Hillary Clinton has emerged from self-imposed exile in Peru and is taking the blame for the massive failure of security at the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the deaths of four Americans on September 11, 2012.
Clinton is in Lima speaking on women's issues but her statement is a clear attempt to save Obama's increasingly shriveled bacon on the Benghazi abomination. There was no immediate word on whether she will be fired for incompetence and brought up on charges of dereliction of duty.
However, in appearing to provide a cover story for the administration of President Barack Hussein Obama, Clinton's acceptance of the blame for the debacle actually makes him look that much worse. Where other presidents in his party have "manned up" to take responsibility for what happens in their administrations, including Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman, Obama has run for cover, hiding behind Clinton, his Secretary of State.
Considering that Obama is already on the hot seat to improve on his appalling performance in the first presidential debate against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Obama now will have the added burden of explaining how he was out of touch, out of the loop, out of a backbone and why he shouldn't be out of the office of president.
In her capacity as Secretary of State Clinton took responsibility for the security lapses that resulted in the murders of American personnel, saying the entire issue is all her fault. Sorry, Hillary, I'm not buying it.
You can delegate authority but not responsibility. Clinton works for Obama, she was selected by him to be his Secretary of State and now he is faced with another ticklish issue; how to respond to her statement.
Obama is under fire from within and without to explain why and how our consulate was subjected to a coordinated attack without appropriate American security on the scene, and why an ambassador, another staff member and two former Navy SEALS who came to help the embattled diplomats were killed. Obama and his minions also have been tripping all over each other with conflicting stories about what happened, who knew it, when they knew it and what they said about it.
Obama's administration has been accused, with a reasonable amount of reliability, of covering up what really happened after it became apparent that desperate pleas for increased security personnel in Muslim countries in the months before the attack were denied.
The first official report was that the consulate in Benghazi was attacked as part of a spontaneous uprising of Islamo-fascists across the Muslim world who supposedly were angry because some guy living in California made an insulting video about their religion several months earlier. That story was known to be false immediately because U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens entertained another dignitary at the consulate the evening of the attack and less than an hour before the attack the street out front was quiet.
But less than an hour later a full-scale coordinated assault was underway, as evidence by messages that came from inside the consulate and videos showing heavily armed men outside with weapons ranging from automatic rifles and rocket launchers to mortars. Despite claims from administration apologists to the contrary, weapons of that type are not synonymous with spontaneous street demonstrations which usually involve rocks and burning tires.
In the weeks following the attacks the Obama Administration issued several conflicting stories of what happened, all designed to make it appear that someone other than the president bore the responsibility for his dismal performance on foreign relations.
Then, last week, during the vice presidential debate, vice president Joe Biden took a minute to stop cackling like an aging witch and claimed that "We did not know" that security personnel had been asking for stepped up security in the region, especially in the wake of several previous attacks on US facilities this summer. That statement was met with incredulity across the political spectrum and Obama's efforts to insulate himself failed miserably, resulting in Clinton's astonishing statement that she is at fault.
So now the airwaves are full of questions about what this all means and what impact it will have on the debate tonight. Some are saying that tonight Obama will use Clinton's admission of guilt to step up and say no, it was his fault and he won't let her shoulder the blame for him.
Nice theory but I don't agree. It is not exactly a political secret that Obama and the Clinton's don't like each other, and Hillary stands to take far more away from this than Obama. Either way, everyone knows it is ultimately his fault so no matter what he says now, no one is going to believe him except his usual stooges and they don't matter.
Hillary could use her "team player" approach in her own bid for the presidency four years from now, but for the moment, her statement serves only to further divide the already divided Democrat Party and further confuse an issue for which confusion is not an acceptable definition.
Someone said on a morning news show today that Mitt Romney can't afford to make a major mistake tonight! Seriously? Romney? Have you ever seen a man more in control of himself?
I don't think Romney's performance tonight is the big question. I think Obama's performance is the issue; will he accept Clinton's "admission of guilty" and if so will he fire her?
Or will her try to appear all noble and chivalrous and take the blame instead, which only serves to give us what we wanted in the first place, a president doing his job instead of living it up on the taxpayers' money and leaving the country to people we don't know who were never elected.