Hillary Clinton takes responsibility for Libya US deaths

[Gerald]

Mrs Clinton said her "primary responsibility" was to keep people safe

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she takes responsibility for the security failure at the Benghazi consulate that led to the killing of four Americans in Libya last month.

Mrs Clinton said ensuring the safety of US diplomatic staff overseas was her job, not that of the White House.

US Republicans have strongly criticised President Barack Obama over the attack.

And Republican challenger Mitt Romney is likely to raise it again in the second campaign debate with Mr Obama.

"I take responsibility," Mrs Clinton told CNN. "I'm in charge of the state department's 60,000-plus people all over the world [at] 275 posts."

It seems Mrs Clinton is trying to draw criticism away from Mr Obama, who needs a strong debate performance if he is to recover his lead in the polls, says the BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19958739

Note: 16 October 2012 Last updated at 11:24 GMT

[Armistead]

Tis a lil late for this, so it will be see as a political move.

We all know possibly 1000's of possible threats or rumors abound in the world daily and it's hard to get them all right, but considering Libya, the ball was dropped.

[GT182]

She's semi responsible. The White House has the full responsibility to protect US citizens abroad in times of danger to their well being... especially for the American consulates abroad. If this had happened back in the time of Roosevelt it would have been declared an act of war.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by GT182

If this had happened back in the time of Roosevelt it would have been declared an act of war.

Who do you declare war on if the attacks weren't carried out by the Libyan government?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Who do you declare war on if the attacks weren't carried out by the Libyan government?

And that's the whole problem with this Middle East thing. Who would we declare war on? The people that we are trying to keep out of power do not have a nation, or even a national identity.

[August]

So she's responsible for the deaths of 4 of our people. When can we expect her resignation?

[the_tyrant]

well, she is taking one for the team. I'm sure team r would be attacking team d in the debates over this, and she just took the hit for it

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

So she's responsible for the deaths of 4 of our people. When can we expect her resignation?

This last dance for Hillary is the end of the line. I do not blame her. IMO, she was wronged by her party en lieu of current commander and chief. Personally, I think she looks completely wiped out. If BO does get a second term I suspect Hillary will step down. If MR wins Hillary will be replaced anyway. It is a shame what happened in Libya.

[eddie]

Originally Posted by August

So she's responsible for the deaths of 4 of our people. When can we expect her resignation?

And Reagen should have resigned after getting 200 Marines killed in Beirut!
Reagen should have reisgned after the Iran-Contra affair became public. After all, he was in charge!!!

But August, using your words from another thread, that's like comparing apples to oranges. Especially when Republicans are at fault!

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

So she's responsible for the deaths of 4 of our people. When can we expect her resignation?

Don't you mean prep for 2016 presidential run? That is some pretty sweet resume candy though.


Facilitates falling on sword for the Leader.

• Team player
• Held full accountability scheduling and training administrative and customer service teams, ensuring
  
  
  optimal coverage and support of presidential needs.
  
• Provided hands-on leadership to 4-person team of office associates, along with serving a primary resource for
  8 remote plant location's Scales Office Buyer, Purchase Order, and telepromter Booking Coordinator.
  
• Served as back-up for Sales Manager during period of absence, including 6-weeks of annual coverage
  during presidential golf vacations.
  

Vote Clinton (Hillary) 2016.


From CNN:

Clinton said her mission now is to make sure such an attack will never happen again, and also to ensure the work of American diplomats won't be stopped even in dangerous areas like Benghazi.

I think we just found a new roll for the TSA.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

And that's the whole problem with this Middle East thing. Who would we declare war on? The people that we are trying to keep out of power do not have a nation, or even a national identity.

Sink the whole United States into another war and nation building exercise just as we are getting out of two others? Forget the flag waving and banners of freedom and democracy crap. Fight like the terrorists send the SEALs over there to and give them a taste of their own medicine under cover of darkness. I dont want to know about it and its cheaper.

[Platapus]

I am really getting tired of these government officials, and corporate managers standing in front of the press proclaiming that they "accept full responsibility".

Accepting responsibility means accepting the consequences. That means resigning or accepting some legal or other consequence.

Unfortunately, "accepting full responsibility" has become an empty phrase. What "accepting full responsibility" really means is "stop talking about it".

I would really like the media to start pinning down these politicians (both parties) when they say this.

Just ask them, on camera, "Please tell us what 'accepting full responsibility' means to you? What exactly are you going to do?" And them watch them squirm like the worms they are.

[joegrundman]

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

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.

[GT182]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Who do you declare war on if the attacks weren't carried out by the Libyan government?

You can't as they wear no uniform of any country. They could stand right next to you and you'd never know if they were your enemy or not. Brings you right back to Viet Nam and every war since then. Look at Russa in Afghanistan for 20 years and them finally realisng they couldn't win. Same with the US now, but we haven't learnt from others mistakes. Know too that the Libyan government could have stopped this act, but they didn't. They are also a part of the 'unkowns' mixed in and working along side with the ones waging war on us.

Think about this. We always try to helps those fighting against oppression, only to have them turn on us in the end. Makes no difference if it's a fight against Communism or terrorist rebels in some 3rd world country.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

And that's the whole problem with this Middle East thing. Who would we declare war on? The people that we are trying to keep out of power do not have a nation, or even a national identity.

Exactly! When you do not know who it is that wages war on you, you have lost that war right from the start.