Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Watergate and Benghazi

Comments

Return To Article
  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 11, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    So, your sticking with your poor analogy?
    The 2 have nothing in common.

    One is information PRE the other is information POST, see the difference.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    July 11, 2013 12:37 p.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" where is your proof? According to the congressional report Bush did not lie.

    According to the report that Congress made, the "lies" were all due to the intelligence comunity. Again, Bush stated what he was lead to believe was the truth. Bush didn't lie, the CIA and intelligence community did. Just go and read the Congressional report, and avoid the liberal tinfoil hat websites.

    If you disagree, provide your proof.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 11, 2013 12:05 p.m.

    @RedShirtMIT who said "To "UtahBlueDevil" just look at the difference between the two. Bush, told us what he could about his reasoning for going into Iraq. The Congressional investigation confirmed what he said. Obama lied to the american public for over a week before telling us the truth. Obama did not send additional security to Benghazi when it was requested or react to the verified threats."

    So you going to compare going to war with Iraq, to an attack with little or no warning?
    If you can compare these two completely different situations as similar than you don't understand analogies very well.

    ...and Bush lied for years leading up to, during and even now his apologist continue to believe faithfully as a religious cult, that Bush never mislead the American public into his war of convenience.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    July 11, 2013 10:29 a.m.

    To "UtahBlueDevil" just look at the difference between the two. Bush, told us what he could about his reasoning for going into Iraq. The Congressional investigation confirmed what he said. Obama lied to the american public for over a week before telling us the truth. Obama did not send additional security to Benghazi when it was requested or react to the verified threats.

    Now tell us, which would you like for a President. One who will tell the truth or one that will lie to the american people?

    To "atl134" you realize that the deaths of the protestors was due to Egyptian military/police forces and not the protesters themselves.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 11, 2013 12:54 a.m.

    @Eric Samuelsen "The initial talking points were edited several times, with feedback from many sources, including various intelligence agencies and including State."

    And after a dozen edits from these sources, still no mention of a spontaneous demonstration over a video. The Obama administration still has not told us when the false story was introduced, or by whom. Obama himself told the falsehood at the U.N. when he already knew better. Hillary Clinton told the story to family members of the victims, when she knew better.

    "The President had already called it a terrorist attack."

    Glenn Kessler, the fact checker at the Washington Post, gives this claim four Pinocchios. Obama condemned terrorist attacks in general the following day, but would not admit even two weeks later (Sep 25, on The View) that the Benghazi attack had been carried out by terrorists.

    "...everyone in State...Egypt...At least eight embassies were in danger because of the video."

    Not according to Gregory Hicks, who was stunned and embarrassed when he heard Susan Rice making those claims. Because he was in Libya, and he knew the truth.

    "But so what?"

    Barack Obama lied to you. That's what.

  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:31 p.m.

    I'm sure glad to see another letter from Clark Larsen of Holladay in the DN again. I don't catch every letter every day but it's been awhile since I've seen Clark weigh in on an issue (that was published). I agree with his letter but at this point I tend to think that America has the government it deserves and in fact voted for (allegedly) twice. I don't think Barack Obama even wanted to be re-elected but Americans re-elected him anyway (allegedly).
    What really makes me angry about Benghazi is that the admin sent out our UN Ambassador to blatantly lie about the circumstances. No lefties, Bush did not lie about WMD in Iraq. He used the best intelligence available which was agreed to/ with by French intelligence, German intelligence, etc etc. I do not understand how the American left tolerates the utter disdain this Administration has for them. They show zero regard for the average citizen's intelligence (i.e. they think you're stupid)

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 10, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    And what difference does it make if Obama was in the "situation room"... or in the bathroom reading the news paper while on the other thrown? Are you kidding me?

    What did you expect him to do? Sprinkle pixie dust, and make magical surgical strike teams magically appear in Libya?

    Where was Bush - why didn't he stop planes from slamming into the World Trade Center? Or the Pentagon?

    Where was Clinton when our troops were attacked in Somalia?

    Where was Reagan when 400 Marines died in Lebanon in a bombing of their barracks?

    These kind of questions mean what..... Reagan did not personally take over command and control in Libya, Clinton didn't take over command and control in Somalia, and Bush ..... well I like the guy.... he just had a really poor supporting staff.

    Oh come on Redshirt... he told the truth..... "based on the information he had". The information he had was not conclusive - otherwise it would not have been so wrong.

    And Iran-Contra.... that was also just a big misunderstanding too..... they had no idea those weapons were being sent to Iran? That the revenues from that were being funneled to the Contra's. Please!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    July 10, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    @zac.... "With those 13 attacks under Bush, how many times was Bolton directed to go on a talk show tour and lie about some video?"

    Please google Colin Powell UN testimony.

    I am blown away that some on the right think a terrorist attack in a country known to be near lawless some how even falls into the same camp as lying before the UN, claiming undeniable proof that there are WMD in Iraq, a war the resulted in the deaths of more than 100,000 people. That takes either a very selective memory, or just pure disdain for honesty.

    Then add to that, these same people think that the failure to stop the killing of for US in Libya somehow is a greater tragedy and failure of intelligence the the 3,000 people killed on US soil. Where these same people... crying out saying that 9/11 was a bigger failure than Watergate?

    How in the world can you have morals and convictions that rise and fall so greatly based on the party who holds the White House. Has honesty and integrity become such lost virtues that hate and spit of another political party can justify this?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 4:23 p.m.

    @Redshirt
    "lets see, "protestors" armed with RPGs and fully automatic weapons. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was a planned attack against the embassy, and was not the result of a protest."

    Didn't protests in Egypt just break out into violence with over 50 dead?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 10, 2013 4:06 p.m.

    @mike richards
    I would think that it is those that have openly and publicly been bent since day one on seeing the fall off and have repeatedly called for the impeachment of a President that was twice voted for by the majority of Americans that may need help.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    July 10, 2013 4:04 p.m.

    Could you outraged conservatives put a little effort into 9/11? 3000 people died even though Bush himself was in charge and warned specifically that Alqaida wanted to fly airplanes into buildings.

    That was just an attack right? Nobody could have imagined...

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    July 10, 2013 3:10 p.m.

    I'm looking. Mike. But I wonder if you see the whole picture. Look at DeLay. Look at Cunningham. Look at Cheney. Look at Scooter. Look at Mitt's false accusations which he never withdrew. If you're trying to imply some inherent integrity within the Republican Party, I'd say look at the birthers, the anti-Obama conspirators and the "voter fraud" zealots tilting the election playing field as we speak.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 10, 2013 3:01 p.m.

    Nate:
    Not so. The initial talking points were edited several times, with feedback from many sources, including various intelligence agencies and including State. The President had already called it a terrorist attack. The military didn't want to use the word 'Al Qaeda' because they didn't want to give away specific intel on the investigation. So they used 'extremist' instead. And that's what you're so upset about?
    As for the video, everyone in State had been on edge for days over that video. Egypt was in chaos over the video. At least eight embassies were in danger because of the video. OF COURSE State couldn't let the video go. It's basic human nature.
    But so what? Ambassador Rice wasn't testifying under oath. She was talking on Sunday news shows, trying to reflect not only what was known, but what could be said about what was known. And even if her entire presentation had been completely inaccurate (which it wasn't), it's of absolutely no importance. Who cares?
    Worst case scenario, those people who watch Sunday talk shows were slightly ill-informed for a few days. That's all that's at stake.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 10, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    Either Obama was in the Situation Room during the Benghazi attack or he was not. As Commander In Chief, there was nothing more important at that moment than being present and accounted for. If he was in that room, as some have inferred, then he did nothing required of him to save the lives and to protect the soil of America. If he was not there, as others have inferred, then his absence is even more alarming. If the President of the United States has more important duties to attend to when we are under attack, then that "President" has no business holding office.

    Weep your tears for the so-called "hatred" heaped on Obama. He created his own "mess". He claims that he is innocent because he was absent from the most crucial job that a President has. I'm sure that many understand the concept of being "AWOL" and they also understand that it is not excusable.

    Obama is inexperienced. He is untrained. He is unqualified.

    Those who want someone who has never held a job in his entire life to lead this Country need help. They live in never-never land.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:47 p.m.

    To "Roland Kayser" really? How many embassies requested more security, were denied, then attacked by protestors carrying RPGs? Then, after the attack how many times did Bush lie to the American public about why an embassy was overrun and an ambassador killed?

    To "atl134" lets see, "protestors" armed with RPGs and fully automatic weapons. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it was a planned attack against the embassy, and was not the result of a protest.

    We know that you liberals complain about Bush going into Iraq, but look at what he did prior to going into Iraq. He told the truth about the intelligence that he had. The Congressional reports on Iraq confirmed his statements.

    With Obama and Benghazi, the congressional findings have only shown us how much and how deep the lies have gone.

    So, ask yourself this. Would you rather have a President who tells you the truth as he understands it and makes a bad decision, or have a President make a bad decision then lie about after things backfire?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    So I always wonder what topics the dn, thhe letter writer and consperecy theorist on these boards are trying to avoid by keeping these types of consperecies going?

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    July 10, 2013 11:55 a.m.

    @Eric Samuelsen "In a very confusing intelligence environment, some initial reports proved to be inaccurate."

    The initial talking points stated that the attackers were from a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda, and the scapegoat video was not even mentioned. The accuracies were revised out, and inaccuracies revised in. These revisions did not originate with the intelligence community, but further downstream. Who told Susan Rice to blame it on a video? The "most transparent administration ever" isn't saying.

    "Now that that's done, let's talk about the economy."

    I see your desire to change the subject, but the subject doesn't really change. The administration is being deceptive about the economy also, including the latest jobs report. They'll tell you that the number of jobs increased, but they won't tell you that the increase is only in part-time jobs. (Full-time jobs decreased.) They'll tell you that unemployment held steady, but they won't tell you about the millions who abandoned their job search. They won't tell you about the dramatic increase in U-6.

    But some people around here act as if they enjoy being lied to.

  • tenx Santa Clara, UT
    July 10, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    In the words of whats-her-name--"what difference does it make now". I'm still awaiting word from BO as to what they found out happened. Investigation complete yet? Holding my breath--help!

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    Mike Richards: "The difference is that a Democrat is in office."
    No kidding, The republicans spent 100 million investigating Clinton, and only 30 million on 911, I can see the difference.
    No amount of money is too much to try and remove a democratic president once elected.

    Higher standard? Reagan's Iran Contra, Bushes higher standard, Swallow's higher standards that's laughable, Where Mike? Cause I don't see it.

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    July 10, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    re: procuradorfiscal

    "And, whatever you do, don't you dare say anything that might affect Hillary's chances of succeeding Obama and becoming a contender for the "Worst President Ever" award."

    Sorry, but not even in your wildest tea party/fake news led dreams will anyone ever take that award away from Bush. Keep hoping though.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    July 10, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    The difference is that a Democrat is in office. Nobody expects a Democrat to be held accountable. Look at Clinton. Look at the Kennedy brothers. Look at Reid. Look at Pelosi.

    Thank goodness Republicans are held to a higher standard. At least that proves that some elected officials are EXPECTED to be truthful and honest.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    July 10, 2013 9:35 a.m.

    Benghazi was a tragedy. Brave men died, because security at a mission abroad, thought to be adequate, proved not to be. There was reason to believe that security arrangements would fail, which is why a thorough investigation was needed. Such an investigation took place, and specific recommendations were made, which are right now being implemented.
    That's it. That's all. That's what happened at Benghazi. There is no further scandal. No evidence of a cover-up, or conspiracy, or scandal. None.
    As for who said what on Sunday talk shows, so what? In a very confusing intelligence environment, some initial reports proved to be inaccurate. Big deal.
    No one was instructed to lie about a video. Ambassador Rice was given some talking points, most of which were accurate, a few of which turned out not to be. Human beings make mistakes.
    Now that that's done, let's talk about the economy.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    July 10, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Re: ". . . 'how many times was Bolton directed to go on a talk show tour and lie about some video?' Why does this matter? Who cares what the causes were? Does it bring them back to life?"

    Yeah. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    And, whatever you do, don't you dare say anything that might affect Hillary's chances of succeeding Obama and becoming a contender for the "Worst President Ever" award.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    There's a difference between lying and being wrong...

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Still with Bengahzi? Maybe this is one of the reasons that Rush Limbaugh is encouraging his listeners to quit watching Fox News.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    This horse no longer has legs.

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:33 a.m.

    Soooooooo why aren't we holding Mr. Chaffetz's feet to the fire?

    Wasn't he one of the guys celebrating the "cuts" he made to the security at these facilities?

    If he cut the funding for their security which led to them having inadequate security, shouldn't he be held accountable?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    Obama didn't cover up Benghazi.
    Why is it that repubs don't seem to care that US taxpayers are on the hook for $39 Billion to Dick Cheney's Haliburton for the war in Iraq?
    $39 Billion of war profiteering from the VP and there is no Faux Noise outrage. Explain that one please.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:15 a.m.

    "With those 13 attacks under Bush, how many times was Bolton directed to go on a talk show tour and lie about some video?"

    Why does this matter? Who cares what the causes were? Does it bring them back to life?

    Imagine if the GOP spent just half the time on job creation as it has wasted debating Bengahzi or obama's birth certificate. Our economy would finally be fixed!

    I'm tired of debating these nonsensical matters. Lets move on to our real issues.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    It must be sad when even far right politicians like rand have not only abandened but condemned their conserecy theories.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    Mark1: "What is this administration hiding, and is their a routine to cover up similar events."

    This administration is hiding the truth about Benghazi in exactly the same way that NASA is hiding "the truth" about the Apollo Moon Landings.

    Get the point?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    July 10, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    Some have even gone so far as to compare Obama's Benghazi cover up with GW Bush's Weapons of Mass Destruction lies and cover up.

    Having living memory of both I can tell you they're not the same. 8,000 died and 70,000 wounded in the Middle East.

  • Zac Ogden, UT
    July 10, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    With those 13 attacks under Bush, how many times was Bolton directed to go on a talk show tour and lie about some video?

  • Mark l SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    July 10, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    The problem is not what happened on September 12, 2012, although it is tragic that any Americans lost their lives, the problem lies in the apparent coverup. Nixon was not in trouble for the break in at the Watergate, he covered up and lied about his knowledge about the situation. What is this administration hiding, and is their a routine to cover up similar events.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    July 10, 2013 6:46 a.m.

    Mr. Larson's letter is a perfect example of the puerile conspiracy fantasies that entertain the GOP base but otherwise make the rest of the nation shake their heads in dismay about the sorry state of today's Republican Party.

    Editors, why did you deem this letter worthy of space?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:28 a.m.

    During the presidency of G.W. Bush there were 13 Benghhazis yet the author of this letter said nothing.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    July 10, 2013 12:08 a.m.

    I don't care about water gate. It was revolved decades ago.

    I don't care about Bengahzi. We were attacked and a few people died.

    I care about the economy. What solutions or ideas does the right have to fix them? Why are we rehashing these decades old stories and comparisons rather than work to fix our #1 problem???