This is nonsense actually

it is not Hillary Clinton's position to take responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, and nor is it Obama's fault either.

It is the fault of Libya and those individuals who did it.

The idea that you can provide perfect security for every diplomatic mission is ridiculous. You have already transformed embassies into citadels stuck in the hearts of the lands that make up your global empire, and now you want to do it for every consulate too?

What is perfect security?

That each and every diplomatic mission can withstand an unlimited siege until the army arrives? That each and every diplomat has an armored convoy?

How much do you want to spend on this? Don't you know that your enemies have a strategy? That strategy is, they spend $1,000 on an operation, you spend $100,000,000 trying to prevent it happening again.

Diplomats are at the protection of the host country, and that is all there is to it. It is up to Libya to make sure that those who did it are brought to justice, and if that means bringing in US power to do so, then so be it. But retribution is the correct approach, and not some chimerical belief that the US can for reasonable cost "world-proof" every single diplomat out there.

Nobody is asking for a Parachute Infantry Regiment Joe but a Marine security detail in a country with little or no central government with a terrorist presence on the anniversary of 9-11 is not too much to ask for or expect to have.

You might get away with it in New Jersey but this is Benghazi. Common sense dictates that you don't leave your ambassador unguarded which is exactly what happened.

I am in full agreement with the words of the odd ducklike creature :D

It is too much to ask if people block the funding.
Did someone once say that deadlock in washington is the best thing for the country?

I think she should forfeit her Sec of State pension and benefits and give it to the families.:hmmm:

Did you think that Kissinger should have forfieted his pension, do you think he should have forfieted it again when the next ambassador was murdered?
If he had given it to the first lot that was murdered when he was responsible what could he give to the second lot?
Or is this just more silly team D/R nonsense where the only issue is waving the flag for elephants and donkeys

Tribesman, what could be done? Ok, she takes responsibility and walks away. It does not add up.

He's not currently in power, so who cares.

I don't care about blame one way or the other.

The only issue is why they lied for so long about the "spontaneous demonstration." Obama doubled down with his idiotic speech at the UN where he said "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam" in reference to the (ridiculously hamfisted and stupid) youtube video... which we (the US intelligence community) knew immediately (that morning at the latest) was not related to the Benghazi attack.

It was not "the intelligence we had at the time." The CIA, et al have already said a spontaneous demonstration was never on the table as their estimate. Why not just say "we misspoke" and be done with it the next day?

That's what I don't get.

Obama should hold a news conference and say, and as of 9:01 EST, HRC no longer has a job.

This is where Trump would be perfect.

yes you have a point, August, and with regards to that particular country, I guess you are right. But I think there are thousands of points in the world at large where a hit on a diplomat could have been made.

His point is that those calling for her to be punished are being one-sided and partisan. It's only the Liberal Democrat who should take a fall, never the Conservative Republican.

No, i'd feel the same way regardless of their politics. He only objects because she's a Democrat. If she were a Republican he'd be calling for her head on a plate.

The question remains: Hillary said she "took full responsibility" for their deaths. Well is that it? Just "oops my bad" with no consequences at all? Oliver North at least lost his job and was put on trial over Iran-Contra and rightly so.

Hillary doesn't even get a reprimand for admitting responsibility in the deaths of four people and it's us who are being "one-sided and partisan"?

And it's a valid question. The problem I have is that both sides do it on a fairly regular basis, but they only get bent out of shape when it's the other side's guy.

Maybe. Based solely on the way it was done I still see it as an underhanded attempt to get Reagan. Much the same as I see the "Monica" thing. Partisan politics disguised as righteous indignation.

Not for calling them on it, but for calling only them on it.

Also conveniently ignored by the partisan attack dogs is that Chris Stevens died of smoke inhalation from a fire started by a rocket attack. Having an increased security detail wouldn't have prevented that.