One thing that seems to always haeppn in cases like this is that the problem appears clear in retrospect. It is always possible, once something has haeppned, to isolate (in Nate Silver’s terms) the signal from amidst all of the noise. When Katrina hit, when the World Trade Center towers fell, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, etc. In all of these situations, we can find a clear, constant trail of data that shows us how inevitable the result was.The problem, though, is that this data is much, much harder to see BEFORE something haeppns. Every day, intelligence services are bombarded with millions of pieces of data. Finding patterns in the data before something bad haeppns is enormously complex. Finding patterns after it has haeppned is almost ridiculously simple. It’s like we can take a highlight and mark up all of the relevant information and start connecting the dots. This is why historians always do a better job describing the world than fortune tellers.I don’t now enough yet about Benghazi to know if this is a relevant observation. But, at the gut level, I suspect that it is that we will son unearth a trail of intelligence data that clearly shows what haeppned and why data that people had access to before the attack but that was, at the time, much harder to separate into signal and noise.