Skip to main content

View Diary: Why President Obama Should Take Responsibility For Benghazi. (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  so what? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ontheleftcoast, pollwatcher

    why make a big deal about it.  It just needs to be put to rest.  

    No one is perfect, and no one can see into the future, and for those two reasons alone he can just accept responsibility, in principle.

    This was the only 'event' on 9/11, they are aware of 9/11 being a risky day.  Unlike Bush being unaware of the significance of 9/11 before we were attacked, and the significance of returning to a previous site.  Both were true for the towers too and that was the only one at that time.  This time it was true for hundreds of other potential targets outside the US, and I am sure some of them were stopped.  

    If there had been more protection, it's likely more would have been there to be killed.  There could not have been enough to protect everyone in that attack, that would have been impossible.  

    reelect the president

    by anna shane on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:38:22 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I get what you and the diarist are saying (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anna shane, rockhound

      but I'm going to continue to respectfully disagree with you. I don't see anyway for the President to put this to rest. The Republicans are desperate for a smear on the President. Solyndra didn't work. "Fast and Furious" didn't work. This will not work either. But it won't stop them from beating it like a rented mule until election day and it sucks for our side. But I don't think accepting the blame and falling into the Republican talking point narrative will help things at all.

      If we got Mitt to be slightly less dishonest and gave him some personality he could pass as a used car salesman.

      by ontheleftcoast on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:43:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  maybe you're right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ontheleftcoast, rockhound

        and I don't think it will change any votes, but once he says if I had it to do over, I'd have personally demanded more money from congress, he opens the question of congress's responsibility.

        Our state department goes hat in hand to congress, who loves to give military money but hates diplomacy and always shortchanges them.  I think that could become the talking point, but only after Obama says he should have made the demand his own, he should have insisted they knew just who they were risking.

        and then of course Hillary did predict it to congress. I mean, what could have been done differently without more money? At least a third of our missions have asked for more protection, there isn't enough money.  

        reelect the president

        by anna shane on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:52:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is spot on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anna shane, rockhound
          Our state department goes hat in hand to congress, who loves to give military money but hates diplomacy and always shortchanges them.
          Unlike the military where failure isn't supposed to be an option Congress most definitely thinks it is an option when it comes to diplomacy because, hey, we can always blow something up afterwards. Right? Congress (especially the Republicans) sees our foreign policy as "Hulk smash!".

          If we got Mitt to be slightly less dishonest and gave him some personality he could pass as a used car salesman.

          by ontheleftcoast on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 11:58:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site