Hillary Clinton's Benghazi excuses in book panned

Politico:

...
On Twitter and in blog posts, conservatives blasted her take on the incident as “cherry-picked,” “illogical” and, according to an adviser to Sen. Ted Cruz, “weak and arrogant.”

(Also on POLITICO: Hillary Clinton's Benghazi chapter)

The Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes ran through a number of contentions put forth by Clinton in a piece headlined, “Hillary’s Failed Benghazi Spin,” offering a point-by-point take-down. He wrote that Clinton’s assertion that “Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people” is “just false. It’s spectacularly, flamboyantly untrue. There are literally dozens of examples that disprove her claim. There is no chance that Clinton actually believes it. Nobody else does.”

National Review’s Jim Geraghty referred to an incident from the 2008 election in which Clinton walked back a description of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire in the 1990s.

“Hillary’s assessment of the events in Benghazi that night was undoubtedly shaped by the PTSD she had from escaping snipers in Tuzla, Bosnia,” Geraghty tweeted. In a blog post, he explained that the message was designed “to remind people that Hillary Clinton is willing to lie, quite dramatically, boldly, and shamelessly, even in ways that can be easily checked and refuted, when her political aspirations are at stake.”

(Also on POLITICO: Clinton allies mobilize on Benghazi)

The Republican National Committee also delved into Clinton’s past, listing a series of decisions she made at the State Department and in politics, and concluding that “the more Americans learn about “hard choices” like these, the less likely they will be to choose Clinton in any future election.”
Clinton’s account of Benghazi comes as her aides are set to brief Democratic-leaning groups about her book’s approach to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, which killed four Americans, including Amb. Christopher Stevens.
...
Ed Morrissey of Hot Air, questioning Clinton’s level of awareness about security decisions affecting the consulate, charged: “This is nothing more than a shabby attempt to avoid responsibility for the decisions made under her command at State. It’s the latest in a series of absurd dodges, and one that Clinton no doubt hopes the media will project as definitive so that continuing questions will continue to get the what difference at this point does it make treatment.”
...

I don't buy her story. It is still incomplete and she needs to be closely questioned by the House select committee.  She demonstrated a disdain for facts while pursuing a weird case about a video that had nothing to do with the attacks.    If she had been paying attention to what her own people were telling her about the security situation and what the CIA people on teh ground were telling the administration she would not have gotten the story so wrong.