Hillary says the buck stops with her
Hillary Clinton throws herself under the bus, taking full responsibility for the Benghazi security lapses—except that she blames some underling.
Strange. My guess is that this is an attempt to secure a win for Obama while making herself look like a noble party loyalist. I don’t think it reflects well on Obama, though, in eye of the public. It makes her look like more of a grownup and a leader than he. After all, the president is supposed to be in charge of the Secretary of State, and responsible for things that happen on his watch in general.
Plus, this has nothing to do with the coverup, which remains a significant issue for most people who are aware of what transpired in Benghazi (not sure if that’s “most people,” though).
When there’s a screwup, people like presidents to take responsibility. At least, they used to like it, and I don’t think that’s changed in a major way—yet. Obama has set a new standard in buck-passing already, and this is just another episode in a long line of his trying to evade blame for anything that happens during his administration. What a failure of leadership!
She’s more and man than he’ll ever be.
Still, what about the Susan Rice misdirection/coverup? Is she accepting responsibility for that as well?
Obama is a wimp. He’s allowing State and intel take the blame for his incompetence and lack of leadership.
I believe that he knew within minutes or in real time exactly what was going on there.
We try to stay classy on this blog, so I won’t use a word that starts with “p” to describe him instead of “wimp”.
Ace of Spades has a really interesting interpretation on Hillary’s capitulation. Here’s a quote (emphasis mine):
The “giant Obama pinata.” What a great turn of the phrase. The link:
http://ace.mu.nu/
My guess is Jennifer Rubin’s take is right:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-buck-stops-at-foggy-bottom/2012/10/16/24166516-178b-11e2-9855-71f2b202721b_blog.html
“Frankly, no one believes she is responsible. She gets the gold star for being the loyal underling. And – this is key – the president looks small and weak. The pressure rises on him to shoulder the blame and to explain what occurred. His remaining three weeks of the campaign are spent in a death spiral of scandal. Clinton comes out looking like a rose. The 2016 nomination is hers for the taking. She (and probably Bill) in this version is the ultimate political manipulator, undermining the president by her own act of faux bravery. (From Peru. After the evening broadcast.)”
Didn’t JFK say “success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan?” Is Hillary being noble or would she have disavowed responsibility if she could have? The facts are pretty damning. This reminds me of Janet Reno saying I accept full responsibility for Waco and then blaming the deaths on the people in the compound. If I remember correctly Bill Clinton tried his best to avoid taking responsibility by saying something like “I new about Janet Reno’s plans but did not direct them.” Janet Reno should have resigned. So should Hillary. Obama is trying to vote present, the same as Bill Clinton.
That was my first thought. What if anything is this man actually responsible for if not our security? feckless doesn’t even begin to cover his posturing.
It is a somewhat shrewd move on her part (really, I should say on the Clintons part as I think they still work as a team) as Americans are generally a forgiving people – we just don’t like being lied to.
When some one claims “responsibility” (really, often meaningless, as they do nothing about it) Americans will often say “okay then” and move on.
The Clintons are aware of this and believe that it makes Obama look weak while not making Hillary look too terrible.
The problem is not that Obama should have ordered more security forces. The problem is that he has been unable to articulate a coherent foreign policy and then make sure his whole team understood it. His failure to attend security briefings shows that he doesn’t get that part of the president’s job. His team consists of people meant to fill quotas from his divided constituencies, and his policies hop around from soundbite to soundbite. Whether it’s the Fort Hood workplace accident, the closing of Alaskan oil reserves, or the Trayvon comments, there is no relationship to actual policies because Obama is too shallow to formulate them after vigorous discussions of the pros and cons. Playing with Big Bird and the ladies of The View is just about his level of competence.
I saw the clip from Hillary’s interview & it reminded me of her first interview following the Lewinsky scandal – the one where she said the allegations wouldn’t be “proven true” and that it was just a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
What she’s claiming is crazy: as part of her job she is responsible for security BUT there’s an investigation to find out what happened. If she wasn’t involved in the multiple security decisions (including Stevens’ plea for more security), or privy to the multiple attack warnings, than is she really in charge? Would she have us believe that the series of bad decisions at State are so well hidden that she’s still investigating 1 month + after the murders?
In an earlier post someone linked to Howie Carr’s interview with Col. Hunt where Hunt said that embassy security requests are automatically forwarded to the National Security Council and Advisor & added to the daily National Security Brief (that Obama supposedly reads every day). So neither Obama or Clinton can claim that they were unaware of the escalating attacks and multiple security decisions.
Expat,
So you’re saying that Obama disproves the “Peter Principle” and has progressed well beyond his innate level of competence.
Lizzy,
“. . . neither Obama or Clinton can claim that they were unaware . . . .”
they can claim they were unaware all they want. Their claim doesn’t change the fact, but is a not a matter of fact, its a matter of perception. Will the compliant press buy it?
In the famous words of Nathan Hale, suitably adapted for the Barackian era:
I regret that I have but one buck to pass for my presidency. (Oh, wait, here’s another.)
T,
Yep!
‘I don’t think it reflects well on Obama, though, in eye of the public.’
Which is why she did it.
Expat,
That was supposed to be “. . . well beyond his level of incompetence.”
Sorry.
The second is a higher bar, but the response would still be “Yep!”.
“a’ , not “and”
Sheesh, sorry about that…
“Will the compliant press buy it?”
Most likely.
Breitbart said, and I think he said it during Oct 08, something along these lines:
At this point, even if media were in possession of indisputable evidence that Obama were an agent of a foreign government, such as Venezuela: media would refuse to report it.
When Breitbart said that, I thought: Maybe he is correct, but it just sounds crazy. For me: cognitive dissonance: does not jibe with my sense of how the world works.
Now, we see the media in possession of hot hot hot information in multiple areas: Fast and Furious; Benghazi; et al. And media are reacting exactly as Breitbart said they would in 2008.
And, for me, interesting questions:
How will crumbling of Barack’s facade affect his media protection in the run up to Election Day? In other words: 1) how much more will Barack’s facade crumble? and 2) how much crumbling will effectuate how much disappearance of current media protection? Preference cascade, and all of that: to what degree will it cause media protection to evaporate, vs. to what degree will media protection remain strong.
Also, beginning immediately after Election Day: how much media protection will immediately evaporate? How stinging will be the media excoriation of Barack? I have always suspected: EXTREMELY stinging and vindictive and nasty. I think media will turn on him, viciously. But, we shall see.
I disagree with this was a shrewd move by Hillary, or that it was her first choice. Her first choice was of course to lie and obfuscate. Once that crashed and burned, what were her choices?
If she comes out and blames Obama in some capacity, he’d fire her and deny it, and most likely, he’d come out on top of the situation because the media loves him and doesn’t want to screw up his election chances. Ergo, the media sides with Obama because it’s either back Obama, or cinch a Romney victory. So Hilly can’t turn to them. No matter what her story is, she’s gone, plus there will still be questions about why the head of the state department was (and is) incompetent.
Now you’re Hilly, and you want to be president someday, so you can’t very well accept getting fired. If Obama fires her, she’s free to talk, but her career is finished. So after a few weeks of dithering around about confusing stories on the ground, muddled information sources etc., she takes some marginal amount of responsibility to avoid getting canned, but blames subordinates — exactly as Obama has done. Plus, now that she’s declared “I’m responsible”, she gets to control the investigation and all the information that comes out. If she resigned, or got fired, they would pin the whole thing on her, and she’d have no way to bury anything, plus she’d probably be subpoenaed by the incoming congress to testify. This way, she can steer the whole thing into the ground until it’s mostly forgotten. The media isn’t looking for the truth, they’re after a story, and now she can write it.
It might make Obama look weak and irresponsible, but it’s not a new approach for him, and none of his supporters are bothered by it. He’s not responsible for anything, he’s just president. Look at Eric Holder and all his scandals – he denied any responsibility for anthing with his scandals — everything is blamed on subordinates. It’s a winning formula for these scumbags.
To me, this was her ONLY choice, because she’s been boxed into a corner. Not clever, or imaginative, or even damaging to Obama. In fact I think Obama’s people have been part of the solution too, ever since the unexpected blowback, they have been steering and advising her to this – “you blame me, I’ll bury you, you take responsibility, you can control the story”. What would any good respectable sociopathic public servant do?
re Hillary’s: “I take responsibility (except it wasn’t my fault)”
I agree w/everyone, above, who said Hillary played this juuust riiight. In the eyes of Dem power brokers, and in the eyes of Dem voters, she comes out smelling like a rose.
We, naturally, can see the innate illogic in her comprehensive statement. And we can see the cynicism. However, we were never going to vote for Hillary. Our opinions do not matter.
Great comment via instapundit link:
HEH: So, now we know what happens when the phone rings at 3 AM in the White House. Obama call forwards to Hillary.
Southpaw,
I agree that Hillary’s early choice: to promote the lie about a video preview, was a terrible choice. However, once that terrible choice was already played: of Hillary’s remaining options for her situation, she made the best choice for her political future — and to control aspects of the investigation, et al, as you pointed out.
If Obama fires her, she’s free to talk, but her career is finished.
There’s another way out, the nuclear option, which in candor I’d thought she would take last year over some other issue (e.g., Israel) and then attempt to primary Barry.
Namely, she calls a press conference and blows it out publicly.
She details the precipitating event (putting it on the record, so the MSM can’t bury it), cites her noble policy recommendations (e.g., “to put the safety of our brave officials overseas foremost”), contrasts that with Obama’s mendacity and obscurantism, then concludes with:
“After lengthy and frank discussions with President Obama in an attempt to resolve our policy differences, I cannot in good conscience continue to serve in this Administration, and have therefore tendered my resignation effective immediately.”
Boom. Barry’s toast, and she comes out looking as good as she possibly can, given the circumstances.
re Obama looking horribly weak, on account of running from responsibility
We are seeing the executive savvy of a community organizer, an academic lecturer, and a State Representative.
We are seeing the reality of the place to which the principles of humanism and existentialism inevitably lead. Those cold and soul-less principles, interpreted by man, inevitably skew and twist and lead to this type of place; to this type of abdication of responsible leadership. It is inevitable; has occurred over and over. Barack lacks leadership talent. However, this did not occur b/c he lacks leadership talent. Rather, this occurred b/c it inevitably had to occur, given the humanist and existentialist principles which were at work.
Occam’s beard – I think the reason Hillary has avoided the nuclear option so far is that she (and Bill) don’t want to be the ones who destroy America’s first black president. Even if his popularity is flagging, they’d be punished for killing the dream.
Hillary knows full well that if Obama is not re-elected she must run in 2016 against an incumbent President, Mitt Romney. And that she will surely lose in 2016.
This is about doing what she can for Obama’s re-election, not because she wants Obama re-elected but because Hillary does not want to run in 2016 against an incumbent Mitt Romney.
If it’s her fault, and an Ambassador died, shouldn’t he ask for her resignation?
Another way of looking at it:
H&O are on the same ideological page about foreign policy, which is that the world has been an angry place because of the USA’s arrogance, but now that America is humble and repentant what happened in Benghazi and around the Moslem world couldnt have possibly happened. Blame a video. Blame the bureaucracy. Even blame themselves….But never really.
So precious is their “smart diplomacy” to these overbred products of the American education system, that taking responsibility for the dead ambassador and the others is preferable to questioning its premise. A dog will learn from its mistakes, a leftish intellectual never.
Hillary’s acceptance of responsibility would have been more convincing had there been an act of contrition included. A resignation would have been nice. Or at least a sincere apology to the families of the victims. Otherwise they are just empty words spoken for effect.
It is beyond belief that after his “gutsy call” on the Bin Laden mission, Barack Obama was totally out of the loop in Benghazi. More likely he turned into President Bump-On-a- Log.
It is beyond belief that after his “gutsy call” on the Bin Laden mission, Barack Obama was totally out of the loop in Benghazi.
Yep, he was involved up to his Brobdingnagian ears in the successful incident, inexplicably was pig ignorant about the unsuccessful one.
Sure.
I confess to being confounded by HRC’s move to (sort of) admit culpability for Benghazi. I see no positive outcome for her if she wants to gain the nomination in 2016. Falling on a sword for BHO will not make her a strong candidate in the general election of 2016 as it would provide a bludgeon to her opponent.
However, IMO Paul A’Barge’s comment is the best explanation I’ve heard so far: “This is about doing what she can for Obama’s re-election, not because she wants Obama re-elected but because Hillary does not want to run in 2016 against an incumbent Mitt Romney.”
I don’t see Hillary running in 2016, at least not successfully. She’ll be pushing 70 by then, and as some wag put it, has much more baggage than will ever fit in the overhead compartment.
She might run against Romney as a sacrificial goat for the Dems, as a kind of leftist Bob Dole, but that’s probably about it.
I’m with Charles. This gives the Clintons more power, both over the next 3 weeks, and over the next couple of elections.
In the conversation about “will the press buy it”, I thought, “will Congress buy it?” Beating one of my favorite drums, is the Vast Media Conspiracy really that powerful? If Obama was derelict in his duty, where’s the GOP-controlled House? Is there an impeachment proceeding I haven’t heard about?
Don’t forget that Hillary is a Clinton if only by marriage. Parse her words. I believe that she said, “The buck stops at my desk”. So, her desk is to blame.
Actually, I think she also pointed the finger at the incompetent professionals in the State Dept while acknowledging that they do work for her, even if they are a sorry lot. She would fire them if it were not for all of those inconvenient rules.
This is really win win for Hillary. She looks like the real man (pardon the chauvinism) in the Administration. She knows how short the memory of the American voter is, so no one will hold this against her in 2016. She has the Dimo women’s vote, and this might earn her a few of men’s.
kaba- a resignation prevents her (and Bill) from controlling the narrative and cover-up thereafter. She could claim the high road by leaving the rats nest as occam suggests, but she risks the possibility that the people she left behind will join ranks and stab her in the back.
If your boss quits, do you scuttle your own career by backing up your former boss? I don’t think the career state department folks are all going to risk their jobs to defend Hillary’s honor. Plus I’m betting there is plenty of incompetence on her part, combined with a nasty personal disposition- she’s better off keeping her enemies close, or the nuclear option could make her out to be a petty, incompetent hack. Barry’s been Teflon his whole presidency. Maybe she doesn’t have presidential aspirations, but there’s not much upside to going nuclear either, especially if she hasn’t made any friends at the office.
Holmes is right. Her fault, her resignation.
Oh that’s right, it would require integrity and honor.
http://tinyurl.com/9w762n6
God bless your logic and voice. I spread the word about your blog bc you have an important point of view. This particular posting u are dead on. Hilary has always presented herself more like a leader than he. She is traveling more than he..and even though she’s receiving memos…he’s the commander in chief. He’s so disappointing! As we get closer and closer to the election he is making obvious mistakes….is it his subtle message to the world that he’s given up? He’ll still does what any incumbant would do…why wouldn’t he? Wake up followers.
Come one guys: She didn’t use the phrase ‘the buck stops here’ by accident. Someone else before her used that phrase. And she shrewdly co-opted it.
Steve D…
By implication — you’ve never heard of Harry Truman?
Truman? Um yes, She used the same phrase he did on purpose. She’s implying that she’s the one in charge of foreign affairs, not Obama. He passed the buck to her. Because that’s all he’s capable of. She just insulted the president.
i agree w/ Steve D. that this was intentional and designed to emphasize Obama’s inability to accept responsibility for anything. Note that she did it before the debate – thus taking the wind out of his belated statement last night that he took responsibility. Too little, too late. As edited for this administration, Truman’s famous line should read, “The buck stops anywhere but here.”