Comments about ‘Will Benghazi make a difference for Hillary Clinton?’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Jan. 16 2014 12:15 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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.

from the report:

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)

American Fork, UT

"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.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Yes! This country has been completely ruined because of Benghazi!

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

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. ANYBODY else...


More context
question 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.

spring street

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.

Hayden, ID

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!

Salt Lake City, UT

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.

salt lake city, UT

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.

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

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.

Durham, NC

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.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

born in37

The 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...]

salt lake city, utah

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.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

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.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

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?

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

I look at the last 2 presidents in wonder

high school fan
Huntington, UT

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.

to comment

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