Joe Biden's Benghazi B.S. (UPDATED)

Foreign Policy details how Vice President Joe Biden last night added to the growing mountain of Obama administration bullshit on Benghazi:

Vice President Joe Biden claimed that the administration wasn't aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi during Thursday night's debate, contradicting two State Department officials and the former head of diplomatic security in Libya.

"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

Whole thing here.

What makes Biden's blatant falsehood even more galling is that it came in response to a question about the administration's ever-changing storyline. Read the exchange in full:

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why -- why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on (inaudible)?

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. That's why there's also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there are any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again.

RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

BIDEN: Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly -- we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view.

That's why I said we will get to the bottom of this. You know, usually when there's a crisis, we pull together. We pull together as a nation. But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference -- was holding a press conference. That's not presidential leadership.

You know what makes it hard to "pull together as a nation"? When the elected officials running the nation's government repeatedly dissemble and flat-out lie about an important, deadly attack, in an effort to cover their own asses and shift blame onto the exercise of free speech.

UPDATE: The White House tries to spin a new yarn:

Vice President Joseph Biden speaks only for himself and President Barack Obama, and neither man was aware that U.S. officials in Libya had asked the State Department for more security before the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a top White House official told The Cable. [...]

The Cable asked Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications Ben Rhodes whether Biden was speaking for the entire Obama administration, including the State Department, which acknowledged receiving multiple requests for more Libya security in the months before the attacks. Rhodes said that Biden speaks only for himself and the president and neither of them knew about the requests at the time.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian's Evil Twin||

    YOU LIE!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The only reason they haven't tried to throw the Secretary of State under the bus yet is because they need her husband on the stump.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    The only reason they haven't tried to throw the Secretary of State under the bus yet is because they need her husband on the stump.

    Then why is Holder still there, or Timmy? Maybe the Obama administration likes or rewards incompetence.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I have no idea what Holder has on them. But they haven't been taken to task on Fast and Furious like they have on Benghazi. Their responses here seem to be tossing blame, like the Romney campaign or the intelligence community. The next logical place to affix scapegoatery is State for the lack of response to security requests.

  • wareagle||

    why does Holder have to have anything on the administration? Could be as simple as he is one of them. Bill won't say anything because he has Team as anyone can be.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That part was just the old joke about having pictures or evidence on someone.

  • Bill||

    As my wife likes to tell me: "jokes are supposed to be funny"

  • John||

    I don't think it is that Holder has anything on them. I think it is that they are leftists. And leftists all think fellow travelers can never be punished for a misdeed pointed out by the other side. It doesn't matter how bad that misdeed is. To fire Holder would be to admit the Republicans were right about something. And they are totally incapable of doing that.

    Think about it. No one has been held responsible for anything in this administration.

  • T o n y||

    There was Shirley Sherrod.

    Maybe if Republicans were serious about governing instead of spending every waking minute looking for a politically opportunistic scandal...

  • wareagle||

    and what are the Dems interested in, beyond the perpetual campaign in the executive and the demagogue chorus in the Senate? Besides, wasn't it your side that kept looking for the person who "outed" Valerie Plame, long after Richard Armitage had owned up to it?

  • John||

    Murdered ambassadors are not important Wareagle. Soccer moms in Virginia who once were CIA agents in contrast..

  • ant1sthenes||

    Yeah, it would be truly terrible if an administration starting revealing state secrets in order to score political points.

  • John||

    The Republicans are just a bunch of meanies. How dare they investigate or be concerned about the murder of a US ambassador or the Department of Justice sending guns to Mexican drug gangs or Obama donors getting millions in sham loans from the energy department.

  • Randian||

    Tony's 'logic' here makes my head hurt.

    1. Obama Administration obviously involved in some real scandals
    2. Republicans throw everything at wall to see what sticks.
    3. ????
    4. Tony supports Obama?

    Huh?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "were serious about governing"

    Like passing a budget or attending intel briefings... Things like that?

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    There was Shirley Sherrod.

    Not really.

    White House officials, and Tom Vilsack, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, apologized for the firing and offered Sherrod a new position.

    The Obama administration apologized to Sherrod, and offered her a full-time, high-level internal advocacy position with the USDA, which she ultimately declined.
  • Enough About Palin||

    Shorter T o n y

    What dead ambassador?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Maybe if Republicans were serious about governing....."

    You mean like Obama - who has held more political fundraisers than the previous 5 presidents combined?

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    There was Shirley Sherrod.

    So your best example is someone who was unjustly fired because the administration was embarrassed and didn't bother checking the facts?

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Um, Tony. You do realize the scandal is 100% the doing of the Democrats and that the opposing party MUST demand the truth, right? I mean, that's how in theory a democracy should work. Without the media doing it's fucking job (Diane Sawyer is NOT a journalist at this point) who will god damn speak for the people?

    Your corner?

    The Obama administration has acted in total disgrace and Joe Biden is a liar for pleading "ignorance." NOT AN EXCUSE.

    What's wrong with you?

    Is it racist yet to attack Biden?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    It's Bush's fault.

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Think about it. No one has been held responsible for anything in this administration.

    I think this is exactly it. No one has been held responsible for anything. To do so it to admit an error in judgement. Obama whould have to admit he picked the wrong person to head a department, and it is just not in his character to admit mistakes on his part.

  • Bill||

    Obama (or his handlers) have been very consistent from day one. Never let principles get in the way of getting re-elected or getting fellow team members elected.

    Explains virtually everything he has done or not done the last 4 years.

  • NoVAHockey||

    Maybe it's as simple as "if we dump Holder it will look like Obama make a mistake, which is impossible, as he is practically perfect in every way"

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    What you said.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    That sounds plausible.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not really. He could just get a case of the "more time with the family" itch.

  • Trespassers W||

    "You're doing a heckuva job, Holdie."

  • robc||

    Do you think that matters to Bill?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You think he enjoys getting an earful from Shrillary?

  • Randian||

    I doubt they even speak with each other all that often.

  • robc||

    When is the last time they spent serious time together? Jan 20, 2001?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It was a lie. And the more I saw them, the more I hated lies.

  • Tim||

    If they bring that up, just fucking lie. Nobody's going to call you on it, nobody who counts.

  • ||

    Yup. If there are zero consequences for lying...just lie you ass off.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not like people attracted to politics are known for being virtuous for virtue's sake.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

    "Gentlemen, I believe we have our scapegoats."

  • wareagle||

    it wasn't just a lie, it was a lie he got away with and got away with before a moderator whose alleged wheelhouse is foreign affairs. I'm surprised Joe didn't raise the new Dem talking point that accuses Repubs of withholding money for security.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    He did raise it.

    "BIDEN: I will be very specific. Number one, the -- this lecture on embassy security -- the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece."

    http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....z2964mrOz0

  • wareagle||

    a proposed cut in a budget that did not make it to POTUS. Still, guess I either missed or forgot that.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    You know, because they couldn't provide security if Ryan proposed cutting money for embassyt security in his budget that never got voted on in the Senate.

  • Sudden||

    He did.

  • Marshall Gill||

    The part about the Repubs withholding money is especially bad when placed in context. I was reading the other day that they placed a cap on total security spending. Valerie Jarrett, has full round the clock secret service protection. So it is basically a case where the Administration pissed away funds, want more and no one asks what they did with the money they had.

    They are truly scum.

  • NoVAHockey||

    Washington Monument Syndrome

  • Rufus J. Firefly||

    Didn't they install electric stands for Volt cars at the embassy?

    I can just picture The Losers:

    Intelligence Officer: Sir, we request additional security help. Al-Queda attack imminent.

    Obama: That can't be right. I know these people.

    I.O.: Sir?

    Obama: Hey! I'm thinking! Ok, go with the Volt stands. Must double down on Green, man. Green is like weed, man.

    I.O. walks out backwards sheepishly.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Ryan should have mentioned Valerie Jarrett having a security detail in Iowa but the US Ambassador not having one in Benghazi.

  • Loki||

    FWIW, he did mention that the embassy in France has a full round the clock security detail, but not the one in Benghazi. He was probably afraid to bring up Valerie Jarrett due to the possibility of some asshole* yelling "RACIST!!11!!"

    *Sycophantic mainstream media pundit

  • ||

    He did; Ryan didn't point out that funding wasn't the reason extra security was denied

  • ||

    quote

    But when questioned, Lamb denied that budgetary concerns had influenced her decision. committee “It has been suggested that budget cuts are responsible for a lack of security in Benghazi, and I’d like to ask Miss Lamb,” said Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.). “You made this decision personally. Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which lead you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

    “No, sir,” said Lamb.
  • Drake||

    Lamb: "We Had Correct Number of Assets in Benghazi at Time of 9/11"

    http://cnsnews.com/news/articl.....t-had-been

  • The Late P Brooks||

    But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference -- was holding a press conference. That's not presidential leadership.

    Last time I checked, Romney is not actually the President.

  • John||

    And the actual President was holding a fund raiser in Las Vegas. Ryan should have destroyed him on that.

  • NoVAHockey||

    "there was more security at that high rollers table than in Libya"

  • Gilbert Martin||

    That's another illustration of how the media is covering Obama as if were a candidate instead of the actual president.

  • wareagle||

    we knew the ambassador had been killed and we knew that it happened on a specific date and we knew that three other Americans were also killed and it seems damn near everyone knew it had nothing to do with a movie. But, distract and misdirect, because a large chunk of the public really is that stupid.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "...because a large chunk of the public really is that stupid."

    I don't know that they are stupid, but most people just aren't that interested in the workings of gov't or politics and what they get from MSM isn't exactly helping. Notice the caption on this photo in a recent article:

    "The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a September 11, 2012, protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States."

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a.....ttack.html

    Why would the administration be honest about anything if the media is going to be that lazy?

  • John||

    Wow. That is from October 10.

  • wareagle||

    the Beast is near-Kos territory. The comments sections are just as predictable, but this is Beast, adopted twin of Newsweek and spawn of Tina Brown, who evidently missed her calling in comedy. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a Jezebel of politics.

  • Anomalous||

    Mrs. Brown, you've got a fugly daughter.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a September 11, 2012, protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States."

    That's just willfully misleading.

    That's like Bush Jr. talking about yellow cake in Niger, only the subject isn't a vicious dictator; the subject is Muslims everywhere.

    Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself. And any media outlet that's willfully purveying Obama's lies should be ashamed of themselves, too.

  • Ken Shultz||

    And they NEVER seem to report on what happened to the militant group that apparently carried out the attack either:

    "BENGHAZI, Libya — Galvanized by anger over the killing of the popular American ambassador here last week, thousands of Libyans marched through this city on Friday, demanding the disarming of the militias that helped topple the dictatorship but have troubled the country with their refusal to disband.

    In a show of mass frustration at the armed groups, protesters seized control of several militia headquarters on Friday night and handed them over to Libya’s national army in what appeared to be a coordinated sweep. They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi that killed the ambassador and three other Americans.

    ....

    “We want justice for Chris,” read one sign among the estimated 30,000 Libyans, including families, who marched into Benghazi’s main square on Friday to protest in front of the chief encampment of Ansar al-Sharia.

    Some held signs reading “The ambassador was Libya’s friend” and “Libya lost a friend.” Many protesters carried Libyan flags, and government police officers could be seen mingling with the marchers."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09......html?_r=1

  • Loki||

    They also stormed the headquarters of Ansar al-Sharia, a hard-line Islamist militia that has been linked to the attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi

    Wasn't Biden also going all "tuff-gai" wannabe alpha male about how we're going to "find the people responsible and drone process them bring them to justice" or something like that? Sounds like the Libyan civilians have already at least partially handled it.

  • Ken Shultz||

    They sent out for the cost/benefit analysis, and when the numbers came back, it turned out that the downside of lying was better than the upside of telling the truth.

    The truth is ugly. It's an election season, and the truth is that Obama exploited racism and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims to deflect criticism away from himself.

    They may have to face the truth eventually, but by then, Obama may already be reelected, and most of the media will still be bending over backwards to remain as sympathetic as possible.

    They whole bunch of them will just ride with Costanza's razor:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ

  • John||

    They have to lie. Part of the problem is that they have a President who is incapable of even insincerely admitting fault. A great politiican would have fell on his sword before the American people, fired Hillary and promised to do better. But that is not Obama. Obama couldn't get up and take responsibility for something even if he tried. And even if he could, he would never do it. If you are running the Obama campaign, what do you do when there is a legitimate fuck up? Get the media to not report on it or if that fails, lie.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Well, I'm not sure Obama can tell the truth at this point and not hurt his reelection chances, which is an excellent reason for us to keep hammering the issue with friends and family and hated Obamabots.

    We have to keep hammering the Obama Administration for their bigotry here. The Obama Administration threw 1.5 billion Muslims under the bus here--for being Muslims. And if the Obama Administration has no viable response except lying?

    Then that's perfect!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You're over-egging the pudding a bit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    It wasn't Bush either, or any president in recent memory. I doubt Romney will ever admit a mistake if he gets elected either.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    The modern American politician has crossed over from "lying" to the fantasy land of whatever they declare somehow is the genuine "reality".

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The first lie, about the video, came naturally. It just snowballed from there.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    How dare you bring this up! This post is unpatriotic! You're all unpatriotic! /stephaniecutter

  • Ken Shultz||

    Don't forget that this is only an issue because of Romney and Ryan...

    That video clip is a gold mine of twisted thinking--it really rewards rewatching, too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrWPUlbKcAE

    At about 5:15, Cutter admits that her job "may be to spin".

    That's a bullshit gauntlet right there! It's like that time on Star Trek, when they told that robot that everything Kirk said was a lie--and then Kirk told the robot he was lying?

    When her job is to go on TV and spin, and then she goes onto CNN and tells everybody's she's just spinning, does the spin turn back on itself and create like a black hole of bullshit? Time slows to a standstill, space time becomes distorted...

    Or does that just mean she's not very good at teh bullshits.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Don't forget that this is only an issue because of Romney and Ryan.

    Yep. "It would have worked if it wasn't for you meddling kids" seems to be her argument.

    Her spin comment was a classic Kinsley gaffe.

  • Jerry on the road||

    Why haven't we heard from the NSA, Tom Donilon?

  • Sudden||

    It's an election season, and the truth is that Obama exploited racism and bigotry against Arabs and Muslims to deflect criticism away from himself.

    I think the interesting take on this isn't that he exploited some domestic racism/bigotry personified by the movie. After all, the movie was made by a person who is ethnically the same as the Egyptian protesters.

    The real sickening part is that Obama essentially was the bigot by trying to paint this as an issue of "those crazy muslims just can't contain or express their rage in appropriate ways." It wreaks of white man's burdenism.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, that's right!

    In the wake of the assassination of our ambassador in Benghazi, we had stories here at Hit Run about government entities that eventually curbed free speech out of fear of provoking Muslim rage.

    It's not just that Obama exploiting racism and bigotry is morally pathetic. It's that people actually believed Obama's lies, and they're adjusting their views on their fellow Americans, who happen to be Muslim, accordingly.

    ...just to get yourself reelected, Mr. President? Shame on Barack Obama!

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    To be fair, CAIR and other Muslim advocacy groups were all for the advertisement censorship. So it's hard to make Muslims the victims here.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Anything that falsely stigmatizes Muslims as being incompatible with a free society or the American way of life is necessarily to the detriment of Muslims--no matter what CAIR says.

    How many people did we see raging against Muslims for inhibiting our freedom of speech here at Hit Run, in the wake of the assassination of our ambassador?

    And if government entities are clamping down on anti-Muslim speech in reaction to Obama's lies, then it isn't just Muslims that are paying the price for those lies. Obama's lies have also appear to have watered down our free speech rights--and that hurts Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Let's be brutally honest here.

    Obama lied and advanced the censoring demands of islamic extremists, for no apparent reason.

    He's either a useful idiot or one of them.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    This is why nobody takes conspiracy theorists seriously.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Obama lied and advanced the censoring demands of islamic extremists, for no apparent reason."

    The most obvious reason is that the Obama Administration was incompetent in its lack of protection for the consulate--ignored all sorts of warnings--and the Administration doesn't want to be seen as incompetent in the few months running up to an election.

    If there's a simpler explanation, I'd love to hear about it. And the suggestion that Obama would potentially hurt his own election chances in the hope of promoting the cause of his secret religious beliefs--doesn't seem like a simple explanation to me.

    As a general rule, start with Occam's razor, and then never assume nefarious motives when simple incompetence is a more than sufficient explanation.

    They screwed up because they're incompetent! If there's an explanation for why they continue to cover it up with lies and insinuations against an entire cultural group, then it's probably because being exposed as incompetent generates bad press in the run up to an election.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I agree that Muslims should be insulted by the ad censorship. But they aren't; they favor it for the most part.

    People who voluntarily contribute to their own detriment are not victims.

  • FD||

    Per Ken's, "They sent out for the cost/benefit analysis, and when the numbers came back, it turned out that the downside of lying was better than the upside of telling the truth," this is SOP.
    And it's standard operating procedure for anyone who holds a public office.
    There is no lie.
    There is no truth.
    One thing matters, and one thing only -- 50% plus 1 vote.
    Many writers here (and you are all writers of one sort or another) rightly thump the table, insisting there is no difference in political parties. Quite correct, quite obvious to anyone with critical reasoning.
    Not to ruin a Friday morning, step back. Look at where the society (excuse the collective reference) has arrived. Look at the nonsense from last night? Arguing over deck chairs on the... well, you know the metaphor.

    There is virtually no avenue, no route in life, no different drummer's tune that can escape the tentacles of this warped Leviathan.
    It's not a case of being your brother's keeper.
    You are your master's keeper, your state's keeper.
    And if you don't like the size of the government rat hole, which is overflowing with your sweat and daily toil, sucked from you and pissed away in the name of righteousness, then it's too damn bad.
    If you don't comply, you'll be imprisoned. Or shot.
    It's not a case of denial of service, which would be ethical -- if I don't pay up, then I don't get access to a road, or the library, or government medical care. Denial of service? Ya, sure.
    You cannot opt out....

  • FD||

    This is no Patrick Henry-ian whine or chant to hunker down, since life is too good, technology too advanced, with comforts ubiquitous. Nobody wants that, except a few who are pushed to the brink, ready to guard the yard with a rifle, Only the singular few. And they are not left alone. They are eventually shot.

    There is no opting out. And "love it or leave it" is not a rational response. That is why the system and is vile.

    Imagine that we live in a world where you cannot be left alone, that you will pay, no matter what you say.
    And if you refuse a service, well, you'll pay anyway.

    That's the membership fee for living in a country that fosters a culture of ridicule -- make fun of your enemy du jour, domestic or foreign. That's the way ahead.
    And never, never leave them alone.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    This is why nobody took Patrick Henry seriously.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You know what makes it hard to "pull together as a nation"? When the elected officials running the nation's government repeatedly dissemble and flat-out lie about an important, deadly attack, in an effort to cover their own asses and shift blame onto the exercise of free speech.

    You're slipping Suderman,

    You forgot to add the gratuitous attack on Romney wanting to kill Big Bird.

    You'de better have an answer for this slip up is you want a job at the daily beast.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You know what makes it hard to "pull together as a nation"? When the elected officials running the nation's government repeatedly dissemble and flat-out lie about an important, deadly attack, in an effort to cover their own asses and shift blame onto the exercise of free speech.

    You're slipping Suderman,

    You forgot to add the gratuitous attack on Romney wanting to kill Big Bird.

    You'de better have an answer for this slip up is you want a job at the daily beast.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Vice President Joseph Biden speaks only for himself and President Barack Obama, and neither man was aware that U.S. officials in Libya had asked the State Department for more security before the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a top White House official told The Cable.

    So he answered the moderator's question with an irrelevant statement?

    Leaving aside the question of whether the prez and veep being unaware of what's going on with embassy security makes this story any better.

    Ånd the deeper question of why a White House Official is granted anonymity for statements that favor the administration.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    neither man was aware that U.S. officials in Libya had asked the State Department for more security before the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi

    Look, I understand that these guys can't have all the info at their fingertips at all times--but if they legitimately did not know that more security was requested, they either 1) need to be attending more intel briefings, or at least paying more attention during the intel briefings they do attend; or 2) they need to fire Hillary or find some sort of scapegoat in the State Department they can publically throw under the bus. The longer they keep this up, the more incompetent they appear.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Regardless, only Team Blue partisans are arguing that this wasn't a complete fuck-up by the administration. It's obvious they were caught totally flat-footed by the attack and are in full damage-control mode at this point.

  • R C Dean||

    Reading Biden's comments, I think he was just talking about his knowledge and the President's.

    Of course, the fact that the President didn't know anything about the requests for security, etc., just raises the issue of his refusal to attend security briefings. But that would be expecting rather a lot of Raddatz.

    What wouldn't be expecting too much of Raddatz would be to call him out on the "what the intelligence community told us". At a minimum, the video fable was in opposition to what the State Department was telling them. Why do timelines say that the intelligence agencies themselves reached an internal conclusion that it wasn't a video-mob action on September 12?

    And WTF was Petraeus doing parroting the video-mob line late in the game?

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The Cable asked Deputy National Security Advisor for Communications Ben Rhodes whether Biden was speaking for the entire Obama administration, including the State Department, which acknowledged receiving multiple requests for more Libya security in the months before the attacks. Rhodes said that Biden speaks only for himself and the president and neither of them knew about the requests at the time."

    Again, it's all about deflecting blame.

    It's hard for people who've never been in management to understand how it works when you're responsible for other people's actions--but being responsible for other people's actions is what being a manager is all about.

    Sometimes, if some underling is behaving dishonestly, there may be an occasion where a manager can't reasonably be held responsible for what the people under him do...

    So, were the people who ignored the requests for more security being dishonest? Why did they fail to send the request up the chain as they should have? Or did the request reach the right people, it's just that that those people gave the wrong response? Are the people who failed to respond correctly to the request for more security being held responsible in some way?

    I would say almost without qualification that if Barack Obama isn't asking these questions, and he can't answer these questions right now? Then he's too incompetent a manger to serve another term as president.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If you manage a gas station and DEC finds gasoline in groundwater near your place, you're going to jail. Even if your subordinates falsified monitoring well reports so that you didn't know you had a leak.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I would also say--entirely without qualification--that Barack Obama's cover up is a separate issue, which seems to demonstrate that he cares more about being reelected than he does about...our free speech rights or not besmirching Muslims everywhere. And, given that alone, I think he's unfit to serve another term as president.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Maybe if Republicans were serious about governing instead of spending every waking minute looking for a politically opportunistic scandal...

    Yes, how dare the Ambassador let himself be killed and embarrass the president by giving the Repubs a "politically opportunistic" scandal.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    I'm curious as to how Tony believes Republicans are supposed to be governing. They don't hold any federal offices.

  • Sevo||

    It's Bush's Fault (tm)

  • Harvard||

    Let's see, the Consulate was protected by two non Americans armed with batons and handcuffs yet the Social Security Administration needs 3 million hollowpoints and we're to just move along and believe someone's pursuing a politically opportunistic scandal?
    Tonly really is little more than a sycophant who feels his public fellatio of Obama will make some small difference.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    Tony and Barack's enemy is "YOU".

  • Support Obama888||

    Well, I got what I deserved. Although I hesitated, I went to the HufPo Streisand link, just to be a thorough little reader of this essay. Now I ruined my Saturday morning coffee experience. Belch.
    Leftists truly are a self-delusional lot, what with their hair-pulling threats of "returning to Bush policies." They should love Bush. From war, to civil liberties smack downs, to government expansion, Obama apparently loved "the way we were." He is W,coach outlet and Romney would have done the same if he became pres.
    I say, "would have" because according to the same HufPo page, the electoral map indicates that this election is over. I figured it was an empty suit squeaker win, but not an impending blowout. Would have been fascinating stuff if Romney won by Gallup's seven percent but still lost the electoral vote by the same margin.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement