• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton Accepts Blame for Benghazi

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This sounds absolutely True.
However, it's timing on the eve of debate II, obviously takes some heat off Obama.

Clinton Accepts Blame for Benghazi - WSJ.com
Updated October 16, 2012, 10:25 a.m. ET
Monica Langley

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she takes responsibility for security at the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in an attack last month.

"I take responsibility," Mrs. Clinton said in a recent interview in her office. "I'm the Secretary of State with 60,000-plus employees around the world. This is like a big family…It's painful, absolutely painful."

On Monday, in Lima, Peru, she also told television interviewers that she accepts the blame, adding that security at America's diplomatic missions overseas is her job, not that of the White House.

Her comments come as Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, criticize the Obama administration for its handling of the security before the attack by extremists and its explanations afterward.

She also spoke in advance of the second presidential debate, which will occur Tuesday night. Both security arrangements in Benghazi and the administration's differing explanations of whether the attack was the result of mob violence caused by an anti-Muslim video or a calculated terrorist strike were the subject of disagreement in last week's debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee. At the debate, Mr. Biden said the White House wasn't aware of requests for additional security at diplomatic installations in Libya, an account that Mrs. Clinton's remarks appear to confirm.

In her comments to CNN in Peru, Mrs. Clinton said President Barack Obama and Mr. Biden weren't involved in security decisions at the consulate in Benghazi. "I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," she said.
[.....]
 
Bus, meet Hillary. Someone here predicted this I believe.
 
I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, it's such an uncommon gesture, and is what I want my leaders to do, but on the other hand, is it only that? Just a gesture?

I felt the same way when Reagan took the blame for Iran-Contra. It diffuses the situation because critics then have nowhere left to go, but the person who takes the blame knows they will face no real consequences, either.
 
So Hillary's not part of the Obama administration?
 
Yeah but she is still saying that Obama didnt know......which is BS. After the inital attack. Our people tried to break to the Safe House which was the CIA compound that was holding Weapons. That compound came under two assualts. They were in real time communication and that would be with Consular Ops in the White House.

The Ambassador was then Killed. There is no way Obama did not know!

Moreover for 6 days both Obama and Clinton came out and stated it was due to the Spontaneous Reaction from the Muslim video. Condemning the attacks.

Clinton says they listen to the security experts......then why didnt she get them more Security when all were stating that more security was needed.
 
She's a scapegoat... but it's too little too late. This goes much deeper than Hillary Clinton.

Something's rotten in the state of Denmark.
 
Yeah but in the interview she is almost chuckling when she says that she takes full responsibility and then goes on about 60K people working in the State Department and other people making those decisions. It wasn't even a half-hearted, "Well I feel horrible and will be doing X,Y, and Z to avoid this situation in the future." I have maintained from the beginning that this was likely a decision made down the food chain, but come on, at least try to show some freaking courtesy to the families by not being giddy when you make the token gesture and put it off on lower level people like their protection didn't matter that much as a matter of policy to begin with. Geez. I think she would have been better off not claiming responsibility than that garbage.
 
The buck stops there? Like mideast and specifically Libya policy had nothing to do with it.
 
....being that there was a CIA office near/as part of the US facilities in Benghazi, one would think that increasing instability or security threats in Libya would have been part of the president's daily intelligence briefings...
 
Yeah but in the interview she is almost chuckling when she says that she takes full responsibility and then goes on about 60K people working in the State Department and other people making those decisions. It wasn't even a half-hearted, "Well I feel horrible and will be doing X,Y, and Z to avoid this situation in the future." I have maintained from the beginning that this was likely a decision made down the food chain, but come on, at least try to show some freaking courtesy to the families by not being giddy when you make the token gesture and put it off on lower level people like their protection didn't matter that much as a matter of policy to begin with. Geez. I think she would have been better off not claiming responsibility than that garbage.

Thats because she has already told Obama she will not be sticking round for any second term if he should win. Thinking she would run for the Presidency in 2016 as the Dems have no one else but Cuomo to try and run. Which he is not really known outside of that little East Coast area.

Plus she still is saying that people were going by what they knew at the time. Now making an excuse About the Fog of War.

All because the Obamabaloney is crying about Polticizing this. Which is BS.....bottomline, Obama dropped the ball on 911 and why? Because he was to interested in Campaigning rather than Leading this Nation!
 
The buck stops there? Like mideast and specifically Libya policy had nothing to do with it.

Damn Right.....think they will give us Susan's Rice head on that Silver Platter? I bet if Obama gets hard pressed he will ask for her resignation and burn that bridge like he has done with all the others.
 
Damn Right.....think they will give us Susan's Rice head on that Silver Platter? I bet if Obama gets hard pressed he will ask for her resignation and burn that bridge like he has done with all the others.

I find it odd to that some blame Bush for Katrina but Clinton for Benghazi.
 
....being that there was a CIA office near/as part of the US facilities in Benghazi, one would think that increasing instability or security threats in Libya would have been part of the president's daily intelligence briefings...
This is a valid point; but the amount of security staff at the Benghazi embassy probably isn't his thing.
Assuming he even knew tensions were heightened (and I do).
He would assume Hillary was on it.
Hillary would be both the first to know of any request and the ongoing, daily, even hourly, embassy condition.
That's why I said n the OP it "sounds Absolutely True", though the timing is convenient.
It would have even been more convenient though before either of the First two debates.
 
Last edited:
I find it odd to that some blame Bush for Katrina but Clinton for Benghazi.

Which is why I went straight for Rice.....who got out played by the French and Brits with Libya. Then the Russians with Syria and anything else. Still it is Obama's Foreign Policy and these are Allegedly his top people chosen for the job.

They have failed!!!!!
 
This s a valid point; but the amount of security staff at the Benghazi embassy probably isn't his thing.
Assuming he even knew tensions were heightened (and I do).
Is it his thing to question staffing, or assume Hillary was indeed on it.
Hillary would be both the first to know of any request and the ongoing, daily, even hourly, embassy condition.
That's why I said n the OP it "sounds Absolutely True", though the timing is convenient.
It would have even been more convenient though before either of the First two debates.

I'm thinking it would be something like this:

Intelligence Report: Escalating security concerns in Middle Eastern locations at Country X, Y, & Z, relating to issues A, B & C.
Obama: Alright, security team, State Dept, how are we addressing these issues?
Security/SD: We're doing D, E, & F.

And then, of course, there's follow up at a later date regarding the state of things as relates to intelligence reports.

I'm not saying Obama should be expected to have a finger on every pulse, but Afghanistan/Pakistan, Syria/Turkey, and Libya seem like areas which would be of significant interest, given the current state of things. Ensuring that all departments are adequately responding to needs made apparent through intelligence briefings seems like a key step.
 
I'm thinking it would be something like this:

Intelligence Report: Escalating security concerns in Middle Eastern locations at Country X, Y, & Z, relating to issues A, B & C.
Obama: Alright, security team, State Dept, how are we addressing these issues?
Security/SD: We're doing D, E, & F.

And then, of course, there's follow up at a later date regarding the state of things as relates to intelligence reports.

I'm not saying Obama should be expected to have a finger on every pulse, but Afghanistan/Pakistan, Syria/Turkey, and Libya seem like areas which would be of significant interest, given the current state of things. Ensuring that all departments are adequately responding to needs made apparent through intelligence briefings seems like a key step.

In all fairness, I must admit, I'd rather go on talk shows that love me.
 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be sacrificing herself for the sake of the administration after she took the blame for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi and controversial aftermath. To put things quite literally, she told a CNN reporter on Monday, just a few minutes after landing in Peru for a visit, very plainly, "I take responsibility" for what happened in Libya on September 11. CNN makes it clear that she "insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions." With the election right around the corner and everything, Clinton added, "I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha."

Just because Clinton's on the mat doesn't mean that the Romney-led slugfest against the Obama administration will let up. The Republican candidate already slammed Biden for saying said at the vice presidential debate last week that "we weren't told they wanted more security" at the consulate in Benghazi. And the pundits are already steering Romney towards this incident as Obama's big foreign policy weakness at the upcoming presidential debate.

Hillary Clinton Falls on Her Sword - Yahoo! News
 
So there's Bill Clinton, touring the country for Obama, while his wife gets sacrificed to the wolves. What a man.
 
I find it odd to that some blame Bush for Katrina but Clinton for Benghazi.

Well anybody with at least minimal brain function should have realized that Katrina was mostly the Mayor's fault for refusing to put the buses in use for the evacuation, but that is a rant for another day.
 
Which is why I went straight for Rice.....who got out played by the French and Brits with Libya. Then the Russians with Syria and anything else. Still it is Obama's Foreign Policy and these are Allegedly his top people chosen for the job.

They have failed!!!!!

No Obama has failed in hiring them and putting them in positions they were not qualified for. But that is no surprise as Obama is not qualified to be president.
 
Thats because she has already told Obama she will not be sticking round for any second term if he should win. Thinking she would run for the Presidency in 2016 as the Dems have no one else but Cuomo to try and run. Which he is not really known outside of that little East Coast area.

Oh I don't think anybody kids themselves into believing she will not be running in 2016.
 
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appears to be sacrificing herself for the sake of the administration after she took the blame for the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi and controversial aftermath. To put things quite literally, she told a CNN reporter on Monday, just a few minutes after landing in Peru for a visit, very plainly, "I take responsibility" for what happened in Libya on September 11. CNN makes it clear that she "insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions." With the election right around the corner and everything, Clinton added, "I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha."

Just because Clinton's on the mat doesn't mean that the Romney-led slugfest against the Obama administration will let up. The Republican candidate already slammed Biden for saying said at the vice presidential debate last week that "we weren't told they wanted more security" at the consulate in Benghazi. And the pundits are already steering Romney towards this incident as Obama's big foreign policy weakness at the upcoming presidential debate.

Hillary Clinton Falls on Her Sword - Yahoo! News

In bold, why were they not told? What, security at our embassies around the world is determined by some mid-level flunky at the state department. This coverup and worse yet evidence of gross negligence and incompetence, is yet more Obama failure.
 
I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, it's such an uncommon gesture, and is what I want my leaders to do, but on the other hand, is it only that? Just a gesture?

I felt the same way when Reagan took the blame for Iran-Contra. It diffuses the situation because critics then have nowhere left to go, but the person who takes the blame knows they will face no real consequences, either.

I think it's a terrible political move but I don't know if there was a better one.

Making her the scapegoat takes pressure off him for these two debates but the Clinton's have a tremendously loyal following. It's not hard to imagine their supporters staying home on election day.
 
I think it's a terrible political move but I don't know if there was a better one.

Making her the scapegoat takes pressure off him for these two debates but the Clinton's have a tremendously loyal following. It's not hard to imagine their supporters staying home on election day.

You nailed that one.
 
I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, it's such an uncommon gesture, and is what I want my leaders to do, but on the other hand, is it only that? Just a gesture?

I felt the same way when Reagan took the blame for Iran-Contra. It diffuses the situation because critics then have nowhere left to go, but the person who takes the blame knows they will face no real consequences, either.

Reagan's taking the blame for Iran-Contra was the weirdest apologies ever when he talked about yeah I did it but in my heart I know I didn't do it but I take responsibility for doing. That was a weirdly worded apology. President Ronald Reagan - Address on Iran-Contra - YouTube

I've heard that there was a backroom deal on that with the dem leadership to avoid any impeachment proceeding and the public apology was part of that. Who knows. Who cares now anyway.
 
Back
Top Bottom