Published: Thursday, Jan. 16 2014 12:23 p.m. MST
RE: "I think a lot of you don't know the difference between a scandal.
. . and making a mistake..." (mark)Please tell us the
difference between "Scandal" and "Mistake".Is it a
"Scandal" when a Republican is SUSPECTED of being indirectly involved...
but a "Mistake" when a Democrat is actually involved?That's probably the difference.===It's a
"Scandal", when somebody (not the person you are trying to pin the
scandal on) does something stupid.But it's a "Mistake"
when the person actually directly responsible for the security of State
Department personel fails to do their job and people die... And then they cover
it up... Yah... I think I get it.-people die VS Traffic
jam.-total cover up attempted VS No Cover-up.Hmmm... Of course
the Republican one is the "Scandal". And the Democrat one is just a
"Mistake". Just ask the people covering the Christie
"Scandal" on Good Morning America every day... they know a real
"Scandal" when they see one (because their coverage is what makes it
APPEAR to be a "Scandal").
DN has provided a link to the report. People should read it. Probably we all
will pick out the parts that support our biases, but we can learn somethings as
well. re:CoachBifffrom the report:FINDING #9: In finished reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts
inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the Mission facility
before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but
without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that
assertion. The IC took too long to correct these erroneous reports, which
caused confusion and influenced the public statements of policymakers. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the IC received numerous reports,
both classified and unclassified, which provided contradictory accounts that there were demonstrations at the Temporary Mission Facility. (page 32 and more detail follows)
"Democrats couldn't care less about this, could they?" I've
been asked. Of course they do. It's just that they've tired of the
continuous hyperbolic, disingenuous rhetoric trotted out time and again on this,
trying to pin it all on Clinton or the President even though this stone will no
longer produce blood any more than any previous attack on an american diplomatic
post, now long forgotten and conveniently ignored. We care, but the people who
are yelling about it today aren't doing so because they do. It's
blatant, annoying political opportunism, that's why it probably isn't
going to make much difference to a Clinton campaign, should there be one. We
care about foreign policy and leadership, but none of what's being said
here today is going to make anyone change their party vote.
Yes! This country has been completely ruined because of Benghazi!
Wonder,I think you are right, that people who don't like her will not
vote for her. That's pretty much the way voting works.I'm probably one who wouldn't vote for her no matter what she did.
But can you tell us what she actually did that SHOULD make me want to vote for
her? I mean besides being a Democrat and a woman.===I
try not to be partisan, but I don't always succeed. But this is one place
I don't even try to be non-partisan. I just don't like her. I
guess if she cured cancer I would like her... but she really hasn't done
anthing I like yet. I remember Hillary-Care. I can just imagine what she
will propose now (after how much America has changed since she was in the White
House the first time).She's had her chance. And there are too
many body's from the last time she and Bill were in the White House.
Putting Hillary and Bill back in would increase the partisan-divide we have (if
that's even imaginable).Let somebody else run the country.
re:PatriotMore contextquestion immediately preceding Hillary's
(posted above) response: "(Senator Ron)Johnson: No, again, we
were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of
that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that
that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days
and they didn’t know that."Patriot: "By the way,
Hillary and Barack did everything they could to STALL the investigation and that
stall continues to this day.”The Accountability Review Board
looked specifically at "whether the attacks were security related; whether
security systems and procedures were adequate and implemented properly; the
impact of intelligence and information availability; whether any other facts or
circumstances in these cases may be relevant to appropriate security management
of U.S. missions worldwide; and, finally, whether any U.S. government employee
or contractor, as defined by the Act, breached her or his duty."Additionally, the FBI was charged with determining who exactly attacked the
embassy and determining whether the incident stemmed from a pre-planned
terrorist attack, a demonstration against an anti-Islamic film, a combination of
the two, or something else entirely.
It may affect her run if reblicans decide to focus on it instead of actually
focusing on producing an actual agenda then yes it may help her win.
Whatever else this Senate report proves is that no one should trust anything
Obama and Hillary says! At the outset of this, Obama said, "Make no mistake,
there will be a complete investigation and those responsible will be held
accountable". Since then Obama has lied about it, stonewalled any
investigation and called it a "phony scandal". Fool us once, shame you
Hillary and Obama, fool us twice shame on us!
So, in other words, 2bits, you are saying you have no idea what the difference
is between a scandal and a mistake. Right. Got it.
No, it won't make a difference because the GOP will nominate someone
who's philosphy would destroy this country. The Democrats only won the
last election because the GOP's platform and candidate were out of touch
with America and 2016 is looking to be quite similar. When the GOP realizes
they'll have to support S.S., Medicare, LGBT rights, and tax increases to
balance the budget they'll have a chance to win. The Democrats could
nominate Barney Frank and they'd win as long as the GOP continues to be
disconnected from what this great country is and what Americans want it to be.
Poll after poll has shown that Americans are tired of this. Only repubs who
weren't going to vote for Hillary anyway care about keeping Bengahzi
alive.However, while we are on this subject, when can we hold Mr
Chaffetz accountable? When can we question him? Hold his feet to the fire? If
memory serves, he appeared on national tv smiling and bragging about how he cut
funding to our embassies. So if Hillary is going to be blamed for Benghazi then
how much more should folks like Chaffetz be? They were the ones who took the
guards away, built banner telling everyone that the security was gone, left open
the doors, and invited the terrorists to attack our embassies.
Patriot... you can bold capitalize words all you want, but many of the claims
you are making are disproven in this report. For example, twice the Ambassador
was offered additional security, and twice he turned it down. How is that
Hillary's fault? So please... we get you hate Hillary..... but that
doesn't give you license to rewrite events to match your hatred.There were mistakes made. The report does say the events were preventable
with much information digested in hind sight. But in real time, the system
didn't work. The Ambassador didn't have a clear enough picture of
the threat present. The military didn't have enough standby capacity in
the region. Congress still underfunds embassy security... and yes, the
intelligence infrastructure was slow to recognize the wrong information they
passed to the state department.But none of this matches your rant.
No request for additional security were turned down. Offerers of additional
security were made to the ambassador... and he turned them down. Not Hillary.
I hope she doesn't become president, but the discussion deserves honest
debate - not emotion driven rhetoric.
Yes, it will highlight the tea party obsession with manufacturing a scandal for
Fox News. The narrow-minded our team view will further pus tea party and
radical conservatives into the twenty percent un-eelctable corner.
born in37ST GEORGE, UTThe Democrats have already announced
part of their platform: Raising the minimum wage. Need we say more? Done deal.
More money for the lower class, less money for the taxpaying "others".
Done deal.=========Raising the minimum wage raises taxes
by ZERO.Businesses who keep making record level in sanely high profits
might be missing a few less pennies is all.BTW - Unlike businesses,
when PEOPLE are making more money, they are paying more taxes. [until they are
making multi-millions a year, but I digress...]
If one reads the New York Times report and this report the two are not actually
that far apart. The difference in the two in primarily semantic and audience.
Both found more could have been done in advance to secure the facility, and both
found nothing more could have been done during the attack. Just
because hindsight tells us more could have been done to secure the facility,
that doesn't mean the decision not to do more was wrong at the time. Chris
Steven as well as others took a calculated risk that didn't work out. What
we know from this is how complicated Embassy security is. Their mission is
often at odds with their own personal security, a point Mr. Stevens had been
very clear about. To now discuss and debate Mr. Stevens death
solely within the context of safety and without acknowledging the element of
mission strikes me as a dis-service to Mr. Stevens and other Embassy personnel.
Maybe this will work in Governor Christies favor. Some will say that Obama and
Hillary lied about Benghazi and people died. Some will say Christie lied about
a bridge closure and people were late getting to work.
When Hilary said "what's the difference," she didn't mean we
wouldn't follow up and punish the guilty. I assume that's happening,
although it would be good to hear about progress on that front.
Didn't the Republican Congress cut funding for security at embassies
shortly before this incident?Didn't the Ambassador specifically
say (twice) he didn't need more security?And it's ALL
Secretary Clinton's fault?
I look at the last 2 presidents in wonder
Will Republicans bring this up, probably. Will Democrats in the primaries bring
this up, definitely! Hilary is not a favorite of many of her party as she has
stepped on many to get to where she is at in life.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments