If the Obama administration thought the questions over the Benghazi attack would die down after Hillary Clinton took full responsibility for it, they were wrong. Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte released the following statement in response to Clinton’s comment:
“We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.
“However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.
At Time, Michael Crowley wonders why Republicans are still calling for Obama to take responsibility, instead of just accepting Clinton’s mea culpa:
The Secretary of State has been an archvillain of Republican campaigns for decades now. And when it comes to the debate over security in Benghazi, it would seem that the buck should stop with her. But suddenly it doesn’t suit the GOP to attack Clinton. Her approval ratings are sky-high. Romney already has a problem with female voters. And Hillary’s not on the ballot this November. The GOP wants to concentrate its political attacks on Obama, even at the cost of sounding nonsensical.
How is that nonsensical?
It’s likely Obama wasn’t aware of the diplomatic security failures in Benghazi before the attack. But he is responsible for how the aftermath of the attack was handled. There was initial intelligence indicating that it was an act of terror carried out by a group linked to al Qaeda. But for nearly two weeks after the attack, the Obama administration misled the public on the intelligence.
Imagine waking up on Sept. 12 and hearing the White House announce what it knew at the time: that a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda had attacked our consulate in Benghazi, killing our ambassador and three other Americans on the 9/11 anniversary. Not only would this have sent shockwaves through the world, it would have had major political ramifications for a president running for reelection on an “Al Qaeda’s dead, GE’s alive” platform.
They didn’t tell us that. Instead we were told that Ambassador Chris Stevens had been killed by a mob of extremist protesters. It took nearly two weeks for the White House to publicly acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack, and another month before the State Department admitted there was no protest. And the administration has yet to clarify al Qaeda’s involvement.
The administration hit the slow-motion button. The length of time between the official revelations cushioned some of the shock. And since much of the information we know was unearthed by the media, the administration could choose what it wanted to confirm on its own timeline, through lower-level officials and spokespersons. Notice that President Obama, who never turns down a chance to give a speech, still hasn’t formally addressed the public about the fact that this was a terrorist attack. That’s not what leadership looks like.
The O again lost a wonderful opportunity to come out on top of things by immediately jumping in, thanking Clinton and taking full responsibility. The public would have seen this as a chivalrous and courageous act and would forgive all. Instead, he comes out as the selfish, vain and irresponsible fop that we know him as. Well, at least he's predictable.
Crowley is still trying to fake the handoff. Right now it is in the overwhelming interest of hacks like him to convince everyone that Hillary has the ball when it is in fact tucked squarely beneath Obama's chin. The plan here is that Clinton take the fall for what, with a little assistance from the media, can be obfuscated, occluded, shrouded in minute and impenetrable detail, and generally buried like nuclear waste at the bottom of a coal mine at midnight during an eclipse of the sun, namely, security at United States embassies around the world, as if THAT were the real problem on the president's—and Hillary's—plate. n nAnd right on cue, don't you know, today in fact, the New York Times chimes in with a "news story" about how all along the administration was planning to increase embassy security around the globe but somehow just hadn't got around to it in Libya in 18 months. Who could fault anybody anywhere at any time for any of that? Intentions are what counts, right? We've heard that often enough, haven't we? And then of course follow up that blockbuster of a story with a six-part series on budget-cutting, devil-may-care Republicans and watch the charade enact itself. Endgame: four corpses mailed COD to Willard Romney c/o RNC. Hillary takes a light hit, and no one is watching Obama when the clock runs out on November 6th. More importantly, no one need mention Susan Rice—Who in heck is Susan Rice?—or a Simple Simon tall tale about a video ever again. n nThe interesting twist to this is, of course, why? Why is Hillary going along with the fairy tale knowing her nose is going to be bloodied a bit? Well, it's because Hillary ALSO knows perfectly well that SHE is just as culpable for spinning yarn after yarn, some of it right alongside the coffins of the aforementioned corpses, mind you, as Obama is. She is just as responsible as Sir Feckless Wonder for the insane Middle East policy of the administration. You will recover from a bloody nose long before you will a broken neck pretty much sums it up for our SoS. Cop a plea for a lax-security misdemeanor, and if anyone pins the felony of deliberate serial lying on the president? Well, that's why God invented public relations, Bill Clinton, and gave Democrats ears and precious little besides, isn't it? Is she her brother's keeper? Hell no. n nCan they get away with it. Sure. Will they? That's the question.
at least when Junior says, sure, he'll clean up the room, next week, the result usually doesn't turn out to be the house burnt down around the family's heads…
Perhaps John McCain should wonder why no one come forward to take responsiblity for 9-11? There had been a previous attack. We had a warning something "big" was going to happen. Perhaps McCain would like to explain why airport security had not even been upgraded. nBush didn't even go after bin Laden after the attack. n nWhy was one year to investigate "weapons of mass destruction" OK but yet only 5 weeks after the Benghazi attack, the investigation is supposed to be completed when the FBI was only there a week ago? Yes, the buck stops with Obama but the buck for 9-11 also stopped with Bush.
Hillary can take responsibility for the security: Obama is responsibility for lying to America with "video did it" meme
The O WH has come out and taken the non-responsibility responsibility as she has, one step down the line removed and one step out of the zone of fire. n nHillary has said she takes general executive responsibility while noting that "security professionals" made the actual decisions–still it does put her implicitly where the buck stops in at least one formulation: n n“I take responsibility. I’m in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts…,.The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals.” (presumably she would, or should) n nThe WH says the President of course takes general responsibility noting that, of course, the State takes care of its internal diplomatic arrangements. And Hillary, and Rice, and Biden, and Obama are all on the same page as far as the after-event stories–came from the intelligence community talking points, faithfully reproduced as written. n nThat's their story and the'yre sticking to it.
the responsibility for the deaths of Americans in Libya rests with the murderers, just as the responsibility for the destruction on the World Trade Center rests with Al Qaeda rather than Bush. n nwhen Ms Goodman asks "how is that nonsensical" one should assume that it's not a rhetorical question but an indication of the limits of her present level of understanding.
No. When you have people calling for help for six hours, you really have an obligation to do something and that requires the Boy President to actually be willing to BE President.
what would you have done, Mr Ed?