Has the buck really stopped?

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

  • Follow Editorials

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.

Well?

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?

Comments (33) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
carcraft
25056
Points
carcraft 10/16/12 - 11:11 pm
9
2
Well in the debate Obama said

Well in the debate Obama said he declared it a terrorist attach the on 12 Sept in the Rose Garden (he didn't) so why did he mention the videos 6 times in his UN talk?

carcraft
25056
Points
carcraft 10/16/12 - 11:11 pm
6
2
Well in the debate Obama said

Well in the debate Obama said he declared it a terrorist attach the on 12 Sept in the Rose Garden (he didn't) so why did he mention the videos 6 times in his UN talk?

YeCats
10371
Points
YeCats 10/16/12 - 11:24 pm
7
2
Falling on her sword is

Falling on her sword is hollow and transparent. And the Governor miss an opportunity in tonight's debate, even though it could have been because of the moderator's interruption.

This issue has legs. It ain't going away no time soon.

burninater
9363
Points
burninater 10/16/12 - 11:52 pm
2
7
This issue has legs. It ain't

This issue has legs. It ain't going away no time soon.
-----------
Not so sure that anyone but the choir is going to hold the administration responsible for the acts of terrorist criminals, YeCats.

America re-elected a President who ignored intelligence warnings preceding the deaths of 2,977 people on American soil. I would be surprised if four people in Libya evoke a stronger response in voters, as horrible as the situation may be for them and their families.

YeCats
10371
Points
YeCats 10/17/12 - 12:25 am
7
3
Security is the issue:

Burn, fortunately or unfortunately the undecided will decide if our President, and his staff, lied to people on this one. Even the media smelled a rat on that you-tube video excuse.

If they didn't,,,,,, than as a country, we're flying blind.

DeepThink
46
Points
DeepThink 10/17/12 - 12:25 am
3
11
Another lame editorial ! The

Another lame editorial ! The facts are there were riots outside other embassies in the region on the video (Cairo, Yemen, etc) at the time. The initial cautious response was understandable until the investigation was over.The administration acted responsibly by assessing this incident. The bottom line is it was investigated, and the administration has vowed to find the people responsible. Our record of tracking and bringing these terrorists to justice has been good. If anyone politicized this tragedy...it was Mr. Romney. So insensitive, that the family of the victims have asked him to stop mentioning this on the campaign trail. Mr. Romney was un-presidential and as tonight's debate shows....not worthy of our vote!!!

shrimp for breakfast
5422
Points
shrimp for breakfast 10/17/12 - 01:55 am
2
4
What I believe

Why did we need an embassy there in the first place? A nut case country full of violence and mayhem is no place for a US embassy. I believe even with an attachment of Marines the only thing different that would have happened is that we would have lost Marines AND the ambassador.

carcraft
25056
Points
carcraft 10/17/12 - 06:50 am
6
2
Deepthink- If you don't know

Deepthink- If you don't know what happened why run out a BS story? Here are some facts for you. During the attacks people in the state Department were watching it occur in real time, a drone was watching over head. On the Friday following the attack 14 Sept, the Prime Minister of Libya came on US television and said this was a pre-planned terrorist attack. Reporters who talked to people who lived in the area said there was no demonstration. On Sunday the US Ambassador to the UN went on every Sunday News talk show and spoke about a demonstration that got out of hand. On the 25th Obama referenced the video as a focus of the attack 6 times in his UN speech. Was Obama Brain dead? Was Obama kept from the truth for 14 days? Was Obama trying to cover up the attack?

americafirst
965
Points
americafirst 10/17/12 - 07:26 am
6
2
Obama has spent 3 and a half

Obama has spent 3 and a half years blaming everything on Bush. Now he blames his own administration for anything that goes wrong as though deflecting the blame to his own administration does not reflect on him. He is taking the blame game to new heights.

Riverman1
81439
Points
Riverman1 10/17/12 - 07:57 am
7
2
Political Spin...Let's Be Honest

The political spin of the attack on the consulate was seen in the administration trying to hide the fact it was a well laid out Al Qaeda attack on 9-11. They went to great lengths to explain the murders of the ambassador and others were simply due to demonstrations about the anti-Muslim video that got out of hand. It was all a lie and they KNEW it.

Jane18
12332
Points
Jane18 10/17/12 - 08:07 am
5
2
The Clean-Up Woman

Good ole' Hillary, always cleaning up after her men and her party........

seenitB4
84321
Points
seenitB4 10/17/12 - 09:19 am
3
1
Hillary

I bet ole Hillary would like to get out of his parade....

allhans
23471
Points
allhans 10/17/12 - 09:32 am
5
1
It seemed for a while that

It seemed for a while that Obama would stand back and let Hillary take the blame...What a shame if he had not finally, reluctantly said that as president the blame rests when him. I was beginning to wonder which one of the two wore the skirt.

grouse
1635
Points
grouse 10/17/12 - 10:42 am
3
6
Did The Chronicle called for
Unpublished

Did The Chronicle called for Powell or Bush to resign after 9/11?

carcraft
25056
Points
carcraft 10/17/12 - 11:18 am
3
2
Did anyone call for

Did anyone call for impeaching President Clinton after the two US embassies in Africa were bombed, the USS Cole was bombed, Kobar Towers were bombed and the World Trade Center was bombed the first time and President Clinton did nothing?

YeCats
10371
Points
YeCats 10/17/12 - 12:48 pm
3
2
Can a President be impeached

Can a President be impeached twice?

carcraft
25056
Points
carcraft 10/17/12 - 12:52 pm
3
1
I would suppose so but not

I would suppose so but not for the same thing, the first time was lying under oath. Niether President that has been impeached has been convicted!

InChristLove
22452
Points
InChristLove 10/17/12 - 02:54 pm
5
3
allhans, in my opinion, all

allhans, in my opinion, all this "I take responsibility" is just a game of distraction. First the heat was on Susan Rice, then Hillary steps up and says she takes responsiblity, now the President says, He's ultimately responsible.......we as a nation are looking to place the blame for these lies and deaths and if they can keep us guessing on who to fix our target on and who's feet to lay the blame, they hope eventually our necks will become tired of twisting back and forth between targets. Nothing but a diversion until the outrage dies down.

allhans
23471
Points
allhans 10/17/12 - 03:18 pm
6
2
ICL...Of course. Obama only

ICL...Of course. Obama only spoke the words for effect. We know he would never admit to any wrongdoing.

Carcraft...What about O saying that gas was 1.86 when he took office because the economy was bad. I guess he thinks the sky is the limit if the economy improves. $8.00 a gal for gas anyone?

Bizkit
30361
Points
Bizkit 10/17/12 - 03:40 pm
5
2
Well just listened to Obama's

Well just listened to Obama's whole speech in rose garden and he lied. He first makes reference to our religious freedom and we should be tolerant (an indirect reference to movie) then goes on and talks about the "attack" and the "killers" will held accountable-never a direct connection with terrorism. Later he mentions the attack occurs on 9/11 and how we should never let our guard down from terrorist attacks-plural (which is a vague reference to terroristic attacks not a direct reference to this incident). He never directly called this a terrorist attack and mentioned religion as a factor first-a clear reference to the movie. Now the media is saying the moderator was accurate but that is really stretchin' it to say Obama called it a terrorist attack especially in light of his UN speech and other comments by others.

burninater
9363
Points
burninater 10/17/12 - 03:43 pm
4
4
we as a nation are looking to

we as a nation are looking to place the blame for these lies and deaths and if they can keep us guessing on who to fix our target on and who's feet to lay the blame, they hope eventually our necks will become tired of twisting back and forth between targets
---------
Not sure that I agree with that, ICL. I think as a nation, Americans are pretty clear thinkers, and are laying the blame at the feet of the actual murderers.

burninater
9363
Points
burninater 10/17/12 - 03:49 pm
4
3
What about O saying that gas

What about O saying that gas was 1.86 when he took office because the economy was bad.
----------
Simple supply and demand, and Romney didn't challenge it because he knows it. There is a lag between production and when the gas actually gets to the pump. When you are producing gas for a bubble economy, and then the bubble bursts, the sudden drop in demand produces a supply glut. Supply glut = drops in prices.

There is a bit of wishful thinking in the idea that any president's policies can significantly manipulate global oil markets. Romney knows THAT, too. It's a convenient misdirection though, I'll give him that.

carcraft
25056
Points
carcraft 10/17/12 - 04:16 pm
3
2
About supply and demand

Burniater- When Obama said he had increased permits on federal land for oil production that was a lie. There has been a 32% DECREASE in permits on Federal land and a 60% Decrease in off shore drilling permits under Obama. If we increase supply then prices will fall. We can increase supply by utilizing our own oil and not have to bid against China, India etc. for oil. We can even sell them oil and reduce our trade deficit. What we do need are more processing facilities and better distribution. Oh by the way, GM did file for Bankruptcy but Obama intervened in the process to protect union contracts. Obama really didn't care to much about what happened to nonunion workers like those at the Delphi Plant. So the only difference between Obama and Romney was that Obama intervened in the bankruptcy process and put creditors and bond holders last instead of the proper order in a normal bankruptcy!

burninater
9363
Points
burninater 10/17/12 - 05:47 pm
3
2
Yes carcraft, that would have

Yes carcraft, that would have been a lie, if he had actually said it.

What he said was that his administration stopped allowing producers to sit on leases they weren't actively producing. They DID reduce permits -- the INACTIVE ones, and that's EXACTLY what he said. The way it used to work was that you could buy up a whole bunch of leases at auction when valuations are low, and then sit on them until prices go up -- essentially, giving away our nation's mineral wealth to low bidders who then pocket the difference when prices go up. And yet production is still UP. See, this is how intelligent policy works, contrasted to policy that is designed specifically to enrich selected groups of private interests -- interests which, in this specific case, were allowed by the last administration to WRITE the policy that let them corner public assets for future private gain.

And the difference between the two bankruptcy plans is that Romney would have withheld gov't loans to GM. Do you understand this difference? Do you understand how completely different the recovery of our domestic auto industry, and all of those jobs that supposedly are important to voters on the Right, would have been if GM had tried to get private financing, AFTER bankruptcy, at a time when the banks were lending to almost noone?

burninater
9363
Points
burninater 10/17/12 - 04:34 pm
2
3
Not only did these loans to

Not only did these loans to GM allow it to recover -- but they've all been paid back. This is the power of intelligent governance, and the difference of possibility between a policy that seeks results and a policy that seeks to adhere to ideology regardless of circumstance.

allhans
23471
Points
allhans 10/17/12 - 09:29 pm
3
2
No. They have not paid it

No. They have not paid it all back. Chrysler and GM both still owes the American taxpayers money.. we won't know the true cost to taxpayers until the stock, which taxpayers own, is sold...only then.........

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Taxpayers-Owed-Billion-Bailouts/2012...

justthefacts
21112
Points
justthefacts 10/17/12 - 05:12 pm
2
2
Nothing changed

What has GM done to correct the issues that caused the financial crisis is the first place? Not much I suspect. How long before they need more money? Bankruptcy would have forced change. Leadership would have been changed. Like Delta Airlines, as one example, they probably would have come out of Bankruptcy a stronger company.

carcraft
25056
Points
carcraft 10/17/12 - 05:53 pm
2
2
Burninater- I don't quite believe your facts!

Checking up on the facts it seems Obama has reduced the nuber of permits issued ( not just rescined old permits). http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2012/02/deception-obama-claims-credit-for...

Bizkit
30361
Points
Bizkit 10/17/12 - 06:24 pm
2
0
Bush does deserve credit for

Bush does deserve credit for saving the auto industry-Obama just continued the process as the bailout was started by Bush.

carcraft
25056
Points
carcraft 10/17/12 - 07:04 pm
2
2
The problem with GM is that

The problem with GM is that the US and Canada own about (I may be wrong on the exact number but I should be close) own about 26% of GM. This scares investors because if prices rise the government may dump the shares killing the price rise. The price of GM stock is just 2/3 what it was since the IPO. The tax payers will probably lose money when all is said and done!

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs