Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Monday, October 15. 2012Hillary Doesn't Get Obama Off The HookHillary Clinton says the buck stops with her. Not so fast. The buck stops with President Obama:
October 15, 2012 Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) today released the following statement on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments this evening regarding the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012: “We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever. “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.” Paul Mirengoff at PowerLine sees through the "fog of war" or, actually, the smokescreen:
The Diplomad makes the point that Hillary actually passed the buck, and will likely get bucked in return:
Game on: Hillary Vs Obama, as she exposed his weaseling in avoiding responsibility; Hillary Vs State, as she "investigates" their failings and they start leaking in rebuttal.
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I mean on the one hand I see it, on the other hand, why wasn't FDR fired after Pearl Harbor.
We've allowed the executive branch entirely too much power. Washington is spinning in his grave. As are the original patriot's who spilled their blood for our freedoms. An unconventional thought occurred to me about Hillary’s “buck.”
How does it look for an older white woman to be taking a bullet for the younger Black man? Does this make the President look stronger or weaker? The Clintons don’t voluntarily go under the bus for anyone. It is kind of 3-dimentional chess, but taking the blame for something that should be the President’s responsibility has the look of loyalty but the side effect of making the President look weak and incompetent and someone who needs to be rescued by a female subordinate. If this take has merit, it is pretty slick That was my first thought, too. In theory Democrats support the equality of women, but that doesn't mean that Obama profits from Hillary Clinton's putting his balls in her pocket.
"...why wasn't FDR fired after Pearl Harbor."
Because only the people could fire him, but they believed his marlarky. Obama may start bombing Libya in retaliation right before Nov. 6 if he can find a target. Unfortunately, Gaddafy has been pushing daisies for quite a while; and Osama, well, Obama has killed him with his bare hands a year too early. May be that Syrian guy, or that Iranian guy? May be Israel could attack Iran? Hillary just made herself "Bus-Proof"...as mentioned in the letter from the Senators, they all realize where the responsibility should rest and they outline it in exquisite detail...thus laying the groundwork for the truth to be shown in the ultimate resolution of blame. And rightfully so. The President has been incompetent and will, in the end be exposed.
What Hillary has done, is shown herself to be the ultimate loyalist....partially to blame, for sure, but she has now become the Knight in Shining armor...the one to try to save the President in a righteous manner......she has made a way for her to be blameless in the final act...and probably enshrined herself to Democrats as a figure of honor...a good place to start a Presidential campaign..... This could be a genius move by her....Bill definitely had a hand in this.....a way to protect her political future... And it doesn't look bad to make Obama look like a weakling, coward who has to hide behind women's skirts.... I have been on this issue since day one. Just put another post on HIllary's statement.
Hey. I think you got that Instalanche you were pining for. [http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/154228/]
Congratulations! " . . . and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”
Okay, send this on to The Trio: "The Administration" does not exist separately and apart from the people who are employed within it. They ARE "the Administration", and they were all hired and trained to serve the wishes, wants, desires, and values of the Head of the Administration, Barack Obama. So, the Administration acted the way it did because someone in charge believed that such action best served Barack Obama. Give me a call if McCain is still unclear about this. Let him know, too, that virtually every voter - Republican, Democrat, or undecided - already knows what they need to know about this. - The Republicans are already voting for Romney. - The Democrats would vote for Obama if he had taken control of a drone and nuked the Ambassador himself. - The people who are still undecided after having lived through Obama Part One are the same people who actually did send piles of money to the Nigerian 419 scammers, who got the fake e-mails from "their bank" and dutifully responded with a list of all of their credit cards, and who never, ever get out of any restaurant in less than four hours. These are Darwin's People. This would just confuse them. So, let's move on. The next question is: what is the President going to do about this? Based on the information so far, the intelligence community had actionable intelligence and the people on the ground in Bengazi had asked for increased security resources for awhile from the Ambassador on down. There were funds to procure the security ($2B according to Rep Issa). Therefore, someone made the decision to not heed the requests of the people in Libya requesting the security resources. They decided the risk was worth it. Hindsight shows that risk was not a very good one (4 dead personnel). The leader is responsible in the end. Either he believes in safeguarding our foreign outposts and allocates the resources to do that or he doesn't. If this was the State Department and/or any department not heeding his direction, then the leader and all others involved should be fired and a reiteration of the policy needs to be fully communicated and followed. Otherwise, the leader has decided that safeguarding our foreign outposts is not a priority and needs to explain why that is so and why this sacrifice of the four dead is worthy of that risk and his priorities.
Leadership 101 above - if you get the perks you also get the PITAs. You have no friends, you must make the hard decisions. And, in this case, the principle of protecting our nation-state in foreign lands should be one of the highest priorities---domestic political issues be damned. Unless Hilary resigns immediately, she is not taking responsibility for anything. Makes me sick when people say they take "responsbility" without actually doing anything.
but hillary was also blaming the video ....so given that state dept. knew what happened was a terrorist attack, she played along with the game that it was all about the video. she's responsible for what she said when she blamed the video, even if that was a white house decision.
All Hillary said is she accepts responsibility for the acts of some other folks who screwed up! She's 'nobly' accepting responsibility while blaming others. How can anyone now ask HER to accept consequences, eh?
Typical political smoke and mirrors. I'll believe she's accepting responsibility when she resigns out of shame for her failure. Question for Mitt to ask 0: "Could it be that you weren't informed of requests for additional security because you skipped that "daily" security briefing?"
Several of us were discussing this on FB last night. I made the point that I thought this was a shrewd move for Hillary as it would position her well in 2016 if she chooses to go that route. Basically boils down to the fact that she took responsibility 'cause the President couldn't take the time to deal with the issue, let alone attend or read the daily briefing papers.
And then I stumble across the link below this morning: http://datechguyblog.com/2012/10/16/hilary-makes-the-smartest-political-move-of-this-cycle/nnn Hillary did all of this while under sniper fire and running for her life. We are so covered in bullshit and in the dark that it is hardly a wonder that i feel like:
Not sure how this helps HR-C.
Janet Reno took responsibility for Waco. How did that work out for her subsequent political career? Anyone recall her running for office in Florida in her little pickup truck? Anyone recall her winning? It will be interesting to see if a document trail emerges that reveals if HRC actually signed off on the reduced security/rejected calls for more security, in Benghazi. If that proves to be the case, I don't see how her ineptitude at State enhances her career outside her leftist base. Finally, I am wondering just how much the disaster in Benghazi is resonating with the electorate? I would speculate that while this is one more straw on 0bama's political back, it is not a game changer for the election. Not sure how this helps HR-C.Janet Reno took responsibility for Waco. How did that work out for her subsequent political career? Anyone recall her running for office in Florida in her little pickup truck? Anyone recall her winning?
Agreed that it doesn't help her career. Perhaps Billary have written off the possibility of Hillary's winning in 2016, for a variety of reasons. Or perhaps Hillary has concluded that she doesn't want to run in 2016. The remaining calculation is now: what can be done to bring down ∅bama? In his speech at the Convention speech, Bill Clinton certainly did what he could to help ∅bama What has occurred to change his position? Libya and the debate. ∅bama's vacuous, lazy essence was exposed to those who watched the debate- and who read about it. The Administration's track record on Libya further showed Bill Clinton that ∅bama couldn't win. As Hillary's record was no better than ∅bama's in the debacle, her Presidential chances were also reduced. By falling on the sword, Hillary comes off as a loyal soldier, yet also screws ∅bama by implying that ∅bama didn't know what was going on. The point is not to get Obama off the hook. The point is to get Obama re-elected.
If Obama is not re-elected in 2012, Hillary will have to face Mitt Romney (an incumbent) in 2016. Hillary will lose. Hillary's ploy is to provide enough talking points and redirection to allow the MSM and Democrats to put Benghazi on a slow shelf until after the election. And thus to get Obama re-elected. Listen between now and the election to the distraction based on Hillary taking the blame. Again, if Obama loses re-election in 2012, Hillary is hopeless in 2016. And for the Clinton's everything now is about 2016, not about 2012. Obama's playing checkers. The Clintons are playing chess.
|
Tracked: Oct 15, 23:55
Tracked: Oct 16, 02:51
Tracked: Oct 16, 02:53
Tracked: Oct 16, 03:05
Tracked: Oct 16, 03:50
Tracked: Oct 16, 05:53
Tracked: Oct 16, 05:53
Tracked: Oct 16, 05:53
Tracked: Oct 16, 05:53