Key words being “in the UK”. Different system, different ways of doing things.
I don’t see why Mrs May should resign for losing the election ( even if in fact she won albeit with a severely reduced majority ). In the olden times Prime Ministers lost and shrugged it off for the next time.
Ramsey MacDonald and Stanley Baldwin alternated 3 times each in the thirties, and Churchill and Wilson both had several premierships despite losing elections.
It is only in America that ‘Loser’ became an insult. Someone’s gotta lose.
There is a school of thought that says that Hillary and/or Obama willfully blocked American forces that were already ready, right nearby and able to save the day because…some motive I’ve never heard explained. * “Wheee, dead Americans!,”* I guess.
And I don’t see why Clinton should have been expected to resign (as the poster suggested) just because a State Department compound was attacked. Reagan didn’t demand any resignations over the 1983 bombing of the Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon. If a Cabinet member or senior presidential advisor resigned every time something went wrong on their watch, especially if they had little or no direct control over it, we’d see resignations on a weekly basis. (That might have been a good thing during the Bush 43 administration, but in general we prefer continuity form week to week in governance.)
Stranger
Is saying anything other than it’s “the Benghazi Bullshit Delusion” an inappropriate way to try to address an OP’s question?
No one has to agree with what some on the political right wing have alleged to be able to state what those allegations were. Ultimately it boils down to bad things happened to an ambassador and other Americans and Hillary Clinton was in charge of the State Department. That may be weak sauce, much like the OP’s comparison to blaming the Exxon CEO for a robbery, but that’s what the gripe boils down to.
I don’t think there is anything Hillary Clinton could have personally done once events were unrolling in Benghazi. The entirety of the decision making powers in the US government had to deal with the situation with what resources were available and given where those resources were based. And what they had at hand wasn’t going to be enough to deal with this attack on the Benghazi consulate.
I would hope that the State Department would analyze the decision making process to ensure that security levels are in line with the anticipated risk for a given diplomatic post regardless of who is making the decisions. I’m not sure that would have changed a thing about what happened in Libya or the security precautions that would have been taken.
These are hard lessons paid for with the blood of men who served their country. Failure to try to learn something from the events that resulted in their deaths would be a tragic loss.
Was it not the decision of that Ambassador, arabophone, that he did not want the aggressive presence? I seem to recall reding that.
Second guessing the people on the ground, it leads to what I see in the region where the American embassies are forbidding fortresses, unlike any other western embassy, even the French who are also targetted but prefer to rely on the intelligenc.e
As mentioned above, not entirely. Do the words “stand down order” ring a bell?
Serious q: Didn’t the administration immediately blame that anti-Islam filmmaker, knowing full well he had shit all to do with the attack?
I know my FB feed certainly did…nothing like reading “I support free speech, BUT…”
Does the word “Snopes” ring a bell?
Uh, I know that. I was saying that the accusations against Clinton and Obama was not just “buck stops here” stuff.
Yeah, but if you are going to cite actual lies, why not just claim that Hillary Clinton was the one who ordered the attack?
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did.
Wait, check that. Obama is more likely to be accused. Because he’s a Muslim and all.
Serious a: No.
One some level, you have to admire the Republicans’ ability to spin the ever-living-fuck out of a story and pound it into the American public’s psyche to the point that a large segment of the population calibrates their sense of reality to include it as fact. If only the Dems had a fraction of the ruthlessness and single hive-mind focus of the Republican party.
Of course she wasn’t responsible. It was protest rally, some other Secretary of State was responsible for security.
It was the Russians who destroyed the 30,000 emails on her private server which she created knowing how dangerous it was to have John Podesta emailing her at work. It was her patriotic duty and as Comey correctly pointed out, there was no intent to deliberately hide them from public view.
As to Whitewater, it was the other 15 people who went to jail over it who were responsible for her files disappearing from Vince Foster’s office after he died. Just because it started out as a land deal between the Clintons and the McDougal’s and she oversaw the legal paperwork is no reason to think she knew anything about it.
We can only guess why Vince Foster killed himself. Maybe it was his idea to call Bill Clinton’s accusers “trailer trash” and he felt guilty. Even though they were probably liars since we know Bill would never cheat on his wife. That was all a right wing conspiracy.
I really have to stop hitting “View Post”…
Because you have him on ignore?
What a sly, clever way to get that across outside the pit.
Hilarious.
Well thanks! 
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you genuinely meant that.
Yes, the Obama admin (going on what the CIA told them) briefly blamed the video, and yes, the video’s producer thought that was irresponsible of them. But no, they didn’t know it was a terrorist attack when they said it was the video.
It took a while to sort out the facts, especially when some terrorist immediately claimed credit, then turned out to be bullshitting, then it turned out some other terrorists did it. Susan Rice, who has been lynched by the right for going on TV and giving the CIA’s best assessment at the time, said repeatedly that it was preliminary, that the CIA was still working on it, etc., but to this day, the right doesn’t care. It is an article of faith with them that she deliberately lied, because (I guess) Obama and Hillary thought it sounded better to say that their security was inadequate to defend against a spontaneous protest by random civilians, rather than saying their security was inadequate to defend against a planned attack by professional, well-armed terrorists.
When Trump shot missiles at Syria, his administration was all over the map about the effect of the strike. One guy said they destroyed 20 planes, another said they destroyed 20% of the active Syrian air force, and another said they destroyed 20% of the entire Syrian air force. It took them several days to get their facts straight about an event that they controlled, and that was as easy to verify as counting to 20. But Americans understand that there is confusion in the aftermath of a battle, even one as brief as a missile strike.
Unless it’s Obama/Hillary. Then they are expected to know not only exactly what happened, but why it happened, even when that requires reading the minds of total strangers from 8000 miles away. And they are expected to know that immediately.