Jihadin wrote:
Rumsfield did not have Operational control of the invasion as is Hillary not being the deciding factor for additional security for Benghazi.

 gregor_xenos wrote:
Yup... figgured she'd be the one to throw herself under the bus. (For the greater good.) *Wow.... that applies on SO many levels.

 Jihadin wrote:
Rumsfield did not dictate how the US Military were to invade Iraq. That was lead by Gen. Tommy Franks

 d-usa wrote:
So maybe she is not running for President in 2016 then?

d-usa wrote:"Hillary Clinton: she was unable to protect 4 Americans in her department, how can we trust her to protect all Americans as President?" - I am (generic republican candidate for president) and I approve this message.

STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN, GRAHAM AND AYOTTE ON SECRETARY CLINTON’S COMMENTS THIS EVENING ON BENGHAZI ATTACK

October 15, 2012

Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) today released the following statement on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s comments this evening regarding the terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:

“We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.

“However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

“Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”

Clinton did not, and cannot, take the fall for the false statements by the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi. The State Department, which was following events there in real time, knew that this was a terrorist attack, not a protest. Yet, days after the attack, the administration mischaracterized it as a protest that spun out of control against a movie. That’s on Obama, not Clinton.

 whembly wrote:
The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.”

 whembly wrote:

Clinton did not, and cannot, take the fall for the false statements by the Obama administration about what happened in Benghazi. The State Department, which was following events there in real time, knew that this was a terrorist attack, not a protest. Yet, days after the attack, the administration mischaracterized it as a protest that spun out of control against a movie. That’s on Obama, not Clinton.

dogma wrote:Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.

 azazel the cat wrote:

dogma wrote:Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.

But... but he quoted a blog! With the words "power" and "line" in its name. The "power" is self-evident, and the "line" is clearly a reference to its direct form of communications! I don't see how it can't be a credible source of information!

There has been a lot of back and forth about “Will Barack Obama Throw Hillary under the Bus over Benghazi?” or vice-versa this week .

It was quite a situation, If Obama threw Hillary under the bus would the Clintons work subrosa against him? (I maintain they already have been.) If Hillary threw Obama under the bus would the African-American community make her pay in 2016, it’s one thing for them to be pissed off at Obama, it’s quite another for some white lady to beat up on him.

What do you do? Well Hillary has threaded the needle in a way that accomplishes everything she needed to thus.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm around the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she is responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.

“I take responsibility” for the protection of U.S. diplomats, Clinton said during a visit to Peru. But she said an investigation now under way will ultimately determine what happened in the attack that left four Americans dead.

The moment I heard this I had one thought: This is the move of a political master. Consider what this accomplishes:

Seemingly:

It is a statesman like move, going forward and not ducking responsibility in a way nobody has been willing to do.

In Reality:

It covers her, by taking responsibility it heads off all kinds of stories that might come up with a theme of finding fault. Why should congress investigate to pin blame when it’s already been accepted?

Seemingly:

It supports the president, by taking the blame she shields the first Black president both showing herself a good soldier to the party and most importantly to the black community.

In Reality:

It undermines Obama by making her look strong, and him look weak. He is now forced to make some kind of statement second as a response. It’s the 3 AM phone call with her answering while he goes to Vegas.

Seemingly:

It ends press coverage on what the Obama Administration should do next, blame assigned move on.

In Reality:

It doesn’t end coverage it changes it. What will the president do about this? It puts Obama in a box. Blame is assigned so what is the punishment? If Hillary is responsible does he ask for her resignation, does he fire her? With his electoral prospects already sinking he dare not do either, and God help him if she resigns on her own. It would be another example of her acting while he is paralyzed. It is the final act of Carterization of the president. [edit: ]

Seemingly:

It makes her vulnerable as every commentator on the right calls for her head in the hope of embarrassing Obama and taking her down a peg.

In Reality:

It gets her in good with the base of her party. I can see the fundraising e-mails now. “She’s taken responsibility and those nasty right wingers are piling on” This will coin money for her. That doesn’t even take into account how the press will react. [edit. genius!]

Seemingly:

It hurts her 2016 election prospects after all she is responsible for an attack on the US on the Anniversary of 9/11 no less.

In Reality:

Not only does this make her look presidential (Expect comparisons to JFK’s Bay of Pigs speech from the MSM) but it neutralizes her primary opponents on the subject, in fact for the second time in twelve years she will be able to paint herself as the victim of the irresponsibility of a man who should have known better. [edit: whoa!!! epic! ]

Seemingly:

It hands President Romney a ready-made issue in 2016 to use.

In Reality:

It puts Romney in a box. Every president has foreign policy failures and Mitt will have his share. Imagine the debate answer: “President Romney is right. I was secretary of state during the Benghazi debacle and I took full responsibility for it. What I would like to know is when the president will take responsibility for (insert relevant issue here)”. It will put and keep Mitt on the defensive.

The Bottom line is forgetting all the national security and moral issues involved. Hillary has done the thing that most helps her in the long run while all the time managing to undermine her foes on both the left and the right in one fell swoop.

That doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do, it IS but as usual the right thing is generally the smart thing and this was the smartest thing anyone in this administration has done in a while.

This story may continue, but in terms of its negative impact there will be little if any on Hillary Clinton from this point on.

Simply amazing. [edit: yup]

Update: Stacy Smithy gets it:

Why am I not a Presidential candidate? Because if I was Mitt, I’d be all: “I’d like to congratulate the President on his choice of Secretary of State. After the better part of four years, somebody in the Administration finally took responsibility the way leaders do, on one of those hopefully rare occasions when it involves confessing a shortcoming. In this case, one that involved the butchery of four Americans. Hopefully this President isn’t too old to learn something from all this. Better leaders plan so as to minimize these sorts of tragedies. Lesser men play the Casablanca card and locate a usual suspects for a round-up. How is Nakoula doing these days, Mr. President?”

Update 2: On Morning Joe Hillary Clinton compared to JFK. Think about it, in under 12 hours Hillary goes from: “The person responsible for a disaster” to JFK saying “defeat is an orphan”.

Today is day one of campaign 2016.

Update 3: Captain Ed Morrissey (he will always be Captain Ed to me) NAILS it:

It’s a jaw-dropping display of a leadership vacuum, which Hillary ended up having to fill herself. This is exactly what Hillary warned voters about in 2008. The contrast between her moment of leadership in this crisis and Obama’s lack of leadership since the very beginning of it will not help Obama make the case for another four years of buck-passing at the top, not even when Obama showed leadership on the Nicki Minaj-Mariah Carey feud.

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

dogma wrote:Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.

But... but he quoted a blog! With the words "power" and "line" in its name. The "power" is self-evident, and the "line" is clearly a reference to its direct form of communications! I don't see how it can't be a credible source of information!

Hey... we have whackadoos... and so do you!

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

dogma wrote:Everyone loves the absence of temporal specificity.

But... but he quoted a blog! With the words "power" and "line" in its name. The "power" is self-evident, and the "line" is clearly a reference to its direct form of communications! I don't see how it can't be a credible source of information!

Hey... we have whackadoos... and so do you!

You're right. The difference, is that I (we?) do not bother to post their blogs. Could you please refrain from effectively just re-blogging things here? I'd be more interested to hear your opinion than those of the owner of that blog.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I think that after the VP debate, I'd almost want to see Biden 2016.

I can't remember the last time a candidate completely schooled another one like that in a televised debate. (and despite what the pundits claim, Biden destroyed Ryan.)

 Jihadin wrote:

So basically she answered the 3AM call while he couldn't or wouldn't.