Clinton: 'I take responsibility' for Benghazi

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
This was inevitible. Biden threw her under the bus as the debate with Ryan.
I predicted this yesterday. But, she was a good little Obamabot.
I told you so.




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
She should have said this on the day it happened...

Now that the smoke is clearing, she wants it on record that she is taking responsibility..




Is it me or does this administration only react and never act.....



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frogs
Hmmm - interesting.

She could be falling on the sword now as it might be viewed better than running from it in light of a possible run for office down the road.


Hmmm maybe another Holder event....



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
It a good thing. I can't remember the last time an elected official did something like this.


True but it is like getting caught with your hand in a cookie jar.

Only Biden would do something like blame it on Ryan, and get away with it...lol



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   
It comes 24 hours before the Obama/Romney debate. This won't excuse the fact that the WHite House screwed up and tried to cover up a terrorist attack by blaming a stupid youtube video. I'm wondering what Obama has on Hillary that she'd take responsibility. True .. it IS the State Departments responsibility for security ... but wondering why she fell on her sword. It's unlike her to do so.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   
It's just words though. Nothing will happen to her, no bad will come of it and she won't lose a moments sleep over it.

It's just noise.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
but wondering why she fell on her sword. It's unlike her to do so.



Because she HAS to. If Obama took the blame, Romney would have had even more ammunition, at failed Foreign Policy. Still, Clinton had no choice. Its not going away, regardless how many times she says its my fault.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Hillary is 65 years old. Her husband is a year older. They've lived in the public eye for the majority of their lives. I don't see her making a bid for either big office in the future. I think she might have been holding out hope that Obama might drop Biden in '12 - and possibly open the door for her on a second term, but that didn't happen.

If she is falling on her sword, IMO, it's because she's ready to leave the game and is taking one last shot for the team before she goes.

Based upon that I predict that, should Obama win a second term, Clinton will resign between Election day and Inauguration day.

~Heff
edit on 10/16/12 by Hefficide because: typo



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
Clinton had no choice.

I dunno .... the Clintons are MASTER politicians. And they know how to get the mud to stick to others and not themselves. Even though security is the responsibility of the State Dept, I'm surprised Hillary went down so fast without a fight. In the end though, this doesn't excuse the White House for covering a radical Islamic terrorist attack by trying to, once again, blame someone here for the actions of the terrorists ... blaming a stupid Youtube video.

I just find this whole thing odd ...



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You might be right, actually.


I don't see her resigning because of this though. That would clearly damage Obama's bid, at reelection. After, regardless if he wins or loses, oh yeah. No way she can run for Presidency, with this on her record.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


She couldn't run for Presidency, with this on her Record, or Watch. No way. That's why she took the sword. Duel purpose. Shes obviously trying to take one for the team.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
Clinton will resign between Election day and Inauguration day.

By all accounts, she was going to do that before the Libya thing happened.


Originally posted by sonnny1
Shes obviously trying to take one for the team.

Which is unlike her to do so. Especially for a guy (Obama) who 'stole' the presidency from her.

Whatever. I find it odd for her to do.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


When she made her 1st statement about the incident, I could sense in her genuine shock and sadness for his loss, she must have known him



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


So the right-wingers here are saying they don't buy this story.


Imagine it: a cabinet member taking responsibility for her department!!!!!!! Hilary Clinton no less!

And then there are the right-wingers saying she was forced to take the blame or that she should have taken it on day 1.

They're never satisfied. Never mind that George W Bush, the commander in chief, never took responsibility for the massive failure that was the US real-time reaction to the 9/11 attacks and the pre-attack intelligence and law-enforcement inaction. And only after he got re-elected did he can Rumsfeld, his incompetent Secretary of Defense. Yeah, I know Rummy officially resigned -- and he did it for personal/family reasons, too, just like all the other scandalized minions of the Bush administration who "resigned" for similar reasons.

Under Bush, the CIA chief, Tenet, who claimed the Iraqi WMD's were a slam dunk, got a Presidential Freedom Award. The guy should have been sh*t-canned and have his pension revoked for flagrant incompetency.

Hilary Clinton has manned/womaned up to taking responsibility for any possible security failures with respect to the Benghazi attack, and the right-wingers are still not happy. She also has said that an investigation is ongoing into how the attack happened and any possible security lapses. I imagine steps are being taken to re-evaluate security needs at all embassies and consulates, but that this not be trumpeted.

What else should be done? I am sure some of the conservative fellow-travelers will call for Clinton's resignation even though they never called for Rumfeld's and he was responsible for many times as many deaths of Americans in an unnecessary and illegal war, which has only generated more hatred of the US and attendant increase in the ranks of terrorist groups.

No doubt should the Obama White House direct some strikes against the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack, the right-wingers will call the reprisal attacks politically motivated.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by sonnny1
Clinton had no choice.

I dunno .... the Clintons are MASTER politicians. And they know how to get the mud to stick to others and not themselves. Even though security is the responsibility of the State Dept, I'm surprised Hillary went down so fast without a fight. In the end though, this doesn't excuse the White House for covering a radical Islamic terrorist attack by trying to, once again, blame someone here for the actions of the terrorists ... blaming a stupid Youtube video.

I just find this whole thing odd ...


Uh... this reason/excuse was given the day of the attack and soon after the WH and State Department acknowledged that this was a pre-planned attack. How has the White House covered for any radical Islamic terrorist attack? It's killing said folks with drones all over the Middle East. The State Department apologized -- sort of -- for this video because of riots going on elsewhere, due to this video going viral. What is wrong with that? Seems a good way of trying to mitigate the damage done by the video. No one in the Obama administration has apologized for the video by saying the video justified any violence or terrorist attack. This is a fiction of the right-wing echo chamber, but you keep on claiming it based on what? Please, supply me a link to a quote or videotape of a White House or State Department apology for the attack.

And you find the whole thing odd because you have a very warped and biased view of what the Obama administration is about, and any taking of responsibility for an mistake by a cabinet member is so outside your experience of the eight years of the Bush II regime.

I say bully for Hilary for taking responsibility. She's the head of the State Department, so she should take responsibility for any mistakes that may have been made. Why all the over analysis of the political machinations of the matter, and the perplexity over it? Not every politician behaves like a cowardly Bush administration minion.

Are you conservatives also going to directly blame Obama for the collision between this US submarine and an Aegis cruiser that just happened?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
This was inevitible. Biden threw her under the bus as the debate with Ryan.
I predicted this yesterday. But, she was a good little Obamabot.
I told you so.


Uh... please explain how Biden threw her under the bus. Because he said the White House had no knowledge of the security concerns in Libya? Taking Biden at his word for this, how is that throwing HC under the bus? Seems she is taking responsibility for a matter that was under her purview.

A high-up member of the Obama administration has taken accountability for this matter and you and many of your Obama-hating fellow travelers can't handle it. It's beyond your comprehension because it so contradicts your world view.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I'm confused, I was under the impression she wants to actually retire, if so, maybe she wants to clear her conscience so she can make quilts and sleep at night. Maybe she's also actually taking one for the team to lighten the finger pointing regarding the topic in the upcoming debate.
Either way, good for her for 'taking responsibility', little late though.

Kerry wants Clinton's Job
edit on 16-10-2012 by Lonewulph because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
What's this about the "War on Women?"



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
A little bit of a time delay here, but at least Somebody took responsibility for it.

Who's going to take responsibility for the failed cover story of "Scary radical whacko Islam extremists driven into a killing frenzy over contrived Youtube 'viral' video?"



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I had hoped to remain neutral in the run up to the elections, as voting is sacred and secret, BUT the insignificant nobody me will NOT allow the GOP to set the narrative of the Benghazi attack, which is absolutely DISGUSTING if not horribly unconscionable, simply for the sake of the vote at the expense of many great and honorable people involved in the issue.

1. The Secretary of State, Mrs Hillary Clinton, one of the greatest statesperson of USA of all time, is responsible for the welfare of americans ambassadors around the world. It IS a GIVEN from day one. Had she denied any reponsibility for her staff? NONE!

IF responsibility is to be levied when events occurred, then when 911 happened, theoratically, the entire Bush cabinet was responsible for their failure to protect 3000+ innocent lives in america, protected by nukes and high tech military, should resign immediately, but yet, it was voted for a second term even when they did not take any responsibility.

YET, today the GOP attacked the President mercilessly and unfoundedly over Benghazi.


2. Right now, it's a blame game time. If it had not been an election period, most americans would rather delve upon - a.) the murderers of a great man, Ambassador Mr. Chris Stevens and other americans, to bring the culprits to justice, b.) what the State Dept had done now to correct errors on overseas missions to protect americans.

This is what the GOP should have been focussing on, but it had stupidly and immorally focussed blamed upon the President and administration for its supposed 'lapse' in security, when can be NO security from shadowy animals hell bent on exterminating humans, such as what happened at 911 on even american soil.

What the GOP is doing is BLAMING the President for the murder of ambassador Chris Stevens and fellow americans in Benghazi, no less, instead of the REAL culprits!!!

Is this right? or even moral???

But I guess the GOP cares nothing about what is right and even moral. All it cares about is winning the election, at any cost, even their own souls.

I would not have cared to post, with the HUGE pile of excremented lies, propaganda and hate by the GOP on here and various other ATS threads over this issue, except for the trivalisation of a great man's sacrifice - ambassador Chris Stevens, for one party's political gain. It is horrific, a terrror to watch the greed by the GOP unforld, and a sense of overwhelming sadness for all that the courageous ambassador had stood selflessly non-partisan for throughout his life..........
edit on 16-10-2012 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join