Quantcast

Comments about ‘Chaffetz joins GOP demand for more cooperation from White House on Benghazi’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 30 2013 5:35 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
1conservative
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

I believe that if ALL the information related to the Benghazi mess comes to light - the President will be impeached.

I also believe that Congress has been largely ineffectual in trying to garner the truth about Benghazi and every other scandal in the Obama administration.

We already know the Justice dept. will do anything/everything to cover for this administration. Therefore, if anyone is EVER held accountable for anything in this administration it will have to come from Congress. Ultimately, (and probably)the supreme court will have to get involved.

I think largely based on intimidation from the Obama administration, and a compliant media, Congress has pretty much "caved" on everything Obama does.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

So at some point Chavezz getting involved in another pointless conspiracy has to stop being news. Here is an idea how about he get back to work on the budget and a long term debt ceiling bill and stop playing games?

David
Centerville, UT

Once again we see Romney on the right side of issues, while Obama involved in cover-up, misleading or lieing to the American people. Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Obamacare, Benghazi...issue after issue we have a president that is found on the wrong side.

We have a president that discovers things in the newspapers and doesn't know anything, denies responsibility, blames everyone else, and is on the golf course by 9 a.m.

America chose wrong in 2012 and we keep paying for it over and over again.

across the sea
Topeno, Finland

The moment I heard Benghazi first...I immediately knew what was taking place. It was total political game played on people's lives. O and Hillary wanted their "peace" process in the ME to work (at least in the media). Sadly part of their game was to lie, to order soldiers down and let them be murdered...and lie, lie! In a critical election period the democrats showed that the mandate was worth more than the truth!
Kalindra, an ambassador is first and foremost representing the president...this one let one of his bravest be murdered-and lied about it! That cover up is the true conspiracy! And! Nobody is charged not in Libya, not in the US, because this WH cover-up continues and continues...WHY? Because they still hope Hillary would be the next one.
David, let's not forget some of O's worst ones... IRS, AP and now Phone Tapping 35 global leaders.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Imagine the hyperventilation and demands for the "truth" from the left if were GWB's or Reagan's cover-ups, stonewalling and lies instead of Obama's! Now we are told it is a witch hunt a non issue or "What difference does it make now"? To the hypocritical left it always "depends on what is, is."

Mark from Montana
Davis County, UT

It seems like UT is becoming known as a wacko state based only on our Congressional delegates.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

From the article

Congress, he said, wants to know

-why the Benghazi post was not better protected
- why the military did not immediately respond
-and why the administration initially blamed the attack on a demonstration over an offensive film.

Ok, lets come up with possible bad case scenarios. Hypothetical

1) not better protected? Terribly bad judgement. A huge mistake causing American deaths.

2) No military response? Bad Call which could have saved lives. Poor leadership. Terrible decision making.

3) Blamed attack on film? Knew the absolute truth but thought it would hurt election chances.

Does anyone believe that the decisions were made in an effort to have people die?
Did Obama keep the military out so the consulate could be taken?

What sense does any of that make? I don't get it.
I see mistakes. I see things that could be improved. I see hindsight is 20/20.
I also see things like this have happened many many times in history. And will happen in the future.

What I don't see is some big scandal.

Someone detail out the worse case scenario on 1,2,3?
What is there other than deadly mistakes?

Give me specifics of impeachable offenses.

ute alumni
paradise, UT

glad we have a couple in the congress that actually do something.weapons were going though Lybia to Syria. That is why barry won't let anyone talk. It will come out thanks to guys like Jason.

happy2bhere
clearfield, UT

Don't forget the BIG picture on all of this Benghazi thing. Hillary Clinton. The presumed next President by Democrats, who don't want the whole picture to come out if it would show her to have been negligent and or incompetetant. What may end up happening is that in order to save Hillary, someone on the Obama administration will do an Admiral Poindexter and take all the blame just to cover for the real culprits. Admiral Poindexter for those of you who may not know, took all the blame for Iran Contra during the Reagan years.

Ranch
Here, UT

Where were all your demands, Chappy, when several embassies were bombed during the last Republican administration and over 50 people were killed?

Hypocrisy much?

Itsjstmeagain
Merritt Island, Fl

Budget cuts have reduced security at many consulates. Security at Benghazi was the responsibility of the local Police and the Libyan Military through an agreement with the US. It was reported last weekend that the attackers told the Police and Military they did not want to kill them, only Americans and the security detail left. Not much security, but what was available.
Let's also not forget the Ambassador was told to leave and return to the Embassy in Tripoli. He would not.

The Skeptical Chymist
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

I find it hard to take the howls about the Benghazi "conspiracy" very seriously when these same individuals forgave the much larger errors of other (Republican) administrations without batting an eyelash. Yes, there were undoubtedly mistakes made. Should things have been done differently? Absolutely. Is this a big deal? Yes, but not nearly on the scale of the Beirut bombing that occurred in Saint Reagan's administration, or the illegal arms-for-hostages deals during Saint Reagan's administration, or the willful blindness and selective examination of evidence regarding WMD in Iraq during the G W Bush administration.

If I were convinced that the Republicans were always interested in an unbiased examination of the facts, with a view toward adopting policies that address the errors, then I would be all for a detailed investigation. In this political climate one can hardly hope for such a thing. One can expect nothing more than a witch hunt, designed solely to diminish the Obama presidency. Already we see the calls for impeachment over this matter. Would these same individuals have called for Reagan's impeachment over either the Beirut bombing or the Iran-contra deal? I think not.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

This is a joke.

Chaffetz voted to cut funding for security in Bengahzi.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Virtually anytime someone gets killed, things could have been done to prevent it. Whether an accident in the home or an attack on a Consulate.

Under Bush, there were many such US Embassy and Consulate attacks resulting in many deaths. Does this absolve Obama and Clinton? Of course not.

Those were preventable also. I do not say this to beat up Bush, but to show the inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

These things have happened many times. Why is this different? Why does this suddenly become the "scandal"?

Because Obama possibly knew the truth and didn't disclose it?

If the becomes the standard for our presidents and our Congress, the halls in Washington would be empty.

Was there "negligence and or incompetence"?

You could say so. Was is willful? Of course not.

Nor was it under Bush.

And nor will it be when it happens next.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Ranch. When other embassies were bombed the President didn't lie about it, cover is up and stonewall any investigations. No one is blaming Obama FOR the Benghazi attack but for his actions afterward. Perhaps you ideology has blinded you to that?

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Jason's just doing his puppet dance of trying to keep a non-issue an issue, so they can try and use it when Hillary runs against...who are the republicans gunna run?

Common Ranch that was a "republican" president with so much blood on his hands that no one noticed a little more.

Here's an Idea Jason... work on jobs, health care alternative, immigration something besides semantics after an attack that has been covered again and again by you and the merry band of conservative conspiracy clowns.
Who's only goal is to try and try and try and try to get this evil demoncrat out!

Seem like they spent a lot of time doing the same thing to Bill.

EDM
Castle Valley, Utah

More grandstanding, more distractions from our congressman who has accomplished nothing to date.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Mountanman said: No one is blaming Obama FOR the Benghazi attack but for his actions afterward. Perhaps you ideology has blinded you to that?
Lets look at it bumper sticker style, so the tea party folks might understand.
I'll even give you the "Obama Lied." (Although I don't personally believe that.)

When Bush Lied People died.
When People Died, Obama Lied.

One caused folks to die.
One was the answer, After folks died.

No matter what you believe Obama said, it didn't cause the death of any of these people, on the other hand Lies told before and during the Iraq war did cause untold numbers of deaths.

My ideology is consistent.

Esquire
Springville, UT

The Congressman is either a dupe for conspiring men, or....

While he keeps fanning the flames, to apply the arguments of these co-conspirators, then Bush personally is to blame for 9/11 (there is subtantial evidence that he was warned and knew about bin Laden well before the attacks), and Reagan for the Beirut bombing. How can President Obama and Secretary Clinton be personally blamed because the intelligence apparatus didn't give them every detail about what was going on in this Middle Eastern country, which was dangerous and over which the U.S. not only had little control, but relied on Libyan security? If so, then Bush bears blame for many things. The reality is, political leaders depend on career staff. Staff drive the flow of information, and decisions are made at multiple lower levels as to what to push up the chain. There are other diplomatic and security issues at play. It is a complex web anda lot is involved. I also have to wonder why the Ambassador decided to be there, knowing that there were security concerns. There are a lot of questions, but Chaffetz are asking the wrong ones. Political mischief, nothing more.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Happy Valley, Still debating the Iraq war and using that to justify Obama's lies? How sad. Can you name one democrat that wasn't clamoring for revenge after 9-11? Can you name three Democrat members of congress that did NOT vote for the Iraq war? And by the way, you need to tell that "no one died" to the families of those killed in Benghazi. You know, that attack caused by a video that no one saw and that now we can't get any accountability or answers from your hero in the white house. "What difference does it make"?= cover-up

to comment

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