Hillary Clinton: “I Take Responsibility” For What Happened In Benghazi
Falling on the sword?
A frank, and I must say surprising, statement from the U.S. Secretary Of State:
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.
The attack killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans at the consulate.
(…)
Clinton also sought to downplay the criticism that administration officials continued to say the attack was a spontaneous product of a protest over an anti-Muslim film, a theory that has since been discarded.
In the wake of an attack, there is always “confusion,” Clinton said. But the information has since changed, Clinton said in the interview.
The secretary of state also described the desperate scene in the State Department during the hours of the attack on the night of September 10. It was an “intense, long ordeal” as staff tried to find out what had happened.
Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again – but also that diplomacy, even in dangerous areas like Benghazi, is not stopped.
“We can’t not engage,” she said. “We cannot retreat.”
I’ll update this post as the story develops, but this is a rather interesting political development. Clinton taking responsibility for the security failures in Benghazi arguably clears the President and the White House in the controversy that has developed surrounding the reaction of the Administration to the attack. Although, of course, the President is always ultimately responsible for what his Administration does regardless of who makes the decision. It’s interest to the extent that Secretary Clinton has essentially agreed to take the sword for whatever the fallout from the Benghazi may end up being. She may not care about that so much given that she’s already said that she does not intend to stay at Foggy Bottom if there is a second Obama term, of course, but it still strikes me as a somewhat extraordinary event to see a Secretary of State take the fire so publicly for what could be a serious political problem for the President, especially considering that the President in question is a former political rival. Finally, perhaps this indicates that Secretary Clinton really means what she said when she said so many times over the past year and a half or so that she had no intention of ever running for office ever again.
Update: The interview itself has not been posted yet, but here’s Erin Burnett talking to the CNN reporter who interviewed Secretary Clinton:
Update #2: Here’s the interview itself:
She’s taking one for the team.
I am so disappointed in her. She chose THE party over honesty and integrity. I will never vote for her for anything she does. She is dishonest and untrustworthy. Just a real sh*tty example for her daughter. And I am ashamed of her.
If she really took responsibility, she would resign.
@Sharon:
You must be disappointed in a lot of people then.
Tell me, what would the course of honesty and integrity on her part been?
I would like critics to take a moment to talk about how much focus they think top officials should have on low level security concerns. Would they want a President Romney to sit through a daily briefing on manpower for each ambassador’s movement?
Sure, in a trivial sense the buck always stops at the top, but no leader can run a one man, or woman, organization.
It is election season silliness to fault the top for a low level decision that just happened to go wrong because the enemy was there and not in one of the other places you were watching that day.
There were thousands of people out watching thousands of places on 9/11.
(Clinton is doing the right thing for her people, but you should have sympathy for those mid-level planners. They did not act with malice. They did not anyone to get hurt. They allocated resources the best they could.)
@Sharon: Yes, taking responsibility for what happens in your department on your watch is the epitome of disonesty and lack of integrity.
Do they give you Republicans a reverse dictionary or something?
@john personna:
That pretty much sums this up, much ado about nothing. I still don’t understand what the Administration is supposed to have done wrong here. Unless we’re faulting them for not having an actual Battalion guarding every ambassador, there’s an understood level of risk. And even if some of their initial statements weren’t exactly right, how does that matter? Did they invade
Iraqan unrelated country? Are they still pushing nonsense or did they accept the new information as it came in? (Unlike the GOP and Iraq/Al-Qaeda/WMD)By the way, all the Iraq war supporters can pretty much go DIAF before I’ll take their concern over this or any other other foreign policy issue seriously.
Expect screaming from the PUMAs.
John is right. If this were a Republican administration I’d say the same thing. In fact I did: I never bought the attacks on George W. Bush for somehow “letting” 9-11 happen. It’s absurd and damaging to create some kind of Zero Defects mentality — these are humans and humans err. If it becomes a pattern then you have an issue, but this?
Mitt Romney has behaved like the a-hole he is on this, attempting to capitalize on the deaths of four Americans, and applying a standard that neither he nor any other person can meet. Mitt Romney has never had a life in his hands, never sent a man into harm’s way, never dealt with the consequences of failure, never taken a real risk except with other people’s money. He’s an entitled, silver-spoon predator capitalist who destroys other people’s jobs while lining his pockets. I have no patience with him or for anyone else who for political advantage pretends to be gifted with infallibility.
If you try to eliminate all error you also eliminate necessary risk-taking and the kinds of close judgments that are required.
Let us not forget that 50 years ago at this time, this country stood face to face with the Soviet Union concerning their illegal placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba aimed directly at the US.
Our leaders at that time, John Kennedy, Dean Rusk, Robert McNamara, and others stood firm and the Soviet Union backed down. We had come within a heart beat of a total nuclear exchange; all it would have taken would have been miscommunication or misjudgment. Adlai Stevenson went to the UN and boldly told the Soviets in clear language that the US would not retreat. This is the type of leadership that is sorely lacking in Washington today.
@Clanton:
Do you know how many Americans were quietly killed by the Soviets in those years?
I am on my phone but I believe there were about 100 airmen lost on classified flights. As Michael says, there are risks. It is totally unrealistic to expect perfection in the face of risk.
Freeway drivers face risks, and die every day.
Hmm…and to think that some people like JKB were telling us just before the weekend started that there would be some kind of hellacious brawl between the Clintons and the President over this issue…how disappointed and sad these delusional people must now be…
@john personna: well i guess the buck stops with her then! it’s not what happened- it’s the denial about what happened and what caused it plus the finger pointing afterwards. really, a US embassy attacked on 9/11 in a muslim country and it’s all about a bad home movie!? who did they think would believe that, aside from the true believers and most of the mainstream media?!
@An Interested Party:
I did not expect Clinton to fall on her sword or to give up without a nasty fight. The internals for Obama and the Dems must be horrendous.
The US embassy in Libya is in Tripoli. The facility in Benghazi was the consulate, a much different type of facility.
The Republicans and the conservative echo chamber are accusing the Obama administration of a cover up. I can’t believe that the Obama administration is that stupid – there was simply no way they could cover it up until the election. Now I will admit they didn’t exactly tell the truth but are there reasons they would do this. Was the “cover up” directed at forces outside of the United States? We now know that many if not most of the occupants of the Benghazi compound were CIA agents – was there and attempt to conceal that? Did they have some leads as to who was responsible and they wanted some time to follow up on those before it became publicly known that we knew what happened? There was more going on here than we know.
So why is Hillary taking the hit? There is still a lot going on that we and the Republican hacks like Issa don’t know about.
@bill:
And so they initially said something that turned out to be wrong? So what? How does that actually matter?
@Sharon: Did Tsar have a sex change?
Abusive comment in violation of site policies deleted. – JJ
Well certainly that’s what you and your fellow travelers are hoping for…
She could resign and it wouldn’t shut up the Republican witch-hunters.
The hypocrisy is awe-inspiring.
As others have pointed out, the men who died accepted the risks of going into a dangerous place while serving their country. Ambassador Stevens father is on the record saying it would be “abhorrent” to turn the tragedy into a campaign issue.
Well, that did not stop Mitt Romney. But there is one thing we can be pretty sure of – no child of his will every go into harm’s way to serve his country.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/14/father_of_slain_ambassador_dont_exploit_my_sons_death/
Were you calling for Rice to resign after 9.11?
Hillary taking the hit for the WH is rather heroic. Why she did it, who knows. But, she is definitely being a good soldier, a loyal partisan in a political party, especially when their team is involved in the high stakes game of reelecting their man to the position of POTUS. It’s gotten to be an all or nothing stage in the political cycle, with only 3 weeks to go. Obama thought he had it wrapped up, as did most here. But, voters suddenly changed their opinion about both candidates, along with the odds, after that first debate. Now, anything goes, and that includes the likes of Hillary Clinton.
Whew! Hard-ball tactics!
@ Jan
You have been milking the death of Ambassador Stevens for all it is worth – any regrets about that after seeing that his father does not want this tragedy to be exploited for political gain?
@michael reynolds:
Mitt Romney has never had a life in his hands, never sent a man into harm’s way, never dealt with the consequences of failure, never taken a real risk except with other people’s money. He’s an entitled, silver-spoon predator capitalist who destroys other people’s jobs while lining his pockets.
You do like to make things up as you go along.
From various cameos in Romney’s life he has been very involved with helping others, being with people who were dying, almost dying himself in a an accident while he was a missionary in France.
BTW, what life has Obama held in his hands? Where has he unselfishly helped people, or taken a real risk with his own money, other than government or grant money? I’ve not heard one story about that man indicating real empathy or sacrifice for another human being. Obama has sent soldiers into harm’s way. But, even the most recent saga of the Benghazi deaths, he was said to have turned away from a mother, after she started to cry.
@anjin-san:
You have been milking the death of Ambassador Stevens for all it is worth – any regrets about that after seeing that his father does not want this tragedy to be exploited for political gain?
The father said he did not want his son’s death politicized. This does not mean that no questions should be asked, or blame should be deferred (until after the election) as to who failed those who died in Benghaz, or what administration mis-cues were involved in this tragedy..
BTW, although Romney did come out with an immediate statement about the violence in the ME, he has not politicized it at rallies.
Umm, I guess you don’t realize that you in no way refuted Michael’s argument.
As for your points about Romney – so what? I’ve spent a lot of time and money helping others, given morphine to the dying, and gone through a windshield. I don’t think any of that makes me particularly special, and it does not make Mitt Romney particularly special.
@ Jan….
Thanks for proving my point.
You mean aside from passing up a slam-dunk six figure salary as an attorney to help poor people as a community organizer? [Abusive comment deleted. -JJ]
If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.
@anjin-san:
…and you are too caught up in class warfare as a slam dunk retort to everything.
BTW, if you think giving up a job to do public service is a noteworthy character trait (like you inferred it to be for Obama), then I guess you have to give Romney credit, because he has been criticized for leaving the private sector to do public service at a time when he could have become a billionaire (like Gates & Buffett), rather than simply having millions.
Again, where has Obama done any good, on his own, in the world — even helping a friend out?
The Anneberg Challenge, his major administrative challenge, prior to the presidency, had a mediocre outcome. I really have not heard anything exceptional about the guy except for his soaring speeches, and ability to be promoted rapidly within the political ranks, with the help of others.
@PD Shaw:
There’s an analogy in there, somewhere, isn’t there.
Jan:
You’re missing the point. Someday (I hope not, but maybe) Mitt Romney will have to make those big, terrible decisions we ask presidents of all parties to make. But he has not yet.
His relationship to Mr. Obama is like my relationship with my father. One of us went to war and it wasn’t me. It’s not about whether I’m a nice guy or give money to charity, it’s that I have not been the man in the crosshairs and he has, so that buys some deference from me. My dad tells the story of shooting a VC infiltrator boarding his boat on a dark night on the river. Except that it may just have been a kid looking to steal something to sell.
I wasn’t the guy on that boat, so you know what I don’t do? I don’t jump up out of my seat to tell my dad he did something wrong. And then try to profit personally.
That’s what Romney did. He jumped into the middle of something he didn’t understand, to attack — for political profit — the people who were in the line of fire and making the life and death decisions. Because he thought it would hurt Obama and gain some votes. He did it for power. He did it for his own narrow interest. He didn’t wait until we knew the facts and ask questions about policy, or calmly suggest we should look at security.
He opened his fwcking mouth while the crisis was still under way, to try to capitalize on tragedy. This pampered little rich boy who has lived his charmed rich boy life and who chose to make a living screwing people out of their jobs to line his pockets, smirked his way through a press conference before we even knew what the hell was going on, and while the President and Sec State were still trying to handle the emergency.
That’s your candidate.
@Septimius:
Exactly. Just like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice and the rest of the Bush team did after the Iraq Wa…oh, never mind.
Back in 2008, Hillary Clinton had a different road map for a ‘buck’s’ destination: Hillary Clinton: the buck stops at the Oval Office. I guess when that office is held by a man name Obama, accountability changes.
Strong words, but they don’t seem to apply to the current prez — his game plan is ‘blame the other guy for everything.’
@jan:
Benghazi. Does. Not. Matter.
While it is unfortunate that a consulate in Libya was attacked, in the scheme of things it is of no importance, and there is no reason to think the level of security set by the State Department was not appropriate. One would like to think ambulance chasers seeking to take advantage of the situation like Romney would be ridiculed and shunned, but there seem to be plenty of people on the right cheering at the chance to use the Ambassador’s death to score political points.
If embassy security is so important, why was the GOP cutting funding below what the Administration asked for this year and next? If the Administration wanted more funding and the GOP wanted less, isn’t this an acceptable outcome for Republicans?
@michael reynolds:
That’s what Romney did. He jumped into the middle of something he didn’t understand, to attack — for political profit — the people who were in the line of fire and making the life and death decisions. Because he thought it would hurt Obama and gain some votes.
That’s how Romney’s remarks have been parsed, especially by the MSM and Obama’s people.
Nonetheless, Romeny is running for president. These issues may very well be on his plate, should he win the office. Had he said nothing, he would have been depicted as a whimp and/or too disengaged. As it was he came out, bluntly offering his critical opinion. Personally, I think he could have handled it more adroitly, and still have delivered a message punctuated with appropriate anger over this violent act.
However, whatever mistakes were made in those immediate comments have been politicized more, and exploited more, by Obama than the other way around. Romney’s outrage filled the void where Obama seemed to be MIA and inappropriately going off to a fund raiser.
For something like 3-4 days the press was non-stop punishing Romney for his remarks, leaving Obama’s part in it, and what happened in Libya, almost out of the news loop. To me, there seems to be more of an assault on Romney and the truth of what happened over there, and less on the leadership which we entrust people’s lives and future in.
And, no matter how agrieved you sound here, I think other people are beginning to question the Oval Office more in this matter, forgetting about the mountain that was made out of Romney’s initial remarks — which ended up being more on target than Obama’s.
@jan:
Your party left the mess.
Two unfunded, mismanaged wars. When have you taken responsibility?
A huge tax cut that did not pay for itself, and did not create jobs. Have you taken responsibility for that, Jan? Has your party?
Out of curiosity, have you ever even typed the words George W. Bush? Ever? You may recall that he was president back when this shit-stormed started and the bottom fell out of everything.
I just want to see: can you type the word “Bush?” B-U-S-H. Do you have those keys on your laptop?
You’re an epic hypocrite. Republicans take responsibility for nothing, they just whine, lie, and pause occasionally to race-bait.
@David M:
If embassy security is so important, why was the GOP cutting funding below what the Administration asked for this year and next? If the Administration wanted more funding and the GOP wanted less, isn’t this an acceptable outcome for Republicans?
The matter of funding was already brought up at hearings on Benghazi, and were said to not have had anything to do with the security that was lacking. The security problems were a matter of WH oversight, numerous rejection of security request,s including waivers granted by someone in the administration allowing the actual structure of the building to be below standards normally demanded, especially in high risk areas such as Libya was considered to be. So, you can’t go there to do the blame game.
You may be right that this will not matter. Obama is good at running out the clock. So, maybe he will be able to do that in this instance, with help from his friends like you guys.
@jan:
Lie. His own party elders had the sense to keep their mouths shut and no one attacked them. McCain kept quiet, so did McConnell, so did Boehner. They waited until they had the facts and then spoke up. Even the absurd Mr. Ryan had sense enough to shut up.
Not your boy. No, there was personal advantage to grabbed, so off popped Mr. Romney. Because that’s what presidents do, right? Attack fellow American before they have even the slightest grip on the facts? Attack fellow Americans for personal gain, for power?
Then again, why not, right? A man who will hide his money in offshore banks, outsource American jobs for profit, lie constantly, refuse to show his tax returns, invest in China while trash-talking China and shift positions faster than a gerbil on crack will have no problem attacking fellow Americans before the bodies of our fallen have cooled to room temperature.
Let me ask you, Jan: are you part of the 47%? I wonder: do you pay income tax, or are you part of the leech class that refuses to take responsibility for their lives?
@jan :
The security requests were not for Benghazi.
The waivers were made with the decision that it was worth having a temporary facility in Benghazi, instead of no facility at all.
I think a young guy with little or no money passing on a lucrative career to help people less able then himself is very admirable. Do you really equate that with a man with 100 million in his IRA giving up his job? Well, as we have seen so often, the urge for conservatives to grovel before wealth is overwhelming…
Well, Obama’s devotion to his family is the stuff of legend, you would think someone who supports the “family values” party would appreciate that. But we know that intellectual honesty, or any other kind of honesty is not something you bring to the table.
Even Republicans got on him for those remarks – he was that far over the line.
@michael reynolds:
Your party left the mess.
That lament just doesn’t cut it anymore, Michael. It’s old and pathetic.
Obama wanted to be president. It’s not an easy job, though, for anyone. And, there are unanticipated surprises and heavy burdens that come into play.
For GWB, it was a tumultuous post election time, the end of a revenue-rich dot com boom, and then 911 and all the ensuing problems associated with that explosion into the national psyche.
Earlier, Reagan had huge financial problems he stepped into once he took office.
When Obama came on the scene, TARP had been passed, the first bail-out check for GM had been given over, agreements had already been made with Melaki for an eventual withdrawal from Iraq, intel was underway in locating OBL, a virus was underway (stuxnet) to interrupt Iran nuclear capability. By the time June 2009 rolled around, less than a half a year of Obama being in office, the recession officially ended.
That was over 3 years ago!
And, what happened under Obama’s watch, since then, were a lot of failed policies that didn’t jumpstart this economy. For instance, Obama has been criticized from all sides, that he should have concentrated more on jobs rather than healthcare. It was a matter of poor prioritization and leadership. And, that continues to be his style…..
@jan:
Apparently you’ve forgotten how low Romney was willing to go:
I’m going to go out on a limb and call your other statement that Obama has politicized this more than Romney false as well, simply because it’s pretty much impossible to top this. I still wonder how anyone defends Romney’s character after that.
@jan:
The stimulus was the first thing passed, then health care was addressed, so that makes no sense. And the GOP were the ones to filibuster the jobs bill last year, that independent economists estimated would add 2 million jobs.
@jan:
We’ve added private sector jobs consistently since Mr. Bush’s recession.
And we added health care reform, so if you get sick and lose your job you still get medical care.
And the stock market has completely recovered.
And Mr. Obama’s deficits are lower than the 2009 deficit he inherited.
While cutting middle class taxes.
Home values are coming back up.
And the US economy is in far better shape than other developed economies. Remember when you conservatives were talking about how great things were in Ireland, the “Celtic Tiger” because they cut corporate taxes? Yeah, go take a look at Ireland.
So, what’s your complaint again? Oh, right: that we don’t have another bubble to artificially inflate the economy and set up the next collapse.
@C. Clavin:
It’s not the hypocrisy that bothers me so much as it’s the lack of integrity and honor. This is a new low.
Used to be politics stopped at the waters edge. The thought of taking advantage of the public’s ignorance about how things function in this area would not have crossed Reagans or HW Bush’s minds while the basic facts were being gathered, and perps were still being ID’ed.
Mitt and Issa? They consider the event as just another thing to be spun. Almost before the bodies were cold.
It’s good the hear someone high up in this administration acccept the blame for something.
I don’t think Hillary necessarily needs to resign for this, but given the upcoming election there will probably be some ‘noise’ around that idea.
Well, whoever’s elected in November need to begin his term with a personal, round the world tour of every embassy and consulate to assess its security needs on the spot. Because that’s what a president always did before The Kenyan Usurper.
Or, he could just send Jan.
This administration scapegoated a man who made a movie in order to hide its incompetence.
This administration continued to scapegoat him even when the lie was falling apart.
This administration opted to lightly secure its embassies in countries where Muslim violence and protests were likely on 9-11.
I think this administration lied, because for Obama killing Osama was supposed to kill Al Quada and his new middle east policy was supposed to make the muslim world including its extremists like us. This narrative took a huge hit on 9-11-12 and he tried to lie and blame a movie.
Oh, and what still chaps me over the whole thing is he had been blowing off national security meetings for month and the morning after our ambassador is murdered, he heads off to Vegas to raise money for his campaign and to hit the night time talk shows. Campaigning and raising money for his campaign was more important than meeting with his national security council or even telling the truth, and if the admin wasn’t ready to tell the truth or felt like they didn’t have it, I would much rather have see them say “we dont have all the facts” than to blame a movie and the guy who made it.
So yes, for me at least, this matters. I am still pissed that the media opted to spend days attacking Romney when the real story was Obama heading off to Vegas and lying to the American people and even worse scapegoating somebody while gutting the concept of free speech.
You asked for responsibility. You got it.
And once again, we discover that superficial criticisms are easily met with superficial responses. “Falling on the sword?” More like “Giving the dog a bone.”
Link?
This appears to be a meme started by noted torture fan and Dick* sycophant Marc Theisson. It is pure nonsense. As one would suspect from Theisson.
* Cheney
@jan:
Well, that’s one way to put it…
I remember the Bush years somewhat differently. Terrorist attacks, war, CEOs going to jail, TWO stimulus checks, torture, Gitmo, cities under water, gay marriage and “moral values,” and then when the party was just about over….the Great Recession comes knocking on the door.
I find it strange, and somewhat pathological, to have such a rosy view of Bush’s tenure and such a critical view of Obama’s.
Right.
Of course Cheney (and his nepotism poster child daughter) is still running around the country proclaiming he kept the nation safe for 8 years…as if 9.11 didn’t happen on his watch.
And the entire Republican economic mantra is that Obama retro-actively caused the Bush Crash of ’07-’08.
As I commented earlier…the hypocrisy is awe-inspiring.
@Dazedandconfused: Yes, we used to say that politics ended at the waters edge. In his 47% talk, Romney said of a hypothetical, and apparently hoped for, foreign crisis – “by the way, if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.” As crises go, this isn’t much, but he and his accomplices are doing their best.
@Just Me: At the risk of violating your sacred free speech rights – kneejerk much?
Based on Hillary Clinton’s prior history it’s surprising that she’s trying to block the buck from being passed. One would have presumed that Team Obama forcibly would have had to have thrown her under the bus. Could very well be the internal polling for Obama is disastrous.
In any case, at this stage of the game the more interesting question is whether Obama will wag the dog by firing off some missiles and dropping a few bombs. Presumably Axelrod & Co. are focus grouping that as we speak. Democrats don’t even take craps in the morning without focus grouping it. If in fact Team Obama decides to wag the dog then obviously that means Romney not only is ahead but that he’s waaaay ahead, the media polling notwithstanding.
Lastly, regarding Hillary’s future political prospects, I seriously doubt this fiasco will be determinative. Zombieland wouldn’t know Benghazi from Benihana, and as the years go by it’ll be forgotten by all except hard core political junkies, especially since it wasn’t really reported in the first instance.
This is all fine and well, but I’m wondering. Have the oceans stopped rising and the earth started cooling? And most importantly, has Chris Mathews been able to lower his dry cleaning billA.
@Just Me:
These “meetings” were an innovation of the Bush era, when W. couldn’t be bothered to read written reports. Every president until then had gotten written updates – Bush I, Reagan, Clinton, . Obama returned to written updates. He also has frequent national security meetings in person. This is a silly argument and no one who wants to be taken seriously should take it seriously.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/15/14456162-world-matched-record-for-hottest-september?lite
@rodney dill:
Blame for what Rodney? That usually goes with a misdeed. Can you spell out the error?
If it was “improperly distributed troops,” how would we apply that more generally. Should we criminalize troop movements that proved (in retrospect) wrong in Afghanistan? Or perhaps a police force that did not properly protect a bank?
Mean while, while security planing is criminalized, we have this:
In a sane world that would rank about four stories higher as an issue.
Blake Hounsell sums up the entire mess in eight points. RTWT, but three major points:
If Hillary did this because she feels a true sense of responsibility and wants to explain that to America, so be it
But I hope the dems aren’t under any illusions that this will somehow placate the nutjob republican party – who will only continue to attack Obama on this. Probably even more so no, with “blood in the water”
Romeny and a GOP administration would never take responsibility for anything cause it “shows weakness” or something. Witness all the resignations due to 9/11, the Iraq debacle, Abu Ghraib, etc
They couldn’t even take responsibility for the mess they made of the economy BEFORE the 2008 election.
The old “Keep Calm and Carry On” posters are very popular right now. People don’t really understand what they mean, do they?
@jan:
Oh, now you’re admitting that the bank and auto-industry bailouts and the Iraq withdrawal were Republican initiatives? That the stimulus programs were begun under George W. Bush? Because at other times you’ve blamed all these on Obama, and said they were the height of folly.
And if stimulus and bailouts don’t work, why exactly did the Bush administration initiate TARP and the GM bailout?
Yeah, as it seemed to have been every day since Sep. 11, 2001, seven and a half years before Obama took office. It took him to end it.
@Just Me:
You’re lying. This is a straight up lie. Obama has not blown off national security meetings, this is a complete and utter fabrication.
If you listen to the interview, she says she takes responsibility then immediately lays it off on the “security professionals”. She doing a Janet Reno, standing to take the fire but she’ll own Obama just like Reno owned Clinton after Waco.
In any case, the professionals aren’t having it. They are already telling the truth. How they at State, never attributed the attack to some obscure video. So where did Obama, Biden and Rice come up with that story? One other question, the attack lasted 6 hours, what did Clinton tell Obama, or was he to sleepy to be disturbed after he went to bed?
This takes this failure of leadership off the table for the debate tonight but it certainly doesn’t kill the story. Even if Obama wins, this will track him. Remember, Nixon won by a landslide in the midst of Watergate only to be forced to resign due to the coverup.
@JKB:
Trying to make sense of your complaint … are you more concerned at this point with 4 deaths, or that a movie was implicated?
I have seen in other forums that the right is starting to understand that security is not always perfect, and that a mid-level decision with good intention is not the same thing as a high crime.
And so they seem to be shifting to a strange insistence that they, and the world, should not have been told that the movie was involved. They see this as some strange conspiracy. I’ve even heard it suggested that the movie was “blamed” so that “Obama’s Libyan policy” would not be.
Well, if you have any b*lls, talk about what is wrong on Libyan policy, and how you’d deal with that country differently.
,,, there is just so much passive aggression here.
You’re lying. This is a straight up lie. Obama has not blown off national security meetings, this is a complete and utter fabrication.
I meant the briefings.
Obama however is a liar, but you may continue to trust in his judgement. I thought in 2008 he was the kind of guy who liked the title of being president, but not necessarily the work and I still think this is the case.
I think the lies over Benghazi were more about pretending like his new and improved middle east policy had made the muslim world love us again, and that killing Osama was the end of Al Quada.
His new and improved policy didn’t change anything. Muslims still hate us, they still protest outside our embassies and they plan attacks and kill our Ambassadors while Obama blames a movie and don’t pretend like everyone knew it was the movie when Rice hit the TV circuit. The day after our Ambassador was killed and Obama was fundraising in Nevada reports from Libya was that it wasn’t a protest, there wasn’t a protest and it wasn’t about a movie but was a planned attack on a significant date for both the United States and Muslim extremists.
Obama was trying to turn a planned attack into something spontaneous and blame a single person for the outcome. It failed, but I think he is an ass for scapegoating a person in order to keep his desired narrative together.
And I still hate the fact that media focused on Romney who was a candidate and right, instead of maybe taking the time to ask the president a few questions or perhaps ask him why he thought fundraising was more important than what happened in Benghazi.
@Herb:
“I find it strange, and somewhat pathological, to have such a rosy view of Bush’s tenure and such a critical view of Obama’s. “
That ‘rosy’ view was not an 8-year overview of GWB’s term in office, but was responding to the comment of the ‘mess’ Obama had to deal with when he first entered office. My comment of:
@Just Me: “Obama however is a liar, but you may continue to trust in his judgement. I thought in 2008 he was the kind of guy who liked the title of being president, but not necessarily the work and I still think this is the case.”
Yup, lazy and shiftless, just like the rest of them, right?
@jan:
This article is for you, Jan:
This Is Why Conservatives Can’t Have Nice Conservative Policies
The reminder of “cover” for Medicare Part D is really very good, and is very like the cover you provide for “whatever Romney said today.”
Wear it.
@Just Me:
@Just Me:
Trying again, without the blockquote fail: Please explain to me what you think President Obama’s “new and improved middle east [sic] policy” is, and why you think it’s wrong. Please also explain what Mr. Romney would do differently.
Why?
@Just Me:
This is incomprehensible argle-bargle. I don’t think you have any idea what you’re trying to say, or what your real complaint is, but you’ve been told you need to criticize the President, so you’re grasping at any straw, no matter how flimsy. I mean, really, what’s your complaint: that in the immediate aftermath of a chaotic attack in the Middle East, on the same day that protests had broken out in several other countries about that movie, the administration thought that the movie might also have been involved here? And this is somehow supposed to be sinister….why?
@Rafer Janders:
I think there are some on the right who would like us to think 4 deaths in Libya mean a total failure in Libyan policy.
That, while 4488 American deaths in Iraq, and leaving Iraq in the stat it is in, was victory.
Is there a word better than “infantile” to describe it all?
Yes, that “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. How can I forget? I guess he meant victory for the Ayatollahs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/world/middleeast/qassim-suleimani-irans-master-of-iraq-chaos-still-vexes-the-us.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
@john personna:
Well, “hypocritical” and “insane” also come to mine.
@jan:
a middle class ‘under water,’
The middle class has been steadily losing ground for the last few decades as wages stagnated while the cost of health care, college, and housing outpaced inflation. Credit and home equity helped keep a lot of middle class folks afloat. The bursting of the housing bubble meant lots of middle class wage earners saw their net worth take a nose dive. Obama presided over the worst economic crash since the Great Depression, and it was a financial crash to boot, which is much more difficult to recover from. Anyone who expected the economy to bounce back in four years was kidding themselves. It’s slowly improving, but it was never going to be anything less than a long, hard slog.
no immigration progress (except for the lite-weight temporary one recently extended towards young adults),
Congress blocked the Dream Act. Even Bush, who’s immigration policy was far more reasonable than that of most of his party, couldn’t come up with an immigration policy that would pass muster with anti-immigration Republicans and so his immigration proposals languished in Congress.
no entitlement program reform
The right’s Golden Boy, Paul Ryan, wouldn’t sign off on Bowles-Simpson and refused to allow it to come up for discussion in his committee. Republicans have been adamant about not considering revenue increases, even in the form of closing tax loopholes and ending subsidies, to be part of any grand compromise on entitlement reform. They’re the primary obstructionists here.
higher energy prices,
Gas prices have fluctuated wildly over the last few years. I remember gas getting up to about $4.50 a gallon in LA during W’s tenure. W didn’t control gas prices then; Obama doesn’t control them now. As China and India have grown, so has their demand for oil, putting upward pressure on prices. Then, there’s the role of speculators in the market. meanwhile, domestic energy production has increased significantly under Obama.
worsening racial relationships, greater tension and stalemate in Congress,
These two examples are just comical. Stalemate in Congress–couldn’t be because Republicans have been determined to deny Obama any victories. He managed to get the stimulus and Obamacare passed only because he was able to capitalize on the brief window of time when Democrats had 60 seats in the senate. Since that time, the Republicans have made unprecedented use of the filibuster. The blame for the stalemate falls far more heavily on Republicans than on Obama.
As for worsening racial relationships, let’s just say there’s plenty of folks on the right who haven’t taken too well to having a black man in the White House.
@Septimius: Who resigned after 9/11? And in that case the president had previously been given a CIA briefing warning against an attack in the US by Bin Laden.
After the 9/11 attack the Democrats patriotically supported President Bush. After the far less serious events in Libya, Mitt Romney used them for political gain. I don’t know what kind of man he is in private life, but his political tactics resemble those of Richard Nixon. He’s slimy, and by now everybody with half a brain knows it.
rafer:
And let’s remember the famous ‘fiscal conservative’ who supported Bush by voting for both those things: Paul Ryan. Aside from Mitt himself, a more colossal phony would be hard to find.
stan:
We have learned recently that Bush was warned over and over again. NYT, 9/10/12:
But of course no one resigned, and no one said “I Take Responsibility.” Why? Because IOKIYAR. 9/11 was dealt with by taking the position that Bush’s term didn’t start until 9/12/01. This belief is vividly embodied in Giuliani’s remarkable claim: “we had no domestic attacks under Bush.”
The GOP consists of liars and amnesiacs, the former leading the latter.
jukeboxgrad / “TomJ” / “Dave” / “Tom J.” / “slowslimslider” / “firstmate” / “SDSU” / “wingtowing” / etc. :
An audacious claim from the master of sockpuppets.
You are a known and proven liar.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said that about me. Flattery will get you nowhere.
For some strange reason you never addressed the problems I described here and here.
jukeboxgrad / “TomJ” / “Dave” / “Tom J.” / “slowslimslider” / “firstmate” / “SDSU” / “wingtowing” / etc. :
That’s another lie. I addressed the “problems” in the same thread you linked to.
I even identified the tactic you were using as I dismantled it.
You are a known and proven liar.
Show me where you answered this question:
@Buzz Buzz:
Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than harp on who is or is not a sock puppet? As if it mattered.
No, I’m not Florack. You know I’m not Florack. Both of those facts have been clear from the beginning. That was just another one of your lies.
You’re the one who agreed you would acknowledge your sockpuppeting (here) when I met the criteria you laid out.
I met that criteria — in fact, I provided twice as many examples as you did, and my examples were of actual phrases and unique identifiers (e.g. a name misspelled in the exact same way multiple times by you and your sockpuppet), not just the one- and two-word sentence fragments you had tried to pass off in your “analysis”.
But instead of demonstrating any integrity and admitting I was right, you launched another one of your hand-waving Chewbacca defenses. And you’re trying to do so again. Here. Now.
Intelligent people won’t be fooled by your desperate hand waving. They’ll see that you are a known and proven liar.
Fiona:
As the great sockpuppeteer jukeboxgrad / “TomJ” / “Dave” / “Tom J.” / “slowslimslider” / “firstmate” / “SDSU” / “wingtowing” / etc. said in response to a similar question on an earlier thread:
and
i am not jukeboxgrad, just sayin’. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
@Buzz Buzz:
Seems to me that you’re just beating a dead horse without proving anything to anyone’s satisfaction but your own. I’m not sure how that fosters community. It’s annoying and petty.
@Fiona:
I have to agree here, nothing is worse for getting a thread off topic than worrying if another poster ever changed their username.
@john personna:
Well, can you spell out what you think she’s accepting the blame/responsibility for? Or did you think she made an error in taking the responsibility?
(from the original post)
buzz:
No, you didn’t meet any “criteria.” I did my analysis on a much larger site. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to claim your analysis is reliable and mine isn’t; on the contrary. I described this problem a while back and you’re still pretending to not notice it.
Something else you’re pretending to not understand is the distinction I described here.
But please, keep rehashing what your ideological pals were saying about me in 2004. It’s a fun nostalgia trip for me.
Easy for you to say that, since none of us have seen the long-form birth certificate.
@ Jan
Interesting. 9.11 – the murder of thousands of American civilians in the heart of New York City – is just “something that happened” on Bush’s watch, yet Benghazi – the deaths of four men who were professionals willingly serving their country in a dangerous place – is somehow a scandal of unprecedented proportions.
@JKB:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=1&
@john personna: “Is there a word better than “infantile” to describe it all? ”
Yes, but not one that would make it through the spam filters…
@rodney dill:
Blame and responsibility are not the same.
In fact, people seek responsibility, right?
Just wondering. So if the guy can control the climate and the seas, but can’t organize a trip to the bathroom, shouldn’t we vote Romney in to run the country, and use Obama to his best use? Sorcery?
Romney could deal with the growth and jobs thingy. And Obama could levitate and eliminate all known pollutants in the world, dictate the proper level of the oceans, and make nice with polar bears. Hell, make a perpetual motion machine while he’s at it. Cars for free. And as a throw in……pay for Chis Mathews, uh, sticky pants.
I’m Drew, and I approve this message.
Hmm…the above sounds about as ridiculous as some anonymous person talking about what a financial genius he supposedly is and how much money he supposedly has…oh wait…
@john personna: …and the original post used both words.
from thesaurus.com
Main Entry: responsibility [ri-spon-suh-bil-i-tee] Show IPA/rɪˌspɒnsəˈbɪlɪti/ Show Spelled
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: accountability, blame
Synonyms: albatross, amenability, answerability, authority, boundness, burden, care, charge, constraint, contract, culpability, duty, encumbrance, engagement, fault, guilt, holding the bag, importance, incubus, incumbency, liability, obligation, obligatoriness, onus, pledge, power, rap, restraint, subjection, trust
Antonyms: exemption, freedom, immunity, irresponsibility
drew:
Maybe you should be more concerned about G. Gordon Liddy (link):
For the record, he is not me.
Nor I him.
I speak for myself, thank you.