"I take responsibility" for Benghazi: ClintonThe way I read that, Hillary is, at best, taking partial responsibility for the decisions that "security professionals" made. That's something of a dodge.
By Andrew Quinn, Reuters
(Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton assumed responsibility on Monday for last month's deadly attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, which has become an issue in the hard-fought U.S. presidential campaign.
"I take responsibility" for what happened on September 11, Clinton said in an interview with CNN during a visit to Peru, adding that President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden would not be responsible for specific security instructions for U.S. diplomatic facilities.
"I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world," Clinton said.
"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."
Clinton's comments followed stepped-up criticism of the Obama administration over the Benghazi attack, which Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney has sought to use to dent Obama's foreign policy credibility before the November 6 election. [link]
And, that leaves three unanswered questions:
1) Why didn't she resign if she takes responsibility for this tragic debacle?
2) Regardless what she claims is the President's realm of responsibility, wouldn't it have been wise for a good commander-in-chief to question security measures in one of the most volatile regions on the planet if he were at all interested in the well-being of his charges?
3) Who are those security professionals who need to be fired?
See "Hillary's 'Responsibility': As the White House blames State for Libya, the Secretary says little."
See "When Did Obama First Meet with NSC After Benghazi? White House Isn't Saying"
The obfuscation goes on.