Clinton jumps on the Benghazi grenade | FP Passport

This story is a top one under discussion at our household.  Houndshell provides the most comprehensive set of points:

CNN’s Elise Labott, traveling with Hillary Clinton in Peru, got the secretary of state to make news by stating the obvious: that she is ultimately responsible for the safety of U.S. diplomats.

There’s a bit of editorial slight of hand going on, because she the headline quotes her saying “I take responsibility” and then throws in “… for Benghazi” without quotes. So there may be less to this story than meets the eye. Without the full context of her remarks, it’s hard to say whether she was really taking the hit for the whole fiasco or not. (The AP has a slightly different version, as does Fox News.)

But hey, it’s close enough, and Clinton’s comments are obviously going to get wide play and will of course be instantly politicized — regardless of whether she’s merely doing the right thing, or whether she’s actually just shielding Obama from scrutiny ahead of Tuesday night’s debate, as some are already suggesting, or whether, as the conspiracy-minded would have it, she’s pulling some Machiavellian maneuver to appear like she’s taking responsibility only to make the president look bad and set herself up for 2016.

via Clinton jumps on the Benghazi grenade | FP Passport.

Advertisements
Tagged

8 thoughts on “Clinton jumps on the Benghazi grenade | FP Passport

  1. michaelseancovey says:

    I think both Secretary Clinton and President need to come out and take more responsibility for what happened in Benghazi. Yeah, they may have not been fully aware of the situation there, but the leaders still always need to take responsibility for what happens underneath them. I think it’s wrong for Obama to be telling the UN that Al Qaeda is severely weakened when they are running rampant in North Africa and killing our foreign officers.

    Libya is an important issue, but it’s not the most important right now. Foreign Policy suggests that Congressmen Daryl Issa is diving into the Benghazi incident just for political opportunism, but I disagree. Is he not supposed to do his job and investigate what went on? He is the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (OGR) for crying out loud, whose job is to oversee the executive branch (including the Department of State). Let the man and his committee do their job and investigate. Yeah, it’s happened at an inconvenient time for President Obama’s reelection campaign, but should they just brush it under the carpet for a few months? No, the OGR should do their job.

    Now, I’m not sure if there was a “cover up.” But it does seem fishy that it took two weeks for the State Department to come back and tell the country, “No, Ambassador Stevens actually wasn’t killed by protestors who were angry over the video. It was a planned terrorist attack.” It seems strange that it took two weeks, when there is evidence that some government officials knew the truth as short as two days after the attack.

    So in conclusion, the OGR Committee and Congress have every right to investigate who knew what and when. It’s their job and President Obama and Secretary Clinton should take more responsibility. Good news clip on Benghazi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OxjDOHmAtg

  2. jackie3clark says:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/16/hillary-clinton-barack-obama-libya-joe-biden-election-2012/1635895/

    A different take on the same story.

    Though I do not know Clinton’s motives, it makes me sick to think that she would just take the blame to progress her domestic politics career. That being said, this is something that we face on a major scale in the United States. It is as if international policy and affairs are used as a advertising campaign. It reminds me of Putin’s advertising attempts to gather political support, but in a more roundabout way.

  3. joshuacordon says:

    http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_21783903/hillary-clinton-benghazi-attack-i-take-responsibility

    I will be interesting to see what happens if she takes blame. Is she going to be reprimanded in some fashion because she now has blood on her hands, or is her oversight going to be excused because she owned up to her crimes? If she is going to take blame than she also accept the consequences that come with it. An ambassador is now dead along with other Americans this situation cannot be brushed under the rug.

  4. mitchmender says:

    I think the biggest point in the story was when he said, “He was a big boy if he thought it was dangerous he shouldn’t have gone” This is a crude way of pointing out a very serious point that diplomats know how dangerous their job is and they still love to do it. Lets have some respect for them and what they do. Chris knew what could happen and he still chose to do his job maybe no one needs to take the blame (or honor) than him.

    an article by Christ stevens dad talking about this.

    http://www.inquisitr.com/363164/chris-stevens-dad-says-sons-death-doesnt-belong-in-political-arena/

  5. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/11/opinion/hayden-benghazi-wishful-thinking/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

    This particular article is highly politicized, but I thought it would be interesting to share it and see what kind of reactions would come of it.

    Were mistakes made? Of course, but I don’t think finger-pointing will solve any problems here. Hindsight is 20/20, and the details of things such as security for diplomats and threats to national security are handled at a lower level than POTUS or even SECSTATE. I do, however, believe that leadership from the very top of any organization will influence the entire group by creating a distinct atmosphere, to include standards of conduct, protocols, and general considerations. We can only compare past administrations to one another and their various achievements.

  6. codyknudsen says:

    That Secretary Clinton would take the blame for the incident at Benghazi is extremely interesting to me because of the possible consequences on her future political career. While it may take away some of the fire against President Obama and Joe Biden, how will this admission help Hillary in a possible run for the Oval Office in 2016? While this act does rebut some of the accusations by the Republican party that the Obama administration and Democrats in general are unwilling to take responsibility, might this be a little too much responsibility if she wants to realistically run for President in the future? It is also interesting to me that she has not received credible pressure to resign from her office in the Cabinet. Had something like this occurred to almost anybody else, there would be immediate calls for resignation from both sides of the political spectrum. And yet, she stands firm in her position, “We cannot retreat.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/16/hillary-clinton-responsibility-embassy-attack

  7. Hillary Clinton definitely took one for the team with her statement. Hillary has become one of the most popular figures in American politics, and especially among democratic Americans. I really feel like she made the right choice by taking the blame to the embassy attack. She can afford to go down a few polling points right now, president Obama cannot. Her announcement is especially significant as it came the same day that President Obama will debate Mitt Romeny. It puts Romney in an awkward position, it takes away his offensive ground in the debate, and if he really wants to push the issue he will have to publicly contradict or attack Clinton, and the state department, which traditionally tries to keep itself above partisan politics.

    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/15/clinton-i-take-responsibility-for-benghazi/

  8. cheholmes5 says:

    I will finally give credit to Hillary, even though I may not want to. She definitely did the right thing to take blame. It was their fault even though the diplomats know what their job entails. It is still the governments job to protect its citizens. The government also knows how dangerous it is over there and especially after the controversial video played. This does not excuse the Obama administration in the slightest for what took place. And yes hindsight is always 20/20, but we can use that to learn for the future and elect officials in office who will actually take the danger in the Middle East for our diplomats and even the army and other officials in general more seriously. This should be taken into account when looking into who to elect in November. We should also not overlook the underlying reasons of why she would say that, and what might be at stake for her in saying that. I believe that she has ulterior motives for taking the blame. Rarely has a politician done something like this to put their reputation on the line and take the blame for something. So why start with Hillary? Let’s just be cautious. This article is an interesting report on Libya and what happened there on September 11.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/hillary-clinton-benghazi-libya_n_1968863.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: