The Betrayal of Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton might have been a little touchy about Benghazi when she testified to Congress in January because Barack Obama had thrown her under the bus, abandoning her philosophy of “normalization” — the policy of intentionally minimizing security around embassies and other diplomatic facilities.

A report by the historian Arthur Herman on Fox News last October describes the situation before the attack:

Twice the man in charge of security for our diplomats in Libya, Greg Nordstrom, begged the State Department for more security in Benghazi after no less than 48 security “incidents” there, including two bombings.

Washington, however, said no. Hillary Clinton… had her minion Charlene Lamb… tell Nordstrom that State wanted “to normalize operations” in Libya and to “reduce security resources.”

Clinton defended normalization in a speech on October 13, 2012, a month after the attack. “We will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism, or achieve perfect security,” Clinton said. “Our people can’t live in bunkers and do their jobs… Diplomacy, by its very nature, is often practiced in dangerous places.”

I disagree with this assertion; a desk officer doing the job of issuing visas deserves a safe workplace. The diplomatic security debate however reflects a larger conflict between the Department of State and our military and intelligence communities. By placing their faith in diplomacy, Obama and Clinton elevate the job of the diplomat to include gathering intelligence and winning hearts and minds, tasks that are better suited to the CIA and the military.

In the days after Benghazi, Ambassador Stevens was characterized as a romantic who spoke Arabic and liked to mingle with the people without the insulation of security — a kind of modern-day Lawrence of Arabia. Later, this narrative was challenged, notably by John McCain, who claimed that Stevens requested increased security.