Has the buck really stopped?

Hillary Clinton's repulsive 'responsibility' claim on Libya is meaningless

When Hillary Clinton claims “responsibility” for the catastrophic failures in the murders of four Americans at our embassy in Libya, what exactly does that mean?


Does it mean she accepts responsibility for the utterly shocking lack of security there – in a war-torn Libya that is still reconstituting amid the most dangerous elements on Earth?

Is she taking responsibility for the stunning failure of the administration to respond to Ambassador Chris Stevens’ and other officials’ repeated pleas for more security?

Is she taking responsibility for the fact that our American embassy – again, in the most dangerous neighborhood in the world – was wholly unprepared for an assault on Sept. 11, of all dates?

Is she taking responsibility for the fact that four Americans died horrible deaths after this unforgivable succession of fatal miscalculations?

Is she accepting responsibility for the blatant disinformation the administration spread – for days on end – about the nature of the attack? Is she the one who told U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to go on some five Sunday talk shows days later and spread the fairy tale that the assault on our embassy was the result of a protest against an Internet video mocking Muhammad?

On that last point, the administration now admits that it knew very quickly – and well before Rice’s deceitful fable – that there was, in fact, no protest that preceded the assault. And that the attack was, in sharp contrast, a planned and skillful al-Qaida-style blitz on our vulnerable compound.


What part of this cascade of calamities is Mrs. Clinton owning up to? We’d really like to know, because otherwise her claim of responsibility is both hollow and transparent.

It’s hollow because, unless there are some repercussions to her abject failure to do her job – such as her immediate resignation in shame – then she really hasn’t taken responsibility at all.

It’s transparent because it’s clear she’s only trying to make the buck stop at her desk rather than the president’s, where Harry S. Truman famously declared it belongs. And on the eve of the second presidential debate, no less. What a coincidence!

As for her inane claim that the administration’s wildly varying stories on the cause of the attack were a result of the “fog of war” – how fatuous and offensive can you get? How dare she hide behind our people serving in dangerous areas to try to excuse the purely political poppycock that was manufactured, bottled and sold out of Washington and nowhere else?

And how dare this president hide behind the skirt of his secretary of State?

When will someone take real responsibility for this outrage? And when will there be consequences for it?

How long will these people dishonor our dead by passing this hot potato around Washington?



Fri, 11/17/2017 - 00:56

Letter: Losing big piece of Augusta

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 00:56

Letter: The swamp’s slush fund

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 00:56

Letter: Behind Veterans Day

Fri, 11/17/2017 - 00:56

Editorial: Jump start the season