Hillary Clinton Takes Responsibility for Libya Attack

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Buddha12, Oct 16, 2012.

  1. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    The secretary of state has said several times that the investigation is ongoing and everyone in the administration is still trying to make sense of what happened. On Monday night she jumped further into the political controversy, saying in interviews with several news outlets that the buck stops with her. "I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN.


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


    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...p4HgCg&usg=AFQjCNF9PL7CeIYPabgI--O2z2jHkpqIsg


    Here's the question, why isn't the President informed about the safety of the Ambassadors and the staff at where they work. It would seem to me that the President is where the "buck stops" and not Hillary Clinton. This is very disturbing to me to see that he won't take the blame but allows an underling to be the scape goat, very sad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Blame for what? No one did anything wrong. This is all a manufactured controversy due to the elections.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    Did Bush take responsibility for the numerous attacks during his watch? Did anyone?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Heck Nixon was intentionally kept in the dark about the October War. I don't think its physically possible for the president to microtask everything (Carter tried and failed miserably), that is what staff is for, and the safety of any diplomat amongst hundreds of diplomats world wide is probably a little below the presidents level.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Ritual Politics

    It's a political ritual. Unfortunately, on this occasion I agree with you.

    No, wait. I mean, it's unfortunate because when there is a spectacular failure, such as our intelligence operations not recognizing an immediate threat, or bureaucracy delaying important responses to conditions on the ground, yes, someone needs to take responsibility.

    But the process has become so ritualized that one accepts nominal responsibility, offers a non-apology, and delegates solutions to underlings.

    It's also unfortunate because people need to be reminded that the Oval Office is not necessarily in the loop on that kind of detail work.

    To the other, in this time of Republicans calling hearings about anything they can think of, the ritual acceptance of responsibility will eventually sound silly, anyway.

    There are all sorts of no-brainers here: 9/11, a revolutionary hot zone, maybe they should keep a staff unit tasked with security priorities in such places, and so on.

    But there are also more complex issues, such as Ambassador Stevens' style; it's hard to be that close to a community one works in if you are shielded from view by glowering, heavily armed security staff. During the revolution, the man is said to have broken bread with locals, a gesture of much importance and part of the reason why the people of Benghazi took his killing so personally. And how does an operation like the State Department secure that kind of setting?

    When I hear about repeated requests for increased security, one thing I haven't yet heard is that they came from the ambassador himself. It may be that he did petition for increased security staff, but if that factoid is in the wind, I've missed its scent.

    Sometimes I think people have limited, unrealistic outlooks on the foreign service; either it is dry and boring, or it is rife with double-oh agents fighting metaphysical world wars with Berettas and wristwatch-mounted lasers. In truth, it is intimate, sometimes dirty, and often dangerous. Diplomacy is all about relationships, and those relationships are often complicated by scowling toughs in generic suits and bad sunglasses trying to make sure that the guest of honor doesn't skewer His Excellency with a corkscrew.

    The political chaff is simply political, a quantum of solace for Republicans still dejected about Obama's election in '08. They haven't been able to wreck the country. They haven't been able to sink the economy totally. They haven't been able to convince us that Barack Obama was never legitimately president.

    The sad thing is that striving for perfection should be something more than mere political rhetoric.
     
  9. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    Will Hillary Clinton be sent to Guantanamo Bay for processing due to her alleged terrorist attack in Libya?
     
  10. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Nobody has been sent to Guantanamo Bay since Obama took office. On the contrary, he's done everything he can to move move prisoners out of there and try to close the camp. Were it not for determined opposition by Congress, it would already have been closed by now.
     
  11. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    If nothing was done wrong why then is she taking the blame for nothing? Wouldn't it had been better for the President to take the blame if , as you say, there was nothing done wrong?
     
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Politics.
     
  13. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    But the Ambassador requested for more security after the uprising but none was given and even some he had there were sent away. If you didn't hear the full details during the report to Congress I'd think you might want to do that.

    The State Department acts to insure its personell by whatever means it thinks is needed. The President ultimatly has the responsibility to oversee all State operations by being given daily briefings by the Department Of States leader, Hillary.
     
  14. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Again why didn't the President take the blame because everyone knows where the "buck stops" and by him not taking responsibility for that incident would have at least shown who is in charge.
     
  15. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I don't necessarily disagree and maybe later, Obama will make some statement. I'm not well educated on this particular incident.

    My point with "Politics" was simply that where politics are concerned, it's not unusual to try to cover the butt of one higher up- especially when higher up is campaigning an upcoming election...
    Right or wrong, the public will make up their own mind and having someone else take responsibility may hold greater sway than trying to absolve said incumbent from responsibility for some voters.


    The word "politics" may be synonymous with the word, "dirty."
     
  16. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    She's just saying the security of our consulates is her responsibility. When we had marines in Lebanon in 1983, they became targets too. This is nothing but a political witch hunt.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Did the great Republican icon, President Ronald Reagan, take responsibility for the Marine Barrack's destruction in Beirut? Did George Junior take responsibility for the 8 attacks on US diplomatic missions that occured under his watch? Did Democrats even raise the attacks as political issues? Did Democrats use those attacks as political footballs? Has any Republican president ever taken responsiblilty for any attack on US missions that occured under their watches? Has any Democrat ever raised those attacks as political wedge issues? The answer is no on all accounts.

    The reality is that people like you and your political leaders are desperate for an issue. That is why Romney has buried himself and continues to bury the American people in lies. Republicans are desperate for an issue.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions

    Why are you not asking why did Republicans slash diplomatic security by nearly a half billion dollars against the recommendation of the Obama administration? If you are so concerned, why are you not asking that question?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2012
  18. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,830
    and who sits in Congress? GOP?
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    The Context of Wrong

    It's a question of the context of wrong. I used to tell my ex-girlfriend, the mother of my child, that she was "not correct" because she conflated factual and moral "wrong" in her head. That is to say, if she claimed that cold makes things expand, or that a centimeter was larger than a meter, you would tell her, "That's not correct." You did not say, "You're wrong."

    This had tremendous effect. As one who did no moral wrong, she could not stand to be wrong. Neither could she understand that the factually wrongness of saying two plus two is five is fundamentally and effectively different from the moral wrong of lying to someone and then complaining that they acted on the lie.

    In the Libya case, the question must ultimately be, "Who's in charge?" And unless we want the president personally setting the watches at our embassies around the world, the answer is that the Secretary of State is in charge.

    Something went amiss. The standing presupposition for Americans is that nothing can go wrong without someone being "responsible" for the mistake. Politically, when you are the opposition, you try to tack that responsibility to the president. When your party holds the office, you generally point out the subtleties.

    Where the Republicans run afoul in pursuing this line is that their habit of late has been to pretend that these things have never happened before. It's not an explicit pretense except on those occasions when one of them says something is unprecedented, or an historical first, but the GOP has put such elements way forward in the mix.

    Thus, the standing presupposition is that had the administration doubled or trebled the security at the Benghazi mission, nobody would have died. The standing presupposition is that the intelligence community must be perfect when American lives are lost. Sure, we know they're nowhere near perfect when it comes to telling the civilian leaders who to use the military to bomb the hell out of, but when it comes to something like this, the presupposition is that the IC knew, or should have known.

    The GOP also goes askew insofar as they seem to want to investigate anything. Solyndra? Sure, investigations found no wrongdoing, but it looks good to investigate the president and Republican candidates are willing to lie through their teeth about what those investigations found. Fast and Furious? Sure, investigations found Holder and Obama weren't responsible, but give it time—the line about Holder giving guns to cartels will return to the discourse before this election is done. After it emerged last week on FOX News that Rep. Issa was looking to investigate BLS over the unemployment numbers (7.8% can only be a conspiracy, apparently), the congressman's office clarified that they were not, in fact, assembling such an investigation, but also refused to say they wouldn't.

    Yes, this is the same GOP that refused to reauthorize special prosecutors because Americans were so sick and tired of investigations against the White House.

    A year ago, Speaker Boehner declared that the job creators are on strike; as near as anyone can tell, this strike will last until they get everything they want—Mitt Romney has even tried to seize the point by claiming that his mere election will fix the economy.

    It would seem congressional Republicans, also, are on strike until they get everything they ever wanted.
     

Share This Page