Did she offer her resignation?

If not, her statement is an insult to the intelligence of Americans.

I've no doubt that Hillary's future political plans figured largely into this decision but it is a litte hard to fathom how she believes 4 more years of Obama would merge nicely into the next 4 years of Hillary. The liberals must really believe that we will all learn to love anti-American socialism.

And there's Little Barry hiding behind a woman's pantsuit -- again. What a Commander-in-Chief!

Real easy words to say when there are no consequences!
Just as easy as saying "I can't recall" "I don't remember" "I have no recollection" 250 times...

Her words might have helped Zero's dilemma IF he had not been out campaigning and fund raising all of this time. He has not shown any concern over these deaths by his behaviors. His words are empty words and few believe him anymore. It will be interesting to see if he can be a real man at the debate tonight when this subject comes up.

If you read her entire statement and not just the edited snippets fed to us by the msm you hear mealy mouthed excuses with no acceptance of the truth whatsoever.

The cover up continues with the help of their fellow travellers in the media.

I thought Obama's 'intelligence' chief had already taken 'responsibility'?
Now it takes two scapegoats to cover for Obama.
Sounds like this is getting worse.

Voters are starting to notice Obama's lies, deadly incompetence and need to hid behind others.

This is nonsense of course. Barry is in charge of the executive branch which the State Deprt is part of. As it turns out Obama and "Uncle Joe" (hmm ... seems like someone else used to be called that) did know about the security problem in Benghazi and knew for months.

BTW ... Just what was the Ambassador doing in Benghazi in the first place? Trying to retrieve weapons given to Al Quaida during Soetoro's Lybian adventure?

So much for being the strong, intelligent, would-be first female president. She rode Bill's coattails into being the first lady of Arkansas and the US. She lied to cover up Bill's philandering when she played dumb about it (if she didn't know, she really is dumb) and blamed it all on the vast right-wing conspiracy. She got elected to the Senate by showing up in a dark blue state that the she didn't live in and pretending to be a Yankee's fan. She got steamrolled in 2008 by an inexperienced amateur. She started out her SOS job with a big gaffe (the Russian reset button with the bad translation.) And now, once again, she's prostituting herself for a man she needs to prop her up.

Saying "I take responsibility" for this atrocity should have been said four weeks ago. The only reason she's saying this now is to give Obama cover.
This would have never happened with Condi at the helm of the State dept.

This rings about as hollow as when Janet Reno "took" responsibility for Waco. During the Bill Clintin administration somebody was always coming forward & "taking responsibilty!" - always, of course, with NO consequences. It meant nothing then & it means nothing now.

Hillary has chosen to flop under the bus because she desperately needs Little Barry to win this time.

Otherwise, she's running against incumbent Mitt in 2016.

Mitt in tonight's townhall: "It's unfortunate that Hilary Clinton's is having to fall on her sword for this administration's fecklessness. But it's very admirable that, unlike the president, she isn't trying to blame former President Bush. She's the only person in the current administration who doesn't try to wiggle out of her responsibilities."

One gets the impression she thinks saying that she takes responsibility signifies or settles something and that it is time to move on. It does not. To begin with, it is nothing but a truism. She HAS responsibility, whether she "takes" it or not. She is responsible for the State department. Then there is the question of just what it means to be responsible for something. Are there any consequences - or does one just issue a statement proclaiming one's responsibility and that is the end of the matter? If my negligence or incompetence results in the death of four people and I say that I take full responsibility for what happened, does that get me off the hook? Then there is the question of the president and whether he has any responsibility for his appointees and their actions. It seems that in Hillaryland he does not. In Hillaryland the State department is an entirely autonomous operation for which she and she alone is responsible. But not THAT responsible, for she doesn't expect to suffer any adverse consequences. Indeed, she seems to think she merits a loud round of applause for "taking responsibility."

The media reports this will enhance Hillary as a strong leader. Falling on your sword weeks after giving a very expensive, entirely false narrative about a video causing this spontaneous attack does not a strong leader make. The lib spin is especially heavy today. Don't buy it Gov. Romney, we aren't.

A good line for Romney tonight would be: "Mr. President, the sign on the desk is The Buck Stops Here, not The Buck Starts Here". I know it would be a first for you, but take responsibility for your own administration.

It seems as if this administration is throwing bodies along the trail so no one will continue to pursue the truth. It is still out there, and it must be big if they are going to such lengths to throw the dogs off the scent.

"Responsibility"

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya

To Democrats "taking responsibility" is like a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, a King's X, a reset button. It's like, "OK, you got me. I did it. Can we move on now?" There are not meant to be any actual consequences.

Clever, calculated move on her part. First, there was enough noise that something had to be said. There are a lot of people who will think this makes her strong (positive for her), it is qualified (no one reads that much, so see the first point) and while it may seem to give Obama some cover, see poster #3's point...why is he hiding behind women? And then throwing them under the bus? Surely that won't play well. At least eventually.

Will she like it under the bus?

I remember when we had leaders in the White House and the "buck stoped with them". Since we have a little girl running the white house, who has not been responsible for anything for four years (its is Bush, EU, ATM, weather, etc....) his sign says the "buck stops outside the White House".

Disgusting at best. He should return to his room and play with his dolls.