Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Not Her Ball to Carry

Thanks to commenter AesopFan we have Hillary Clinton’s comments on Benghazi. Most importantly, for a woman who aspires to become our first commandress in chief, we have Clinton’s explanation for why she did not bear any responsibility for what happened to our ambassador and three others.

Interviewing her for 60 Minutes Scott Pelley asked her the right question. She bobbed and weaved and evaded responsibility. We are a long way from “The buck stops here.”

The transcript is from J. E. Dyer, on the Liberty Unyielding blog:

Hillary Clinton: Distinguished Americans, military and civilian experts, they came out, and they said, you know, “The ball was dropped in security,” and, you know, uh, some of the decisions that were made probably should have been rethought –

Scott Pelley: But wasn’t that your ball to carry?

Clinton: No.  It wasn’t.  It was not my ball to carry.  It was very – eh – read the, read the reports, read all of the reports, all many hundreds of pages of them, including this latest one, which was a political exercise from the very beginning.

Uh, those [department communications on security concerns] never reached me, those never came to my attention –

Pelley: The concerns about the security never came to your attention.

Clinton: No!  The experts…we have security experts.  I am not going to substitute my judgment for people who have been in the field, who understand what our men and women are up against.  So, this has all been investigated, over and over again, but as Tim [Kaine] was just saying, it didn’t get the result that some of the Republicans wanted, so they kept at it, and I feel very sorry that they have politicized it unlike any prior example, and I just think the most important challenge we face is learning from it and doing everything we can to keep our people safe.

As J. E. Dyer says:

…these are the words of a defensive bureaucrat, not the words of a national leader. Certainly not the words of a commander in chief.

One remarks that the media pundits and commentators have completely ignored Clinton’s dodge. And they all seem to have missed the absurd comparison between taking responsibility and carrying balls. It's OK to say that someone dropped the ball. But Hillary wants us to believe that she never had the ball in her hand. Huh?

11 comments:

David Foster said...

"A chief is a man who takes responsibility. He does not say, 'my men were defeated,' he says, 'I was defeated.'

-Antoine de St-Exupery

See my post Excusing Failure by Pleading Incompetence:

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/34733.html

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

I wonder if Tom Cruise will tell Hillary that she's glib.

Ares Olympus said...

At least now I understand why it is a hopeless goal to try to satisfy people whose intention is to scapegoat.

All apparent mistakes and failures can never be forgotten, and the purpose of this kangaroo court is NEVER to learn from mistakes and make things better next time. The purpose is to dishonor a person sufficiently that they never try to succeed again. That's the only way to satisfy a hater.

The problem with this tactic however, is it actually creates sympathy for Hillary, even if she's guilty.

Like the republicans chanted, "Lock her up, lock her up..." (And yes, some Sanders supporters too)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/politics/hillary-clinton-republican-convention-chants/

That's the only outcome that will satisfy, and perhaps President Trump will make some Executive Orders to the effect when he's elected, at least the haters can hope. And if it fails, the haters will at least be glad Trump tried his best.

There's plenty of reasons to dislike Hillary and her policies, but once you feel entitled to judge a person's from a distance and be certain in your convictions, it seems very hard to break those delusions.

We can turn it around and say Trump haters do the same thing, but I don't think so. No one is saying lock him up because he believes in inflicting pain and suffering on defenseless prisoners, even if that is against international law. We just don't want someone with that little empathy and good sense to do what he promises he'll do, even if he is just a blowhard and really would not do such things.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @July 27, 2016 at 6:52 AM:

"At least now I understand why it is a hopeless goal to try to satisfy people whose intention is to scapegoat."

Great. So stop trying.

"... but once you feel entitled to judge a person's from a distance and be certain in your convictions, it seems very hard to break those delusions."

Your lack of self-awareness continues to impress me. You are a hypocrite. You are a Trump hater. Your comments about Trump consistently demonstrate your phony "I'm Ares Olympus, above the fray" narrative. You are the one who is deluded.

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, I think Trump makes a great billionaire, sitting in his high towers, doing his reality TV shows. It's all great.

I just have no trust with him in ANY position of government leadership. I'd trust him as a janitor since its a low-risk job to fail at.

OTOH, if my desire was for someone to break things, to make things worse so I could complain more, and make hatred against people not like me more socially acceptable, perhaps I'd support Trump's mission whole heartedly.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @July 27, 2016 at 8:57 AM:

Keep digging.

Anonymous said...

This is Hillary Clinton.

"Clinton Cash"

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/27/exclusive-directors-cut-clinton-cash-now-playing/

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Curious how American companies are mercilessly hacked for trade secrets from China, North Korea, Iran, Russia, etc. and Washington yawns. Figure it out yourselves, they say offhandedly.

But when the previous Democratic National Committee gets hacked, it's a national security issue.

Give me peace from these self-important nonsense.

It's more of it: politicians protecting themselves, not citizens, and companies that employ citizens.

Maybe Putin will turn over the 30,000 Clinton emails he's already found, or perhaps it makes more sense (for his own self-interest) that he keep them in his back pocket for blackmail. But Hillary has nothing to hide. Nothing at all. No way.

I think it is humorous to ridicule Trump for asking for Russian help regarding emails that she says she already had erased, and that these pertained to such innocuous topics as yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding. I don't want to see Hillary's yoga poses, nor anything related to Chelsea.

I'll go back to focusing on God, gays and guns, as Nancy Pelosi so aptly described my daily interests. At least two of them.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

And now Democrats talk of treason, a word they couldn''t heretofore even pronounce. Treason, when they can't bear to have the America flag at their convention. What, er, patriotism.

Treason. Democrats. Maybe they'll now favor capital punishment again. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Ares Olympus said...

IAC, On Trump's call for Russian hackers to get access to more Clinton emails, of course this is just partisan hypocrisy, and you can be sure if Clinton was calling on Russian hackers to access Trump's businesses to gain dirt on his dirty dealings, he'd be make the same claims against the democrats loyalties to the communist interests.

What's preposterous is Clinton supporters claiming the Russians released the emails to embarrass the Democrats, rather than the truth that those emails were damning and deserved to embarrass the Democrats. So if Trump could just keep his mouth shut, the "Russians are to blame" defense would be laughable. But when Trump calls for more hacking, he's validating supporting the Democrats defense.

The larger issue, of Trump's positive views of Russia and Putin are certainly a change in direction from the GOP's past demonization of Russia's communism, but we are a long way from "Better dead than Red."

Now Red is the color of the GOP, now that we accept what "Communism" really is - dictatorship, as long as I'm the dictator.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/27/12271042/donald-trump-russia-putin-hack-explained
---
On Wednesday, Donald Trump did something extraordinary even for him: He called on a foreign power to launch an espionage operation against his chief political opponent, hacking into Hillary Clinton’s email server to find 30,000 emails she allegedly deleted.
...
All of this has raised one big question: What the hell is going on with Trump and Russia?

The answer appears to be twofold. First, the Kremlin appears to be interfering in the US election in a way likely to help Trump become president. Whether or not that’s the intent of the meddling, that is the result.

Second, Trump is deeply, weirdly pro-Russian.

It’s easy to see Trump’s pro-Russian policies as a kind of novice mistake. Trump doesn’t know much about foreign policy, the reasoning goes, and so his policy preferences are the result of pure ignorance.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case.
...
Instead of picking advisers from the anti-Russia neoconservative camp, who dominated GOP foreign policy before Trump, he has drawn some of the most pro-Russia people around. Trump sees Russia as a hot market, and has chosen to get into bed with suspiciously pro-Kremlin figures. He sees Putin as a model leader, not a disturbing authoritarian.

All of this suggests that Trump has thought a fair amount about Russia-related stuff, and come down on the Russian side. Trump’s skepticism about NATO and support for Russia’s intervention in Syria, then, are not incidental parts of his platform. They reflect the candidate’s actual worldview, and likely predict how he would act in office.
...
The second is that Trump is deeply committed to reorienting American foreign policy in a pro-Russian direction. He’s said that he’ll do that, repeatedly, and both his campaign and personal life give us every reason to believe that he’s absolutely serious.

Given the power of the US presidency, Trump could go beyond merely altering American foreign policy: If he’s really serious about it, he could alter the very fundamental fabric of global politics, weakening core institutions like NATO that Russia hates. Hillary Clinton, a solid establishmentarian who’s hated by Russia, would do nothing of the kind.

Those are some pretty high stakes.
---

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Ares Olympus @July 28, 2016 at 3:24 AM:

"... you can be sure if Clinton was calling on Russian hackers to access Trump's businesses to gain dirt on his dirty dealings, he'd be make the same claims against the democrats loyalties to the communist interests."

You're missing the whole point. Whoever is doing the hacking is trying to embarrass Hillary. Period.

This is not a national security issue. This is a political party compromising itself because its nominee is a crook.

Again, this is politics. I'm not falling for Hillary's damsel in distress fiction. She's a bit long in the tooth, and it's payback time.