Hillary Clinton is still trying to litigate the low point of her failed tenure as Secretary of State, the debacle in Benghazi, this time through a forthcoming book.

According to an article in Politico, which was given a sneak peek, Clinton devotes an entire chapter to spinning her dereliction of duty in Benghazi. She addresses her infamous loss of temper in a Senate hearing, one prompted by my question about why she and her staff apparently didn’t bother figuring out the truth about what resulted in the fatal attack on our diplomats before telling the American people a falsehood.

We were misled, days after the attack, by a State Department spokeswoman on national television claiming the attack was the result of protests over a video. It could easily have been ascertained this was untrue had Clinton or her staff picked up the phone and called survivors of the attack after they were safe and the crisis was over. That was not done. Why not? Clinton would not say, deflecting the question by shouting, “What difference at this point does it make?”

In her book, Politico reports, she says she was misunderstood.

“She adds, ‘My point was simple: If someone breaks into your home and takes your family hostage, how much time are you going to spend focused on how the intruder spent his day as opposed to how best to rescue your loved ones and then prevent it from happening again?’”

The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes points out how bizarre her defense is.

“The hostage-taking, to use her comparison, was long over when she appeared before Congress. And the attack wasn't an act of random violence; it came as part of a long pattern of anti-American violence that had led the country into decade-long global war on jihadist terror. The motives of the attackers not only matter, they matter more than just about anything else. And one of the reasons that Obama administration critics have focused so intently on Benghazi is because the administration had spent the better part of four years ending that long campaign and downplaying the threats posed by attackers like those who participated in the assault on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi. So the Christmas Day bomber was an ‘isolated extremist,’ and the Fort Hood shooting was ‘workplace violence,’ and the attempted Times Square bombing was a ‘one-off attack.’

“To put it another way: You can't prevent it from happening again if you don't understand why it keeps happening.”

It’s not just this point, Hayes writes. Clinton’s account of how the incendiary-video tale was "what the intelligence community believed, rightly or wrongly, at the time" is just untrue:

“Deputy CIA director Michael Morell, who has been a loyal defender of the administration on most Benghazi-related issues, went out of his way in recent congressional testimony to make clear that the video story did not come from the CIA. In prepared testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Morell stated, without qualification: ‘There was no mention of the video defaming the Prophet Muhammad as a motivation for the attacks in Benghazi. In fact, there was no mention of the video at all.’ ”

We now know the story about the video originated with the White House: An email the administration kept concealed until recently shows this. Hayes again:

“Is Clinton unaware of this? Or is she being dishonest?

“Her next claim gives us a clue: ‘Every step of the way, whenever something new was learned, it was quickly shared with Congress and the American people.’

“That's 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.”