Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Hillary Clinton Takes Blame

Statement Analysis in bold type.  It is not the first time she has taken the fall for the White House.


Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton played the good soldier yesterday, trying to take the heat off her boss by saying she’s to blame for last month’s deadly attack on the US diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya .
I take responsibility” for what happened on Sept. 11, Clinton told CNN.
“I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world [at] 275 posts.
The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.”
Note verb tense, "wouldn't be" is not to say they "did not" have knowledge 

But in 2008, then Senator Clinton criticized then Senator Obama during the Democratic primary seizing on comments Obama had made about being a President who would inspire and provide a vision for the country and not make sure "everything's running on time."
"Being President means being both CEO and COO of one of the largest and most complex organizations in the world," Clinton said.
"I know that we can get on top of this, but it's going to require strong presidential leadership — it's going to require a President who knows from day one you have to run a government and manage the economy," Hillary Clinton added, using the flailing economy to hit Obama. "The buck stops in the Oval Office."



32 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am so glad you pointed this out. Phew. My guess is that you would have a field day with the statements coming out of this administration.

The lying is out of hand! It is sickening!

I feel like I am being asked to drink a kind of poison. Is there such a thing as word poisoning?

deb said...

I'm thinking we all learned how to accept the altered reality from the Cheney administration - i.e. his famous star wars quote.. I would love to get the SA-izing of that thought process. As far as this article- I guess my question would be- "and?".

Anonymous said...

With a Romney administration there would be absolutely no lies.

Anonymous said...

LMAO Good one! Let's see those tax returns that have nothing to hide...

Anonymous said...

IF this is true, should she not resign? Is she going to fall on the sword and take responsibility for the youtube video coverup as well?

Anon @ 5:55... google Mitt Romney tax returns.

Anonymous said...

One thing is for sure, the buck doesn't stop in the tax-payers pockets. I found this interesting, it is off-topic.

Dear Taxpayer,
Robot dragons, video games, Christmas trees, snow cone machines, and chocolate.
This is not a Christmas wish list. These are just some of the ways the federal government spent
your tax dollars this year.

Making the 2012 list are a $1.5 million grant to the University of Utah to study building a better computer gaming joystick, $100,000 to send a three-member American comedy troupe on a tour of India, and part of a $325,000 grant used to build a robotic squirrel, all to test whether it could scare a real snake.
The National Institutes of Health spent $939,771 on a study to discover that a male fruit fly, given the choice between a young female and an older female fly, chose the younger.

The entire list of taxpayer money being wasted can be found here-http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=b69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365


Read more: Coburn calls out Senate cohorts as biggest waste in government - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/15/coburn-says-government-full-wasteful-spending/#ixzz29TGAK9CT

nymima said...

She has to make sure Obama gets in again because she wants to run in 2016 and if Romney gets elected, he'll probably do 8 yrs. and by 2020, she'll be too old to run. So - between Hilary and Bill, they are making it happen for Obama. It's all about them as usual.

equinox said...

She "takes" responsibility but does not say she "is" responsible. She then goes on to paint the job as hugely impossible as there are over 60,000 people at 275 posts and many others make the decisions, not specifically her. So she is taking the heat but not the blame. However, I understand she was a direct party to the decision to allow Libyans to guard the perimeter of the compound- but that was OK since they didn't give them any bullets. How easy it would be (and probably was) to buy out one of those "loyal" Libyans. I'm no "security professional" but I call that crazy-ass, looking-for-trouble, bad judgement.

nymima said...

President of the United States is like a CEO of a large company. Subordinates have their rank or job title below the CEO, but the CEO must be kept up-to-date on all matters of the company. Hilary is not a 'one man show' and does not do anything without the approval of the President. He knew all right. He just didn't care to cover the bases over there and acknowledge the danger. His advisors dropped the ball big time and Hilary didn't cover her a$$. It was a perfect storm for this to happen.

BostonLady said...

Since when would the President not be making security decisions of this kind????? This is bs from Shrillary. Obama needs to accept responsibility as the Commander In Chief. Commander - not second in charge.

I think this statement from Shrillary makes the Obama administration look weak.

Dawn SoCa said...

Poor Hillary is all over the place. First she says "I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the state department's 60,000..." Then she says Obama and Biden "wouldn't" be knowledgeable but failed to say they DIDN'T have knowledge. And because she couldn't say they didn't know, we know they did.

And then she goes on to say that decisions were made by security professionals and "THEY'RE" the ones who weigh risks... So she can't even commit to her first statement of taking responsibility for it... What a mess!

Anonymous said...

Who helped to destroy secondary education for our children in this country? Who takes responsibility for failing to encourage and sponsor college level continuing education for the minor and orphaned children of widows and widowers?

Take a look-see all you parents how the formal education of your children has been diminished, and at a time when you and your children will most need it. Suppose either you or your spouse should die prior to your children graduating from high school or prior to reaching age eighteen. You've been paying into social security all these years. No problem, right? WRONG. The pro-rated social security benefit for your dependent children stops when they each reach eighteen years of age, and your spouses' pro-rated benefit stops little by little as each child reaches age sixteen if she is under age sixty.

(And suppose you have an EX-spouse you were married too for ten or more years? That spouse is entitled to draw HALF of what your surviving spouse would have been, or will be, entitled to draw from your SS benefits when THEY reach age sixty whether they have dependant children or not).

Too bad, so sad, you both have paid into the social security fund. There is no longer any provision made for your child to go to college or to attend any other learning facility such as a trade school after the age of eighteen unless that child failed a grade and is still attending primary education, and only then until the child has reached age nineteen. It doesn't matter if the child started late to school, loss some time, or had a debilitating illness over a period of time, whatever; their social security benefits STOP. NOW they'll have to go get a job flipping burgers or sweeping floors. No education for YOU Bud & Missy. All because (guess who?) said so. WHO, BTW, is NOT taking the blame.

S'crew the surviving spouse. They have nothing as they lost their entitlement to help with the childrens education eons ago, not being aged sixty. Previously your children were entitled to their deceased parent's social security benefits until they turned aged TWENTY-TWO (22!); they could go to college, and YOUR money was there to send them to college. No more. Now it's gone.

And who did all this? Go out to the graveyard and ask Ronald Regaen. (sp? I don't even care how you spell his name, he's no friend of mine). HE is the one who did it. Or ring up Nancy and ask her. Maybe she can tell you the exact day Jean Dixon her psychic told her to tell Ronnie this had to be done since she was the one Nancy called on every day to help run the country.

No need in Hillary or any other democrat taking the blame for this one. Just to enlighten you; your beloved Ronnie is the one who did it. NOW you can rejoice and thank him or kiss the ground he is buried under, that you have no way to send your kids to college should one of you pass on.

Anonymous said...

My god, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan lie all the time - thats all they do is lie. Mitt Romney has flipped out with his back and forth - its impossible to tell you what he is REALLY for or REALLY against it changes constantly. Morning - he says no legislation right now I would support to change the right to have an abortion - 2 hours later his spokesperson says he will support legislation to take away the right to choose. As for Hillary - this is her JOB - she has to take responsibility for it - if not then when you screw up at work tell them its your boss's fault
not yours - see where that gets you! Probably a pink slip! The President's job is to rectify what went wrong but it was Hillary's job ultimately to do what she could. I dont hold with making political the death of the ambassador and the military people and embassy people that were killed. In fact the father of the governor has asked that the GOP stop doing so. Not that the GOP wont stoop to saying anything to win. There is not one person on this blog that should be voting for Romney they WILL try to get rid of social security and medicate, which they consider "entitlements" Right now there is a company closing called Sensata run by Bain Capital the jobs are being shipped off to China - and right before Christmas too - Romney stands to make 8 million dollars which he will probably place off shore in the Caymans or his Swiss account. A job maker? Give me a break - he would steal your lunch money if he could - wake up! Romney is NOT for you!
http://truth-out.org/news/item/12099-is-this-why-romney-wont-talk-to-sensata-workers-whose-jobs-are-being-shipped-to-china

Anonymous said...

Tell me if you screw up at work = can you blame your boss? When do you take responsibility for your own job? Is everything you do to be blamed on your boss? Really?

Anonymous said...

I believe Joe Biden has already expressed an interest to run in 2016. If he chooses to Hillary will not oppose him.

Anonymous said...

You mean like when Condi Rice told Bush and his people that we had strong reasons to believe an attack was coming and they IGNORED it - and nearly 3000 people died as a result? What about that?
Where was the outrage then?

nymima said...

He's not likeable enough. He's seen as a bully and everything is a joke to him. Nah - He's not Presidential material. The Dems won't make that mistake.

Anonymous said...

Um, everywhere! I've yet to meet an American citizen that isn't 'outraged' by Sept 11 attacks, and the knowledge that they SHOULD have been prevented

Anonymous said...

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

ecossie possie said...

Libya aside the tragic slaughter of 4 Americans an a massive F U From the country that we helped dethrone GHadafi by declareing a no fly zone crippleing his air force.Destroyed his tanks an heavy artillery on the ground.Gave the free Libya rebel army defectors air cover alloing them to kill hundreds of ghadafi loyalists soldiers..Atttrosites were the norm an virtually no prisoners were taken.Given the eventuall treatment metted out an openly filmed of there barbaric murder of colnel Ghadaffi I can easyly belive attrocitys were the norm.We shouldnt be supprised and or un pre pared for thease sort of attacks.The same senario has happened time an time again.Most recently ith muchahadeem we trained to fight the Russians an arm them train them to help eject the Soviets from Afghanistan .Afterward this country an highly trained heavly armed combatints morphed into the Taliban an Al Quadia.An they off course tur around an not only bite they want to devour the hand that fed them.

Anonymous said...

OT - Jessica Ridgeway

http://www.examiner.com/article/jessica-ridgeway-latest-news-killer-at-large-and-may-strike-again-fbi-warning

The FBI has released a profile regarding her killer and suggests the killer is from the community and may strike again. WPTV spoke with the former Colorado FBI head who echoed the warning.

“If the parents can possibly add a little different level of protection right now until this situation is resolved, I think that would be warranted. Anyone that's capable of an act like this, it may be just the beginning,” Former Colorado FBI Special Agent Bob Pence told the news outlet.


Isn't this a weak statement by FBI - possibly, little different, I think.. Shouldn't they be strongly advising parents to keep a close eye on their children!

Anonymous said...

That's what happens when drug cartels run the country. The first clue should have been that preacher in Michigan. Being that he's from Flor-duh, and the west coast got involved, too, this should have been foreseen days, even months in advance.

I returned from a trip not long ago, tired and haggard. I soon drew the attention of a deputy in the area. He stared at me as if I'd committed a crime. I went to a storage building not far away and found a biker waiting. These people run the state where I live as they are the Christians that hold it all together.

If you want security, just keep buying bigger and bigger guns. That's the main idea.

I was ready in case he came into the lot where I was. I really have a lot of love in my heart.

Amaleen6 said...

OT: A new article on Ayla Reynolds with a few statements from McCausland and the head of the game wardens:

http://www.kjonline.com/news/hunting-season-bringsnew-hope-in-ayla-case_2012-10-16.html

Anonymous said...

Like it or not the Libya scandal is a very important issue. No stories out of the White House have been consistent. Truth is clear as a bell and no one needs to sell it to me. If something doesn't make sense it's because it is not true. What we get out of Obama and Hillary and Holder and Pelosi and Reid is mud, muddy waters, and cesspools. I don't approve of Obama's politics.

Anonymous said...

He's ultimately responsible for his employees. It's his company and he hired them.

Anonymous said...

"Hope and Change" turned into "Can you spare some change?"

No thanks. Is anyone voting for Obama that didn't vote for him before? Doubtful. Why? Because he has no record to run on.

Anonymous said...

What I've heard from Romney and Ryan appears to be the truth - even if it's a liability with regard to the campaign. I'd rather have a President that tells me the truth, even if it's bad news. I remember a day in history when a President informed the American people that we'd been attacked on 9/11, and it pulled a nation of people together. I'm tired of this administration and all the "fog", lies, hiding behind executive privilege (Fast and Furious), word games, smoke and mirrors, misrepresentations, and manipulation.

Anonymous said...

What makes you think your beer drinking, cocktail swilling, alcoholic drunk Bush didn't do the same thing, only more of it?

Lord have mercy. I met people in line down at the polling place who were ready to fight for that stupid a-hole. You know the one; the one who broke this country and destroyed our economy. His first term wasn't enough, the voters wanted to make sure he got a second term so he could finish us off. Which, is exactly what he did. Talk about people not willing to admit they were conned!

Now you think some other president should be able to clean up his messes that will NEVER be rectified in our lifetime? Yeah, right. We're basically finished. You just don't realize it yet. We're at the mercy now of anyone who comes along telling us more sweet lies. We just LOVE hearing lies, don't we?

Foolsfeedonfolly said...

Anything presented in the negative is sensitive and subject to further attention.
"The President and the Vice-President wouldn't beknowledgeable about specific decisions made by security professionals."

Clinton has already told us she is "taking" blame. She did not say, "This is my fault." She is taking the blame, taking it away from someone else-her words. If the blames was hers, she would not need to "take" it. She also states that she is in charge of the State Department and all its employees, including said security professionals.

Note the distancing language she uses here: "They're the ones that weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision." It's also interesting that she uses the the phrase "the ones". If you're in a group and accused of something you didn't do, you're likely to point to the guilty parties and say something like, "I didn't do it! They're the ones who...". If she's honestly to blame, wouldn't she include herself as the head of the State Department with "We're the ones..." ? If she alone is to blame, as she would like the voting public to believe, why would she use "they" and "the ones" (indicating multiple people)? This close to the election, the Democratic party can't afford to have an epic failure on Obama's watch. Clinton has no choice, but to take the fall. If she exposes him, she loses any chance of party and donor backing for her political/Presidential/Vice-Presidential future. The reality is that the Intel was there and disregarded. The problem isn't going to go away because she's "taking the blame".

Anonymous said...

Yeah, you mean like that witch Janet Reno "took the blame" for the death sentences that were carried out against that whacko in Waco and his followers of mostly women and children when our FBI tanks and missles rolled into their isolated barn, surrounded by property THEY owned, and blew/burned them to smitherens, creating a human burning inferno. Like that, you mean? There's no comparison.

Because Janet Reno really WAS to blame. She saw it happening, we ALL saw it happening, FOR DAYS, and she did nothing to stop it. The security of that whacko and his followers WAS under her command and she could have stopped their insane nightmarish demise at any moment with just a phone call, and didn't. I wonder how lifes' treating her now? Probably not so good, eh?

The situation with Hillary is an entirely different scenerio. She is supervising a department of 60,000 that has many departments under its' control and many supervisors of said departments going up the chain of command, each department having specified duties and responsibilitis. One supervisor reports to another and another reports to another and on up the chain of command until the last few heads of department finanally reaches the top, where more than likely, only six persons are reporting individually to their Chief in Command, Dept Head Hillary, who then reports to the President.

Did you ever play musical chairs, or whisper the story, beginning at the top and whipering what you heard to that one next to you whom you trusted/thought heard correctly what you said; who then passed the story along to the next one, who passed it to the next one, and so on and on, until it reached the last person who then retold what they heard and passed it back up the chain, each one altering what they thought they heard, until at long last the story reached back where it started from, and then that last person stood up and related the story they heard; which of course, turned out to be nothing like the original story that was told? Like that, you mean?

The original story got changed as each person retold it to the next person and so on. And that's the story. There's NO WAY 60,000 people individually reports in to Hillary Clinton! Probably more like SIX? But of course, she would HAVE to take the blame for all 60,000, including all that are peons and supervisors and heads of departments, since it IS her department.

She DID accept responsibility for her Department. So, what's so wrong with that?

rob said...

Isn't Obama her supervisor, she's not the top dog.(regretably) Why hasn't he taken some responsibility? Oh right, he doesn't make mistakes.

Anonymous said...

Why didn't Janet Reno's supervisor, the president, take some responsibility when she (alone!) made the decision to have those poor whakos in Waco blown to bits?

Right. She/He didn't make mistakes either, did they?

I do agree however, Hillary would have made a better top dog.