Clinton Takes Responsibility for Handling of Libya Attack
Clinton takes responsibility for handling of Libya attack (via AFP)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she takes the blame for any shortcomings in the handling of an attack last month on the US mission in the Libyan city of Benghazi. “I take responsibility,” she said, according to the news networks CNN and Fox, which interviewed her during a visit to the Peruvian…
Share This
Related Posts
-
John McCain Defends President’s Speech After Gun Vote
Posted on Apr 19, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
-
The Medal of Honor for a Soldier Who ‘Didn’t Fire a Gun…’ – Part II
Posted on Apr 13, 2013
are we falling on the sword to protect the party? I believe so
Almost nothing is sacred to the political right anymore. We all should know this by now. What Clinton is doing is laudable, but it won’t matter to people who gleefully spin tragedy to their own purposes. A party whose cornerstones have become lying, bigotry, social irresponsibility, and obstruction isn’t about to pass on any opportunity to demonize, certainly not this close to a major election.
Of course those that want to see a screw-up from Obama will continue to see it that way, and those who favor him will tend to believe Clinton’s explanation. All that I know is that these types of things regularly happen.
Personally, I don’t understand why the Whitehouse would want to be secretive about an attack from militants? How many times have we heard reports from Iraq and Afghanistan about suicide bombers who penetrate military security and succeed in blowing up themselves and American soldier–even some of the top brass have been killed. One could also note that 911 didn’t happen without major screw-ups from GW’s administration. The FBI had tracked suspicious Muslims taking flight lessons and had felt their was good reason to be wary. There were also some Saudi dignitaries that were mysteriously flown out of our country around the time of the attack, and our fighter Jets, took a great deal of time to respond, allowing for three strikes from hi-jacked Jet planes on 911, plus the crash of flight United 93. The Bush administration got plenty of flak from all sides, and, there were many who saw some sort of conspiracy behind the failures of the intelligence community. Desired or not, breaches in security will happen from time to time. And that’s the reason I don’t understand why Obama’s people would take such a great risk by trying to cover it up.
Apparently, things have not turned out to conform with what we were told from the Whitehouse originally. It is entirely possible that there were some attempts to cover-up what happened,and, at some high level of Authority. I’m sure part of Clinton’s speech resulted from wanting to deflect criticism from Obama just before a critical debate, and during a race that remains extremely close. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama was personally to blame for the cover-up. One might also note, that before contentious elections, one side or another jumps on anything that might possibly sway voters their way. That is probably why so much criticism is coming from the GOP. Witch hunts during election times are a dime a dozen. And I think we are witnessing another one evolve!
If indeed the Whitehouse did attempt to cover-up the incident it is sad that they felt such a move was needed. They could have just issued a press release, saying something like, “Unfortunately this incident proves that Al-qaeda is still alive and dangerous, and that we should redouble our efforts to root out terrorists and apprehend the people who killed our Ambassador, while acting with sinister determination.” How many times have we heard this, and other administrations deliver similar statements?
As far as a failed middle-east policy, there are still many Libyans and people from other Arab countries who have condemned the attacks and have physically stormed the homes where some of the terrorists were thought to come from. I know many of us are tired of hearing the line–”This horrendous deed represents only a very small minority of Islamic people, and is not indicative of pervasive sentiments.” It may be an overused excuse but in this case it is true! I wonder if a Republican President would have stood by and watched mass extermination of most Libyans who would also certainly have been tortured and executed at the whim of Qaddafi if, he were allowed to prevail? It seems unlikely that even they, would be OK with passing up such a chance to win Arabic hearts and minds to favor America.
This will play out for a while and then diminish in importance, just like all election scandals do. But I certainly don’t think it is a result of failed foreign policy.
When Romney and Obama say that they will keep all options on the table, and will place severe restrictions on Iran–a statement like that is par-for-the-course. As anyone knows whose been in a fight, Insults, threats and belligerent attitudes seldom diffuse the the situation and are more likely to lead to an actual altercation. Romney seems to come from the old chest-thumping, saber rattling school, but that has been tried over and over again–seldom accomplishing anything. Whether history vindicates Obama, or finds him completely culpable for policy failures remains to be seen–personally I think his attempts at honest negotiation and diplomatic overtures represents a welcome change.
On thing GW.Bush said to John Q. Public, was that his administration knows things that we don’t. This may also be the case for the Obama administration. It is way too easy for us sitting on the sidelines, who are not privy to classified intelligence reports to recommend solutions which may not really be the best.
At any rate, let’s hope a military conflict between Israel and Iran won’t happen and further destabilize the region. And, if we are sure there is no other way, then some of the options on the table may have to be used as a last resort.
The GOP’s criticism of Clinton’s statement that “the buck stops with the Commander in Chief” is kind of unbelievable, considering the hackles that are still raised any time you mention anything implying that GWB might have had some responsibility before, during, or after 9/11 to do the right thing, which he failed to do on all counts. Secretary Clinton has just taken more responsibility for something going wrong than anyone did the 8 years of Dubya’s administration.
Also, as a side note, the article doesn’t seem to be loading. Neither do the other embedded articles.
What Petew said. All of it. And same for roro’s indignation about the GOP all of a sudden getting to tell us where the buck stops.
Ironic, Bush blamed everything on organized terrorists and Obama avoids that notion like the plague, even to the point of sending Rice to run through five Sunday show minefields with a very prepared sounding position.
THE VIDEO ate my homework.