Hillary: I take responsibility for Benghazi

posted at 8:48 pm on October 15, 2012 by Allahpundit

Fearless prediction: With Hillary having now formally accepted blame, President Above The Fray will magnanimously volunteer at tomorrow night’s debate that, no no, it is with him that the buck ultimately stops. The White House has been holding off on doing that because they’re desperate to frame this as an internal problem at State. Now that Clinton’s gone and done that, Obama can pose as a stand-up guy and loyal boss by symbolically accepting responsibility on behalf of the people who are really at fault.

Secretary 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.

Ace has another quote from her that essentially puts the whole thing off on her underlings, but there’s no link and I don’t see it in the CNN story. No matter, though: She’s not claiming actual responsibility in the excerpt above, just symbolic responsibility as the head of the Department that’s at fault. Given how the public generally respects showy professions of blame, it’s really the easiest thing in the world to make a “buck stops here” statement. The One himself would have done it weeks ago, I’m sure, if not for the fact that he’s caught in an election death struggle and knows the GOP would have hammered him with it. (As I explained above, it’s safer politically for him to do it now that Hillary’s chimed in.) The only way to make a “buck stops here” admission truly meaningful is to put some meat on the bone by identifying and correcting all the things that you’ve done wrong. Has Hillary done any of that yet? What protocols at State are going to change from all of this? Are we finished, at least, with pitiful public groveling to Islamists about how awful and terrible and reprehensible that Mohammed movie that hurt their feelings was?

Here’s the real question: Did Obama put Hillary up to this or did she do it on her own initiative to put O on the spot? As I’ve explained, I think this actually helps him by letting him accept symbolic responsibility while continuing to shunt actual responsibility onto State. But maybe I’m wrong. A friend e-mailed me after I wrote this post on Friday scolding me for thinking that Obama might throw Hillary under the bus rather than vice versa. After all, she’d have an easier time running in 2016 against President Romney than she would trying to succeed a two-term Democratic president. (Although, in that case, why did Bill Clinton give a wildly successful speech for O at the convention?) And as I said Friday, there is political peril for O in having Hillary go first on this. Potentially, he’ll look weak and diffident tomorrow night by following her lead, not loyal and magnanimous — and maybe Hillary knew that when she stepped up. Expect Romney to hammer that point, especially given how much he enjoys playing the Clintons off of Obama. What kind of “leader” says “the buck stops here” only after it’s already stopped somewhere else?

Here’s the vid, via CNN. This will, assuredly, be used against Hillary in 2016 if she runs, but I think she figures that between her high favorables and the fact that the public likes when executives “take charge” by accepting blame or whatever, she’ll be forgiven by voters. Quite possible.

Update: Ace e-mails to say that the Hillary quote in his post came from Wendell Goler on Fox News, who also interviewed Clinton today. They put it up on the screen sometime early this evening.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5

Ah the new Janet Reno? What”s next a red truck?

Don L on October 16, 2012 at 1:37 AM

….and now what about that Vince Foster thing?

drowningpuppies on October 16, 2012 at 1:46 AM

“However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

“Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”

Perhaps if the security briefings hadn’t been so tedious, Obama might have attended them occasionally and possibly even paid attention.

Given that the questions for tonight’s debate had to have been handed in for approval already, anyone think that the timing of this announcement was deliberate? Too late to be part of the nationally televised foreign policy debate?

talkingpoints on October 16, 2012 at 1:51 AM

I’m sure everyone will be shocked by this revelation, but as of 2 am, neither CNN nor MSNBC have any significant headline of this story on their websites.

talkingpoints on October 16, 2012 at 2:03 AM

I take responsibility, means one thing only–no more questions, case closed and if you push me, I’ll swing into my Whitewater “I can’t recall” mode. (That, and your war on helpless delicate women continues Mr Romney)

Don L on October 16, 2012 at 2:11 AM

OK….I’ve kind of had it with this line of reasoning…Would someone please connect the dots and link the fact that there must have been a White House directive with the State Department that stated that the politics of Libya and appearances were more important than actual security in a terrorist haven?

PleaseFlyOver on October 16, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Hillary, we appreciate that you are willing to fall on the sword of your master to protect him, however he has been slipping us the weenie just as hard and fast as he did to you in 2008. You took it on the chin for Bill during the Monica-cigar scandal, and during the health care debate with Bill, and during the impeachment, and during the Ken Star investigation, and all the other women, and “-gate”‘s, on and on. However, we don’t want you this time. We want the man. The man who says he is in charge. Funny thing being in charge; you have to accept responsibility somewhere. Because he stands in front does not make him a leader; quit defending the Occupy White House slug in the west wing. Sit back and relax; enjoy the fireworks. They’re supposed to start any day now.

Molonlabe2004 on October 16, 2012 at 2:35 AM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/15/clinton-takes-responsibility-for-consulate-security-blames-confusion-on-fog-war/

Hillary Clinton blaming some ‘fog of war’ for the WH confusion is one of the most despicable and lame excuses ever in politics.

If it truly took these Keystone Cops a month+ for their ‘fog of war’ to clear enough to try to get their act together to explain what happened (which they still have not), then this administration is admitting to complete ineptness, stupidity, and panic, and every member should resign en masse, leave D.C., and never return.

INC on October 16, 2012 at 2:40 AM

Ok, the buck stops with you, the US SOS. Why did it take more than a month for you to take ownership? Why did the (mis)administration lie and lie and lie about the events in Libya knowing their lies to be lies? Why did your staff, under oath, lie to Congress?…

Your actions cost the life of our Ambassador. When will you resign?…

Gohawgs on October 16, 2012 at 2:55 AM

Secretary Clinton: “The buck stops with . . . my subordinates”
Ah! The shoe drops . . . Chicago style.

The day before the critical Romney-Obama debate, Hillary Clinton, our heretofore invisible Secretary of State, makes a carefully calibrated statement that allows the mainstream media to proclaim that Clinton accepts “responsibility” for the Benghazi security fiasco without her actually saying that.

Forget the headlines, and note what she actually says,

I take responsibility . . .. I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.

I take this very personally . . . So we’re going to get to the bottom of it, and then we’re going to do everything we can to work to prevent it from happening again, and then we’re going to work to bring whoever did this to us to justice.

Note she “takes responsibility” but the “specific decisions” on security were made by “security professionals.” Translation: If anybody screwed up, hey, it was those professionals, not me. Otherwise, why would we need an investigation to “get to the bottom of it”? The career bureaucrats can hear the war drums, smell the war paint, and will be sharpening their knives. They know that the Secretary has just put a target on them.

It gets worse. The real issue is not whether another inch of concrete, or a few armed guards would have made the difference in Benghazi. Given the size and violence of the attack, I doubt that would have done much. The real issues are what was that facility and what was it doing that was so important given the security environment? Why was the Ambassador there on 9/11? Even more important, note later on her garbled statement about the key matter, the attack, the Obama misadministration’s characterization of the attack, and the nature of its response to an attack that went on for some six hours. Nowhere does she say that she contacted the White House, the Libyan government, or that she proposed any particular action. Nowhere does she explain the difference between the statements put out by Rice, Obama, and herself, blaming the attack on a virtually unseen video, and the statements by State and CIA career officers that State never concluded that the attack was the result of an anti-video demonstration gone rogue.

This misadministration continues to play games. Don’t fall for it.

VorDaj on October 16, 2012 at 2:56 AM

Hillary was not only thrown under the bus, she was caught on the drive shaft and is being dragged along at high speeds. Sorry Hillary, nobody buys this tripe so tell your cowardly boss it didn’t work. What next from this phony, lying administration?

rplat on October 16, 2012 at 5:23 AM

Hillary Clinton:

I would rather be right about taking responsibility for the Benghazi failure than being President . . .

(Channeling Calvin Cooledge) You, Madam, will be neither.

BigAlSouth on October 16, 2012 at 5:38 AM

one would think that the POTUS, in conjunction w/ the SOS, would have been directly involved in the security concerns for a country which he unilaterally invaded.

ted c on October 16, 2012 at 6:15 AM

As Jennifer Rubin just Tweeted: Quote, Graham and McCain out with statement.. Not letting Hillary take the fall! Now a two-week story!

Rational Thought on October 15, 2012 at 11:38 PM

I guess we’ll see how the so called media responds. I imagine it’ll be “Can’t you Republicans just come together and support our President at a time like this? Hillary accepted responsibility. What more do you want?”

JellyToast on October 16, 2012 at 6:21 AM

My take.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 6:24 AM

It’s the cover up that counts and the lies by the President.

The main question is not who was responsible for actions in the State Department, the question is why did the White House make up the lies about the video tape protest to cover up the terrorist attack?

Remember they first blamed their lies about the video on the Intelligence department.

Why haven’t we heard anything from the head of the CIA?

And
LOL. Bill Clinton Janet Reno deja vu all over again…

albill on October 16, 2012 at 6:29 AM

from KJ’s take above…

Consider how she intentionally timed her announcement to hit the eve of the Second Presidential Debate…

Is she protecting him in order to get Obama re-elected? Or, is she trying to expose him as inept and ineffective?

I’ll take b) kingsjester…

by stating that the buck stops with her, she demonstrates that Obama hasn’t or won’t take responsibility for anything—he’ll take credit mind you, but not responsibility.

ted c on October 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM

ted c on October 16, 2012 at 6:39 AM

Yep. The Clintons don’t get mad. They get even.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 6:43 AM

and the Clinton’s certainly don’t go down without dragging someone else along for the ride.

ted c on October 16, 2012 at 6:47 AM

Ask Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 6:49 AM

Did Hillary try to preempt Obama from blaming here publically at the debate?

Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine sees through the “fog of war” or, actually, the smokescreen:
Clinton did not, and cannot, take the fall for the false statements by the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi. The State Department, which was following events there in real time, knew that this was a terrorist attack, not a protest. Yet, days after the attack, the administration mischaracterized it as a protest that spun out of control against a movie. That’s on Obama, not Clinton.

albill on October 16, 2012 at 6:49 AM

It’s called a HAIL HILLARY pass.

Is the Obama campaign desperate, or what.

It isn’t going to work.

stenwin77 on October 16, 2012 at 6:55 AM

She is responsible? Okay. The handling of this whole thing is unexcuseable & deserves nothing shot of her immediate FIRING! $crew her record/legacy – fire. Oh yeah, Obama has neither the brains nor the b@Los to do so. Keeping her now says, “My administration believes in agenda/ideology over competence, even when that incompetence leads to the deaths of citizens.” (He kept Holder after Fast & Furious (300+ deaths) + 3 perjuries & now he stands w/Hillary (4 deaths, including 1st ambassador in 3 decades!)

easyt65 on October 16, 2012 at 7:03 AM

she referred to a fog of war? er…what? there were drones, cameras, and threats leading up to the assassination of the ambassador. What’s foggy about that?

ted c on October 16, 2012 at 7:06 AM

msdnc finally mentioned hillary and the bucks stops here but NO MENTION about the lies told by susan rice and who told her to say that….

and it won’t get mentioned tonight at the debate, just hillary’s response but nothing about susan rice, betcha…

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM

Since the last debate is on Foreign Policy, Mitt may bring it up then.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 7:11 AM

The question to be asked tonight is how the US gave itself the bums rush out of the middle east. And the answer is President Babblefish.

dhimwit on October 16, 2012 at 7:15 AM

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 7:11 AM

*crossing fingers*

i sure hope so…cuz bob scheiffer sure won’t bring it up

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:17 AM

and it won’t get mentioned tonight at the debate, just hillary’s response but nothing about susan rice, betcha…

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:08 AM

.
Candy will make sure it does not come up tonite.
Besides, tonite is Social issues night- gays, abortion – contraception, war on womens and oh yeah- hating the blacks and the poor,

And you betcha, the 47% solution.

Hillary can hide out until the last debate is over.

FlaMurph on October 16, 2012 at 7:23 AM

FlaMurph on October 16, 2012 at 7:23 AM

*sigh*

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:25 AM

is anybody else as tired as i am of the clintons
can’t she retire and then both of them move somewhere peaceful where they wont be heard

losarkos on October 16, 2012 at 7:27 AM

Ask Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 6:49 AM

.
May I add assassinated Lt. Quarles Harris to that list, from the passport coverup?

FlaMurph on October 16, 2012 at 7:28 AM

gibbsy keeping clinton under the bus and mitt is playing politics with it…

susan rice??? someone PLEASE ask him

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:32 AM

Any commander or leader that throws a subordinate to the wolves for an act that was ultimately his responsibility is a despicable coward.

rplat on October 16, 2012 at 7:33 AM

based on what gibbsy just said, I think dear leader is going to follow suit and place the blame on mitt for politicizing the issue instead of answering any questions about susan rice…

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:35 AM

“Take responsibility” means you resign, girlie.
fossten on October 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Correct. (But, after saying this she sure watered it down with a sh!tload of mealymouth backtracking and whining excuses.)

Her next step is to get her ample pantsuited thighs in front of the Congress and answer all the questions. “I can’t recall” as an answer will be considered covering up and lying.

BigSven on October 16, 2012 at 7:40 AM

based on what gibbsy just said, I think dear leader is going to follow suit and place the blame on mitt for politicizing the issue instead of answering any questions about susan rice…

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:35 AM

.
Politicizing it like-

Military Intell leaks?
Fast/ furious?
Medvedev Secret deal?
Solyndra- ish crony stimulus deals?
Obama.com Chinese campaign contributions?
The Salahi’s?
Etc. , Etc , Etc

so much politicizing, so little time.

Jim Lehrer-” Mr. President, your time is up.

FlaMurph on October 16, 2012 at 7:47 AM

FlaMurph on October 16, 2012 at 7:47 AM

heh

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Hillary, Why did it take so long?

Question remains:
Why did Obama tell the lies about the protests over the videos?

albill on October 16, 2012 at 7:56 AM

reince is a squish, cripe, he had the opportunity to bring up the wh and susan rice about the video and said nothing….arrggghhh

cmsinaz on October 16, 2012 at 7:59 AM

I will steal Mr. Obama’s line from tonight’s debate;

Ultimately the buck stops with me.

I am sure that is cold comfort to the families of our murdered countrymen who continue to be used as political pawns by this Administration

Notice how Mr. Obama and Mrs Clinton have framed support for the so-called “Arab Spring” as appropriate. That is simply cover for a feckless foreign policy which has supported a “revolution” that in essence elevated Al Qaeda and their supporters into sovereign government positions of power.

So instead of making the world safer for Americans and finishing off Al Qaeda, Mr Obama has given them comfort and legitimacy in the form of state government positions and support. That curious and misguided effort has now resulted in the deaths of four Americans because the administration was concerned about perceptions instead of wisely securing the safety of our countrymen.

Far from being strong on national security, Mr. Obama has allowed forces not only to regroup, but to gain legitimacy and financial support from countries that were once either allies or constrained in their terrorist activity. As a result, the world is a much more dangerous place after these last four years.

Marcus Traianus on October 16, 2012 at 8:01 AM

Wonder what her price was. President Skinny doesn’t have a pound of flesh to lose. And yes. Resign. But Democrats don’t play dat. They will not be condemned in the integrity-free media. Think like a Democrat now; politics is all you can do, your political life is on the line. Hillary will still run in 2016. That’s her price. Not a shakey limb to climb out on. Here’s a scenario: Obama wins in 2012 (Shudder!) She resigns and the MSM frames it as normal in new term. She, Bill and, of course, the Clinton-loving media ostentatiously play it that she’s stepped down to run one of Bill’s bogus global charity graft-shields. SCHUMER gets SecState. You know he’s gotta be in there pulling strings right now. He has designs. Oh yeah. Cabinet position then VP. then….ugh. 2014ish Biden announces he won’t top the ticket. Health, spend more time with his family…in Scranton. (Not!) The usual yada yada. He’s been hanging by a thread for four years. He knows he won’t ever be president. By then the media will have had plenty of time to rebuild its inexplicable Clinton adulation.

Mark it. Something like this would be the only way she’d ever stop this buck. The electorate has already been softened about how Benghazi’s not a big deal. By 2016 it will be a distant memory in America’s newsroom, an unmentionable.

curved space on October 16, 2012 at 8:05 AM

Yes, this illustrates Obama is a coward. Hey, lets blame it on a female for the war I started in Libya. Can not debate without a teleprompter, Can not speak without a teleprompter, and has no sack to take ownership of the mess he caused overseas.

jjnco73 on October 16, 2012 at 8:06 AM

So instead of making the world safer for Americans and finishing off Al Qaeda, Mr Obama has given them comfort and legitimacy in the form of state government positions and support. That curious and misguided effort has now resulted in the deaths of four Americans because the administration was concerned about perceptions instead of wisely securing the safety of our countrymen.

It really isn’t curious at all.

Barky really does think if you want your country to be run by AQ, you can have your country be run by AQ.

Look Folks, if they want these Alan Kidu people to run things then, I think, that’s their choice. It’s called democracy. M’kay? Let me be clear. Chickens Roost. Change.

CorporatePiggy on October 16, 2012 at 8:09 AM

My theory: Obama tricked Hillary into accepting blame by falsely promising something like what AP described above… then he won’t. That way ALL the blame will lie upon Hillary’s shoulders and not his own. Hillary, you fool, he’s thrown all of his mentors and numerous lackeys under the bus, and you honestly think he won’t do it to you just because your last name is Clinton?

R. Waher on October 16, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Leaders need to know the general situation of all of the things that are under them.
Skipping security briefings makes one ignorant of these things.
Romney would not be skipping security briefings, hence this sort of thing would not have happened under his leadership, nor Bush’s.
Since Obama is a lousy leader, this ergo, is his fault.
Hillary falling on the sword doesn’t change that.

Badger40 on October 16, 2012 at 8:15 AM

The attack on the consulate went on for six hours. There was actionable information coming in right after the attack started; it was available to every intel and military center in the US govt web.

So where was the President and his National Security Advisor? Why was no air action ordered immediately to protect the consulate? There are carrier fleets in the Mediterranean and in the Gulf. Why weren’t the jets called in?

This is “the 3 AM phone call”, except it came at 3 PM (Eastern time). If The Puppet President ignored it, this is the story of the year. What do we have to do to get the MSM asking, “Where was Obama?”

The failure to act when the attack was under way is worse, far worse, even than the subsequent lying and cover-up. It amounts to gross dereliction of duty, and is an impeachable offense.

MrLynn on October 16, 2012 at 8:17 AM

We’re going to review.
Security personnel made these decisions.

Like Holder reviewed Fast and Furious.

Hardly taking the blame.

maverick muse on October 16, 2012 at 8:21 AM

Question for thought: Is this actually a coordinated effort between Obama and Clinton to protect him from the political fallout of the attack and the security lapse? Or is this Hillary, seizing on the utter incompetence of the administration, to make herself look more responsible and presidential than Obama with thoughts to her eventual 2016 run for the White House? Even by admitting a security failure, she makes herself look more responsible, more accountable, and more knowledgeable than her superiors over on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Shump on October 16, 2012 at 8:33 AM

Hillary’s hollow “I take responsibility” here is as much of a joke as proclaiming that 0-bow-mao saved GM, or that he deserves some kind of special recognition for getting OBL. Benghazi is an escapable black hole for Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, and the rest of these chumps who deceitfully tried blaming the attack on a “slanderous” video, and they realize it is.

This pathetic attempt is nothing more than a hopeful Hail Mary move, throwing what they can against the wall to see if something, anything, will stick while they hope and pray for a miracle to bail them out. Sorry, dumb@sses, it’s NOT happening!

Anti-Control on October 16, 2012 at 8:38 AM

What Marcus T said (8:00). This is worse than the squirmings of a hack politician from Crooktown.

dhimwit on October 16, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Hillary’s confession only covers events leading up to the attack on the consulate. Quite frankly, she has no choice in that.
Her buck stops there.
The issue at hand is how the administration handled the aftermath.
She IS NOT claiming responsibility for that. Nor can she as Obama and those not part of State were very public in their statements.
The question remains, why blame a movie trailer when they knew otherwise.Why deflect from the truth ?

Jabberwock on October 16, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Well, OK then. Hillary should be called before Congress to give a full account of what happened, leading up to the attack, during the six hours of the attack, and the aftermath. I would particularly like to know when the WH was alerted that an attack was underway, and what directives were issued. Isn’t answering questions what taking responsibility means?

claudius on October 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM

I’m hypothesizing Hilly did this on her own.
And it will make Obama look bad & she knows it.
IT puts the ball in his court, like hawkdriver said, to answer cover up questions.

Badger40 on October 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

And let me amend that I think Barry wanted this, but Hillary knew what it would do to him & he’s too dumb to know it.

Badger40 on October 16, 2012 at 9:07 AM

I wish I could f&%k up my job that royally and not get fired.

stout77 on October 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM

You gotta wonder what price Hillary extracted for doing this.

If O thinks this lets him off the hook it does not. It just makes him look even weaker.

And remember these are the Clintons. There will be payback.

bartbeast on October 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Four more to the Clinton body count. http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/clintonfriends.htm

mixplix on October 16, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Would someone please connect the dots and link the fact that there must have been a White House directive with the State Department that stated that the politics of Libya and appearances were more important than actual security in a terrorist haven?

PleaseFlyOver on October 16, 2012 at 2:12 AM

Bingo.

Clinton bears immediate responsibility for diplomat security, but Obama remains responsible for policy and for the coverup.

petefrt on October 16, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Huma must be proud that Hillary is such a stand up guy.

Voice on October 16, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Elected officials of the government are accountable to the people.

Hillary Clinton is not an elected official. Therefore not accountable. Therefore not responsible.

Hillary Clinton was appointed by the President. The President is accountable to the people. The President is responsible.

At least he has a new talking point: “Hillary did it.”
(as opposed to “Bush did it”)

Carnac on October 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Well, if you listen carefully, Hillary also throws Obama under the bus on this, either intentionally or unintentionally.

She says that the world is “increasingly risky” So that means that Obama’s foreign policy is making things worse, not better. Good Job Hillary

georgealbert on October 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Hillary can try to pawn this off onto “security professionals” but it won’t work. Why didn’t she just say that in the beginning? Why wait so long to throw some underlings under the bus?

Two things about this, one why wait so long and two, the cover-up. Either way Hillary proves she is either incompetent..she didn’t know what was going on until now. Or she is a liar. I don’t buy her being that incompetent, Obama maybe but not her. So that leaves us with liar.

Also someone, sorry I can’t find the comment, wondered why Stevens was even in Benghazi on 9/11. As I recall there was some story about meeting other diplomats including one from Turkey. Sounds odd, and I think there’s more going on there then we know. Another line of questioning to follow…although I doubt we’ll get the answers.

Deanna on October 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

interestingly, this story is nowhere to be found on MSN/MSNBC…

LtGenRob on October 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Hillary, we appreciate that you are willing to fall on the sword of your master to protect him, however he has been slipping us the weenie just as hard and fast as he did to you in 2008. You took it on the chin for Bill during the Monica-cigar scandal, and during the health care debate with Bill, and during the impeachment, and during the Ken Star investigation, and all the other women, and “-gate”‘s, on and on. However, we don’t want you this time. We want the man. The man who says he is in charge. Funny thing being in charge; you have to accept responsibility somewhere. Because he stands in front does not make him a leader; quit defending the Occupy White House slug in the west wing. Sit back and relax; enjoy the fireworks. They’re supposed to start any day now.

Molonlabe2004 on October 16, 2012 at 2:35 AM

I thought Hillary was supposed to be a strong, independent woman. She’s starting to look more like subjugated Mooslum female property. Maybe next she’ll put on a burqa while Teh Won quotes the call to prayer with a perfect accent.

Nutstuyu on October 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

Also someone, sorry I can’t find the comment, wondered why Stevens was even in Benghazi on 9/11. As I recall there was some story about meeting other diplomats including one from Turkey. Sounds odd, and I think there’s more going on there then we know. Another line of questioning to follow…although I doubt we’ll get the answers.

Deanna on October 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Perhaps Stevens had been helping to relive Teh Won’s Chicago bathhouse days and was about to spill the beans.

Nutstuyu on October 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

Hillary just took Obama to the woodshed and gave Romney a tremendous gift right before tonight’s debate. This plays right to Romney’s leadership strengths over Obama. Obama should be hammered on this for the rest of the election because it is now way too late to recover. And he still has to deal with the cover up scandal.

Ellis on October 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

interestingly, this story is nowhere to be found on MSN/MSNBC…

LtGenRob on October 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

I’d say “Unbelievable!“, but, knowing how biased and lame the leftist MSM is, I can’t.

The failure to comment upon this is arguably a bigger abrogation of their duty than the avoidance to cover the John Edwards/Rielle Hunter saga was.

Anti-Control on October 16, 2012 at 10:11 AM

You all understand she’s taking responsibility. She’s looking after herself and hitting back at Obama thats what it is because who’s going to believe the Prez and the VP didn’t know about this? She’s trying to make herself look good by coming out. It’s a battle of two egos

jaboba on October 16, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I wish I could f&%k up my job that royally and not get fired.

stout77 on October 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM

LOL! Only in government.
I, as a public screwl HS teacher see the seeds of this fruit everyday bcs I work with some of them.
I know a lot of teachers who are incompetent to the nth degree & still get to keep their jobs.
Meanwhile, I am unrewarded for my competence & even vilified for making my classes challenging.

Badger40 on October 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

So Hillary takes “responsibility” but dumps the “blame” on the intell folks?

And BOBO sits above it all, not realizing that hiding behind Hillary’s pantsuit makes him look even more incompetent? One has to wonder why no one bothered to keep him and smilin Joe aware of what was happening.

katiejane on October 16, 2012 at 10:17 AM

It must have really galled her to make that statement – she knew it was BS. Where are are all those angry Hillary voters from ’08 now?

Ward Cleaver on October 16, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Something is not right here. When in history has a Clinton ever “fallen on the sword”? This is beyond fishy. The Clinton’s have never been “the fall guy”. Something’s up. Watch for Bill to blow the lid off of this just in time for the elections. He’s not an Obama fan.
Here is a timeline of the Lybia situation from someone inside the WH.

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/10/15/white-house-insider-obamas-benghazi-lie-valerie-jarretts-west-wing-meltdown/

It’s long but worth the read.

milwife88 on October 16, 2012 at 10:30 AM

A new day and Hillary remains in office…No accountability = no responsibility but simply hot air (site pun intended)

JIMV on October 16, 2012 at 11:56 AM

OK now what? Rest in peace my fellow Americans.

rjoco1 on October 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM

This reminds me of Janet Reno taking responsibility for the Branch Davidian deaths at Waco.

When Democrats take responsibility for terrible things, that seems to be the end of it — they don’t resign.

Taking responsibility never seems to cost them anything.

KyMouse on October 16, 2012 at 12:02 PM

This just occurred to me (I know, not enough caffeine today): Hillary taking blame would only work if the Secretary of State was an elected position and was directly responsible to the voters, like in the states. But since the federal SoS is appointed by the President, the President still bears personal and direct responsibility for anything the SoS does (or fails to do).

Heh, nice try Hillaryous.

Nutstuyu on October 16, 2012 at 12:10 PM

This might work if we weren’t in the stretch drive of campaign. The media doesn’t control the complete message at this point and the President can’t wall himself off from questions for the 3 weeks befire the election.

Conan on October 16, 2012 at 12:30 PM

David Burge‏@iowahawkblog

“I’m not all into those foreign policy decisions,” says man who personally killed Bin Laden

davidk on October 16, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Here’s what Hillary said:

“Remember, this was an attack that went on for hours,” Clinton said in an interview with Fox News during a trip to Peru. “There had to be a lot of sorting out. … Everyone said, here’s what we know, subject to change.”

Exactly the point, Hillary.

An attack that went on for hours. Which you knew, right? In real time, right? As it was underway? I know the President went to bed not knowing what had happened to his Ambassador, but surely the State Department had someone on the night shift. An attack that went on for hours (with a special response team dispatched to help)? This suggested to you, what, a movie riot? Pissed off skateboarders in LA?

And the fog of war? Okay, give you that one. Generically. But, that’s not the point! None of you people cited the fog of war at the time. To the contrary, you make public statements that you did know what happened and that it was a demonstration over a movie.

The point is that the Administration did not say we don’t know. It was labelled. It was named. For days after it was obvious to any fool that the story was ridiculous.

So, it doesn’t wash. The fog only rolled in after the fact. It’s called cover-up, diversion, distraction. Or the most extreme example of wishful thinking known to man.

Hillary Dillary Dock,
The Lie Ran Out the Clock…

Well, maybe not this time.

If it runs in the family, I expect the next explanation we’ll get is, “It depends on what you mean by spontaneous.”

IndieDogg on October 16, 2012 at 1:50 PM

Hillary is a perfect example of the “battered wife” syndrome

wukong on October 16, 2012 at 2:11 PM

And isn’t it ironic that she did this just before the debate?

rplat on October 16, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5