October 15, 2012

Hillary: "I take responsibility" for security in Benghazi.

CNN reports:
Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

"I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," she added, noting that it is close to the election.
ADDED:
“I’m not sure what that means,” said an absolutely baffled Larry Kudlow.

“What we need to know is who told Ambassador Susan Rice to go onto news shows and tell the public that the attacks were spontaneous.”

184 comments:

AprilApple said...

Hillary falls on the sword for dear leader.

Still - what about all the "It was the video" statemtens that poured out of Obama's white house?

edutcher said...

Wonder what the price for this one is?

chickelit said...

She throws away 2016. I hope that sword felt OK going in.

Elliott A said...

Somehow I don't see Hillary falling on her sword out of a sense of honor. She's 5 weeks too late. We all saw the administration at its FUBAR best.

McTriumph said...

Then hillary should resign NOW!

But who decided to lie to the American people?

chickelit said...

Won't this cost him the persuadable Hillary supporters?

CarterFliptMe said...

So now the question is, which Obama campaign adviser told the State Dept. to say it was all because of a youtube video.

ricpic said...

Does this mean she'll resign? ha ha ha ha ha.

America's Politico said...

What did I tell you this weekend?

The plan at the WW in WH is that Hillary will be nominated to the SCOTUS to replace Ruth after the election.

I was correct. I am always correct. You know that.

Elliott A said...

Nice try Hillary. The board of directors always holds the CEO not the Division chief responsible for both actual and PR disasters.

Kansas City said...

Smart move. She looks "presidential." Everything the Clintons do is analyzed as to how it benefits them. Here, the state department is going to be blamed (and has been by Obama/Biden), so it is a smart move to use the buck stops here. It also, potentially, hurts Obama by making him look bad compared to Hillary. No one is actually going to blame Hillary long term for the security that night, so a brilliant move. She also is better off with Obama losing (probably, unless Obama runs again in 2016), so huring him without leaving fingerprints is a smart move. All of this is premised upon the view that Hillary wants to be elected president in 2016.

Elliott A said...

If Hillary must admit to personally facilitating a lie, her SCOTUS hopes are gone.

smarty said...

I am sorry, taking responsibility means something.

Resign, bitch.

McTriumph said...

hillary for SCOTUS, I'll take off work to watch that train wreck. She is done.

Alan said...

If ANY member of the Clinton administration had to be in charge of embassy security, it should have been Janet Reno. We saw how she took care of the Branch Davidians.

Mogget said...

Eh, she's taking blame for the original screw up but not the ensuing cover up. And that's the one that would really sting if it were ever to be definitively exposed.

Seeing Red said...

He went back to bed, why?

Why did he detach & fundraise?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Price, a US Supreme Court appointment for Hillary Clinton.

AprilApple said...

With the Clintons it's always about manipulation. I find it odd that so many want to play along. What about the fact that she just admitted she screwed up. State didn't listen to the people on the ground in Benghazi and now 4 people are dead.
This helps her? This is OK?
Yeah – great, a democrat and the word "responsibility" appear in the same sentence - and all is forgiven and forgotten. Wow are we like cattle. Mooo.

edutcher said...

chickelit said...

She throws away 2016. I hope that sword felt OK going in.

I think that was realistically gone anyway.

There must be some other advantage she would get.

Or Axelrod has.., what?

Pictures, letters, phone calls?

BaltoHvar said...

The fact that it took five weeks to take responsibility in and of itself is simply damning. Her POTUS dreams are done. Yet, as Apey points out, a SCOTUS gig would make a nice thank you gift.

McTriumph said...

So did Ambassador Rice take her marching orders to lie from hillary or the WH?

If hillary doesn't resign does it really defuse the Libya problem?

tim maguire said...

Looks like my Intrade bet that SoS Clinton wouldn't see the end of the Obama administration is going el stinko.

mesquito said...

Well, damn. It not like she could be fired or something. She safer now than when she fucked up health care in '93.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Obama is president, not Hillary. Did I miss something, Obama appointed Clinton, Clinton works for Obama, Obama directs Clinton's work, Obama is the boss but Hillary is the responsible party?

AprilApple said...

How does this make her a good Supreme Court pick? I have some questions about her judgment.

clint said...

Yep. Smart move.

She has to appear to at least have tried to protect Obama -- or else she would lose the nomination in '16.

But she can't actually take the blame for the *scandal* (the lying) -- just acknowledge that she's in charge of the State Dept.

And the American people are *desperate* to see someone in this White House accept responsibility for something. "The Buck Stops Here" is still a powerful slogan.

And who knows... four years from now, we may see her role in this administration *quite* differently than we do now. We'll have had four years of tell-all books written by former Obama insiders who are angling for jobs in the Clinton administration...

(Wouldn't it be awesome if Obama and Clinton went head to head in the Democratic primary in '16 -- he'll still be eligible to run for a second term...)

Methadras said...

So you are resigning Hillary or is it going to be nothing but feigned apologies in the name of responsibility. This is a resignable moment. Do it and at least have a modicum of self-respect you unmitigated hack.

Coketown said...

Three weeks to figure out who was responsible? Is this a government or a fucking ent moot?

"After much deliberation regarding ambassador Stevens, we have decided that...he was not an Orc."

AprilApple said...

D of S - Obama isn't responsible for anything. He's perfect. Come worship.

Shouting Thomas said...

Still no answer to the question:

Who hatched that story about demonstrations and the video?

The press doesn't seem very interested in knowing the answer, as Bill O'Reilly pointed out tonight.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Romney should challenge Obama on the whole Libya snafu. Calmly, patiently and tenaciously go over the mess.

Michael K said...

"Hillary will be nominated to the SCOTUS to replace Ruth after the election."

The Democrats set the precedent for filibustering Supreme Court nominees. There might even be a defeated Democrat with a conscience. Assuming Obama is defeated, I expect a lot of pardons. I don't think Hillary can elbow her way onto the USSC.

America's Politico said...

Michael K: You do not understand - is that a GOP DNA?

Obama wins election. He returns the favor to Hillary, but nominating her to the SCOTUS.

This is what is being discussed in the West Wing and on Air Force One since Friday last.

Am I clear?

mesquito said...

"Who hatched that story about demonstrations and the video?"

The campaign did, silly.

Why is Susan Rice getting her official talking points from Chicago.

Shouting Thomas said...

I read the article, and it answers nothing.

It's a bland assertion without substance.

The news media would not buy this for a moment were they facing a Republican administration. They would demand to know why the video story was hatched, who hatched it, and why the cover-up continued.

This is just another attempt to massage a compliant media that is in the bag for Obama.

Erik said...

Four people dead for refusing requests for more security? Well, at least it's not something SERIOUS like smoking some weed.

Cedarford said...

Elliott A said...
Nice try Hillary. The board of directors always holds the CEO not the Division chief responsible for both actual and PR disasters.

================
Incorrect. Well-functioning organizations or those who aspire to be assign the appropriate level of responsibility.

When a Navy ship grounds, the career of the Captain and any junior officers and enlisteds that contributed to it are kaput. Not the career of the Fleet Admiral, not the Navy top-ranked component of the JCS, not the Secretary of Defense, certainly not the Commander in Chief.

Blaming everything on the CEO or the President is ignorant and stupid.
Obama is no more tasked with evaluating security at embassies being good than he is to ensure the TSA dresses properly or the Commerce Dept has adequate flash memory.

Hillary is the right and proper level for consequences. But I think we are all sick of the posturing of people that "accept responsibility" only if there are no adverse consequences coming to them for stepping up.
Accepting responsibility in a cerememonial way only, is hollow.

The Janet Reno sort ---"I accept responsibility" (but I won't say a word of apology to those killed, and Bill Clinton said I keep my job, and by PR DEpt has already scapegoated less powerful people to pay the price)

Sammy said...

As though that ends the questions... Why was security so bad, why did they ignore requests, why did they outsource it to some British group , that was operating less then a. Year....

And if Hillary thinks this " I take responbility" , by doing nothing but blaming the people who handle security, it wasn't the security assement policy to pretend Libya was Canada, that was the narrative the Obama crowd was pushing, and who sent Susan Rice 5 days later to lie to the American public, when State knew it was a terrorist attack..

Taking responbility would be Hillary resigning..

Or why Hillary lied with the coffin of her" friend" Chris two feet from her... By pretending the video was the cause and denouncing a video , that she knew full well had nothing to do with the brutal murders of American diplomats

Since she saw the actually attack in real time on drone feeds and it wasn't a protest it was a 6 hour long bombardment from terrorist.


pm317 said...

Quit talking about 2016 (as if this society will vote for a 64 old wrinkly faced woman for president) or SCOTUS. It appears, as usual CNN may have distorted what she said. I want to see the video of her interview and hear exactly what she said.

BaltoHvar said...

Clinton has read the writing on the wall. Could she/Bill be thinking now that's established, they can wait and NOT RESIGN and let the furor over that further torpedo the Campaign? Sure, she's responsible, but just let Him TRY to fire his SoS 3 weeks before the election!

Seems his "Diversity" hire may not go quietly as one would expect?

Kansas City said...

No way on Supreme Court. Why would she want it? And from the party's perspective, she is too old. Every democratic appointment would vote the same on virtually every significant issue, so all they want is young vote who will be on the court for 30 years. Republicans are not much better.

edutcher said...

pm317 said...

Quit talking about 2016 (as if this society will vote for a 64 old wrinkly faced woman for president)

69, not 64.

Shouting Thomas said...

If Romney is elected, what will the press do?

When they go on attack because Romney is a Republican, how will they look?

Will they be embarrassed?

JAL said...

She should resign.

Absolutely.

She is the State Department. She is responsible for the security of our people. They kicked the American ambassador to Libya and the other Americans aside to keep the mirage of The Obama Rescued Libya (!!!) on Obama's map.

She excercised very poor judgement and dailed to do a basic no brain analysis of a difficult situation.

She should resign.

Or be fired.

elkh1 said...

Poor Hill has just kissed 2016 good bye.

The buck of foreign policies stops at Hill's feet, the buck of the economy stops at Bush's.

JAL said...

failed

Maguro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

She can claim responsibility if she likes. What I want to know is who is *accountable*.

"Security was my responsibility, but even though security screw-ups got people killed I'll be staying on in my job until my boss is voted out of office" -- this is not a satisfactory response, to me.

Somewhere in the chain of command is the person who decided to maintain a diplomatic office "protected" by local militia. Whoever that person is needs to be fired.

Christopher said...

I think what everybody is failing to recognize is that this move not only makes sure that Hillary looks better, but it also guarantees more questions regarding Benghazi at the debate.

So in one move she screws a man she hates (insert joke about Bill here) while simultaneously improving her chances.

Maguro said...

@Cedarford:Hillary is the right and proper level for consequences.

For the breakdown in security, maybe. I wouldn't be surprised if the decision to act like everything was peachy in Libya was made at the White House, but whatever.

But the decision to lie and try to pin the whole thing on the Copt and his Youtube video (which you lapped up, BTW) was certainly above Hillary's pay grade.

So, it is not over yet. Or at least it shouldn't be.

pm317 said...

via FOX she took responsibility for Benghazi and all the State Dept personnel but security was done by security professionals.

Something else is going on here. Wait for the other shoe to drop. Also note, she is not taking any responsibility for the cover up fairytale emanating out of this WH. If security was not provided by the State for Benghazi, wait for the other shoe to drop. There was another article today about the security contractor being a British company, Blue Mountain which got the contract out of the blue, no pun intended. Who runs this company and how are they connected to Obama?

Mr. D said...

Janet Reno had a much larger body count than Hillary and got by with it.

Responsibility without accountability -- it's the way these folks roll.

America's Politico said...

In the movie, Clear and Present Danger, Harrison Ford (Jack Ryan) is told by a corrupt official at the WH/National Security if he (Ford) has a get-out-of-the-jail letter. Ford does not.

Hillary has the letter (from Obama). It states: I will nominate you to the SCOTUS.

kimsch said...

I don't see SCOTUS in Hillary's future. Even if she were nominated I don't think she has any chance of being confirmed.

I wonder what the price was. What did Hillary (or Bill and Hillary) get to have her throw herself under the bus?

And, as others have commented above, the buck didn't stop with her. It seems kind of weasly, the CNN paraphrase wording: Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions. They're not involved in security decisions, but that doesn't mean that neither of them weren't aware that it was actually a terrorist attack and NOT that youtube video.

Who sent Susan Rice out to lie about it? As an ambassador she'd be under State wouldn't she? Or is the Ambassador to the UN something different?

America's Politico said...

All Ambassadors report to the WH, not SoS. They are connected to State, as they are Ambassadors. But, they are nominated by the POTUS and report to him and only to him. They are courteously through SoS as they are US diplomats overseas.

The dual role of foreign service/diplomats was started by Thomas Jefferson.

Jason (the commenter) said...

1. She's made this announcement from Peru.

2. She made sure she wasn't on camera when she said it.

3. She's not resigning.

What a complete coward this woman is!

Christopher said...

Allahpundit seems to think this benefits Obama, but I disagree. I think that his theory would only be plausible if she had done this weeks ago instead of allowing them to twist in the wind.

Hagar said...

I do not know that the Secretary of State is "responsible for security." She would be responsible, perhaps, for forwarding requests for security to those who could provide it, or order that it would be provided, but I do not think that the State Department itself commands such forces as would have been required in Benghazi.

I think this is another non-responsible "I take full responsibility for ..."

Seeing Red said...

Rice reports to Obama, not Hillary.

garage mahal said...

Obama Derangement meets PUMA. So awesome. Its going to be a long four more years for some people.

kimsch said...

Thanks AP and Seeing Red.

garage mahal said...

This isn't over!!! *shaking fist*

Jason (the commenter) said...

When you remove security from an ambassador to make a country look more secure than it really is, and then that ambassador gets murdered, you killed that ambassador.

Frankns said...

FWIW - Reading the story, one thing stood out for me: First time someone in Obama's administration took responsibility for something. Yup ... and a bad choice to boot.

Quite a contrast from everyone else around the White House.

She could simply have staid silent ...

Could it be that she was told that it was her turn to be thrown under the bus? I don't think Hillary would wait for that to happen. She'd act, maybe taking the blame, before she got tarred in public. She's always been a strong personality. I think she'd rather "gut it out."

And it's not an easy hit to take. I didn't want to be, but I was impressed.

As for the pay-offs and possibilities... SCOTUS sure sounds attractive and a better bet in lots of ways than running four years from now.

Patrick said...

she insists the president and vice president are not involved in security decisions

IOW: She's not going down alone.

Does "accepting responsibility" have anything to do with accepting consequences, or does that still require honor?

Patrick said...

Why isn't it over, Garage? She took responsibility. It's only four deaths. Bumps in the road. You worry too much

tiger said...

So it's taken her a month to claim responsibility?

As they say, folks, 'the "fix" is in'.

And yes, she should resign immediately.

America's Politico said...

Why SCOTUS? Here is the answer:

- Hillary wants to have a life-time appt.
- She wants to represent all branches. SHe has two and one more is missing.
- Once she is on SCOTUS, when a democrat comes to the WH again and the CJOTUS is open, she would due in.

Hillary plays the long game. The letter is: take the fall, and you get the SCOTUS in my 2nd term (when Ruth retires).

America's Politico said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chickelit said...

garage mahal said...
This isn't over!!! *shaking fist*

Will you riot if Obama loses, garage? Will you at least wear your fisting avatar for us again to show your rage and discontent?

the wolf said...

"The buck stops here" used to suggest someone was taking responsibility and there would be consequences. This barely rises to the level of saying, "Oops, my bad." Will she at least go and fish that filmmaker out of jail now that she admits this wasn't a film review gone wrong?

alan markus said...

I don't see SCOTUS in Hillary's future. Even if she were nominated I don't think she has any chance of being confirmed.

Is there any modern day example of a former politician becoming a Supreme Court Justice? You would think there would be too much "history" to overcome in the confirmation process.

William Howard Taft became a Supreme Court Justice after having been President.

Patrick said...

Hey Garage...did you see wjo is whining about thepolls today?

garage mahal said...

@chickeli
If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful.

LilyBart said...


She needs to resign then. If our guys in Lybia were asking for security - and we had information they were in danger (like English Amb. getting attacked, like threats, like the actual government warning us a few days before) and we didn't send security - she should resign.

Sick of people saying they 'take responsibility' and then don't.

LilyBart said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
LilyBart said...

He went back to bed, why?

This has bothered me A LOT. You send a guy into an unstable country - you'rekand he is missing, and so you GO TO BED? Who does that? And this guy is likable?

TWM said...

During the debate, Romney should ask Obama why he hasn't fired her.

edutcher said...

"Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions."

So she's saying she's Co-President for foreign affairs? Isn't that like saying Zero has been sitting on his hands playing golf all this time?

(I know...)

Maybe she threw O under the bus.

Frankns said...



Nope, she's in the chain of command. She'd have to go before those hearings eventually.

Could it be that she was told that it was her turn to be thrown under the bus? I don't think Hillary would wait for that to happen. She'd act, maybe taking the blame, before she got tarred in public. She's always been a strong personality. I think she'd rather "gut it out."

No, the big rap on her in '08 was that she couldn't make a decision or choose between warring factions.

But it's possible she sees the writing on the wall and wants to salvage a little of her reputation before the roof falls in.

So better to bail now.

As for the pay-offs and possibilities... SCOTUS sure sounds attractive and a better bet in lots of ways than running four years from now.

Her running in '16 may be Willie's wet dream, but a 70 year old woman who really has nothing to show for all the hype wouldn't go very far.

And SCOTUS means getting Ginsburg or Breyer to resign before 1/20.

Don't think it's gonna happen.

Seeing Red said...

Thanks, Garage, then if Walker is "guilty" all he has to do is take responsibility and stay in office?

Well, Janet & Hillary set the bar, no whining.

TWM said...

"If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful."

Then you really are a moron.

Shouting Thomas said...

If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful.

What bullshit, garage. The media is still waiting breathlessly for those murders and assaults they assured us the Tea Party was planning.

You aren't worried about the far right at all. You're just blowing hot air.

McTriumph said...

This report came out the night before the next debate to give Obama cover at the debate. They did it with only 24 hours before so the morning liberal media news cycle can spin it. Hopefully Americans won't have time to think about the question we are asking. Hence hillary's timing, she saves the day.

Joe said...

I've grown tired of people not understanding what it means to ask for forgiveness. It doesn't simply mean saying "I'm sorry" or "I accept responsibility", but in fully and sincerely acknowledging what you did wrong and the consequences of such (all without caveats, excuses, redirection, etc..)

America's Politico said...

The plan that was debated the most was when should Hillary take the fall. Since Friday, the campaign was not sure. Then on Sun. after the morning shows, the plan was settled by David Axe. The hope was Mon. PM. That would impact Romney's debate prep. and get the press behind the WH for good.

You have to hand it to the WH: They are too damn smart.

AprilApple said...

If you ask Axelrod the question:

“What we need to know is who told Ambassador Susan Rice to go onto news shows and tell the public that the attacks were spontaneous.”

He responds by blaming Romney.

Gross.

TWM said...

I'm not sure what the upside of this is for Obama. Like I said, Romney should ask why he hasn't fired Hillary. If she screwed-up this bad there is no reason beyond politics that she should not go now. But he can't fire her because that would piss-off Bill and all her supporters. So he still looks like a weakling.

Barry is toast any way you look at it.

America's Politico said...

The plan -- ONCE AGAIN -- is that AFTER the re-election, when Ruth resigns, then Hillary will be nominated. There are going to be 3 vacancies at most. Ruth, Steven, and Tony. Ruth is the most likely scenario. I would predict by next spring. Thus, next Summer, Hillary will be in SCOTUS. This is assuming that Obama will be reelected, which I said before, he will. Why?

All women/African Americans/latinos/hispanics/Asians, etc. will vote for POTUS.

No one likes Mitt. He will self-destruct the last week of October. NYT already has a last 36-hours plan.

edutcher said...

Sorry, guys, that one para was screwed up in the HTML.

s/b

She could simply have staid silent ...

Nope, she's in the chain of command. She'd have to go before those hearings eventually.

CWJ said...

Beep beep goes the bus.

Yep just in time for the debate so that zero can deflect any Romney jab.

yashu said...

Agree with some others here, this was a smart move.

To "take responsibility" makes HC look "presidential" or (to put it less tendentiously) lends her some gravitas, or stones... in contrast to you-know-who.

Yes, too little too late. But she's the first and only person in this administration so far to take *any* blame, to acknowledge any responsibility, to address the issue without (prima facie) prevaricating or pointing the finger of blame elsewhere. (Remember that according to Stephanie Cutter this is only an "issue" because it's been "politicized" by Romney/ Ryan, as if a terrorist attack and murder of an ambassador were merely a figment of Republicans' imagination.) In fact, she's the first and only person so far to address this matter (the Benghazi terrorist attack) in itself directly, without conflation or temporizing.

It's also NB a limited responsibility: she rhetorically takes full responsibility, but her explanation qualifies the extent of her responsibility. (It's very convenient to say that you take full responsibility, when you can also say that you weren't really to blame.)

And nothing she says shields or protects Obama re the aftermath, Obama's own words and actions (or those of his surrogates) and the cover-up/ cover story/ media narrative.

And she doesn't completely exonerate Obama for what preceded the attacks, either. HC may have to take full responsibility (rhetorically) because she had to take responsibility-- because how can an empty chair (who misses more than half of his security briefings, etc.) be considered responsible?

Still, she's giving Obama/ DNC/ MSM a lot of leeway to spin, to absolve Obama if they like (looking at you, NYT). Maybe enough to give Biden cover (re "we didn't know"). But-- she's also leaving enough rope for them to hang themselves (or others to hang them).

McTriumph said...

This administration never takes responsibility for any failure, they have plenty. hillary taking blame a month after the fact to give Obama Lybian debate cover is cynical. They should have just taken the Reagan approach to Beirut all would have been forgiven.

garage mahal said...

@Seeing Red
3 of Walker's hires have been found guilty already, from things that happened 20 feet from his office. He obviously knew all about it because he told them h couldn't afford any more bad press. That's why this accountability thing is so laughable from people here.

Synova said...

The first thing that Obama did after appointing Hillary Sec. of State was to publicly countermand her staffing choices.

This is not a hands-off letting-her-do-her-job sort of action.

And no, I don't think that Obama or Biden had anything to do with security decisions, but I don't think that Hillary did either.

But Obama or Hillary are responsible for setting the tone that guides decisions at lower levels. The bits we've heard suggesting some over-all policy of keeping a low profile or "normalizing" the security in Libya are appalling, and not the doing of a lower level HR or operations director.

McTriumph said...

Garage
I'm not from Wisconsin, not familiar with the scandal. How many Americans died?

Ambrose said...

Good move. She wins points from the base by helping the Prez, and she assumes the role of the grownup in the administration.

Maguro said...

I'm not from Wisconsin, not familiar with the scandal. How many Americans died?

Dude, you have no idea how bad this scandal is, it's gobsmackingly vile. Let me just say this: There were routers involved. Secret. Routers.

Frankns said...

edutcher ... can't say I disagree. I just have the feeling Hillary's playing the cards she's dealt. Not that she doesn't deserve a bad hand.

70 is likely too old for Hillary as President ... but 66 or so isn't too old to be on the SCOTUS.

So it boils down to someone resigning ... and that's an inside game, something she does well. Or gambling on a second term?

AJ Lynch said...

Hillary falls on her sword and likes it!

Mamie said...

This Hillary move also guarantees that the Benghazi debacle will take up more news space, doesn’t it? And that can’t be good for Obama.

Also makes him look weenie-ish.

Lyle said...

She's going to sink the whole ship I think.

yashu said...

Kudlow's bafflement is understandable. "I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha" is such an ambiguous statement-- so double-edged!

On the one hand, pro-Obama Dems would want to interpret it this way: the Republicans (inappropriately) want to politicize Benghazi; I'm making this statement to prevent them from doing so.

On the other hand, the fact that HC felt she needed to make this statement, and had to take responsibility for something, means that this "issue" was/ is (contra Cutter) a real issue, not a concoction of mere electoral politics. HC's statement also implies (to my ear) that she's being a "good soldier"-- taking a fall to avoid a "gotcha" falling on Obama's head. Which may well be a deserved gotcha (for Obama)-- just one that HC (being a good soldier, loyal Dem) want to prevent. So there's an edge to that statement that cuts very much against Obama.

Cf. The NYT's response to their public editor, re why they didn't front-page Benghazi, because they didn't want to "politicize" the issue. Also double-edged: because it's such a revealing statement about how politicized, in fact, NYT coverage is-- how their goal is to protect Obama from news that might hurt him politically, before the election. But: in the case of the NYT the "reveal" is unintentional, the second edge is discerned by the astute reader; whereas in HC's case, she may have intended that second edge herself.

AJ Lynch said...

Mamie said:
"This Hillary move also guarantees that the Benghazi debacle will take up more news space, doesn’t it? And that can’t be good for Obama. "

Yeah and the MSM will dumb again because many of its readers will not know why this is a big deal since the MSM [mostly] has downplayed the Begazi story. Sorta just like they downplayed the Rev. Wright racist sernons but then had to report Obama's so-called masterful race speech.



Rustling Leaves said...

I am not a Hillary fan at all, but I do have respect for her taking responsibility. I takes a stronger person to admit a mistake than to cover it up.

furious_a said...

Mrs. Clinton better remember that the bus has two axles.

bah-BUMP!

Frankns said...

I may be eating my words ... suggest we all read the quotes up on now, especially these on Fox:

"Clinton, however, attributed the administration's shifting story to 'the confusion you get in any type of combat situation.

Remember, this was an attack that went on for hours,' Clinton said in an interview with Fox News during a trip to Peru."

For heavens sake ... if the attack went on for hours, this was a coordinated "operation," NOT the spontaneous demonstration Hillary told us it was for days.

I'm afraid they knew ... they knew early on.

furious_a said...

I do have respect for her taking responsibility.

Mrs. Clinton will have earned respect by being accountable (i.e., resigning); otherwise her statement is an empty gesture.

CWJ said...

My goodness, I can't believe that only McTriumph and I got the debate connection. If you don't recognize this as an attempt to throw Romney off his stride the evening before the debate, then I just don't know what to think.

For those who think Romney can score points off this, think again. Now that Hillary has provided him cover, Obama will be able to fob off any and all questions about Libya onto State. Duh!

If it goes well, Hillary's rehabilitation begins Tuesday morning. Think people think.

edutcher said...

Frankns said...

edutcher ... can't say I disagree. I just have the feeling Hillary's playing the cards she's dealt. Not that she doesn't deserve a bad hand.

Agree.

70 is likely too old for Hillary as President ... but 66 or so isn't too old to be on the SCOTUS.

I'd think optimum age would be very late 40s to mid 50s.

She's looking at only 10 years or so on the Court, if so. And there would be a nomination fight because she never spent a day on the bench and very little time practicing law.

Somebody talked about her taking the Presidency at Yale. Now that I could believe.

Lyle said...

She's going to sink the whole ship I think.

Never forget the old Klingon proverb.

CWJ said...

Thursday morning not Tuesday.

yashu said...

CWJ, yeah, the timing (evening before the day of the debate) is not a coincidence.

garage mahal said...

Dude, you have no idea how bad this scandal is, it's gobsmackingly vile. Let me just say this: There were routers involved. Secret. Routers.

Turns out that sometimes routers can get you felony convictions and jail time. Imagine that.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Obama and Biden knew nothing about the situation in Libya? Knew nothing about the repeated requests for additional security. So it turns out Obama Should have been attending all the daily intelligence briefings .

XRay said...

We've invested way too much on the Excutive side of the equation.

If Obama was personally responsible for Bengazi, how did FDR escape Pearl Harbour?

Washington is spinning in his grave.

CWJ said...

Obama can't defend his actions (inactions) in the debate, so his only hope was to dodge. Hillary gave him that on a silver platter.

Kelly said...

I think it is what it is. Hillary will stand by her man through thick and thin. She's crazy loyal like that as we all know. She could have brought Bill down at any time, but she chose to prop him up.

State is responsible for security, I doubt Biden and Obama were aware of the details, they aren't exactly hands on. The interesting question is who decided to lie, but this could plug the hole until after the election.

Maguro said...

If Obama was personally responsible for Bengazi, how did FDR escape Pearl Harbour?

Hmmm....did FDR go on the radio on 8 Dec and blame Pearl Harbor on a spontaneous and understable reaction to an inflammatory and "disgusting" anti-Japanese newsreel? I don't recall him ever uttering a phrase like "The future must not belong to those who slander Emperor Hirohito".

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Is Clinton also taking the blame for the Obama Administration, including President Obama, lying about what happened for 2 weeks.

wildswan said...

Read the story about the June 2012 attacks in Benghazi on the British Ambassador http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-18401792

Then ask yourself: If it wasn't the video that caused the Benghazi attacks, then was it Obama's drone assassinations? When the British Ambassador was targeted in June in Benghazi, the drone attacks were mentioned as a reason for attacking the US Benghazi consulate also at a later date. So Obama may have trying to divert attention from his own actions when he said it was the video by the Copt which angered the attackers. This is the same inability to take responsibility as Obama showed by blaming Bush for the economy for the last four years. Furthermore Hilary isn't wholly responsible for the security situation in Benghazi. When Obama read the story which said the Islamicists planned to attack the US consulate in Benghazi because of the drone attacks, he should have said: "check with Hilary, make sure everything is secure in Benghazi." But in fact a short while later security was reduced. Why did Obama ignore the potential consequences to those in Benghazi of his attacks on targets (which he personally chooses)? Maybe he missed that briefing. Perhaps he got distracted by having to do three fundraisers that day.

Steve Austin said...

Why does anyone think this will impact Hillary's chances for anything?

Heck, she tried to foist government run healthcare on us. Then she and her bouncer friend stole away 1,700 secret FBI background files on GOP politicians and left them on a dining room table in the West wing. Along with the mysterious missing Rose Law firm records.....and her Commodities Trading for Dummies book that allowed her a $100,000 no risk instant profit.

For crying out loud, the Clintons, have been bulletproof. This isn't going to affect anything.

Shouting Thomas said...

It's an interesting dodge.

We'll see how it works out.

The mainstream media certainly wants nothing to do with this story.

David said...

I would be astonished if Biden or Obama had anything to do with setting security precautions in Libya. The expectation is that those day to day decisions are made elsewhere.

However the buck does stop in the White House. Except this White House. And the White House should be leading an energetic review of security policies, which they are not.

Finally, there's the little matter of the lying about the underlying causes and nature of the attack. That was all White House. And it was designed to deflect blame from the administration generally and Obama particularly for misestimating (misrepresenting?) the situation in the Middle East.




Phil 3:14 said...

Smart move. She looks "presidential."

Sorry, not seeing it.

Lisaocean86 said...

The under carriage of that bus must be getting awfully
crowded at the Big White.

madAsHell said...

Wow! She swallows?!?!

I never would have guessed.

I fail to see how this turns out well for her.

Big Mike said...

“I’m not sure what that means,” said an absolutely baffled Larry Kudlow.

I think it means the Chicago crowd has something on her or her husband or, I hope not, her daughter. Something really big.

But it certainly true that responsibility for embassy security rests with the State Department.

edutcher said...

I think Big Mike has it.

They've got something on her that would blow the Clinton crowd out of the water.

deborah said...

From the link:

""In the wake of an attack like this, in the fog of war, there's always going to be confusion," Clinton said. "And I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence. Everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had. As time has gone on, that information has changed. We've gotten more detail, but that's not surprising. That always happens.""

She doubled down on the lying.

traditionalguy said...

Hillary just said she is Presidential and Obama is not.

"The Buck Stops Here" is a presidential identifier. Bill Clinton sent that messsage.

gadfly said...

Of course there is also the apology-for-the-video video. Somebody filmed it, edited it and distributed it to Pakistan and other places.

Hillary lied and State Dept People died? Since the Dept of State witnessed the attack live, who didn't launch jets during the hours of the attack? I don't think Hillary can make that decision, one way or another, without going through the military.

Tim said...

Of course she did, lol.

Another One Thrown Under the Bus.

Tim said...

chickelit said...

"Won't this cost him the persuadable Hillary supporters?"

Until proven otherwise, I am skeptical there is such a thing as a "persuadable" Obama voter.

Those who voted for him once, will vote for him again.

Doubling down on failure.

That's what stupid people do.

History's examples are infinite.

I desperately hope I'm wrong though.

AllenS said...

I know for a fact that Biden didn't have anything to do with security. Who in their right mind would put him in charge of anything. I think that Hillary knew that when the hearings in Congress started, the facts would come out, so better to acknowledge responsibility now, then wait until Congress discovered it. Ted Kennedy killed a woman and her unborn child, and it had no effect on Democrat voters. So she's got that going for her.

creeley23 said...

Some big backroom deal went down. We may never know what.

However, as Kudlow notes, it doesn't answer the question of how the video became the explanation du jour which was served for another couple of weeks.

The fact that Clinton made this deal proves the story was big and couldn't be contained. Whether her declaration will manage to contain the story is another question.

It offers some protection for tomorrow's debate, but Obama remains vulnerable to sustained questioning.

No, this is not over. It will be like Watergate in that there will be layers of stonewalling and coverup to be pierced.

Mark said...

Eh, she's taking blame for the original screw up but not the ensuing cover up.

Exactly. She's acting the part of The Adult In The Room.

Will this hurt her in '16? Maybe. As others have pointed out, the policy to make everything look calm and copacetic in the ME may have come from Obama's perpetual campaign, and there's lots of time to spin that story, true or not.

And Susan Rice? Again, she's bus-bait from either side of this particular turf war. Probably both.

People who want to see Hillary falling on her sword for their beloved Obama will see it that way.

People who want her to resign and make this All Go Away will be disappointed. (But they ain't voting Republican in '16 so hey; let's just get through the primaries next time m'kay?)

If Obama turns up the heat and forces her to resign, that helps Romney because it makes the current Administration look like the Lord of the Flies.

And someone pointed out the statement came while she was in Peru. First rule: Safety First!

exiledonmainst said...

"For crying out loud, the Clintons, have been bulletproof"

They weren't in '08. Even though Hillary once dodged sniper fire in Bosnia - remember that?

Mark said...

Woodward's cell phone must be melting down about now.

Mark said...

Ooooh, and how does Obama answer Romney's question tommorow night?

"Will you ask Mrs. Clinton to resign? And could you elaborate on your answer?"

Valentine Smith said...

That Clinton woman stated a simple unavoidable fact—Dept of State is responsible for security. She had no choice.

This seems more like taking the advice of lawyers than a noble "falling on her sword."

Left unsaid: All remaining questions should be directed to the White House.

Darrell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell said...

The White House has you talking about this instead of the litany of insane acts and policy in place that have come out since the attack.

1) Hiring a terrorist faction of the Muslim Brotherhood of Libya to provide ultimate security. They weren't even the most powerful group in the area--when Al Qaeda told them to roll over, they began spinning like tumbleweeds.

2) We gave weapons to Al Qaeda directly, by mistake. That's why the ambassador was in Benghazi to begin with--meeting with the Turkish ambassador to use some sort of leverage to get them back.

3) We let Al Qaeda get their hands on some of the sophisticated toys that Gaddafi got from the Europeans when he was bestest buddies with them--when he was butting heads with the US. There was no way to secure everything when Gaddafi fell. This is different from the advanced weapons we allowed the various factions of the MB to take.

4) Hiring a British firm to supply local guards for show that were allowed to carry weapons, but NO bullets--as per the direction of the State Dept. The WaPo spun the story about the $300K cost of that program--the story was already out for two weeks that there was another $700K contract extension. No real security firm would take that contract under those terms.

5) The entire attack was watched in real time by people at the State Department and presumably intelligence services in Wash. DC. There is no way the White House wouldn't have known about that, much less seen the tapes.

6) There are many more points in between, but at the end of last week, the fucking Dem trash tried to spin that Republicans were outing secret CIA operations. 1) The CIA base was already attacked by Al Qaeda--they would surely notice if staff came back. 2) The State Dept. woman being questioned brought the satellite photos of the embassy and the secret base and had them on camera--after being warned not to do so by the Committee. 3) Democrats on the Committee repeated asked direct specific questions about the CIA base over numerous objections by the Republicans over revealing classified information. The little smug fuckers we have in this government agencies (not to mention Dem politicians) would rather give spin material to Lefty Blogs than preserve our national security. Under Bush, the agencies would have done the right thing and only the Dem politicians would be revealing secrets--like they did with our stealth satellite program.

wholelottasplainin' said...

This is pretty simple:

If Baraka wins, Hillary's old campaign debts will miraculously be paid by an anonymous Angel. Or maybe she gets that SCOTUS nomination.

If he loses, he will renege on his promise to her, whatever it is, and dare her to resign in disgrace and then blame HIM for reneging on a dirty deal.

Mamie said...

traditionalguy said:

Hillary just said she is Presidential and Obama is not.

"The Buck Stops Here" is a presidential identifier. Bill Clinton sent that message.


Yes.

Don’t know if I agree it makes Hillary look presidential, but it certainly makes Obama look un-presidential. And cowardly.

Ignacio said...

Someone asked earlier about politicians getting on the Supreme Court. Earl Warren, who had been governor of California during WW2 when Japanese-Americans were interned.

That's Earl Warren of the Warren Commission.

Kirk Parker said...

Garage,

" I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful. "

And so you complete your descent. Beyond despicable...

furious_a said...

Drudge top story

Foisting blame on female subordinate not going to make this bad news any better (O leading only 49-48 among likely lady voters in 12 swing states below before this news):

Now, the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows Romney leading Obama 50%-46% among likely voters in the swing states. Men who are likely voters back him 52%-44%. The states are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Alex said...

Wow Hillary would make a good Japanese, doing that harikiri shit.

John Galt said...


Hillary can afford to loan Barry her skirt to hide behind, since it's been obvious for a long time that, on national security issues, she wears the pants in this administration anyway.

McTriumph said...

Great analysis over at Data Tech Guy.

http://datechguyblog.com/2012/10/16/hilary-makes-the-smartest-political-move-of-this-cycle/

America's Politico said...

As I said first here. This deal (letter) is to get Hillary what she wants; life-time appt in the govt., another branch, etc.

She will get SCOTUS.

The plus is that this makes Obama look less presidential. He is a shrinking leader.

BUT, BUT, what does this tell about the press.

After Obama-Biden found about the Libya deaths, he went to LAS VEGAS. He did View, etc.

BUT, BUT, POTUS has no WH Press Conference on the Libyan Crisis.

What leader would not do that? Mitt Romney.

This is what Romney should bring up.

Mr. POTUS, you failed to demonstrate your solemn oath by not addressing what happened in Libya. You were more concerned about your re-election. I promise to American people here. I will not spend a single day working towards re-election. I will only serve one term and dedicate myself to solving all problems.

Cedarford said...

Maguro -

But the decision to lie and try to pin the whole thing on the Copt and his Youtube video (which you lapped up, BTW) was certainly above Hillary's pay grade.

So, it is not over yet. Or at least it shouldn't be.


============

In some ways the right is as bad as the Left in trying to craft a Narrative that avoids core truths.

1. The Libyan terrorist attack at Benghazi was a separate event from the 11 embassies attacked and in some cases overrun or nearly breached due to the video smearing the Prophet.

2. The Left deceives itself conflating the separate events because their "Narrative" is that Black Messiah, by killing the Man Behind All Terror, Mr Big himself - ended a global radical Islamist revival.
And that was sabotaged by a loathsome scumbag who made a defamatory movie.

3. The Right also conflates the two. And then claims that since the Benghazi attack had nothing to do with the video, the other 11 embassy stormings traced to reaction to the video are of no consequence. "Because no one besides the 4 Benghazi Heroes died."
The Right, fixating on the 4 deaths, then makes it into a security fetish.."If only the Ambassador had a small Marine detachment - why he'd be alive today!!"

Truths:

** The Obamites lied about the Benghazi attack from the start.

** The Left ignores the Islamoids acting like gibbering rabid animals again - to blame America 1st.

**The Right continues the idiot idea that everyone is perfectly safe from enemy attack if only The Heroes are there to have zero tolerance of dead Americans happening....Ignoring that the Islamoids are intelligent, thinking enemy that have killed off whole SEAL squads, inflicted 45,000 casualties on the Heroes themselves.
This is war, and no one is perfectly safe and when Americans die - it doesn't point to some colossal political failure within American leadership.

**The Right tries making this a 1st Amendment issue. Ignoring the Copt scumbag gave ammunition to the enemy. All while the Right Wing has no curiosity whatsoever about who the financial backers are. The shady people behind the shady felon , the scumbag that wanted to provoke attacks on Americans.

**Some idiots on the Right want to go off on tangents - Security "lapses" that would if properly in place would magically save all American lives from enemy attack - Zero Tolerance of any casualties.
How the only major parole violator in America the Right doesn't want thrown in jail for violating parole - is a Freedom Lover and Hero and political prisoner.


Cedarford said...

Add that the biggest problem of the Right in exploiting this abysmal Obama Administration failure on terrorism is neglecting the coverup to engage in "would have, should have " tweaks to get 'perfect security!!'

And failing to examine the coverup/ And tie the coverup to other incidents like the Ft Hood massacre where the Obamites went to extraordinary lengths to deny an instance of Muslim terrorism.


A. Maybe if there were more 'armed heroes' in Benghazi, the Ambassador might not have gotten whacked in an organized attack by 60 well armed terrorists armed with RPGs, heavy mortars, anti-air batteries in place, inside information.
Maybe not. Maybe even more would have died since the enemy Al Qaeda could have found another 40-50 people to join in the attack to compensate for a heavier security presence.
These guys attack US bases and die in droves against dozens, hundreds of heavily armed US soldiers with US air and artillery cover.

The main point is the attack is over and done and the real problem the Obamites have is not "proper staffing" but lying about a terrorist attack.

Pat Buchanan, as many did, looked at the timeline and facts and concluded there was absolutely no way that Obama, Hillary, and Susan Rice were not aware that it was a terrorist attack in Benghazi and elsewhere except in Benghazi - a mob protest against a loathsome video.
All 3 appeared to be silent on this as they pushed the attack on Romney for being "intemperate" in saying the US shouldn't apologize for overrun embassies and a dead Ambassador.

Buchanan

Sept 11 - State Dept security watched the attack in realtime. And knew no protests proceeded that, and briefed DOD and the White House on events there, Egypt, Tunisia based on what State knew from their intel, video, reports of State Dept people on the scene.

Sept 11th - Efforts to contact Obama at 3-4Am were apparantly turned down. Obama flies off to a Vegas fundraiser and to meet Beyonce`.

Sept 12 - All the people Buchanan contacted in the intel community stated it was clear 24 hours later it was a terrorist attack, a well planned one. Sept 12 they also identified Al Qaeda members involved in the attack.

Sept 12th the attacks on Romney and the video began, hard with the White House cranking out the Spokesman Jay Carney and dispatching a half dozen talking heads from the campaign. None mentioned the info they had about the nature of Benghazi events.

Sept 13-16 - Drumbeat of blame on the video kept up while the effort to castigate Romney abated a bit after the media firestorm about Romney's "Latest Great Blunder"

Sept 16th - Susan Rice trotted out to explain there was no terror attack, only a spontaneous mob reaction to the video.

Sept 25 - Two weeks after the attack, Obama makes a speech at the UN that while conceeding it was terrorism, focuses still on the video, denouncing it 6 times.

AllenS said...

"...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." -- Hillary Clinton

[Emphasis added]

In other words, she's saying that it wasn't her, but unnamed others. What are the names of those people wo weighed the threats? You'll never know.

"I want to avoid some kind of political gotcha," -- Hillary Clinton

Translation: Nothing says avoidance like "we don't know who did it."

Paul Zrimsek said...

Garage, I think when you're trying to distract people from a federal scandal, the squirrel also needs to be federal.

McTriumph said...

Alan S
Security officials analysis and make recommendations, executives at the top make the final decisions.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
@chickeli
If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful.



Hmmm. Yet traditionally it's been whining dumbshits like you.
Since Obama isn't going to win can we count on you to keep your friends in line?
The last thing I want to do is stand on the the factory roof with a shotgun while you idiots rampage through the neighborhood.

AllenS said...

Rusty, would it be possible for you to use quotes or italics when you are quoting someone? I can't tell when you are speaking or others.

AllenS said...

McTriumph, let me quote Hillary once again and move my emphasis added.

"...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." -- Hillary Clinton

[Emphasis added]

Now can you see what she did? She's not admitting that she ultimately made the decision to listen to the request for more security, but unnamed others who made that decision.

Lem said...

Lem said...
"At the Obama WH the buck stops at State."

10/12/12 12:21 PM

This is old news.

AllenS said...

Let me once more move the emphasis added.

"...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." -- Hillary Clinton

[Emphasis added]

Lem said...

Oh yea..

Obama is not the decider...

That was Bush.

Matthew Sablan said...

Man, remember on Sept. 12 when we were told that no one could be at fault since this was a totally unplanned for "black swan" type event? Man, what plummeting in the polls does for that.

McTriumph said...

Allen S
Then I should be Sec. of State, I need the money, could be just as incompetent as hillary, take responsibility for failures, but blame others.

Jay said...

"I’m not sure what that means,” "

It doesn't mean anything.

Which of course is the whole point.

Matthew Sablan said...

"If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful."

-- If that were the case, why don't we give the same deference some wanted to give the phantom, non-existent Libyan protesters? I mean, if you -really- think the far right will start murdering people at the drop of the hat, maybe you should try and get people to stop insulting them with homophobic slurs and two-minute hates?

AllenS said...

Yeah, McTriumph, it's nice work if you can get it.

Even if and when there are Congressional hearings, Hillary will say the same thing, "I take responsibility for things that others, who I don't know their names did."

Scott M said...

"If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful."

Because there were just soooo many riots, injuries, and damaged property in 2008, right? I mean, you're basing this on something resembling evidence, right?

I wonder if you're worried about the reverse. If Romney wins and the inner cities pop, as some in the black community are promising, I suppose you would chalk it up to understandable outpourings of frustration, not "riots", "looting", and "arson".

X said...

If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful.

but you're never truthful low level government employee.

Patrick said...

Modified Limited Hangout.

AllenS said...

Besides the four killed and the families that loved them, the biggest loser still happens to be the filmmaker who sits in jail, and will probably never see the light of day. This fucked up administration were the ones who pushed the let's go get him button. They aren't about to admit he had nothing to do with it. Nobody has ever put out the actual probation papers that he reputably violated. Does he have a lawyer? What is his lawyer doing? Mums the word. Isn't anyone curious?

Patrick said...

"If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful."

Maybe that's why Valerie Jarrett has more security than the consulate at Benghazi.

rhhardin said...

It's Obama's delusional Middle East narrative that it was supporting.

Curious George said...

This gambit will fail. As Allen S has pointed out, Hildabeast has taken responsibility for nothing. It changes nothing in regard to all this "it was the video" crap. Zero. That is the anchor they have all tied their fate to. This is just another attempt to run "four corners" and run out the clock.

Romney should attack Obama on this. Sure he can say "talk to State" but that will make him look like the empty suit he is. That's what pushing the polls now. People see Obama as having no answers.

And the intelligence community will push back on all this "failure of the intelligence community" and it "was the video" crap.

Seeing Red said...

--. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision." -- Hillary Clinton--

6 hour fight, 1 hour drone coverage and he went back to bed.

AprilApple said...

Susan Rice is now out saying she only repeated what intel told her.

She is lying.


Susan Rice only repeated what Axelrod and the White House decided would be the best way to deflect the truth.

AprilApple said...

So Susan Rice - who were these intell people who told you to lie?

I've read reports that stated the intell community did not stand by the "it was the video" scapegoat.

deborah said...

She did this from Peru...did she act alone? In response to Bden accidentally implicating her?

She gets to look adult. She gives Obama temporary cover. I don't think she would count on any kind of political deal. She saw what happened to Caroline Kennedy (I think there was a quid pro quo for the Kennedy endorsement). Maybe it was calculated to activate the PUMAs...and other women.

furious_a said...

"If Obama wins there's no telling what the far right will blow up. I'm more worried about that than an Islamist attack to be truthful."

...like one of my in-laws whose biggest concern after 1st 9-11 was mosques being put to the torch vs. follow-on attacks by aQ.

But I understand, accustomed as Garage is to violence from his own side, projection is only natural.

furious_a said...

See the McCain/Graham/Ayotte letter -- Hillary falls on her sword, thereby impaling Obama and Biden.

gerry said...

KansasCity is dead on.

Strelnikov said...

It's good to have it confirmed that Obama/Biden are totally out of touch.

Strelnikov said...

If she is really responsible she should resign, not merely stand piously taking credit for it. I'm reminded of David Frye's imitation of Nixon: "I accept all of the responsibility...but none of the blame." Is she's responsible for this unprecedented fuck up, she should take it like a man and go.

Sigivald said...

Clinton insisted President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden are not involved in security decisions.

I believe that. I'd be shocked if they were involved in such decisions at the level of any specific embassy.

It's not their damned job to be involved in that.

(That said, like the original post said, that minor fact is irrelevant to the issue of the conflicting and stupid stories coming from the White House as to the "cause" of the attacks.

That's what any scandal here is about, and this doesn't address that in the slightest.)