Hillary Clinton Resigns?
Updated November 8, 2012..see link below… Thank you.
(A companion piece which augments this article with more recent information can be found here.)
I welcome those coming from Raoul’s piece @ planet.inforwars.com and invite whatever comments the reader deems appropriate.
The original “Hillary Clinton Resigns?” article begins below
It seems that Washington is all atwitter about Hillary Clinton “taking responsibility” for the improper security arrangements that led to the deaths of four Americans, including the Ambassador, in Benghazi, Libya. She seemed to suggest that neither the President nor the Vice-President were necessarily aware of the requests for additional security and that the breakdown in security arrangements should be laid at the door of the State Department and thus the ultimate responsibility belonged to the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. There are a number of problems with this claim of responsibility, but this article will only address just a few.
What does “take responsibility” mean? If Secretary of State Hillary Clinton truly meant to “take responsibility”, then she should have returned to Washington, met with the President, and tendered her resignation at the same time. Claiming to take responsibility and actually taking responsibility are two completely different things.
The related problem is that the massive failure to provide adequate security is not the only issue on the table. The false narrative, including an attempt to throw a private citizen under the bus, which was provided by various administration officials as well as campaign spokespeople, is obviously not something for which Sec. of State Hillary Clinton can take full responsibility, even if that is her desire. That issue must be decided by others and it would seem there is plenty of responsibility to go around.
The real point, in my opinion, is that it would seem that Hillary Clinton could see that her choices were limited and she could either get run over by the Obama machine or make the best of a bad situation. Yes, she should be held accountable for those areas under her care, and thus should resign, but that does not mark the end of the story.
As reported by CNN:
She added, “What I want to avoid is some kind of political gotcha or blame game.”
“I know that we’re very close to an election,” Clinton said. “I want to just take a step back here and say from my own experience, we are at our best as Americans when we pull together. I’ve done that with Democratic presidents and Republican presidents.”
Of course she wants to avoid a “political gotcha or blame game”, but isn’t that in direct contradiction with her purported “taking responsibility”? And, in what universe should an event such as this, from the lack of security to the ongoing aftermath, not be a part of the political conversation, particularly at the time of an election? It seems to me that what she is actually saying is that the American people should not hold her, the President, or anyone else in the administration responsible for the catastrophe which took place in Benghazi, Libya.
AaronInvestigates 
Yes!… when someone posts a link to an article on your blog, you’ll get pingback
Thanks, both ways. I asked because it seems to be hit or miss.
Remember the old adage…loose lips sinks ships. Well I for one put national security ahead of feeding the curiosity of pundits and politics. Consider the bigger picture here and stop sounding as though you punt for our enemies. While, youd like to assume the current admistration is evil, lets not forget under a previous one,four planes crash into sites on our soil killing more than 3,000 inocent citizens despite having previous intelligence of the threat. So, a big oops for everyone…I guess.
Thank you for your comment, but I’m not sure I understand the relevance. Perhaps I miss your point. I’d have to suggest that from your comment I can’t agree that you put national security ahead of anything else.
I don’t really have to “assume” that the current administration is evil, but I do have to ask whether your 9/11 reference is simply another way of saying “It’s Bush’s fault”.
Thanks again.
My point was this…not to blame Bush. Rather, to suggest we’d be better off not to jump to conclusions of conspiracies and the like related to Bengazi. It would do us little good to announce to our enemies via the media we are on their trail just to appease the pundits and the paranoid back home. We never would have captured Bin Laden and similar if we continued in that vain. Our national security has to be independent of politics. So, while we can have our opinions and perhaps, fears…neither you nor I operate from the inside of national security and intelligence. We can only speculate. While speculation may make for good blog material, seldom can you argue it makes for good journalism. I don’t fault anyone for raising good questions. No. I take issue with people creating facts based on fear and political motives. So by all means…investigate. Then, report.