Quantcast

Comments about ‘State Department sought to change Benghazi talking points’

Return to article »

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Tom in CA
Vallejo, CA

"We need to always remember that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal".
Martin Luther King, Jr.

We all have the right to remain silent, but I don't recommend it. This bunch is the most corrupt in U.S. history.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Fun and games in DC, just before the election.
Obama's narrative was that AlQueda was all but eliminated and that the world loved his version of the USA. So tolerant and accepting of Islam.
The administration sought to downplay the attack and changed the truth.
What's worse, it appears from testimony that in an effort to prevent escalation right before the election, Obama chose to stand down rather than protect Americans.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

The Democrats accuse the Republicans of politics in this process. If there were mistakes, then let them fall where they fall. However, this administration knew up front, the Sunday afterward that they were in trouble and thought they could ruse their way out of this by changing the "real" story with the United States of America's Ambassador to the United Nations making a circuit to every media outlet she could on Sunday. She made the gap widen in the following weeks as the President, Secretaries of State, Department of Defense, CIA, and Homeland Security got their "fictional" stories making history change prior to the election.

Mitt Romney's expression in that debate was very similar to the one he had with John McCain 5 years earlier. He could not believe what those two individuals had just said to him. Anyone in their right mind would have believed the same. However, with President Obama, the moderator of the debate validated without telling the truth that the President had said something different in the rose garden.

The Press and Media from 12 September 2012 made Mitt Romney the villain by mislabeling anything he said about Benghazi. Remember Bin Laden situation?

JWB
Kaysville, UT

With Bin Laden, that was a search and destroy mission since President Clinton's time when Hillary was involved at a different level. In the 1990s she wasn't technically in charge of the State Department. Bin Laden's search was proactive.

The Benghazi situation was the 3 a.m. call that both Obama and Hillary had discussed in the 2008 campaign. However, it actually happened but this time, the pants were down around the knees. We weren't expecting it to "actually" happen even though message traffic indicated there would be a problem and the Ambassador to Libya knew it in August 2012.

Elections-campaigning are too important. If we didn't have immediate and actual communications with the Ambassador when under attack but we did. He was going down with no support. To send the Ambassador to Benghazi, the hotbed of terrorists without appropriate protection in the first place was abhorrent. They have plans and procedures for covert and overt operations. They were in hostile territory in Libya and in openly hostile territory in Benghazi. The CIA wasn't there to protect the Ambassador as they were blocks away.

Why was the Ambassador left holding the bag unprotected? Whistleblowers know.

Deserthiker
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

The more i read, as more information and testimony comes to light, the more it appears that political expediency was placed above adherence to truth and above the safety of American citizens. By failing to adequately protect our personnel despite pleas for help and warnings of danger, then by inventing a false storyline to coverup the truth (more accurately described as lying to the public) the White House and State officials reveal their true character. Dance how they may, the ultimate accountability rests with the President and the Sec of State. Despite oft quoted words to the contrary by Clinton, this debacle makes a huge difference- to the families and friends of the deceased, to all concerned American citizens, to the trust we all wish we could have in government. We deserve better. Those who died deserved better. Very sad.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Obama untruths:

* During the Romney debate-- BO states-"there is no cover up, and to bring it up is offensive".
* Taxes will not go up a single dime in any form.
* I will cut the deficit in half in three years.
* Unemployment will go down.
* I will bring the troops home in six months.
* Romney doesn't pay enough taxes. Wow! Obama paid 18% to 38% for Mitt. Hmm? Who made the most donations?

Will Obama care be affordable to all, and why are the Obama's exempt from it?

Truthseeker2
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

From ABC

"A source familiar with the White House emails on the Benghazi talking point revisions say that Nuland was raising two concerns about the CIA’s first version of talking points, which were going to be sent to Congress. 1) The talking points went further than what she was allowed to say about the attack during her state department briefings; and, 2) she believed the CIA was attempting to exonerate itself at the State Department’s expense by suggesting CIA warnings about the security situation were ignored."

Tators
Hyrum, UT

The longer Obama is in office, the more his and his administration's shanagans are exposed. He is guilty of deceit even worse than any of the things he accused Republicans of while he was a senator. Hypocrisy... pure and simple. He initially promised to have the most open administration ever. Not even close. Before everything plays out, his time in office will prove to me more deceitful and secretive than Nixon was accused of.

He mocked and accused Bush of offering a budget with a $400b deficit that was sinister "for passing such debt to future generations". Soon afterwards, in Obama's first year as president, he created a deficit 3 times worse than what he criticized Bush for. And it's never been under a $trillion per year since then. That spells HYPOCRISY in capital letters.

It's been shown that Eric Holder, Obama's attorney general, lied about the administration's involvement with selling weapons to Mexican drug lords... and with Obama's knowledge.

Now this Benghazi cover-up indicates that even more deception is still happening and that Obama was willing to do whatever it took to win the upcoming election, even with lives involved. Extremely sad!

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

If there were hard evidence of an Administration cover-up, Republicans would present it instead of making so much shrill noise about this being a Watergate level scandal. They are the ones who are now starting to look bad.

Truthseeker2
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

For the record: Victoria Nuland was a former aid to Dick Cheney and also served in the Clinton administration.

From ABC:
"In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. — three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows –Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

After that meeting, which took place Saturday morning at the White House, the CIA drafted the final version of the talking points – deleting all references to al Qaeda and to the security warnings in Benghazi prior to the attack."

To summarize:
The revision of talking points was about "turf wars" between different agencies.

Wow. Who would guess that? After an attack many miles away involving a covert CIA presence, F.B.I and State Dept. things are messy?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

It was deemed a terrorist attack long before the election, Obama even reiterated as much in the second debate and took responsibility for the failure. There's really nothing new here. I suppose it's nice to see Republicans actually devoted to something though, if only they cared that much about their top priority which allegedly was jobs.

1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

This whole mess reminds me so much of Watergate, except the effects are far more deadly.

The other things that I notice is that Nixon DID NOT have the implied, if not tacit support of the media. The media were a little more objective back then.

The exception being Sharyl Atkisson of CBS! She's been the mainstream standout in this incident.

Boehner suggested yesterday a select committee be formed to investigate the Benghazi lies. I agree.

The select committee would have subpoena powers and be able to combine ALL the various investigations into one investigation, (as opposed to the 8 committees that are working on it now).

IF the Obama administration really does have nothing to hide - they should welcome a total and complete investigation.

BTW - I would be curous to see if any of the "minor" operatives get questioned. For instance, radio/communications sargeants, duty officers, etc., enlisted people who are paid NOT to lie, and aren't political "animals" at all.

what did they know?

Kouger
Lehi, UT

Benghazi would have been the albatross around Obama's neck in the elections if Romney's campaign people - and the Republicans - were effective and competent in their task. Anyhow, for the so called "worst president in history" (aka Barack Hussein Obama), I'll have to go to another politician of long ago to get a sense of justice when he said "The evil that men do lives after them." Hopefully sooner rather than later. And I beg the Americans to remember this in 2016 IF Hillary Clinton runs; she is also one of the kingpins - if not the main one - in the whole tragedy!

worf
Mcallen, TX

Tators:

Unfortunately, some people still make excuses for the commander. They will blame:

* Republicans for a witch hunt.
* George Bush
* Taking things out of context
* Lack of evidence

People are easily deceived.

An example can be found in Austria, where 98% voted Hitler as their leader.

Kouger
Lehi, UT

Jay Carney, the "White House Liar in Waiting" is now pointing a finger to, guess who? Yes, ROMNEY! Yep, cannot blame Bush any more, now blame the next convenient guy! A great time to be a Dumbocrat! By the way, the main, and ONLY, reason for all the revisions is to cover BO's rear.

Riverton Cougar
Riverton, UT

Unfortunately for the United States of America, even if Obama were to come out and say he lied about everything and he shouldn't be President because he's not a natural born citizen, the low-information voters and liberal media would still back him up and nothing would change.

George
New York, NY

@riverton coug
did you really just bring up his citizenship? what a great example of why no one but the far right is taking these "investigations" serious.

Tom in CA
Vallejo, CA

" .... If there were hard evidence of an Administration cover-up, Republicans would present it instead of making so much shrill noise about this being a Watergate level scandal. "

Hey Clark Kent - watch less MSNBC (Obama's best buddy) and more FOX news (the only news outlet that thoroughly covered the hearings)and you finally will get to the truth.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Riverton Cougar
Birtherism? Really? Heh, besides, there are conservatives arguing that Ted Cruz (born in Canada) can run for President because he had/has an American parent (same logic as George Romney I suppose). If he can run then it wouldn't even matter if Obama were born in Kenya.

Moderate
Salt Lake City, UT

"the more it appears that political expediency was placed above adherence to truth and above the safety of American citizens."
You are putting the cart before the horse. The act of terror happened happened and you cannot change that fact. You can be upset with the State Department's description of the act, but lives wouldn't have been saved by giving a straight forward narrative.

to comment

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