This is nothing short of disastrous for President Obama. After dodging responsibility for the Benghazi attack for over a month, pointing fingers at everything from the State Department to the intelligence community, the White House is outclassed by…Hillary Clinton. By taking the blame now, Hillary effectively 1.) Undermined Obama’s leadership, 2.) Put pressure on him right before a major debate to take the heat:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead. …
Clinton said 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.
This puts Obama in an incredibly uncomfortable position.
If he let’s an underling like Hillary accept responsibility, he’s going to look even weaker than he has over the past few weeks. But even if Obama does step up and take the blame for the Benghazi attack today, it might be too late. Not only will it look like he did it under political pressure, but Hillary falling on her sword just highlights the politically-craven blame-game the White House has been playing for the past month.
Hubby had a team of lawyers and spinmeisters reviewing the situation, it was reported. n nThis was a pretty good move. n nWhat harm can come to her from doing this? 'She took repsonsibility, she was a good soldier, and all will be forgotten in 4 years, except her brave taking of the blame. n nObama looks like the kid who got to blame someone else for screwing up.
"…all will be forgotten in 4 years… n nIf you are an NYT reader, there is nothing to forget.
all i can say is that hillary and bill are quite a team…shrewd smart. its called karma folks. the karma train has pullled into the white house.
What this does is make many voters who choose Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton wonder why. Here are some questions these voters must be mulling in their minds. n nWhy did I vote for him when she is really a leader who takes responsibility? nWhy vote did I vote for a man without the courage to take the blame and be responsible for his underlings? nWhat was I thinking in voting for all that show and not seeing that there was little character behind the speeches? nAnd, more to the point, will I make that mistake again? Will I again vote to elect a man who is so spineless and undeserving to run our country? n nQuestions that must go through those voters' minds.
Here is another question: n nWho – i.e., what is his or her name? – is responsible for ‘misleading’ (= lying to) the American public for many days about the ‘demonstration’ over a mean-spirited video that got out of control? Hint: it most certainly is NOT the ‘Intelligence Community.’
THAT IS THE QUESTION. Right now, before the election, with the clock ticking, it is the ONLY question to focus on. Please, Ms. Goodman et al., please do NOT lose sight of that. Who was responsible for the security breakdown is important to know, absolutely, BUT the administration would love nothing more than to see the argument disappear down that technocratic, minutia-ridden rabbit hole, which WILL require many months before responsibility is made crystal clear. What they must not be allowed to do is to cop a plea to a misdemeanor so as to avoid indictment for the felony. The who-provided-security question, as bad as it is for them, is infinitely preferable as a topic for the nightly news. Hillary Clinton's non-admission admission is in fact the Democrats' NEW SHINY OBJECT, designed first of all to catch the eye of the media. Clinton's insipid confession is just step one. It seems to be working if Ms. Goodman's take on Hillary's feint is any guide. n nThe media now have their marching orders on this tactic: the best the administration can hope for among lousy alternatives. Yesterday Erin Burnett of CNN was interviewing someone (I think it was Giuliani), and after soliciting his opinion and noting, no doubt with the deepest apprehension, that he persisted in zeroing in on the question of a malign coverup and deception, she basically said "Yes, yes, we know all about that [which we DON'T] but what about who was responsible for embassy securtity?" n nThe administration and its media flunkies like Burnett and Blitzer, who offer only the pretense of objectively seeking the facts, know perfectly well which truly dangerous fact is hiding under which rock and will NOT disturb that particular rock unless they're forced to. And who is going to do that?
"What did he know and when did he know it?" n(Watergate hearings)
It was 3AM. The phone rang. Obama got up, got dressed, and went to his Letterman gig.
Obama has always taken credit for positive events whether or not he was directly involved and always blamed somebody else if things went wrong. n nRoll back to October 7th 2008 n nourchangingglobe dot com/obama-concealed-his-past n nReplace the word dot with a . and remove the two spaces. n nSeems like links are frowned upon for some strange reason; imagine the web without them.
This is "responsibility" without repercussions. Hillary should have offered her resignation and Obama should have accepted it. Failing that, Obama should have asked for Hillary's resignation. nBut either of those scenarios would have required taking actual responsibility. n nOf course, it's not at all clear what it is that Hillary is accepting responsibility for here. Is it for the lapse in security? Is it for the lies told by Susan Rice? Is it for misinforming the President of the actual cause of the Ambassador's murder? In other words, is Hillary accepting responsibility for the cover-up? n nNot likely.
Either way, she comes out looking better than the Obama.
So who will be the next Sec State? Susan Rice or John Kerry? This seems to be a smoothing over of the path for either one of them. Kerry though is more dependent on whether Elizabeth Warren loses her campaign against Scott Brown. If she does then Kerry has to vacate his seat so that Deval Patrick can give it to Warren leaving John Kerry free to the Sec State posting. Rice will want a promotion too so Obama will likely put her on the NSC.
Susan Rice might not be an easy nomination–Hillary's "responsibility"–whatever it is–doesn't cover responsibility for the post-incident storyline, but only "security" (not explaining about AQ and videos and the Prophet yadda yadda yadda). Rice was *never* responsible for actual security, and State has already said it didn't come up with video talking points–which Rice repeated very very publicly. n nHillary's "responsibility" is the buck-stops-here variety, without exactly taking the hit for "operational" mistakes as they were made by "security professionals"–she takes responsibility for that jerk in the cubicle who messed things up.
How about neither Rice nor Kerry, as President Romney is extremely unlikely to select either hack?
whoever Romney selects after he is elected.
If Hillary is "taking responsibility," she should immediately make herself available to the House investigative committee to answer numerous questions about this thoroughly botched imbroglio.
Never forget that this is the wife of the POTUS who entertained us with "it depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is" — and she is the more shrewd of the two. Alana, there is a very big distinction between accepting responsibility for the security of diplomats and missions and accepting responsibility for this particular incident. n nFor example, I can accept responsibility for the safe operation of my motor vehicle, while still maintaining that an accident was caused by things beyond my control, such as a drunk driver going the wrong way on a 1-way street. We don't know if Hillary requested more security and was overruled. n nMore importantly, this shifts the debate from if there was enough security there — and there is no way she ever could have had enough to defend against an organized AQ group with heavy weapons — no number of Marines would be enough in such a situation. n nThink about this for a minute: Heavy machine guns that will literally cut down trees. RPGs and Mortars that will take down buildings. And you are going to confront that with a Marine firing .223 bullets from his M-16 — talk about "taking a knife to a gunfight" — and all this would accomplish is get Marines killed for no good reason. n nEven an Army outpost confronted with something like this would rely upon air support. What Hillary has done here is taken the focus away from the lack of Marines and placed it more on the six hours of frantic Maydays broadcast by folks no longer alive — and shifted the focus to DOD and CIA and away from State. n nWe don't know how bad the relations between her and the Boy President are, but personal grooming is an indication of both stress level and general mental health — and people were noticing how Hillary's hair looked during this. She well may wish to see him loose the election for the good of the party — and possibly country. n nPeople will vote for an old-looking woman — Maggie Thatcher comes to mind — and Hillary may be thinking about 2016 and a campaign along the lines of "experienced with a face that shows it." n nAnd remember one thing: who remembers Janet Reno taking responsibility for the Waco conflagration? This is the sort of thing that people tend to forget, quickly, and this was a brilliant move for Hillary. No one twists the knife in someone's back as well as she.
margaret thatcher was 51 (fifty one) when she assumed the leadership of the conservative party and 54 (fifty four) when she actually became prime minister. A very far cry from Hillary who would be 69 (sixty nine) if elected as President. Only Ronald reagan would have been the same age .Her chances are miniscule and if the democrats ever nominate her, she will be obliterated.
I'm 62. I don't want and won't vote for people as old or older than I am. It is a risk. Reagan fell in the shadow of that risk perhaps–we don't know the degree to which he did or didn't have to struggle with Alzheimer's. Hopefully not. But senior citizens at 70 should realize the fragility of life and the possibility that their strength and attention will be sapped by health challenges. Boomers, it is past past time to pass the torch.
I can't believe women haven't jumped all over this abuse. Here you have two very acomplished women that were and are being used by Obama/Biden & Axlerod. Rice was used to push a known lie and Clinton is being manipulated to take the blame hereby crushing to women. Not the two people to throw under the bus especially being the gender that both campaigns are fighting over. The democrat party will woo you so long as it doesnt cost them there power. There is a story in the gender of this.
Yep!! Another WOMAN thrown under the bus! Obama hides behind Hillary's skirt and then throws her under the bus. As he drives over her face he says, "Hey Hillary, would you check the muffler while your under there, it's getting noisy". Afterward he says "Gosh Hillary, are those tire marks on your face or are you just looking old and 'tired'?" What a coward.
The professional lobby for women never attacks Democrats. Not for groping, not for serial abuse of young girls, not for attempted rape and not even for murder. Their idea of "abuse" is when Republicans insist on equal pay but don't agree to have some federal bureacracy decree that a teacher's aide should be paid the same as someone who works high iron.
Past month, Past Month, Obama has never taken responsibility for anything in his life its Bush,st fault, ATM,s fault etc. etc. n n.In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people — conservatives included — ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth — Not One..it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years. n nAnd what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly? n nIn short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. n n n
No big deal to Obama just a bump in the road and off to Vegas he has never taken responsibility for anything but throwing people under the Obama bus!
Don't tell me that this was not all arranged by the Obama campaign. The Arkansas HillBillies made some kind of deal for 2016.
Who takes responsibility for all the subsequent Mideast demonstrations, burning of the US flag, etc. resulting from the public apologies for the "video" made by the administration during the so called "fog" of incoming information?
They are desperately trying to keep their base right now. Pointing fingers at the intel community will backfire as readily but not as quickly as the video excuse. In fact Hillary is "testing" the only excuse Obama has; honestly did all 5 reporting agencies obfuscate Obama? The hope is he squeaks out a win to pardon all that could low him down. I'm thinking it is a bigger snowball the most concede.
Not that I'd ever/or have vote/d for the Clinton, I must say Hilary's " BUCK STOPS HERE" moment was correctly done. Never mind that Bill was the architect of it…..all to make Obama look like then chump he is. nBut never forget, this provincial president played cannon fodder with a highly esteemed Ambassador….
We know the Administration is lying because their lips are moving. All this changes very soon!
I think at this point she wants to save the party brand for 2016. Obama has done serious damage to the Dem party, they are looking like a bunch of inept baffoons. She had to do something to avoid the "Carter effect" where the Dems get punished for 12+ years because she's getting too old to wait around that long!
Where are rexford, HillelA and the other Obamatrons to defend the president?
But Obama is going to accept responsibility for the Benghazi affair at the debates tonight… rhetorical responsibly, that is…just as Hillary is offering to do: "responsibly", as in a figure of speech. This is nothing more than a show for the masses. n nex animo ndavidfarrar
And right you were.
This was a brilliant move on Clinton's part. n nBillary remembers how flaccid and incompetent they looked when Janet Reno declared "the buck stops with me". n nSo Hillary decided to do the same thing to Comrade Barack O'Weasel.
Oh man. Not only is Obama done, but Hillary is too. r nr nThere is no recovering from this. Hillary took responsibility only after the whole thing revealed itself. If she took responsibility right away, this whole thing would have blown right over. r nAnd the fact that Obama is letting the “buck stop” at Hillary, rather than with his Presidency, contrary to what Harry Truman exemplified, only makes him look worse.r nr nThe Obama Administration is crumbling. This is GREAT!
I'm shocked, shocked that the 3:00 a.m. call that has been ringing for over a month now was finally picked up by Hillary. Well played Hillary, or was it Bill's idea?
Hillary Cowboyed up obama acted like a boy