Secretary Clinton is a remarkable woman and I am sure she takes the loss of Ambassador Stevens personally.

But, in all honesty, I do not believe the intelligence was good. The denials for additional security was for Tripoli, not Benghazi. The violence in Benghazi is counter intuitive to the reality there.

The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012 6:21AM EDT 
Last Updated Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2012 6:23AM EDT

LIMA, Peru -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton (click here) is answering Republican criticism of the Obama administration's handling of last month's attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, saying she - not the White House - is responsible for security at all of America's diplomatic missions.

"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world (at) 275 posts."...

The Regional Security Officers need to submit their decision rationals to find out where this went so wrong. I am sure Secretary Clinton will get to the bottom of it. I trust her and she is not playing politics these days. She could not if she wanted to, the Secretary of State is not available for political volleys and that is according to the law. I think that is why she was happy to accept the position, too.

I half believe the Ambassador and his security personnel went to Benghazi for their own protection. The city and the neighborhood was known for its peaceful content. I think the Ambassador was under surveillance by the militias involved. I have to wonder who exactly was carrying out that level of intelligence and knew his movements.

I also have to wonder why. The USA was an ally. The people treated the USA as heroes. I sincerely believe the ultraconservative Salafists had a hand in this. It makes too much sense. Their social agenda is based in faux religious dogma and in complete opposition to the USA or current government in Tripoli.

None of the violence makes sense. The Libyan government has been reaching out to the militias to come in from the cold. There was an understanding the continuance of militias was unnecessary. Whether that was enough of a threat to inspire an attack is a possibility, but, why the consulate in Benghazi? It seems as though someone organizing the attack knew the popularity and status of Ambassador Stevens in the State Department and the demoralization of the internal workings of that Cabinet Agency his death would bring.

I am more worried about the extent the attack was organized and whom facilitated the intelligence for it to happen than any misstatements by the administration immediately after or since. There are larger issues and the answers seem far more important than misstatements. One has to wonder why the distraction regarding misstatements rather than pressing for facts of the attacks, attackers and their ability to carry it out.