In Hillary Clinton’s interview earlier this week by Bret Baier and Greta Van Susteren on FOX News (videos and transcript here), Baier asked Ms. Hillary what it meant when she purported to “take responsibility” for Benghazi.
The question arose from Clinton’s earlier interview with Diane Sawyer, the video of which we posted in “The fog of Hillary.” It appeared that Clinton was not prepared for Baier’s question; she certainly had no answer to it. Here is the exchange:
BAIER: I heard your interview with Diane Sawyer. What exactly are you taking responsibility for?
CLINTON: I took responsibility for being at the head of the state department at that time. Now, that doesn’t mean that I made every decision because I obviously did not. But it does mean that I feel very deeply and very personally about the losses that we incurred. And there were others who were lost in the line of duty while I was as secretary. And it also means that as a leader, I have a responsibility to try to figure out what happened and then to put into place changes that will prevent anything like that from happening again. And, the United States government, just like any business, any family, any person, has to be a learning organism. We learn from the terrible attacks in Beirut in 1983 where 250 Americans were killed in the marine barracks in our embassy. We learned from the attacks on our embassies in Kenya and tans Tanzania in 1998, and we are learning from this latest terrible attack. We have to keep trying to figure out how we can be in dangerous places. I’m not one who says there is danger — your responsibility is to get us out. No, my responsibility is to do the best job that I can leading a diverse group, relying on security professionals, so that we can be in the hard places to help make the hard choices.
In other words, her assumption of responsibility means nothing. It is a pretense. But we already knew that.