Mrs. Clinton Takes the Blame – President Still Not Excused

6954-Hclinton782-thumb-224x230-6953.jpg

WASHINGTON: The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said she accepted responsibility for what happened in last month’s attack on a US diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the American ambassador.

Mrs Clinton said, ”I take responsibility . . . I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” Mrs Clinton said on CNN’s OutFront program.

The Libya attack has emerged as an issue in the US presidential race, with the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, and fellow Republicans saying the Obama administration failed to secure the facility before the attack and painted a false picture of it afterwards.

Three Republican senators on the Armed Services Committee called Mrs Clinton’s acceptance of responsibility a ”laudable gesture” while criticizing the White House for not doing the same.

”The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief,” senators John McCain, of Arizona, Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire, said. ”The buck stops there.”

————————–

The president’s job is to protect America from all threats, foreign and domestic. It’s why he has a daily security briefing on terrorism. When the USA placed an embassy in Libya everyone knew there were security risks. When it fell into revolution the security risks became acute, extra attention was needed! When new, and untested regime took over, fresh from civil war, security should have been the first concern on everyone’s mind from the President on down. A successful attack on a US embassy now would be a political disaster for Obama, why wouldn’t he be paying attention?

All we know for sure at this moment is the security at Benghazi was no where near adequate. We also know the White House told the wrong story about a riot being the cause and continued to tell that false story for many days after the truth was known.

Many questions remain unanswered.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/clinton-mea-culpa-for-deaths-in-libyan-consulate-raid-20121016-27ozg.html#ixzz29ThhPBrr”>http://www.smh.com.au/world/clinton-mea-culpa-for-deaths-in-libyan-consulate-raid-20121016-27ozg.html#ixzz29ThhPBrr

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Mrs. Clinton Takes the Blame – President Still Not Excused

  1. Toby says:

    If she was really taking the blame, Obama should fire her! This is such a load of crap.

  2. Libby says:

    The part I like is where the Secretary said much the same thing to the WSJ some time back, but they chose not to share that with us. How’s that for a “liberally biased media”?

  3. Tina says:

    The part I like is where the media and democrat faithful pretty much excuse the entire ugly affair and nobody is prosecuted, jailed, or harmed politically.

    WSJ “sat” on the story for two whole hours and that, apparently, is a BFD.

    What was wrong with the NYT that they didn’t have this story weeks ago! (Cause it was still “the movie”) and because whatever the story its ALL about trying to save the O mans A**!

  4. Princess says:

    I can’t believe the Republicans want to make such a bid deal out of this when the state department asked for more funding for embassy security and the Republicans voted no. They aren’t even denying it. I realize we can’t afford it in this country (of course, we seem to always be able to afford more tanks and war toys), but am I supposed to seriously listen to hysteria from the Republican party when they voted against increasing embassy security?

    The New York Times has a story today confirming this was all about that stupid video. Do I think these people are so stupid that they would riot like this and commit this type of violence over a video? Yes. They are that stupid.

    But not as stupid as Republican congressmen who voted against increasing embassy security, then blame embassy attacks on Obama.

    Congress disgusts me.

  5. J. Soden says:

    There are two issues here

    First, the denial of extra security requests and Hillary may be on the hook for that.

    Second is the cover-up and lying to the American people and Obumble is definitely responsible for that.

    Sure would like to see Susan Rice under oath answering questions about who gave her talking points about blaming the video nobody saw. The results of that questioning might move “The Buck Stops Here” sign from Hillary’s desk back to Obumble’s . . . . .

    The cover-up is becoming strikingly similar to Watergate – except that nobody DIED then.

  6. Pie Guevara says:

    Since when has a politician ever really taken responsibility for anything they were not forced into by criminal action or censure (pretending censure actually means anything.

    The only heads that will roll will be underlings, if that. Obama, if it were in his self-centric, ego driven, narcissistic personality could take responsibility and it would still be meaningless.

    Re: WSJ “sat” on the story for two whole hours and that, apparently, is a BFD.

    It is to a desperate, cherry picking progressive nit looking for any excuse to twist, spin, lie like a used car salesman and complain.

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    Hillary in 2008: “The buck stops in the Oval Office.”

    Hillary in 2012: The buck does not stop in the Oval Office.

    By the way, if I wasn’t clear enough, Libbya, like all progressives, assorted liberals, and Democrats, is a serial liar. The WSJ did not “withhold” this story.

    An article first appeared October 16, 2012, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Clinton Accepts Blame for Benghazi.

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    Unrelated news tip —

    How does the government run things? Amtrack lost 0.8 billion dollars on SNACK BARS. http://washingtonexaminer.com/amtrak-snack-bars-lost-84.5-million-last-year-833-million-in-10-years/article/2510864#.UH3H4KDs9ID

    These are the people we want running our health care?

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    Specking of compulsive serial liars, how about this latest whopper from the Compulsive Serial Liar In Chief —

    Obama: “We Got Back Every Dime” of Bailout; CBO: Bailout Will Lose $24 Billion

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-we-got-back-every-dime-bailout-cbo-bailout-will-lose-24-billion

  10. Libby says:

    Tina, these things happen. And I don’t recall you howling for the jailing of the Shrub (that retired painter of puppy dogs), when the Twin Towers came down (a much bigger deal, really, when you think about it), especially in view of our 20-20 hindsight … I mean, now that we know that he truly did blow off the CIA when they told him something like it was in the offing.

    Nobody did that. You can’t keep this stuff from happening. It’s an unrealistic expectation. You can, however, respond appropriately. He didn’t, but we are.

  11. Princess says:

    The requests for extra embassy security (that were not funded by Congress) were for Tripoli. So it wouldn’t have matter if security had been increased it would have been at the wrong place.

  12. Tina says:

    The only thing you know is what the left, butt covering for democrats media wants you to believe.

    “now that we know that he truly did blow off the CIA when they told him something like it was in the offing.”

    Please provide accurate information linking George W Bush to intel that would have advised him that a plot to fly planes into the trade center was in the works.

    Drive by character assassinations are not good enough!

    What we know:

    There was intel that indicated possible hijacking of planes.

    The “wall” constructed by Jamie Gorelick under Janet Reno kept various departments from communicating and coordinating information so there was a failure to connect the dots.

    GWB attended his security brief, in person, every single day.

    Prior to the planes flying into the buildings on 911 “hijacking planes” meant hostage taking like the bad guys were doing in the late seventies.

    Islamist terrorists have been attacking us for decades…in foreign countries mostly.

    Carter, Clinton, and Obama all held limp wrist postures toward these enemies and handed responsibility to others to do the heavy lifting.

    Bill Clinton had opportunities to take out Bin Laden and didn’t.

    Sandy Berger basically got off Scott free after stealing and destroying classified documents from the federal archive that would have damned the Clinton administration and that the 911 commission thought was very troubling.

    There were several other questionable incidents during Clintons administration…the Mogadishu incident for instance.

    The media covered for BC as did the JD:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnfund/2007/01/29/paper_chase_did_investigators_turn_a_blind_eye_to_the_seriousness_of_the_sandy_berger_scandal/page/full/

    January 2007

    Washington scandals are curious things. Sometimes special prosecutors are appointed and the media provide saturation coverage of their doings. An example would be the Valerie Plame episode, which led to this month’s perjury trial of Scooter Libby, the former White House aide accused of lying about who first told him Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA.

    Then there are the barely noticed scandals, which prosecutors pursue quietly and professionally. Take the case of Donald Keyser, a former State Department official who last week was sentenced to just over a year in jail for keeping classified documents at his home and for lying about his personal relationship with a Taiwanese diplomat.

    Then there is Sandy Berger, the former Clinton national security adviser who pleaded guilty last year to knowingly taking and destroying classified documents from the National Archives while preparing for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. When archives officials caught Mr. Berger, they bizarrely first asked a friend of his, former Clinton White House counsel Bruce Lindsey, for an explanation, rather than contact the Justice Department. After initially lying to investigators, Mr. Berger finally admitted that he took the documents, but only for “personal convenience.”

    Prosecutors accepted Mr. Berger’s assurance that he had taken only five documents from the archives, even though on three of his four visits there he had access to original working papers of the National Security Council for which no adequate inventory exists. …

    …The Inspector General’s report found that the papers Mr. Berger took outlined the adequacy of the government’s knowledge of terrorist threats in the U.S. in the final months of the Clinton administration documents that could have been of some interest to the 9/11 Commission, before which Mr. Berger was scheduled to testify. The Washington Post buried news of the Inspector General’s report on page 7; the New York Times dumped it on page 36.

    Scooter Libby’s reputation was totally ruined and he went to jail for not remembering a date accurately about a made up, noncriminal event. Valerie Plame had not been an operative for a decade; there was no “outing”. The story was manufactured to discredit the Bush administration; media and Hollywood complied.

    Mr. Berger finally got his hand slapped but, gee…do you suppose the information he destroyed might have been of use to the Bush administration!!!!!!!!! (or JOHN KERRY had he won)

    Despite these…and many other major failings…the media still holds Bill Clinton in very high regard as they do Obama…even ol’ Jimma Carter…the slavish devotion is barf inducing.

    You have no real legs on which to stand but I have no doubt you will continue to also be slavishly devoted.

  13. Tina says:

    Pie: “An article first appeared October 16, 2012, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Clinton Accepts Blame for Benghazi.”

    Nicely done!

  14. Tina says:

    Congress cut the budget but the department had plenty of money. the problem is that the decision was policy driven…and stupid.

    It is insane that we have tighter security in the Bahamas or France than they had in Benghazi. It is particularly insane since those serving in Benghazi made pleas for more security and there was intel to legitimize and back their request. The policy was to give over security to locals…trust them totally. Isn’t that the basic policy that this administration has regarding those who want Americans dead or under the Islamist thumb?

  15. Princess says:

    It is insane that we have embassies there. Get out. Who cares about diplomatic relations with Libya? What has all of this war gotten us with these countries? A ridiculously over-funded group of defense contractors with an open checkbook, and a generation of veterans with no benefits. And no peace in the middle east.

    Close those embassies and get home. These people cannot be reasoned with.

  16. J. Soden says:

    UNINSTALLING OBAMA 80% complete

    Can we uninstall Hillary, too?

  17. Pie Guevara says:

    Brit Hume asks —

    If Sec. Clinton is responsible for the security failure in Benghazi, who is responsible for 8 days of of b.s.about what happened that day?

  18. Joseph says:

    Look on the bright side, whatever hope Shillary ever had of becoming President just disappeared forever.

    Hah, one of the captcha words I have to enter to post this is witch! How appropriate.

  19. Post Scripts says:

    “Who cares about diplomatic relations with Libya? What has all of this war gotten us with these countries? A ridiculously over-funded group of defense contractors with an open checkbook, and a generation of veterans with no benefits. And no peace in the middle east. Close those embassies and get home. These people cannot be reasoned with. ” Princess

    Princess a lot of Americans feel exactly like you and I tend to agree in general terms…most of those people can’t be reasoned with, they are too indoctrinated. I feel our embassies do serve as a logistical base for espionage and to help Americans in trouble, and I like that part. But, for diplomacy…that’s a real hard one to quantify, I wish I knew more about how that works and what it’s done for us. We never hear about diplomatic victories in the middle east…can anyone name any where it really helped us in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Syria?

  20. Tina says:

    I wish we didn’t have to live in a world with crazy people whose main driving force in life is world domination by any means necessary…and if wishes were horses beggers would ride.

    An argument could be made that great strides were made by the Bush administration that have now been squandered. had McCain won four years ago the uprising in Iran would have been supported and its possible that the main source of power and influence in the terror community, Iran, might have been eradicated. An Iraqi agreement for a more secure and withdrawal might also have been negotiated (rather than the approach Obama took where he turned his back on them). We also would likely not be witnessing the chaos and rise of the Muslim Brotherhood that supports radical Islam. Israel, the only stable free nation in the region, would not now be surrounded by completely hostile governments bent on their destruction.

    Obama has done for the Middle East what Carter did for Iran. We have lost ground in terms of beating back radical elements and establishing true democracy complete with human and religious rights.

    Obama has waged war in Libya without Congressional authorization at a cost of approximately $9.5 million a DAY.

    LA Times article poses several good questions…

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/06/obama-libya-war-congress-authority-war-powers.html

    June 16, 2011

    …Congress is responsible for declaring war. They cite the War Powers Act of 1973, a legislative legacy of the divisive Vietnam War, which was also prosecuted by a Democratic president.

    That act, passed by a veto-beating two-thirds majority, sets numerous requirements for any president involving the U.S. military without congressional authorization or a declaration of war: There must be an “attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

    The president must notify Congress within 48 hours. And the White House has a total of 90 days to prosecute the conflict and withdraw without a declaration of war or legislative authorization.

    Sunday is Day 90 of the Libyan war.Capitol Hill and many Americans have the notion that….On Wednesday, Reps. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat, and Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican, both staunch war critics, sued the administration in federal court over what they call its unconstitutional prosecution of a war.

    On the same day the administration delivered a package of materials to Congress maintaining basically that the conflict, which will have cost $1.1 billion by late September, is so limited and inconsequential that Obama does not need congressional authorization.

    Lawyers for Obama, who is not the first president to ignore the War Powers Act, argued the Libyan operation is not so much war as normal military operations that sometimes might involve hostilities…

    The Presidents concerns about Bush waging war on a credit card are hypocritical if nothing else!

    Yet another reason to be done with Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.