Clinton Takes Blame for Benghazi, but Should She?

Some are saying Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be taking responsibility, but others say she is taking the fall for the president. What do you think?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made big news earlier this week when she took responsibility for the security, or lack of it, at the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi. Four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens, died as a result of an attack on the outpost on Sept. 11.

Online WSJ reported that in a recent interview Clinton said, “I take responsibility. “I’m the Secretary of State with 60,000-plus employees around the world.”

This comes after weeks of the White House first blaming a YouTube video for the attack and then finally acknowledging that it was a terrorist attack. Information also surfaced that Stevens was concerned about security and reportedly asked for this to be stepped up, but his request was denied. This has drawn a lot of criticism of the current administration for not addressing the issue and taking responsibility for it. 

Most of the criticism has been directed at the president, but his supporters have blamed the criticism on politics. With the election just weeks away, President Barack Obama’s opponents are being accused of making it an issue to gain political points. There are others, however, who believe that Clinton is effectively falling on her sword to help save the election for the president.

What do you believe? As president, should Obama be the one taking responsibility for the failure at Benghazi? And what of Clinton, is this a smart move? Will it help or hurt her should she run for the presidency in 2016?

Ryan Smith (Editor) October 17, 2012 at 07:33 PM
I don't know. This might be a rare case of a politician actually saying what she believed. After all, Obama did say it was ultimately his responsibility in the debate last night.
SUNKEN SUB October 18, 2012 at 12:56 AM
@Ryan Smith "After all, Obama did say it was ultimately his responsibility in the debate last night." A bit late dont cha' think. ? Been about 5 weeks hasn't it ? ------------------------------- "Clinton said, “I take responsibility. “I’m the Secretary of State with 60,000-plus employees around the world.” Well I guess we know who wears the THONG here. No panty line in this LINE OF COMMAND.
SUNKEN SUB October 18, 2012 at 01:03 AM
Hillary pic, The face that................... Well, use your imagination.
Tammy Osier October 18, 2012 at 01:41 AM
Here's the deal....forget what happened afterwards. What happened before is that he was too busy campaigning to take the intelligence briefings seriously enough to do more than take a glance and let someone else worry about it. He is back peddling because so far, the media and hollywood have covered for and made excuses for him. Now he's having to account for being irresponsible and is being taken to the woodshed. About time. But, will the American people realize what a serious offense this is, or look the other way and vote him back in? After biden laughing uncontrollably when Ryan talked about Iran getting a nuclear bomb to use against us, and people don't get it after that, then it's too late for our society. That's pretty far gone. Time will tell.
Tammy Osier October 18, 2012 at 01:45 AM
@SS and Ryan - if he truly meant it that he was responsible, that would have come out weeks ago. He KNEW it would come up in the debate. It's all political expediency for him at this point.
Denna Millard October 18, 2012 at 01:30 PM
Not knowing who denied more security you can speculate on and on. Clinton should have been asked this request. Was she? Chain of command should be followed. She first. IF DENIED BY HER, then go to next of command. The president should not be the ULTIMATE DECISION MAKER ON THIS ISSUE unless chain of command was not followed. Clinton should have been THE ULTIMATE PERSON to have know what was going on. Yes, politics is going to be played! What a shame.
Kathy Brown October 18, 2012 at 01:37 PM
Libya Part II Who is responsible for the two week delay informing the American public that it was in fact a terror attack? Four Americans dead, attack watched live by the State Department and it took them two weeks for the Obama administration to figure out? I think not. It is, and always has been, all about the election-disgusting.
Rex Smithers October 18, 2012 at 02:11 PM
Dead Americans don't upset Obama. He didn't let it interrupt his party in Las Vegas where he more than likely lied to his minions while they donated to his campaign. Obama isn't going to let a few dead people derail his Transformation of this country.
J D Fowler October 18, 2012 at 10:46 PM
Every business and that includes the government has those in different departments who are responcible for their particular job. There is NO way one person can see it all, do it all and be up-to-date every moment on what is going on. I am sorry for those that want to always blame the top for what happens and yes, they do take the rap for the wrong that goes on as they get the pat on the back when it turns out great (even if they didn't do the actual doing) People just want an excuse to blame the President because they don't like him. Seems to me others would find better battles to fight than putting out the energy for such childish comments. duhhhhhhhh!
Tammy Osier October 18, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Well, seems to me the same people who defend obama today are the same one that blamed Bush for EVERYTHING. Of course. They called him nasty names to boot. He couldn't do anything right in their eyes. Rex, what really gets me is that the question of why he went to a fund raiser the very next day instead of suspending his campaign to attend to his "work" has yet to be answered. He danced around that the other night (I think Crowley changed the subject- how convenient). Obama is being called to account for being slack in his work thinking (rightly) that he has a following that will forgive anything because of their worship of him. I believe many are waking up and realizing tht you can't argue it away anymore.
Brian Crawford October 19, 2012 at 12:58 AM
There have been dozens of deadly attacks on US embassies since 1970. No Presidential administration has been spared although there have been fewer under Obama than previous administrations. The only reason we're still talking about this is the Republican party's crass politicization of the Benghazi attack. Have you people no shame? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney
Dorcas Okor October 19, 2012 at 01:09 AM
Some people are so biased that they forget they are Americans. It is shameful to politicize the death of Americans. It may be your turn tomorrow. When 911 happened, Americans pulled together. Why don't you all let the country morn the dead???????? This is disgusting.
Tammy Osier October 19, 2012 at 01:21 AM
The difference here is that the State Department acknowledged that it rejected appeals for more security at its diplomatic posts in Libya in the months before a fatal terrorist attack in Benghazi. There's an author named Tawfik Hamid that weighed in on this. He is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one-time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri who later became the second in command of al-Qaida. Hamid, the author of "Inside Jihad: Understanding and Confronting Radical Islam," is a senior fellow and chair for the Study of Islamic Radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. he has spoken on networks from CNN to Fox. I like reading him on these subjects because he has lived it. He believes that this administration does not recognize the true nature of our enemies thereby underestimating what they are capable of.
Brian Crawford October 19, 2012 at 02:15 AM
Eric Nordstrom, the security official in Libya who's request for additional security in Benghazi was denied (months before the attack) also testified that the additional security would not have prevented or in any way rebuffed the assault that killed ambassador Stevens. "Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault,”
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew October 19, 2012 at 02:47 AM
Because if we DON'T start taking these issues seriously at all levels, we're PRIMED to repeat 911. Blaming videos or overseas contingency operations just INVITES repeats.
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew October 19, 2012 at 02:58 AM
If the President can unilaterally decree nationwide changes relating to border enforcement without even using a formal executive order, he and he ALONE is responsible for embassy security - either directly or because his appointed are. Just perhaps, if he had kept his eye on the ball rather than spending so much time above 5,000 ft on Air Force One where it's been suggested he can't think straight, the outcome would have been vastly different Concerning the claim made by Sec Clinton - if she could be sued under the civil definition of wrongful death, she's responsible - if not, it's just words.
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew October 19, 2012 at 03:02 AM
Well Prez Obama does hold Corpse-men in high regard...
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew October 19, 2012 at 03:04 AM
NO We don't all want to hold the president responsible that's quite obvious, but UNFORTUNATELY some will have to so this ship can be fixed.
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew October 19, 2012 at 03:16 AM
Yes ammunition is required.... withdrawn ( Smiles)
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew October 19, 2012 at 03:19 AM
NO The reason this is discussed with SUCH intensity is that all the other attacks weren't held on the ANNIVERSARY of 911, the modern day equivalent of Dec 7th 1941. Especially after a campaign in which the President has continually taken credit for getting Bin Laden in such fanfare. The date that still lives on in infamy, now oddly enough because its tied to the closing period of Medicare plan selections ...
Janey Delosi October 19, 2012 at 03:33 AM
Brian, I agree that a few more guards or a bigger wall would not have helped our guys from these savages. May I ask your opinion? What do you feel we should have done to prepare or should do in the future? Politics aside, I think we Americans are fed up with body parts being shipped home from what appears to be an everlasting debacle in the Middle East. We could easily turn that $h....hole into glass if we wanted to but instead, our human compassion is creating jobs back home in the casket business. I mean no disrespect to our Military. We know they work their asses off to become the world's most loyal and finest protectors of America but what can we possibly gain by imposing these Rules Of Engagement that ultimately protect future terrorists? Signed, Frustrated.
Brian Crawford October 19, 2012 at 05:18 PM
I share your frustration Janey but there is no easy solution. I think this highlights just how lucky we are to have a dedicated diplomatic corp. Those folks are every bit as courageous and deserving of our respect and admiration as our military. There are certain parts of the world where diplomacy will always be a dangerous business. I think the best bet is to form strong alliances with local governments when possible. It is also crucial that we bring the perpetrators to justice. Chris Stevens was a true American hero and his memory deserves better than to be used for political purposes.
R++ One of the Famous Dacula Crew October 20, 2012 at 04:46 AM
Speaking from experience there Sunken? (Smiles)
Piccadilly Circus October 20, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Obamanesia-When you forget about 23 million unemployed American
Steve R. October 20, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Thank you Brian. We can always count on you Democrats to sweep blame under the carpet while using politics as the excuse. You quote Eric Nordstrom saying extra security would not have helped. What extra security? The two former SEALs that died were not in Libya to protect the Ambassador. This means that Chris Stevens and the IT person had a few Libyan goons for protection and we know that they contributed to these murders. You people love to politicize everything until the responsibility falls on Obama and Democrats. Then, and only then does the left want to sound patriotic and praise our heroes while claiming they deserve better than to be used for political purposes. YOU Brian, yourself claim that Pelosi is a national treasure. When she was questioned about the Benghazi attack by Wolf RETARD-LIBERAL Blitzer, she chose to use this incident for political purposes by saying that the Republican House cut 300 million dollars from the State Dept. REALLY? How much does that nasty witch charge the taxpayers to fly ELITE CLASS between the Left coast and DC? She’s a thief and has a lot nerve to ever discuss funding. Obama fails to appear for security briefings. He is always late when scheduled to address the nation but he never misses an opportunity to appear on The View or David Loserman or any other comedy shows. This president has failed our nation and you people always have his back because he’s Democrap.
Mike Chubre November 03, 2012 at 08:15 PM
This may be off topic , BUT I fell I have to respond . Ten years the republicans have fought against the prescription drug database . In ten years hundreds if not thousands have died over the misuse of these drugs . They were not all drug addicts , so this should not be dismissed as people just doing what they wanted with these drugs . The reps past a database last year . But it is full of holes . The drug dealers on the streets love it . The drug companies love it . The doctors love it . The reps refused to make it mandatory cause it would cut into BIG profits to those selling these drugs . Yes Libya is bad and should of never happened . But if you check, you will see these things happened on both sides of the table . This one is being made such a big issue because its election time. If you people really care about American lives , ask the republicans why they refused toi make the prescription drug database mandatory . Iam only saying republicans because they are the ones against it. If it was the dems , I would change parties over this issue . Obama has your back,, the republicans wil take your back . Please call your local rep and demand why they refuse to make the database mandatory , and then get out and vote FOR OBAMA THANK YOU
SUNKEN SUB November 14, 2012 at 02:43 AM
@ R Yea, my mirror's magic button is broke TOO. :!)
SUNKEN SUB November 14, 2012 at 02:49 AM
* @ Patch If you can TAG a FLAG and FLAG a TAG How do you TAG a TAG ?
SUNKEN SUB November 14, 2012 at 03:13 AM
* OMAMANESIA-When you forget about 23 million unemployed American INDONESIA-Taken by Americans worried about their jobs moving overseas POLYNESIA -- Many cases of the above. RHODESIA - Wnen you forget WHO (the British) built it. MICRONESIA- What Bill Gates DID when Windows VISTA was released dAMNEISA - What your wife tells everyone you have.
Chris November 14, 2012 at 03:39 AM
Yea. Off topic and one shouldn't post online while smoking the Obama pipe. Barack Is Whack!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something