Comments about ‘U.S. officials counter reports on Benghazi attacks’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Nov. 2 2012 10:31 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Okay, I'll extend my challenge again:

For all of you making these wild claims, please provide evidence. My only requirement is that you are precise, and you cite sources.

I have made this challenge now at least half a dozen times on these threads and have yet to have someone take me up on it.

mohokat
Ogden, UT

@ute phranc like the typical liberal did not waste any time playing the race card on you.

Soooo predictable from those folks. In absence of facts in trying to defend the indefensible the one thing they resort to is Race. Phranc lost all credibility with that remark.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@truthseeker
I agree that in context; Obama's "optimal" comment was not as inflammatory as it sounds out of context. However, the context of Obama's "optimal" statement does not alter or change, in any way, the comments made by the mother and father of murdered personnel. She still said “My son is not very optimal - he is also very dead” regardless of the intent of Obama's original statement.

I find it ironic that you state "Republicans are merely using this issue for political football before all the facts can be assembled and analyzed." Then you proceed to present only one set of facts, condemning Romney, while completely ignoring the larger picture that Romney honored the woman of your example's request, while ignoring (then trivializing them when caught ignoring them) TWO parents who severely criticized Obama over the same incident. So what exactly is the point of your arguments about the "context" of Obama's "optimal" statement besides diversion from the fact that you took quotes out of context? Aren't you merely playing political football by demanding context while failing to provide it yourself?

Seeking truth is not advanced by repeating ONLY those facts conveneint to Obama

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

"Seeking truth is not advanced by repeating ONLY those facts conveneint to Obama"

Counter, you are absolutely correct, but the truth is also not found in repeating only facts that make Obama look bad, regardless of context. It is also not found in people making wildly inflammatory accusations with absolutely no sense or evidence to back them.

As far as the parents, while I deeply empathize with their terrible grief, there is no reason to think they would have any significant understanding, beyond what has been reported, of events in Benghazi. Using these parents to advance, or advocate, any position on Benghazi can be seen as nothing but sensationalism. To be clear, I think the parents have every right to speak their minds, but I also think it would be a disservice to an understanding of the situation to accept, at face value, what they say as evidence of any sort of impropriety on the administrations part.

Remember, if in hindsight it can be shown that mistakes were made that is not an indication that there was malfeasance. Unfortunately mistakes happen. But tell you the truth, I have seen no evidence that there were even any mistakes made.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Hillary taking responsibility for the commander? The commander can't tell the difference between a video, and a terrorist attack?

Again! Obama takes responsibility for nothing. I'm surprised he hasn't come out with another executive order to stop an investigation.

nhowden
Endwell, NY

Ditto worf

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@mark "I have made this challenge now at least half a dozen times on these threads and have yet to have someone take me up on it."

When you direct your challenge to those making "wild claims," don't be surprised that no one engages.

Be specific about which claims you are challenging, and it will probably lead to a better discussion.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Nate, I am challenging the claims on Benghazi. If you can't tell which ones are the wild claims, well I don't know what to say. But the claims starting with there is a cover up all the way to this was a kidnapping plot by the president, to the president murdering these people. The claims that help was not allowed to respond. The claim Wood ignored orders, or was even ordered not to respond. The claim this was a seven hour long battle. The claim that this had nothing to do with the video. The claim that Obama lied. In fact just about every claim that the right and conspiracy theorists have made, Nate.

And guess what, nobody, still, has presented one single shred of evidence to back up any of these claims. Remember, there is a huge difference between accusations and assumptions, and evidence.

Did you want to present some evidence, Nate? Just remember, all I ask is be precise, and cite your sources.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@mark

Jake Tapper of ABC News doesn't seem to think it's such a wild claim that there is a cover-up. Read "The Benghazi Drip-Drip-Drip," published Nov 1, 2012.

The claims about Woods and requests for help come from Jennifer Griffin of Fox News, Oct. 26, 2012, "CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say." Her story is based on sources who were on the ground in Benghazi.

The seven-hour time window of the attacks is confirmed by a CIA timeline provided to the Washington Post and other news organizations, reported on by David Ignatius.

Since it's impossible to prove a negative, I'll put the burden of proof on you to show that 1) there was a demonstration outside the embassy in Benghazi, and 2) it was about a video. You will not be able to produce evidence for either of these wild claims, because they didn't happen. In the process, perhaps you will convince yourself that Obama lied.

But I won't count on it.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments