Hillary Clinton spoke about Osama Bin Laden three years ago and told one Toronto business organization that the American military tracked the terrorist and his organization back in Pakistan. Shortly after, his death followed on May 2, 2011.
“The amount of work that was required to get a strong-enough basis of information on which to plan took more than a decade,” she stated in a speech segment directed to the aforementioned organization. This news was first brought by the New York Post.
“And then all of a sudden putting this matrix together and saying, ‘This guy used to protect bin Laden — he has just made a phone call. He said this in the phone call. We need to figure out where he is. Then we need to follow him,’” she continued.
These words from her speech, revealed in hacked emails published late last week by WikiLeaks, were troubling for a couple of key reasons.
First, the claims she made belied official reports, which said the U.S. government either was tipped off to bin Laden’s location by Pakistani intelligence officers or tracked him down via extensive surveillance.
This means that either the intelligence Clinton shared was false or she haphazardly revealed information that was meant to remain classified and unknown by the public.
To be sure, she should not have said anything, and incidentally WikiLeaks agreed:
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 8, 2016
From the sound of it, she essentially divulged state secrets while delivering a paid speech to a Canadian business organization. It was just another example of her propensity to engage in pay-to-play schemes in which she either offers favors or shares classified secrets in exchange for money.
If Clinton becomes president, is she going to be involved in all government’s intelligence tactics, and control them as she sees fit?