Quantcast

Comments about ‘Mystery of Benghazi mess deepens’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 1 2012 11:59 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
A1994
Centerville, UT

@Tolstoy

There are emails. There is a paper trail. An electronic one, but a trail. This isn't made up. No matter what Hillary Clinton calls it, there are emails that clearly ordered our people to 'stand down.'

Doesn't it seem just the tiniest bit odd to you that so many people in this administration got it so wrong?

"...I do have to ask what are you going to do Wednesday morning or when ever it is announced who the winner is if Obama ends up wining a second term?"

I think we will find out Tuesday night that Mitt Romney has won. But regardless who wins, this story isn't going away. Four Americans are dead and there are actual emails that show that someone made a decision to let them die. You put a lot of your faith in people whose soul purpose is to get elected. I don't.

RG
Buena Vista, VA

@ UtahBlueDevil and Truthseeker: If bad intelligence led to the Iraq war, the dems believed that intelligence just as much as Bush did. Dems conveniently forget, for example, that Hillary was alarmed about the WMDs and said we should go get rid of them, and Kerry voted for the war. They were not the only dems who believed in the WMDs. Plus, the Iraq war was voted on by congress, as the constitution requires, while Obama’s Libya war was not.

@George and Truthseeker: “there is an investigation on going” …. and that is the point of the administration – to have it on going, and going, and going…so that by the time it is over (which will be well past the election) we’ve all forgotten about it and moved to other things. Obama knows well that he lied about the video being the reason for the attack, but claims to still be “investigating.” No, he’s just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Inelligence officials told reporters Thursday that when the CIA annex received a call about the assault, about a half dozen members of a CIA security team tried to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans. But when the Libyans failed to respond, the security team, which routinely carries small arms, went ahead with the rescue attempt. At no point was the team told to wait, the officials said.

They said the outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide intelligence information publicly.

According to the detailed timeline senior officials laid out Thursday, the first call to the CIA base came in at about 9:40 p.m., and less than 25 minutes later the team headed to the consulate. En route they tried to get additional assistance, but were unable to get much aid from the Libyan militias.

By 11:30 p.m., all of the U.S. personnel, except Stevens, left and drove back to the annex, with some taking fire from militants along the way.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

" A full contingent of Marines within 45 minutes from fist call for help. As Sen. McCain said, we never leave our own in harms way."

Yeah.... in Italy. And not 45 minutes in helicopters. You are going to fly marines in from Italy, with no plan, no awareness of the situation of the conditions on the ground. How many body bags did you want being flown back? We tried that before, with a lot more planning, and a lot more logistics support, and it ended disastrously in Somalia. It is bad that this happened, but it would have been even worse had Generals sent in unprepared troops into a situation they were not prepared for just so some could live out their John Wayne fantasy of the troops heroically riding over the Hill to save the day.

The body bag count would have been much higher if our government had followed this FoxNews cowboy script. Some people actually pay attention to history, and learn from it.

""a coward cannot know a heroes heart." .... and a hero doesn't foolishly put his pals into combat with no plan, no understanding of the theater. Were talking real lives, not political rhetoric.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:RG

Congress, including the Democrats were foolish. However, they voted in Oct/Nov of 2002 and war didn't begin until several months later.. Hillary Clinton's statement accompanying her vote her vote:

"My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

After the vote, Saddam Hussein allowed UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq for the first time since 1998. When Bush chose to invade Iraq, Inspectors had found little evidence of WMDs, and requested more time.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Hillary Clinton's statement accompanying her vote on the Authorization to Use Force:

"Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

UBD, if the facts are as you say, the White House would have come clean from the get-go. They still haven't come clean. Instead they obfuscated for 2 weeks. Obama has tried to have it both ways by blaming the events on a video and slipping some ambiguous words is a speech. They haven't been waiting for all the facts -- they've been trying to get their story straight. That should be obvious.

As for body-bags, there would have been many more if Woods and Doherty hadn't disregarded the order to stand down.

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@ Thomas

Once again if those are the "facts" then where is your evidence to support your claims?. "Fact" without support is at best theory and in this case nothing more then conspiracy theory.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Tolstoy salt lake, UT
"Once again if those are the "facts" then where is your evidence to support your claims?."

The facts are what the father of the murdered former Navy Seal is asking for. Obama has gone mute on the subject. Like Operation Fast and Furious they are hoping to bury the story.

wrz
Ogden, UT

@Kyle loves BYU/Jazz:

"I don't understand how the President can get away without answering any questions about it."

Three reasons:

He told us months ago that he and his administration had Al Qaeda on its heels. Benghazi, and riots in other Muslim dominated countries such as Egypt Syria, Tunisia, etc., shows he doesn't.

He thought the Arab Spring was a movement to more democracy in the Mideast. It wasn't.

Part of his heritage hails from the religion from whence terrorism springs. He'd rather not be be seen being associated with it while running for president.

spring street
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

@rifleman
So your argument that it is not a conspiracy theory is another conspiracy theory? interesting.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

Redshirt:

The article from CNN to which raybies was referring may the editorial by William Bennett on Nov 1, 2012.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Tolstoy" since you are too lazy to do some simple internet searches, here is all the proof you need, yet will probably ignore.

"Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack" from The Independant. Here they list out some of the key things previously stated:

"diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place."

"The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador"

Benghazi is 480 miles from Italy, where there were members of Delta Force, and other rapid response teams waiting. The battle lasted for 7 hours. That was more than enough time for those troops to be air lifted to where they were needed. Plus there was a Spectre gunship in the area, that was never called in. Why?

wrz
Ogden, UT

@mark:

"To the other posters that are making extreme claims (it was all part of an Obama kidnapping plot. Good heavens! ), please provide evidence to back up your incredible claims. Be precise and cite your sources. Good luck."

We'd love to provide evidence but the Obama Administration is trying its best to keep the whole thing covered up... just like his college/university documents that D. Trump is willing to pay $5 million to have released. This guy, Barack Hussein Obama, promised transparency in his presidency. What we get is secrecy and cover-up.

And while I'm at it, why could anyone vote for this guy who has questionable background, use of illegal drugs, association with criminals and socialists, and possibly a foreigner and not even eligible to be out president. Good grief! Have we as a nation gone nuts?

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

In the Independent article redshirt mentions, the Libyans claim they warned us about immanent attacks. However, from the same article:

A State Department spokesman maintained: "We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

So who you gonna believe? The Libyans? Or the Americans?

-So, wrz, you would love to provide evidence, but you don't have any. So you guys will just make up stuff.
Beautiful.

Rifleman
Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT

What did Obama know about the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, when did he know it, and why is he refusing to divulge it?

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@George

Your ability to play victim when others do not fall in line with your dogma is amazing

This administration:
Knew about poor security
Denied security requests
Watched the act unfold
Withheld help
Inflamed a story about a video
Parsed words for cover

Only the most naive Obama groupie would wait until their house completely burnt down before admitting there are huge flames behind that massive smokescreen

Tolstoy
salt lake, UT

@counter intelligence

I don't hardly think George pointing out the complete lack of respect that the posters show towards the victims families is the same as him playing the victim sorry.

As to the rest of your post we know have five pages of wild conspiracy theories and childish name calling by the conspiracy theorist and still no evidence to support any of the claims made. So once again show me the evidence.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

RG - let me understand your logic. A lie or misinformation was told by a person of authority, and you are saying the ones who are to blame are the ones who believe the lies.

Good grief, we have moved to new levels of blame shifting. It's not the fault of the one misleading, it is the fault of he people who believe the lie or misinformation.

Partisanship now moves to new levels..... honestly and blame are relative to which party you belong too.

Nice.

If Obama had bad information, and made a bad decision based on that... that is his fault. If Bush made a bad decision based on bad information, and Hillary believed him and supported him... it is Hillary's fault.

I think we can all see where this is headed.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

@Tolstoy

Of course you don't understand, because you do the exact same thing as George: You ignore evidence presented to you that does not fit into a narrow left-wing view of the world, then you attempt to shame anyone with a different opinion into silence by discounting inconvenient facts as merely being "wild conspiracy theories" that hurt people.

I find those people that abuse and censor in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to be a particularly nefarious group (which is why I am far less conservative than I am merely abhorrent of political correctness).

The families are demanding knowledge, not silence. Therefore using feigned concern for the families as rationalization for bullying anyone not cowing to Obama into silence and advocating sweeping tough questions under the carpet, is the truly "disrespectful" and offensive tact.

If your respect for the families was motivated by anything more than the need for political cover - you would be demanding the truth; not rationalizing smokescreens.

Advocating obfuscation is a perpetrating behavior - not a "sensitive" or "tolerant" one.

to comment

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