Quantcast

Comments about ‘In our opinion: Explaining Benghazi’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, May 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

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

"In order to restore trust and accountability, Congress should continue to clarify who knew what and when those oh-so-distant eight months ago."
Seriously? Congress is dysfunctional, at best, and you expect them to agree on what happened? Even if every Congressmen signed off on a statement that laid out the facts, the unity would end with the next Sunday talk show. The facts about Benghazi were long ago tossed aside in favor of political rhetoric.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

There were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets during the Bush administration that resulted in the deaths of 13 Americans. Where was the outrage then? Or is this yet another desperate attempt to distract us from how Republicans have nothing to offer but hatred of Democrats and tantrums?

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Nothing became of Fast and Furious, What am I to expect from Benghazi. Trust and confidence, What a Joke. no one is laughing.

Furry1993
Ogden, UT

In this discussion, please have Jason Chaffetz explain why he willingly decreased funding for embassy security, and why he is not being held accountable for that now.

BrentBot
Salt Lake City, UT

The Obama administration was covertly supplying arms from Benghazi to Turkey and transshipping to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, in violation of UN declarations. This explains the reduction in Benghazi security and ham-fisted coverup. When Al Queda learned of the arms shipments to the Muslim Brotherhood they tried to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens who was coordinating the arms shipments. Al Queda is the enemy of Saudi Arabia, which supports and finances the spread of Wahhabism throughout the world, hoping to establish a Caliphate, initially by subterfuge and then by force.

The Obama administration now has many Muslim Brotherhood operatives who are eliminating any reference to Muslim jihad in our military and State Department. The administration refuses to call Muslim jihad by its proper name and instead uses terms such as "workplace violence". Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood is killing and abusing hundreds of Christians and causing tens of thousands of Christians to flee their native counties.

Why is our government supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and its killing and abusing of Christians in the Middle East? Barack Hussein Obama has no satisfactory explanation.

Is the Obama Administration supporting the greatest threat to the United States of America?

Ranch
Here, UT

US Embassy and Consulate attacks under George W. Bush

Jan 22, 2002; US Consulate at Kolkata, 5 killed
Jun 14, 2002; US Consulate at Karachi, 12 killed
Feb 28, 2003; US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 killed
Jun 30, 2004; US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 killed
Dec 6, 2004; US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 killed
Mar 2, 2006; US Consulate in Karachi; 2 killed
Sep 12, 2006; US Embassy at Syria, 4 killed
Mar 18, 2008; US Embassy at Yemen, 2 killed
Jul 9, 2008; US Consulate as Istanbul, 6 killed
Sep 17, 2008; US Embassy at Yemen, 16 killed

Total deaths: 60
Outraged Republicans: 0

Can we spell Hypocrites?

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Excellent summary of facts that needed to be written. That editorial should be written in every newspaper in America and every American citizen should read and ponder the facts instead of allowing press secretaries to distort history so that Obama will not be "embarrassed".

Benghazi makes Watergate look like a Sunday School picnic. It's time that Obama was held accountable for his actions as Commander In Chief. It's time that everyone involved in the Benghazi cover-up be held accountable. Lives were lost. American lives. The military was ready and willing to act. The military was ordered to "stand down". Who issued that order? Who commanded military commanders to NOT do their duty to protect American soil and Americans who were on that soil when those Americas were under attack by terrorists?

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

"The administration's cynical manipulation of this story "

Really.... The political exploitation of these events is the most blatant example of partisanship at any cost I have seen in a long time. The millions of dollars and distraction away from other issues this nation is spending on determining if this was a terrorist act or the random result of a mob gotten out of control show how the cost of a partisan victory has no upper limit.

Ok... it was a terrorist act versus a random act by a militia gone out of control. Now what. How does this change the task ahead? What difference does this now make?

I am all in favor of getting to the root cause of the intelligence failure and if anything could have been done in response. But as one who works in the oil and gas business.... I fail to see the same quest for answers for the families of those killed on Deep Sea Horizon. Nor do I see a rush to hearings to see how three young lades could be held sex slaves for 10 years. Why are these failures ok?

This is partisanship - not a quest for justice.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

I consider Benghazi a breakdown. It was unfortunate and certainly in hindsight should have been handled differently.

But, I dont see the big scandal.

Obviously no one, including Obama and Clinton wanted any Americans to get killed.

So again. What is the big scandal?

Is it because it was initially NOT called a terrorist attack?

In hindsight, had it been called a Terrorist attack from the onset, what would have changed?

Would the Americans still be alive?

Would Romney won the election? Is that what some think?

As has been pointed out, there are many killed in Embassy's over time.

Yes, it is tragic and sad. But, hardly unprecedented.

So again. Someone explain. What is the big scandal?

I sincerely don't get it.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

"So the new approach, it seems, is to pretend it doesn't matter." ..and just how does it matter what it's called at the moment of occurrence or even shortly thereafter? That was Hillary's point, and it's still the point.

Albeit Mr. Richards is not accurate..at all..about the readiness of the military to respond, but even if he was, would it make a difference to the military if those calling for help said we're under a terrorist attack or just said we're under attack and we think it started when a mob got out of control?

Benghazi makes Watergate look like a Sunday school picnic. And I suppose it probably makes the Iran Contra deal look like child's play. That is really funny Mike. If you recall multiple people went to jail in both instances. Even if someone should have called Benghazi a terrorist attack how many years in jail do you get for that?

JerseyGirl
Sandy, UT

The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself politically. They knew from the first moment that there was no spontaneous demonstration, but they lied, because the guy who got bin Laden was uncomfortable acknowledging a terrorist attack just weeks before an election. Citing all the times embassies were attacked under Bush misses the point entirely. If Bush had gone before the United Nations, as Obama did, and claimed those attacks were not the work of terrorists but rather spontaneous YouTube video demonstrations that got out of hand, the press would still be hounding him about it today. This is a huge double standard.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

To those how claim there were 54 terrorist attacks during the Bush administration with no investigation you are being dishonest! You are counting Al Qaida attacks during the Iraq war, IN Iraq. Another difference is the Sec of State didn't lie about the attacks in Iraq and blame it on a video no one saw. Hillary is lying and she knows she is lying. The 3rd difference is that the Benghazi attack was down played and lied about to deflect White House malfeasance during an election. Just come clean! If what Hillary is saying is true she ahs nothing to fear! Its the constant cover-up the lying and the stone walling that is the problem.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself politically"

Quite the stretch.

But, lets say you are correct. Lets say that they knew it was the work of terrorists but initially claimed it was a spontaneous demonstration.

How did it "protect him politically"?
What would have changed for him politically had he claimed it was terrorism?

Take your assertions to their conclusion.

I am still curious......

Star Bright
Salt Lake City, Ut

Thanks for the editorial. I have tweeted and asked why Des News wasn't covering the hearing.
Dems don't seem to understand what a cover up is. They sure knew when it was Nixon who was trying to cover up a 3rd rate bungled burglary. It was never proved that he knew anything about it before it happened.

Now we have a pres and sec of state who lied about the reason for the attack. Why?

The pres made 1 phone call. Where was he the rest of the night? Why wasn't he engaged and sending help? They had asked over and over for more security and Hillary turned them down and even reduced security-Valerie Jarrett has more security in the WH than Amb Stevens had. Hillary said she never knew about it. Emails say differently.

Remember 0bama had destroyed terrorists & these were terrorists.
They also have put a target on the back of the film maker, who still is in jail.

Lying about this? What else? Cost of health care? Fast & Furious?
Is it OK for the pres to lie to the American people?
I submit it isn't!

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The outrage over the Benghazi attack was drummed up by Fox News to defeat Obama in the last election. Now it's being used to defeat Clinton in the next election. It was a tragedy, there was certainly incompetence involved, but that's it.

As to the video, there were demonstrations about it in many Arab countries going on at the time. It was not unreasonable to think that this was part of those same demonstrations. But the president did call the attack "an act or terror" the very next da6y.

JerseyGirl
Sandy, UT

JoeBlow, when you know there was now ponta Roy's demonstration, and you repeatedly and loudly claim there was, that's a lie. Hardly a stretch. And what would have changed politically is that a large chunk of the rationale for Obama's reelection was that the death of bin Laden had the terrorists on the run, so acknowledging the fact that terror is still alive and well would have undermined a key component of Obama's reelection strategy. Easy peasy - no conspiracy theory required.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information related to the attack, our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving."
( Shawn Turner, Office of National Intelligence 9/28/12)

"To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video.. A spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. "We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the Prophet," the spokesman said.
(NYTimes 10/15/12)

JerseyGirl
Sandy, UT

Autocorrect got me. Don't know what "ponta Roy" is. I was trying to say "spontaneous."

Roland, Obama did no such thing. He said "no acts of terror" will shake this nation, referring specifically to the 9/11 attacks in 2001. To claim he was referencing Benghazi, which he continually blamed on YouTube in the remarks you cite, is revisionist history.

Truthseeker, you are citing discredited sources. Even the Obama administration has even forced to concede that there was never any doubt this had nothing to do with the video.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"what would have changed politically is that a large chunk of the rationale for Obama's reelection was that the death of bin Laden had the terrorists on the run, so acknowledging the fact that terror is still alive and well would have undermined a key component of Obama's reelection strategy."

Gee, and all this time I thought that Obama won reelection because he gave away all that free stuff.

The American people know without doubt that "terror is still alive and well" The attack on the embassy in Benghazi did not change that. Give the American people more credit than that.

And, sorry to say, there will be more. And they will happen under GOP presidents and they will happen under Democratic presidents.

If you think differently, you have a naive world view when it comes to terrorism.

And Mountanman

"there were 54 terrorist attacks during the Bush administration with no investigation"

Why no investigations? Maybe because the Democrats didn't push them for purely partisan reasons. As has been detailed. There were many similar attacks during Bush.

To say that they were all "Al Qaida attacks during the Iraq war, IN Iraq." is clearly not true.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Republicans are shooting spitballs at the wall in an effort to discredit Hillary Clinton. Remember when they accused Hillary of faking illness--a concussion--to avoid having to testify before Congress? Remember when Congressional Republicans spent 10 days and 140 hrs investigating the Clinton's Christmas Card list?

Furthermore,
"Remember how Senate Intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) delayed until after the 2004 elections any investigation into how the administration might have misused intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war? Well, in late April he announced his intention to again postpone that still-unfinished investigation, presumably until after the 2006 elections. In March, his committee also rejected, on a straight party-line vote, a Democratic call for a probe of the administration's wiretapping program. Senate Republicans have blocked the Armed Services committee from hearing the testimony of the retired generals who have publicly called for Rumsfeld's resignation.
(Washington Monthly June 2006)

Do Republicans seriously think this is going to help them in the next election?

to comment

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