Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The buck stops there - Commentary: "Hillary apologizes for Benghazi"  "This is nothing short of disastrous for President Obama. After dodging responsibility for the Benghazi attack for over a month, pointing fingers at everything from the State Department to the intelligence community, the White House is outclassed by…Hillary Clinton."


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/10/blame_obama_for_the_libya_consulate_attack_but_don_t_blame_bush_for_9_11.single.html said...

A laughable political response to a laughable political response.

William Saletan wrecking the latter in Slate today:

The president was warned of an impending threat of terrorism. He failed to act. The attack came, Americans died, and now the administration is covering up the truth.

That’s what Republicans are arguing in 2012. Which is pretty funny, if you don’t count the dead Americans, because it’s the opposite of what the GOP said 10 years ago. Back then, the conspiracy theories and the 20/20 hindsight were about the original 9/11 attacks. And the Republican Party line was that anyone who accused the president of neglect or deceit was unpatriotic.

[Criticism from the RNC... Cheney... other Cheney... Rumsfeld... Giuliani]

Maybe, if Obama and his underlings had heeded the danger signs, those four Americans would be alive today. But it’s pretty rich to hear this complaint about “the events of September 11, 2012” from the people who presided over the original events of Sept. 11. You know, the ones in which nearly 3,000 Americans died.

[Ignoring the 9/11 memo, subsequent alibis]

In that statement and others, Cheney invoked every excuse he and his allies now deride in the Libya fiasco. The warnings weren’t specific enough. Broad analyses of persistent dangers aren’t actionable. Warnings from our people on the ground didn’t “trickle up to the presidential level.” Connecting the dots isn’t the president’s job. It’s a failure of the “system.”

...Rumsfeld, who had lost 125 people at the Pentagon, defended the administration not just for its handling of pre-9/11 information but for its subsequent intelligence failures in Iraq.

...The difference between the failures of Sept. 11, 2001, and the failures of Sept. 11, 2012 isn’t just 2,900 deaths. It’s the ferocity with which Republicans, when they held the White House, denounced their critics as unpatriotic. “Democrat insinuations that the President and Administration had prior knowledge of the September 11th tragedy is an outrageous political attack on the Commander-in-Chief during wartime,” the National Republican Congressional Committee charged in 2002. In a rebuke to Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Cheney added: "What I want to say to my Democratic friends in the Congress is that they need to be very cautious not to seek political advantage by making incendiary suggestions, as were made by some today, that the White House had advance information that would have prevented the tragic attacks of 9/11. Such commentary is thoroughly irresponsible and totally unworthy of national leaders in a time of war."

I’m sure we can count on this kind of pulling together now that the president is a Democrat, the attack was overseas, and the casualty count is four.

Anonymous said...

Since you're not smart enough to understand the differences between 2001 and 2012 my explaining it to you won't matter. Not that that matters, since a stand up President would admit the buck stops with him and not keep silent while waiting for a female with a bigger pair of balls to accept responsibility.

Anonymous said...

OH SNAP in your undefeated mind you totally PWNED that quoted text!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

At least W. didn't ultimately lay the blame upon Americans for 9-11-01 like Obama did with 9-11-12. (and ain't it disgusting we have to differentiate between 9-11 attacks now?) Even though the Obama admin knew it was al-Qaeda within the first 24 hours, they still laid the blame for the attakcs at the feet of the "Innocence of Muslims" creators for at least half a week afterwards. If Bush had done such a thing he would've had to borrow a page from Ward Churchill and say everyone in the buildings was a little Eichmann who was somehow responsible for all the turmoil in the Middle East.

As for "let's blame the president for the failures", is this a case of political karma, or the sauce being good for the goose as well as the gander?

Anonymous said...

It's always sad when a talking point dies. Light a candle.

Nigel Tufnel said...

Bush the Younger laid the blame for the World Trade Center attack on Saddam Hussein and committed the US to a war that cost the lives of thousands of soldiers. You need to go with a different source of outrage.