Taking responsibility for the violence in Benghazi is like admitting fault for a bank robbery because you failed to hire enough security guards. On Oct. 15, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took responsibility for the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya last month that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. This is commendable on some level, but should also be taken as asking for forgiveness on a poorly planned circumstance. But the main concern is how this will make President Obama look. Is there fault found throughout the entirety of the House, despite Mrs. Clinton saying that the safety of the US diplomatic staff overseas was solely her job and not the White House’s? There are many opinions out there, and it was even brought up in the recent presidential debate. And, of course, many theories are circulating throughout the Internet, and although I do find the sympathy appreciative, I also find the blame as a campaign maneuver rather than an authentic worry about America’s stance abroad.

The recent debate between Romney and Obama seemed to be evenly matched. Obama was aggressive and argued well, while Romney embodied his typical role. But, performances aside, the issue I would like to address is a statement posed by Moderator Candy Crowley who brought up one event in particular. This was, naturally, about Clinton’s acceptance of responsibility for the attacks.  When Obama was confronted about the affair he said that “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has done an extraordinary job, but she works for me. I’m the president and I’m always responsible.” At first I was glad he had that to say, but as second thoughts snuck up on me I wondered why he could not address the incident before then. If he does take the blame for the terrorist assault, then why not speak about this face-to-face with the country and say so?

I do understand that Hillary Clinton, being secretary of state and all, has a duty to inform congress and American citizens on the conduct of foreign affairs, but she also serves as the president’s primary adviser on U.S. foreign policy, while ensuring the protection of our country and the citizens. Along those lines, there has been circulating rumors about what intel the government had prior to the attack in Libya. In an interview with ABC news, Clinton said that “we understood that there would be an effort to try and re-establish a presence of extremist bases and operations.” She boldly admitted that there is cause for concern, and there very well should be. Yet, the content of the information that the government had prior is vague. But, when asked in various interviews, including one with CBS, she ignored the questions regarding the time and place of received information. Instead, she resorted to saying that that the most important thing to focus on was the “death of four brave Americans” and that our government can make certain of hunting the terrorists down (while subtly hinting at Obama’s “job well done” with Osama Bin Laden). The core focus should not be about tracking down violent protesters and promoting a re-election of our president, but guaranteeing the safety of our country, especially with unstable foreign relations.

Republicans are now amped up at the opportunity to impart undermining blows at the Democrats now that election day is getting closer and closer. It has come up both in the vice presidential debate and last week’s presidential debate on Oct. 16. Why dedicate so much time overseas? Yes, we should have increased security. The secretary of state should know better, and the president should find an applicable solution. But, in the end, our nation is the most important factor in the equation. Instead of concentrating on economic turmoil, rising taxes and unemployment, a political battle for the spotlight has began where the kindergartners point fingers and throw mud balls at one another. This is why my aforementioned take has been one that supports the claim that Hillary Clinton is being used, as the Washington Post likes to put it, as a “doormat” for Obama and his campaign. BBC News offered their opinion, saying that “Mrs. Clinton is trying to draw criticism away from Mr. Obama.” The president shouldn’t be one to shrug off something that causes so much frenzy so easily, and I do not necessarily believe that he has done just that, but there is an amount of discounting coming from his end.

Since the time of the assail, the White House has changed their intelligence information from a spontaneous attack “following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo,” says Shaw Turner, director of public affairs for the national intelligence office, to the U.S. intelligence community saying that, “We revised our initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists.”

There appears to have been a lot of deception going around because it seems that no one is really sure what happened in what department, except that there was some sort of intelligence that precluded to something. The only real clear evidence is the information affirming that US security was diminished in Libya prior to the strike on the consulate.  A US congressional committee had been made aware of this information, as confirmed by BBC, the Daily Beast, and CBS News. Multiple reasons can be applied to this. Perhaps we had a reason to feel safer in a presumed less violence ridden country, which is implausible since the articles go on to say that that carnage worsened or our government felt the need to satisfy the people by pulling more individuals out.

Whatever the motive is, the understanding should be that the damage done is not a political promotion for either party; it is a situation that places stress on the fact that our foreign policy requires much work. Both Romney and Obama can point their determined fingers at one another and Mrs. Clinton can ensure a man-hunt for the extremists, but before we can concentrate on homeland business, which should be our main priority, there needs to be a serious reconstruction of foreign affairs first.