ensuring high-threat posts receive the attention they need. In addition, the State Department “created 151 new Diplomatic Security positions. 113 employees, including 75 new DS agents, were hired in 2013. The remaining 38 employees will be hired in FY 2014.” [State.gov, 1/15/14]
FALSE ATTACK: CLINTON “SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE LAST PEOPLE WHO STILL BELIEVE THAT THE ATTACK WAS FUELED BY AN ANTI-ISLAM VIDEO”
FACT: On September 12, 2012, Clinton said the “assault” was committed by [h]eavily armed militants.” In remarks following the attacks in Benghazi, Secretary Clinton stated: “Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed… We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault.” [Secretary Clinton remarks, 9/12/12]
FACT: Secretary Clinton’s statements matched intelligence assessments at that time.
Clinton: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.” [Secretary Clinton remarks, 9/12/12]
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: “The IC’s preliminary conclusion was that there had been a protest outside of the mission prior to the attack, making this assessment based on open source news reports and on other information available to intelligence agencies.” [Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 12/30/12, page 28]
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning.” [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, page 41]
FALSE ATTACK: CLINTON “OFFERS FEW IF ANY REAL REGRETS ABOUT HOW SHE HANDLED THE ATTACK”
FACT: Secretary Clinton – again – takes responsibility: According to Politico’s coverage of the chapter in “Hard Choices” about the 2012 Benghazi attacks, “Early on in the chapter, she describes her grief over losing American ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his diplomatic colleagues – ‘a punch in the gut,’ she writes — and says she takes responsibility. The deaths of ‘fearless public servants in the line of duty was a crushing blow,’ Clinton writes. ‘As Secretary I was the one ultimately responsible for my people’s safety, and I never felt that responsibility more deeply than I did that day.’” [Politico, 5/30/14]
Politico article: “Clinton takes responsibility for the ‘horror’ of the loss of life in Benghazi.” “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.” [Politico, 5/30/14]
FACT: Secretary Clinton took responsibility in front of congress: In testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Secretary Clinton stated: “As secretary, I have no higher priority and no greater responsibility. As I have said many times, I take responsibility, and nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.” [Sec. Clinton testimony, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1/23/13]
FACT: Secretary Clinton took action: Secretary Clinton appointed a non-partisan, independent Accountability Review Board to review what happened and began the process of implementing the 29 recommendations put forth by the Accountability Review Board. She took these steps in order to ensure a tragedy like this never happens again.
FACT: Secretary Clinton was fully transparent: Secretary Clinton fully and publicly answered questions before Congress. She appointed an independent board to review what happened and publicly announced and began implementation of all 29 of the board’s recommendations. And as she testified, of the 19 Accountability Review Boards that have been held since 1988 only two have been made public, making this one of the most transparent internal reviews in State Department history. [Sec. Clinton testimony, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 1/23/13]