Clinton: ‘I take responsibility’ for Benghazi
From Elise Labott, reporting from Lima, PeruSecretary of State Hillary Clinton said the bucks stops with her when it comes to who is blame for a deadly assault on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi.
“I take responsibility” for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Elise Labott soon after arriving in Lima, Peru for a visit. The interview, one of a series given to U.S. television networks Monday night, were the first she has given about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions, Clinton said.
“I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha,” she added, noting that it is close to the election.
The attack killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the consulate.
The Obama administration has been heavily criticized after Vice President Joe Biden said during last week’s vice presidential debate that the White House did not know of requests to enhance security at Benghazi, contradicting testimony by State Department employees that requests had been made and rejected. Following the debate, the White House said the vice president did not know of the requests because they were handled, as is the practice, by the State Department.
Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded.
In the wake of an attack, there is always “confusion,” Clinton said. But the information has since changed, Clinton said in the interview.
The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of September 10. It was an “intense, long ordeal” as staff tried to find out what had happened.
Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again – but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.
“We can’t not engage,” she said. “We cannot retreat.”
From CNN’s Security Clearance blog
We all knew Hillary meant it when she said she would not return IF Obama got re-elected.
So, going under the bus for Obama only means resigning (if she even does) a few weeks earlier than she had intended.
Security was much more of a priority than getting Chevy Volts to our Embassies.
But where your heart is, so is your treasure.
But I have to ask myself, why while she’s in Peru?
Is she scared to come back to the USA?
I hope Romney can somehow use this to help himself during the debate tomorrow.
Who does wear the man pants in this Administration???
I’ve got another question. With all those problems in the middle east, what the hell is Clinton doing in Peru? Are there some real ‘heavy’ things going on there. If she has responsibility for security at State Dept sites, why isn’t she here at the State Department reviewing what is going on. This is all a facade. She’s not really going to take any ‘blame or fault’ for it. And she will do all she can to preserve her candidacy.
Hillary has proved she is more of a man than Obama!
Hillary stated that mistakes were made “in the fog of war.” What war would that be? Haven’t we been told by Obama that AQ is on its heels/on the run? I thought Obama told us the “war” was winding down. Guess not.
Hillary just fell on her sword for the administration. Now, one has to wonder why she would do that. She planned on leaving in January and if there were ever two people who does everything they can to protect their images, it is Billary.
Why make the announcement from Peru? Is Hillary planning on returning to the U.S. and resign? What does she gain with this announcement. She just dashed all her hopes for a 2016 candidacy on the rocks. That’s gone now. And how does this help Bill who touted what a great SoS Hillary would be. Well, guess she wasn’t so great, Bill. Americans died on her watch.
Something nefarious is in play here. Hillary would not fall on her sword for Obama, if she had a choice. Never. That’s not the way the Clintons roll.
This really isn’t much of a surprise. Hillary never had a way out since there was no way she could escape responsibility for approving security. I’ve said before, Obama may dictate a tone of policy for the Dept of State, but he’s not going to oversee the details such as security. Not only would Hillary not stand to be micromanaged, but Obama has no desire to be that involved. Otherwise where would he have the time for his golf games and campaigning?
From the start, there’s only been two ways for this to come out. Obama had to publicly kick her to the curb to distance himself from her, or she had to quietly take herself out with dignity to save face. She has no excuses. By her ready admission, she’s likely to escape the calls for her head, and she (with hubby) will hope it all blows over quietly and doesn’t ruin the Clinton neo-Camelot legacy.
@MataHarley: The Commander in Chief can only delegate authority. He can never delegate responsibility! The Buck really does stop at the Oval Office!
Understand the concept, Randy. And that’s convenient if you want to blame Obama for your next door neighbor’s flatulence. But the fact remains that the CiC doesn’t micromanage every task of the Executive Branch or intelligence agencies. So if you want to blame the POTUS for what is the general tasks of any cabinet, intel or Pentagon member, you’ll have to be assigning a lot of blame for everything to every POTUS the US has ever had. That includes blaming Bush for Abu Ghraib, not taking extra precautions for Sept 11th, 2001, etc. You can also blame every POTUS for Fed Reserve decisions, and for every abuse – major or minor – of every lower level civil servant.
At some point, you really need to be realistic about what a POTUS knows and doesn’t about day to day details of each agency. I don’t believe, and have never believed, that the WH admin knew of any or every embassy or consulate security requests. Hillary, however, cannot escape that responsibility.
Are republicans finally going to stop their political exploitation of Ambassador Steven’s death, now that Hillary Clinton formally took the blame, and now that Steven’s father has weighed in?
Father of Ambassador Chris Stevens says it would be ‘abhorrent’ to play politics with son’s death in Benghazi
Will that shame Giulianna enough to make him crawl back under his rock? Will Romney heed that request or will he continue with his exploitation?
@Jason:
“I’m not sure what he’s [Romney] has been saying or not saying, but our position is it would be a real shame IF it were politicised.” said Stevens.
I’m sure this is in response to a question by an unthinking reporter who wants to talk to the man whose son has just been murdered because that son’s boss didn’t assure he had the security that was needed to protect his life.
To point out that an inept Secretary of State, who works for an inept President, dropped the ball and because of it, four Americans are dead, is not exploitation, except to the Obama koolaid drinkers.
What the ambassador’s father said is perfectly clear. What he wants republicans not to do is perfectly clear.
@Jason, I see how it is. If Mr. Stevens, a lawyer and registered Democrat, doesn’t want the failures of administrative appointees to be examined and discussed because it might be inconvenient to his party’s candidate getting re’elected, we should ignore dangerous incompetence? All at the very moment that the nation has a chance to choose someone else?
Look, I agree that the Ambassador’s death should not be exploited, and I’ve stated that those who insisted on passing on the undocumented rumors or rape were pretty low on the pond scum totem pole. However there is a difference between exploitation, and scrutinizing whether the CiC/POTUS and his appointees are flat out idiots, and are not worthy of re’election.
As far as I can see, you are taking Mr. Steven’s words, and politicizing them yourself. Congrats for doing exactly what Mr. Stevens didn’t want.
It is not a concept, it is or was amilitary truth. It was what hung those tried at Nurenberg.
Here is why the concept is valid. Who appointed the Sec of State? Here is a good opinion piece that makes my point. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/10/all_the_presidents_women_and_men.html
This is all well and good that Hillary bit the bullet. What she can not exonerate however, is that Obama, Biden, Ambassador Rice and other members of the administration continued to lie to the public (and the world,) for a week after the facts were known. Nor does it exonerate the President for not meeting daily with his national security staff for regular daily briefings, (which may have indicated a possible danger to our Middle East diplomats on the anniversary of 9/11). If you don’t want to do the work, you shouldn’t be kept in the job.
@Randy:
So you’re saying that if the Chief of the Boat on a submarine failed to assign adequate security while in port and the sub was vandalized, the sub captain would be responsible? /sarc
The reason the captain would be responsible is because that is what leaders do, accept responsibility. It doesn’t matter the reason for the failure, the captain of the ship is responsible. If plans were laid out and not followed, the captain is ultimately responsible because the captain put those people in the position of responsibility. If the plans were unclear, the captain was responsible for failing to lay out a clear plan.
There is no micromanaging going on, a good captain doesn’t micromanage. A good captain has a good plan and good people to implement the plan.
@MataHarley:
Here’s the problem I have with this; what was Obama’s directives for embassy security in Arab Spring countries on the anniversary of 9/11? What meetings did he hold with his cabinet to determine the security.
My boss doesn’t micromanage my department, I deal with the day-to-day tasks; but we have a weekly meeting with all department heads to discuss our plans for the coming weeks. I know Obama is very busy playing golf and hanging with Jay-Z and Beyonce, but I’m thinking he probably should have held a few meetings with his cabinet. But he doesn’t meet with his cabinet. The cabinet has no direction, no plan, no leader. That is a failure in leadership Mata and that rests solely on President Obama.
@MataHarley:
Drew M. at Ace has a great response to this:
Hillary Throws Obama Under The Bus
~Snip
@Ditto: “Republican icon Ronald Reagan skipped his intelligence briefings 99 percent of the time.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/23/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics
@Aqua: The Captain did develop the plan or approved the security plan. He also assigned the security or approved the roster. He is responsible because a commander can never delegate responsibility, only authority. He must suffer the consequences for his poor judgment or lack of due diligence.
@Aqua, in your scenario, the sub’s Captain is directly responsible. However would you then hold the Chief of Naval Operations responsible for the lapse in judgement and leadership? Because that’s what you’re doing here.
In your example, Hillary is the sub’s Captain and bears responsibility. Obama would be the Chief of Naval Operations.
Like I said, I understand the concept. But if you want to apply that equally to other POTUS in prior administrations, Bush is responsible for Libby and Abramoff. He’s responsible for the presentation to the UN for WMDs, for Abu Ghraib, for Ken Lay’s securities fraud, and for Sept 11th attack because the controversial memo passed on to Condi which had stated a generic, not specific, threat of planes flying into buildings, but not acted upon.
Then you have to hold Reagan responsible for the Keating Five and the S&L scandal since they like to link that to the Reagan tax policy of eliminating loopholes. But let’s not stop there. He’s also responsible for his Chief of Staff’s illegal lobbying activities, the EPA’s funneling of funds to favored contributors and the software piracy from Inslaw by his DOJ.
None of this means I see Obama as a competent and effective leader… anything but. However in this case, Hillary – the sub’s Captain – was directly responsible for the lapse in diplomat security. I’m not going to hold the Chief of Naval Operations or the Secretary of the Navy as the one most culpable for the lack of leadership on the sub.
@MataHarley:
Yes, I would hold the Chief of Naval Operations responsible. The responsibility would flow up the chain; ComSubLant, CNO, SecNav, SecDef, POTUS. Each has a CYA in place. These are our policies, our policies were (were not) followed. If the policies were followed, the failure is in the policy and the person responsible for such policies should resign.
If Obama comes out and says the policies of his administration were not followed, he needs to ask for Hillary’s resignation. If the policies of his administration were followed, it’s his fault.
Bush came out and said the policies of his administration were not followed as it related to Abu Grahib. People resigned, people went to jail.
Obama can’t have his cake and eat it too. Either Hillary resigns for failing to properly implement the policies of POTUS, or it’s Obama’s fault for not providing clear policy as it relates to the matter.
Regarding the tone and general policies of the administration, Obama is ultimately, and completely, responsible for all actions undertaken by the Executive Branch, in the name of the government. This is not just Obama specific either. This is how all administrations should be.
And while Obama was not, probably(most likely) involved in the day to day operations of the various departments within the Executive Branch, and many, or most, actions done in the name of the government wouldn’t have even been suggested, ordered, approved, or even noted by him, important aspects of the various departments should be known.
The security situation in Libya might, or might not be, one of these. It very well could be that the security situation was expected to be addressed by the SecState and her assistants, and not even given a second thought.
In my line of work, for example, the hourly and daily running of the power plant is left to the operations manager, who employs a shift supervisor and operators to undertake that direction. The plant manager only knows and gives the general direction of operations at the plant. So, if a small problem occurred, likely it would be addressed by the operators, shift supervisor, and operations manager, with only a passing mention to the plant manager, depending on how big the problem. And even the operations manager sometimes is left out of the loop if the problem is small enough and quickly corrected, being only told after the fact what happened.
The maintenance of the plant is handled similarly, with the maintenance manager handling all/most of the daily activities and direction, while the plant manager is only informed of severe problems, and only gives guidance in exceptional circumstances.
Several years ago an accident occurred while operating with a maintenance action that was undertaken. Two guys died and the plant was shutdown for several months. The ultimate responsibility for the accident fell on the shoulders of the plant manager himself. Not the maintenance manager. Not the operations manager. The plant manager. The other two were culpable for the accident, and responsible for actions that led to the accident happening. But ultimately, the plant manager is the one responsible, because of one very important reason. He chose the two sub-managers(operations and maintenance) that reported to him.
I see a similar situation with what happened in Libya. SecState, and her assistants detailed with addressing Libya, are culpable for what happened. Obama, however, is ultimately responsible as he is the one who chose her for the position.
And any good leader of people, whether in business, or government, should take the responsibility for what happens.
And it is precisely because of the lack of taking responsibility by Obama that he isn’t a good leader. Never has been. Obama takes credit for anything “good” that happens, such as the UBL mission, but then looks around for anyone to blame when something bad happens. That’s not the type of person that anyone should want handling the duties of President.
Like I said, Aqua, I understand the concept but the reality is that the top enchilada doesn’t micromanage details that he has others in place to do. Unlike you, I wouldn’t hold the Chief of Naval Operations responsible for a submarine Captain who didn’t provide adequate security. I would expect discipline, but I wouldn’t hold them responsible.
But when discussing discipline, let’s address this observation of yours:
I’ve said this from day one, and I knew something was coming because it’s an election year. The trouble is Obama is dealing with one half of “Camelot”, and he can’t afford to piss off Teflon Bill by publicly firing his wife. On the flip side, he needs to put lots of distance between himself and Hillary. So the way to do that is for her to take the initiative herself. Thus this wasn’t a surprise. And no doubt, she is going to try to “take the blame”, but still keep the job until the end of the current term. I think that’s an error… but as I said, Obama can’t afford to alienate Bill Clinton.
But there’s something else in your observation that I think you’re missing. The phrase, “..our policies were (were not) followed.” That may, or may not be true. From what we know, there were attempted attacks prior documented, chatter about increased security risks, and requests for additional security that were rejected. Was it following policy to reject the requests? Or was it that, like the generic warning about planes flying into buildings, it was not a specific credible threat in their opinion? They seem to imply it was the latter, so it was their “policy”.
Obviously they were tragically wrong about the threat not being credible enough to require action. So yes… heads should roll, and it should be Hillary’s. But disentangling Hillary from her SOS post, without getting on the bad side of Bill, is going to be a delicate situation. I’ll be that the O’admin is putting some gentle pressure on her to step down voluntarily, assuming that this public “mea culpa” doesn’t appease the nation.
@MataHarley: Mata, this is not a concept, it is written into military protocol. Obama is the Commander in Chief. He has the responsibility for running the country. He has the responsibility for appointing competent people to run the various departments of the administrative branch of the government. He has the responsibility to give them guidance on how they perform their jobs. He has the responsibility to arm himself with current intel.
When the people he hires only tells him the good news and with holds the bad news or difficult situations, then the president has only himself to blame. We are not talking about micromanagement here. We are talking about a significant date (9/11) and the potential for violence against the US. The president should be attending his intel briefings and putting out daily guidance to those who work for him. If he doesn’t then that makes him directly responsible for 9/11/12.
The President should also be getting back briefs from his primary staff of which the Sec of State is one. Several news sources have stated that these briefs occurs very infrequent in the Obama administration.
So, the President delegates his authority to his principle staff who further delegates that authority down the chain of command. All of those have a responsibility to only act within their job description. Issues above their pay grade are required to be elevated to the next level of command/supervision. This didn’t happen in this situation for two reasons. 1. Obama appointed the wrong people to the job and they failed to understand the importance of the approaching 9/11/12 and failed to elevate the issue to higher supervision. 2. Obama failed to provide appropriate guidance to his senior staff. The bottom line, the responsibility lies with the President. He should have immediately requested the resignation of the Sec of State and initiated an investigation of the failure of the state department to properly secure the ambassador. Those involved should be fired.
Randy, that’s true for all Presidents/CiCs. It’s not that I disagree that Obama is responsible for picking inept people in his admin. There’s no lack of history of that. I can’t make it more plain than to say I don’t believe Obama knew, or weighed in, on the embassy security requests and that it was all Hillary. She deserves to be investigated and fired, plus placed on suspension in the interim. I’ve said that since the beginning, and I’ve not changed my opinion. I always knew it was going to be one delicate political dance because Obama is dealing with the Clintons, and neither Hillary nor Bill will stand for their names to be tarnished… even when it’s deserved.
However I find that people are far more willing to blame Obama for these indirect events than they are a prior POTUS that they may have liked. I gave just a brief laundry list of events that happened in administrations under both Bush and Reagan above. Yet I never heard people calling for either of their heads after any of these events. During Abu Ghraib, I never saw one conservative poster here, nor any of our articles, that laid the blame of that at Bush’s feet. Those that were disciplined and punished were not the higher ups, but those directly responsible. Again, I heard nothing from conservative voices about that chain of command protocol, and their escape from culpability.
Fact is, the tolerance level for Obama is considerably lower than it is for others who held that office. That’s simply an accurate observation. I genuinely try to be an equal opportunity blame person, myself. I would not hold Bush (or Condi) responsible for not acting on the generic memo about planes flying in to buildings, or even not prosecuting the higher chain of command in Abu Ghraib, any more than I would accuse Obama of being the one to reject the security requests.
If this public mea culpa doesn’t appease the media, Obama will put even more distance between himself and Hillary and I suspect there are lots of talks about her taking an early retirement even now. But there will be no “rolling of heads” and public remarks about Hillary’s ineptness for political reasons.
OK, so Hillary has decided to fall on her sword. But the questions remain: whose idea was it to claim the Benghazi attack was due to a (non-existant) protest over a (little viewed) internet movie? How does the administration square that it sent Susan Rice to five Sunday talk shows to push that meme, even after the State Dept. came out and said it wasn’t true? Clinton falling on her sword for the good of the party doesn’t square that the administration continued to lie to the nation.
So, before the video was ever an issue, the Benghazi consulate was attacked twice. Someone needs to ask Hillary if she ever walked into the Oval Office and said “Mr. President, we have a real problem in Libya and we need to employ more American security forces and I need you to get on the phone with the Libyan government and get that squared away.” But her admission of responsibility was more like “I know y’all know that I head up a department comprised of 60,000 people. That is more like herding cats and you can’t blame me if some of the cats go feral.”
Then we are told that the reason the FBI was so long in getting to Benghazi was due to the Libyan government dragging its feed to provide the FBI with Libyan visas. Really? The president, or at least, Hillary Clinton, could not call the Libyan government and tell them “we want those visas TODAY and there will be consequences if they are not issued immediately?” But then, we had a great lesson in how effective Hillary and Barack are at swaying foreign goverments and getting them to do what Hill and Barry want in the Honduras example. If Honduras can thumb its nose at Obama, what makes anyone think that Obama would have greater influence with a bunch of Islamists?
It is the very same excuse that was used by the Administration over Fast and Furious. “We didn’t do that, we never approved the walking of all those guns, we are blameless and you need to look lower down the food chain to the field directors.” Different situation; same excuse.
So Hillary has put herself in an untenable situation; she falls on her sword for the good of the party, and her only recourse now is to resign and she slaughters any possibilities for 2016 or) she stays and is a constant reminder to the American people of the failure of the State Department under her guidance. Either way, Hillary’s political career is OVER. And the most competent SoS evah, hired by the most competent POTUS evah, has just become a cruel joke.
@MataHarley: I do not believe that there was an ambassador killed or high level screw up with major impact on the country. If you recall, Bush did revamp all of the security programs. Didn’t he fire Rummy? I can not comment about what was written here since I didn’t get to this site until my 3rd deployment to Iraq.
Randy, Bush publicly stated he would stand by Rummy, despite calls by many for Rumsfeld’s resignation. Rummy wasn’t fired… he retired five days after Bush declared he wasn’t firing him.
As I said, if you want to hold the same standards to all POTUS, one can say that not doing anything about the memo about planes flying into buildings (a generic, non specific threat), resulted in a high level screw up on Sept 11th. At least, this is the case many liberals wanted to make in blaming Bush. The same group who believes that WMDs were the only reason to go into Iraq will also argue that there were a lot of deaths that resulted from that intel.
And before you respond off the general topic, yes I believe that Saddam had WMDs, and that they were shipped out of country in the run up to OIF. I’m only making the point that major screw ups, from lost lives to financial repercussions, are not confined just to his administration.
@Randy:
Let’s cut to the chase, shall we? The Benghazi scandal lands with a giant thump right on the Resolution Desk. And that is where it belongs. Period. End of story.
When Enron went belly up, it was not lower level staffers that got their asses drug into court. It was Ken Lay, who served as Enron’s CEO, and Jeffrey Skilling, who served as Enron’s CEO for a few months while Lay was Chairman, who were prosecuted and found guilty. Not some underlings. When GM was going belly up, Obama did not blame the union goons who work on the line, or some department manager, he blamed the upper echelons of management, i.e. the CEO of GM.
Now we are getting from Hillary that some of the cats she is responsible for herding went feral. And crickets from the CEO of the nation. Smoke and mirrors and a change of tactic when it involves them.
Remember Iran/Contra?
“First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activies. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I’m still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds – well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.
There was no equivication in that speech. The buck stops with me was the message, and it was loud, and clear. The buck falls on the Resolution Desk and that is where it stays.
Now, compare this to the events of the last 24 hours with Hillary trying to claim responsibility, absolving Obama from ALL responsibility, but she is dumping the blame for her mistakes on those beneath her.
When a company goes belly up because of mismanagement, it is not the worker, who may, or may not have built a bad product that slipped by quality control, it is not the supervisor who was responsible for making sure the workers do their jobs properly, it is not the company salesman who is pushing a bad product, that takes the blame. It is management, and Obama is the ultimate manager. Yes, he delegates authority to his cabinet members based on his belief that they will do a good job and serve the nation well. But if they don’t, the bottom line is he choose those people, and he is responsible for them. And their mistakes. Just like the management of GM was responsible for the fact that for years, GM workers made a pathetic product.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity): I just don’t get it. Why are you arguing about whether he skipped ‘more than half’ his meetings or an even larger number? His calendar is available ‘on line’ go look for yourself. He missed the meetings because he had campaigning and golfing to take care of. He was not and is not, taking care of his responsibilities.
I was a manager of a large operation, I got a summary every day, before my daily morning meeting. The summary was there only to provide the basics. Many items required more detail, that’s what the meeting was for. The president is responsible for everything. He get’s to delegate management but not responsibility. The Captain of the ship is responsible. He gets to let others share in the operation, but not in the responsibility.
@MataHarley:
I must be missing something here. Why would you not hold them responsible? Let’s stretch the details a little. Suppose the Captain of the submarine was a ‘known’ rapist and a ‘known’ pedophile and you later found out he was raping the children of the submarine crewmembers. Is this something the Captain of the sub should be able to just sweep under the carpet since it only involves him and his crewmembers? I realize I’m stretching a little here, but that’s what ‘chains of command’ are about. The one at the top is the one ultimately responsible. Somebody must have missed a few details when selecting the guy to be captain. So, let’s see another way this might play out. the lowest guy on the sub steals a quarter from someone. The captain is told about it, but decides it’s not a big deal. Then since he got away with that, he decides to steal an important part of the steering system of the boat and as a result of this missing part, the sub runs aground. When all the details are finally revealed, should the captain of the sub be relieved? If not, should the CNO be relieved? if not, Should the Sec Nav be relieved? If not, should the President be impeached? Suppose instead of the incident only involving the sub running aground, it involved the inadvertent firing of a nuclear ballistic missile aimed at Paris. I see no difference in the responsibility in each of the scenarios. Sure the resultant action may be different, but the responsibility is the same.
@retire05: Thank you, that has been my point.
One other thing. How is making an issue of Responsibility for Benghazi” exploiting? One of the most important issues in our Government is Dangers to America. When Ambassadors get killed, something needs to be done. The President is the one that should ‘make and issue’ of it, and not try to sweep it under the rug. The major news media, being in the tank for empty chair, is not going to. Make a big deal about it.
@MataHarley:
And this is where I was going. How is Obama going to orchestrate this dance?
Not totally true. The brigadier general in charge of the unit was demoted and three officers more senior than her were investigated and cleared.
Bush said this:
And I hate to post this, but John Kerry said this:
Isn’t it strange when people are always saying don’t play politics with this or that issue?
When does a politician ever do anything but play politics?
Well, welcome to where I’ve been since the beginning. :0) How will it be orchestrated? I think that will depend upon whether the media applies any exposure and pressure in these last weeks before the election… and that’s the only time that Obama cares about.
If they leave it alone, you’ve seen the dance en toto. If they keep the pressure on, Obama and Hillary will have to insert an encore. My gut says that with this debate and the next, the press will have lots to dwell on other than Hillary’s dereliction of duty. But I could be surprised.
There’s an awful lot of paygrades between a brigadier general and the POTUS or Sec’y of State, Aqua. That’s my point. Rarely do the big heads roll for these things. Many mouthpieces dearly wanted Rummy’s head on a platter, but Bush said he’d back him to the end of his terms. I’m actually a fan of Rumsfeld. But there’s no doubt that they missed a biggie in not anticipating the post Saddam environment to be as it was. And that also cost a lot of lives.
But to turn a blind eye to Bush’s devotion to Rummy in the face of charges of ineptitude, and demand Obama’s head for Hillary’s ineptitude is exactly what I was saying about a lower tolerance level for this POTUS than prior Presidents. In the case of Obama, it’s probably cumulative – he’s done enough that all of us are at the end of our wits – but it’s still obviously hypocritical on the face of it all.
Yes, and this Vietnam Navy wife hated to see anything Kerry-related. heh But it is what it is.
Here’s the thing, Aqua. All President’s do the proper lip service and “take responsibility”. Obama spent quite a bit of time delivering that same “I’m the POTUS, the buck stops here” bit. It’s not the first time I’ve heard it. That’s why I say it’s a concept. We all know there’s a head honcho/compassionate (or not) kingpin at the top of the pyramid. But I guarantee you, he hasn’t got a clue what most of the underlings in his cabinet and agencies are doing. It would be poor use of his time to micromanage such a large behemoth as the Administrative branch.
That’s why a POTUS has to appoint those he trusts to be efficient, ethical and knowledgeable. Obama’s really bad at that… which brings me to @Redteam.
Of course not. But considering there are Congressional hearings, plus investigations (albeit I do wonder why the FBI stayed away from the site so long…. Panetta’ism??), I certainly can’t agree there is any “sweeping under the carpet” going on. In fact, even the liberal media tends to touch on it with regularity, and with some disdain and worry. Mind blowing…. That’s actually a good sign that there are events and actions that even they won’t ignore.
Don’t get your point on the quarter stealing, convoluted analogy. I’ve said repeatedly that I get the concept of the “responsibility”, but the reality is no one would expect the Chief of Naval Operations, the Sec’y of the Navy, or the POTUS to know about some yeoman, stealing sub parts. Nor would anyone expect impeachment, firings or imprisonment of the top echelon for that yeoman. If a Walmart pharmacist pilfers drugs and sells them on the black market for personal gain, do you demand the resignation of CEO’s Mike Duke or Doug McMillon?
I knew Obama would give the token “the buck stops here” speech. No brainer. Piece of cake, and no skin off his back to do so. So there’s little room for anyone to complain about the proper mea culpas in the public domain. Hillary, however is way too close to this to escape harsh analysis and direct cross examination in hearings and investigations.
Still, I doubt anything will come of it for her. Unlikely because of the short time frame to the election. Plus the fact that Hillary and Bill are more popular and respected than Obama amongst the left. This shell game of issues and diversion only needs to be played until Nov 6th. After that, none of the major players will care.
What’s more important is since the POTUS cannot know everything his agencies, or his cabinet heads and their underlings, are doing, he needs to have a good record of surrounding himself with the capable and respectable. And that is a perfect Achilles heel for Obama, who’s had people resign left and right because of public scrutiny on their backgrounds creating publicity problems for him.
But if anyone is expecting the nation to reject Obama over Hillary’s Benghazi mistake, or that it would ever result in his impeachment, you’re going to be really disappointed.
@MataHarley: “Hillary’s Benghazi mistake” was not a mistake. It was a conscience decision to not beef up security on the anniversary of 9/11. She lacked both the experience and the will to get tough and insist on US security for the ambassador. Obama appointed a the wrong person as the Sec of State and our Ambassador and three others died as a result. A mistake would be sending 10 additional security officers instead of 20.
@Liberal1 (Objectivity):
Wrongo yet again again Lib: