Clinton takes responsibility for consulate security [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Clinton takes responsibility for consulate security


DOC44
10-15-2012, 19:40
Clinton takes responsibility for consulate security, blames confusion on 'fog of war'

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took responsibility Monday night for any security failures leading up to the consulate attack last month in Libya that killed an the American ambassador, but she seemed to push back against claims of a cover-up, blaming the "fog of war" for the Obama administration's shifting explanations for the attack.

Maybe she will change the oil while she is under the bus.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/15/clinton-takes-responsibility-for-consulate-security-blames-confusion-on-fog-war/

Doc44

GAFinch
10-15-2012, 20:04
If Zero wins, a hardcore Marxist thug will take over in 2016. If Romney wins, he'll easily get re-elected in 2016. Either way, her political career has likely maxed out. As I've been saying, the Chicago machine must have a hitman shadowing Chelsea.

janice6
10-15-2012, 20:09
Clinton takes responsibility for consulate security

She had to. Obama will not on take any responsibility.

JBnTX
10-15-2012, 20:57
Still doesn't excuse the White House for lying and trying to cover up the attack.

Rooster Rugburn
10-15-2012, 21:11
Very sly, crafty, and clever. I heard someone call her "the only adult in the room" this past weekend. She must realize that she can throw herself under the bus, then when the smoke clears and the evidence clearly implicates Obama, she comes out smelling like a rose.

The Clintons are very crafty. For whatever reason, they probably think this will help her in 2016.

QNman
10-15-2012, 21:18
Very sly, crafty, and clever. I heard someone call her "the only adult in the room" this past weekend. She must realize that she can throw herself under the bus, then when the smoke clears and the evidence clearly implicates Obama, she comes out smelling like a rose.

The Clintons are very crafty. For whatever reason, they probably think this will help her in 2016.

^ This.

engineer151515
10-15-2012, 21:45
What drivel.

Democrats have been taking "responsibility" without consequence since Janet Reno burned out the Branch Davidians.

It means nothing. Worthless.

LASTRESORT20
10-15-2012, 21:59
Very sly, crafty, and clever. I heard someone call her "the only adult in the room" this past weekend. She must realize that she can throw herself under the bus, then when the smoke clears and the evidence clearly implicates Obama, she comes out smelling like a rose.

The Clintons are very crafty. For whatever reason, they probably think this will help her in 2016.


Yup...good call Rooster....

ModGlock17
10-15-2012, 23:41
If Zero wins, a hardcore Marxist thug will take over in 2016. If Romney wins, he'll easily get re-elected in 2016. Either way, her political career has likely maxed out. ...

Her world hasn't been the same since Vince Foster died. Poor girl.

IndyGunFreak
10-16-2012, 00:54
Very sly, crafty, and clever. I heard someone call her "the only adult in the room" this past weekend. She must realize that she can throw herself under the bus, then when the smoke clears and the evidence clearly implicates Obama, she comes out smelling like a rose.

The Clintons are very crafty. For whatever reason, they probably think this will help her in 2016.

Totally agree. She has an ulterior motive somewhere in all this.

bambikilr
10-16-2012, 01:09
a month later & the main stream media just blows it off...discusting

happyguy
10-16-2012, 02:06
What drivel.

Democrats have been taking "responsibility" without consequence since Janet Reno burned out the Branch Davidians.

It means nothing. Worthless.

^^^^^This!


Regards,
Happyguy :)

Rooster Rugburn
10-16-2012, 04:27
I wonder if\when Obama will order someone to be taken out with a drone strike, so he can announce to the public that the organizers of the attack have been eliminated, and "justice has been served". How will they time such an event to help in the election? Just before the 3rd debate, which is supposed to be on foreign policy? Or between the 3rd debate and the election.

Of course, it won't matter if the right people are killed.

JFrame
10-16-2012, 04:46
I'm jumping on the Rooster bandwagon on this thread... :cool:


.

Bullwinkle J Moose
10-16-2012, 05:50
It is refreshing that after 3 years at least someone in this administration finally accepted responsibility for something they actually did or didn't do.

callihan_44
10-16-2012, 06:00
now waiting for the press to spin this as a positive, that it was actually a good thing to deny security to the ambassador.....

JFrame
10-16-2012, 06:04
now waiting for the press to spin this as a positive, that it was actually a good thing to deny security to the ambassador.....

That might be a slight improvement over MSNBC postulating that Ambassador Stevens caused his own death... :steamed:


.

series1811
10-16-2012, 06:12
Trying to save her job?

It's funny her employees are not agreeing with her.

HexHead
10-16-2012, 06:13
I was wondering what the quid pro quo was for getting her to fall on her sword the night before the debate. She's completely defused that bomb Romney was bringing.

While you all here assume she's going to run in 2016, she's said many times when she steps down from her post in January, regardless of the outcome of the election, she's done with public service. She's said repeatedly she wants to just work on causes important to her. Maybe she's made one last contribution to help her party hold on to power, figuring she's got nothing to lose?

callihan_44
10-16-2012, 06:17
I was wondering what the quid pro quo was for getting her to fall on her sword the night before the debate. She's completely defused that bomb Romney was bringing.

While you all here assume she's going to run in 2016, she's said many times when she steps down from her post in January, regardless of the outcome of the election, she's done with public service. She's said repeatedly she wants to just work on causes important to her. Maybe she's made one last contribution to help her party hold on to power, figuring she's got nothing to lose?

thats possible, spend the next 3 yrs making herself look like a saint to resurrect her image to run in 2016

Cavalry Doc
10-16-2012, 06:27
She's definitly looking at 2016.

There will probably be a counter attack prior to the election, look for her to claim a lot if credit for getting the intel that made it possible.

Vic777
10-16-2012, 09:06
Clinton takes responsibility for consulate security,A Clinton takes responsibility! It will be fun to watch Hillary run in 2016. Her Campaign slogan ... "I took responsibility for my Incompetence!"

and also don't forget ....

"I was one of the bestest Junior Senators NYS ever had"

P99er
10-16-2012, 10:48
She's completely defused that bomb Romney was bringing.

Not necessarily. Romney should turn this against Obama, and imply it was cruel and wrong of Obama to push the blame on Hillary. He could imply that as president, the buck stops with him, and he won't make a scapegoat out of his staff.

If Romney wants to play it, he should be able to play it well by making Obama the bad guy for throwing Hillary under the bus. Even if Hillary decided to take the fall on here own, it can be insinuated that she was pressured, or did it knowing it was going to happen anyway.

That should shake up the womens vote.

Ian Moone
10-16-2012, 11:04
I wonder if\when Obama will order someone to be taken out with a drone strike, so he can announce to the public that the organizers of the attack have been eliminated, and "justice has been served". How will they time such an event to help in the election? Just before the 3rd debate, which is supposed to be on foreign policy? Or between the 3rd debate and the election.

Of course, it won't matter if the right people are killed.

That would definitely explain why Hillary is in South America breaking this news. She is out of drone range.

:whistling:

Vic777
10-16-2012, 11:12
Who ordered Hillary to sing the, "It was the Video", BS? Answer, she was following orders from the WH.

Cavalry Doc
10-16-2012, 11:12
A Clinton takes responsibility! It will be fun to watch Hillary run in 2016. Her Campaign slogan ... "I took responsibility for my Incompetence!"

and also don't forget ....

"I was one of the bestest Junior Senators NYS ever had"


http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/126/2012/10/13/120389_600.jpg

nursetim
10-16-2012, 12:00
Yes, she fracked up. But he was complicit in covering up the true nature of the attack. There is no bit of doubt in my mind.

engineer151515
10-16-2012, 14:02
A Clinton takes responsibility! It will be fun to watch Hillary run in 2016. Her Campaign slogan ... "I took responsibility for my Incompetence!"

and also don't forget ....

"I was one of the bestest Junior Senators NYS ever had"

Perhaps "We are the President" has taken a new interpretation. :supergrin:

countrygun
10-16-2012, 14:12
Maybe she is betting on her own concept of "It takes a village-------to manage the village idiot"

Ruble Noon
10-16-2012, 16:19
If Zero wins, a hardcore Marxist thug will take over in 2016. If Romney wins, he'll easily get re-elected in 2016. Either way, her political career has likely maxed out. As I've been saying, the Chicago machine must have a hitman shadowing Chelsea.

Therein lies the danger of Romney. When Romney grows government and fails to deliver on his promise to end obamacare people such as yourself will still vote for him because, once again, the election will be deemed the most important election of our lifetime and Romney will once again be declared the lesser of two evils. Things that were unconscionable under obama will be accepted under Romney, the growth of government won't be questioned by republicans and what was once protested by the right will be embraced because you won't hold him accountable.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 16:40
Therein lies the danger of Romney. When Romney grows government and fails to deliver on his promise to end obamacare people such as yourself will still vote for him because, once again, the election will be deemed the most important election of our lifetime and Romney will once again be declared the lesser of two evils. Things that were unconscionable under obama will be accepted under Romney, the growth of government won't be questioned by republicans and what was once protested by the right will be embraced because you won't hold him accountable.

I think you are mixing your talking points to come up with your own unique brew there.

You and others have noted that conservatives are not the fanboys of Romney that seems to expected. "You are just voting for him as a lesser of two evils" is the common chant.

Then you turn around and insinuate that conservatives are such fanboys they will let Romney get away with what they find objectionable about Obama.

Now those two concepts are in opposition from a practical and realistic standpoint. You fail to note, as many liberals do, that conservatives are more likely to hold the feet of their own to the fire than liberals are.

You could make the same claim more realistically about those who are not trying to get Obama out of office, they in fact have seen what four-years have brought and they are begging for more of it.

You make a better case against Obama and for Romney than you realize. Since they are the only two in the race, to the rational, your logic makes Romney the choice.

Rooster Rugburn
10-16-2012, 17:01
Therein lies the danger of Romney. When Romney grows government and fails to deliver on his promise to end obamacare people such as yourself will still vote for him because, once again, the election will be deemed the most important election of our lifetime and Romney will once again be declared the lesser of two evils. Things that were unconscionable under obama will be accepted under Romney, the growth of government won't be questioned by republicans and what was once protested by the right will be embraced because you won't hold him accountable.

Very true. There are people here who will say that Gomer Dumbya Bush didn't run up the debt, and actually balanced the budget. Obama, Pelosi and Reid merely finished what Gomer and the repubicans started.

BUT, as soon as repubicans take over government and start running up the debt again, democrats will be wailing for a balanced budget and against the debt, and people like myself won't vote for any repubican, and the repubicans will find themselves with another 2006 on their hands.

Hopefully it will be serious enough situation and repubicans will remember what helped them win (fiscal responsibility) and what caused them to lose. But as long as people like these repubicans keep their heads in the sand, and keep lying to defend their party, there won't be any reason for the repubicans to balance the budget and pay down the debt.

Ruble Noon
10-16-2012, 17:09
I think you are mixing your talking points to come up with your own unique brew there.

You and others have noted that conservatives are not the fanboys of Romney that seems to expected. "You are just voting for him as a lesser of two evils" is the common chant.

Then you turn around and insinuate that conservatives are such fanboys they will let Romney get away with what they find objectionable about Obama.

Now those two concepts are in opposition from a practical and realistic standpoint. You fail to note, as many liberals do, that conservatives are more likely to hold the feet of their own to the fire than liberals are.

You could make the same claim more realistically about those who are not trying to get Obama out of office, they in fact have seen what four-years have brought and they are begging for more of it.

You make a better case against Obama and for Romney than you realize. Since they are the only two in the race, to the rational, your logic makes Romney the choice.

To be fair, what I stated transcends party lines and as evidence you can look at the lack of outrage over gas prices, all of our undeclared wars, the Patriot act etc. The democrats are evenly as bad as the republicans at looking the other way when their boy is in power.

Ruble Noon
10-16-2012, 17:10
Very true. There are people here who will say that Gomer Dumbya Bush didn't run up the debt, and actually balanced the budget. Obama, Pelosi and Reid merely finished what Gomer and the repubicans started.

BUT, as soon as repubicans take over government and start running up the debt again, democrats will be wailing for a balanced budget and against the debt, and people like myself won't vote for any repubican, and the repubicans will find themselves with another 2006 on their hands.

Hopefully it will be serious enough situation and repubicans will remember what helped them win (fiscal responsibility) and what caused them to lose. But as long as people like these repubicans keep their heads in the sand, and keep lying to defend their party, there won't be any reason for the repubicans to balance the budget and pay down the debt.

Good to see you around again Rooster. :wavey:

concretefuzzynuts
10-16-2012, 17:54
Back to the topic.

Am I the only one who noticed that while she took the rap for what happened there was not a hint of remorse. No "I'm sorry to the families", nothing.

I think this admission was as hollow as her heart.

countrygun
10-16-2012, 18:04
Back to the topic.

Am I the only one who noticed that while she took the rap for what happened there was not a hint of remorse. No "I'm sorry to the families", nothing.

I think this admission was as hollow as her heart.


I noticed this as well. she more or less said it was the reponsibility of her position, but never really admitted it was Hillary Clinton's responsibility. She came closer to talking about herself in the third-person.

GAFinch
10-16-2012, 18:11
Therein lies the danger of Romney. When Romney grows government and fails to deliver on his promise to end obamacare people such as yourself will still vote for him because, once again, the election will be deemed the most important election of our lifetime and Romney will once again be declared the lesser of two evils. Things that were unconscionable under obama will be accepted under Romney, the growth of government won't be questioned by republicans and what was once protested by the right will be embraced because you won't hold him accountable.

This is an important election. Name the last time an actual anti-American, radical Marxist was President of this country and appeared to be intentionally bankrupting us. In his mind, this country is the evil 1% of the world.

Romney isn't perfect, but he's very fiscally-oriented. He's not McCain or Bush, no matter how much you Paulatarians try to convince us he is. Yes, we fully realize that the Republican Party lost its way for 15 years after the Gingrich era ended and our political system was becoming a Euro-style Social Democrat vs Christian Democrat setup. Obviously the left saw this, thought their decades of indoctrination finally succeeded, brought in a Marxist to finish the job, and were completely caught off-guard by the conservative backlash in 2010. It's why they couldn't fathom the Tea Party as anything other than the supposed latent racism rearing its ugly head because of a black President.

Obviously the Ron Paul crowd likewise thought that the Republican Party was dead and tried to create a new bastardized form of conservatism and likewise were surprised by the Tea Party. After you guys failed to co-opt the movement, you're now treating it like a passing fad and insultingly saying that Republicans haven't actually changed. It's certainly a work in progress, particularly in the Senate, and there's no guarantee it will last and succeed, but the new media paradigm is keeping the spirit alive, unlike before with the monolithic media empire. You guys see the internet as a way to keep the Gospel of L Ron alive, but are too limited in your news sources to realize that the same thing is going on with conservatives. Maybe you've missed seeing interviews where establishment figures are whining about us picking off the old guard in primaries either by local grassroots movements or by nationwide fundraising efforts poured into primaries. Unlike McCain, who's been hostile to the Tea Party movement, Romney was going around supporting candidates back in 2010. If he's smart enough to be aware of what's going on right now and still decided to run again in the 2012 election, then he's clearly ready and willing to work with the changing party.

Politicians lie, politicians compromise some of their ideals to function with others, politicians are unable to live up to promises based on incomplete information. Guess what? Life isn't perfect. The best we can do is carefully size people up and play the odds. A majority of Republicans clearly saw potential in him in the primaries, others (like me) voted for someone else but still have a favorable assessment of him, and some others don't but still see him as close enough to not switch over to the socially progressive LP.

Ruble Noon
10-16-2012, 18:27
This is an important election. Name the last time an actual anti-American, radical Marxist was President of this country and appeared to be intentionally bankrupting us. In his mind, this country is the evil 1% of the world.

Romney isn't perfect, but he's very fiscally-oriented. He's not McCain or Bush, no matter how much you Paulatarians try to convince us he is. Yes, we fully realize that the Republican Party lost its way for 15 years after the Gingrich era ended and our political system was becoming a Euro-style Social Democrat vs Christian Democrat setup. Obviously the left saw this, thought their decades of indoctrination finally succeeded, brought in a Marxist to finish the job, and were completely caught off-guard by the conservative backlash in 2010. It's why they couldn't fathom the Tea Party as anything other than the supposed latent racism rearing its ugly head because of a black President.

Obviously the Ron Paul crowd likewise thought that the Republican Party was dead and tried to create a new bastardized form of conservatism and likewise were surprised by the Tea Party. After you guys failed to co-opt the movement, you're now treating it like a passing fad and insultingly saying that Republicans haven't actually changed. It's certainly a work in progress, particularly in the Senate, and there's no guarantee it will last and succeed, but the new media paradigm is keeping the spirit alive, unlike before with the monolithic media empire. You guys see the internet as a way to keep the Gospel of L Ron alive, but are too limited in your news sources to realize that the same thing is going on with conservatives. Maybe you've missed seeing interviews where establishment figures are whining about us picking off the old guard in primaries either by local grassroots movements or by nationwide fundraising efforts poured into primaries. Unlike McCain, who's been hostile to the Tea Party movement, Romney was going around supporting candidates back in 2010. If he's smart enough to be aware of what's going on right now and still decided to run again in the 2012 election, then he's clearly ready and willing to work with the changing party.

Politicians lie, politicians compromise some of their ideals to function with others, politicians are unable to live up to promises based on incomplete information. Guess what? Life isn't perfect. The best we can do is carefully size people up and play the odds. A majority of Republicans clearly saw potential in him in the primaries, others (like me) voted for someone else but still have a favorable assessment of him, and some others don't but still see him as close enough to not switch over to the socially progressive LP.

Yeah, he's way to the left of either of them. :rofl: