Quantcast
Opinion

Will Benghazi make a difference for Hillary Clinton?

Comments

Return To Article
  • bluecollar Kearns, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 10:15 a.m.

    I will remain unaffiliated and will vote against the worst candidate. What happened in Benghazi doesn't matter to the future election of an American president. What matters is what is good for working-class middle-income Americans.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    Jan. 18, 2014 5:06 a.m.

    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.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    I look at the last 2 presidents in wonder

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    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?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Jan. 17, 2014 11:45 a.m.

    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.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 9:49 a.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Jan. 17, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 8:34 a.m.

    born in37
    ST GEORGE, UT

    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...]

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 17, 2014 5:18 a.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 10:54 p.m.

    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.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 6:21 p.m.

    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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 6:19 p.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 16, 2014 5:23 p.m.

    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!

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 5:14 p.m.

    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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 4:37 p.m.

    re:Patriot
    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 4:30 p.m.

    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. ANYBODY else...

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 4:05 p.m.

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

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:53 p.m.

    "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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:45 p.m.

    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:CoachBiff
    from 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)

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:44 p.m.

    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").

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    re:Truthseeker

    the reason the congressional panel was grilling Hillary in the first place was to determine WHY the US embassy was left unprotected and WHY she did nothing to beef up security when requests were made and WHY no military aid was sent during the attack and WHY she lied about the cause of the attack for weeks even though she knew it was a terrorist attack on day one. So why is this important? So incompetent and dishonest politicians like Hillary don't repeat this sort of thing ever again where more brave men will die. By the way, Hillary and Barack did everything they could to STALL the investigation and that stall continues to this day. Hillary is a hardened politician who will do ANYTHING to protect her political hide. Learning the TRUTH about her incompetence and lies with Benghazi would sink her presidential bid. So "what difference does it make now"? PLENTY!!!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:27 p.m.

    Coach Bill - read the report. If you really want to know, go to the source.

    In an age where there are literally thousands of sources for this kind of information, why do people sit back and wait for others to feed them information - which will obviously be translated into what ever that persons agenda is.

    In the mean time, most will just rely on others.... and get politically filtered "facts"

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:16 p.m.

    Thank you Truthseeks.

    My My, when you put it in context it is a completely reasonable statement that virtually anyone can agree with.

    Thanks for posting.

    2 bits - "The people who will vote for Hillary Clinton will vote for her no matter what she does. It seriously doesn't matter one bit to them. They will vote for her regardless."

    Yes, and the people who hate her will vote against her no matter what. It doesnt matter one bit to them either.

    Works both ways. You are describing pure partisan politics. Are you suggesting that it is only played by those on the left?

    Now, if the far right doesn't to make Chris Christie go looney, like they did Romney, I would seriously consider voting for him.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    @2 bits -- And the people who won't vote for her, won't vote for her no matter what she does. She could do anything, and I mean anything, and they still wouldn't vote for her.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 16, 2014 3:09 p.m.

    And?, this changes what - exactly?...

    FoxNews listeners weren't going to vote Democrat anyway...

    Kind of like when we bring up Bush/Cheney,
    "what difference does it make now?"

  • born in37 ST GEORGE, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:58 p.m.

    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.
    Hillary could even commit adultery, lie about it and .......wait that's been done. Face it, it doesn't matter what she does. It's a done deal. Hillary: From First Lady to President. Done deal. Get used to it.

  • MapleDon Springville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:56 p.m.

    The media buried this story, as they conveniently do any controversy surrounding a Democrat. It's how the Party controls public opinion. Of course Hillary will win in '16, unless Obama uses his magic pen to give himself another 4+ years.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:42 p.m.

    The answer to the question, "Will Benghazi make a difference for Hillary Clinton"... is "NO".

    The people who will vote for Hillary Clinton will vote for her no matter what she does. It seriously doesn't matter one bit to them. They will vote for her regardless.

    She could to anything. And I mean anything... and they would still vote for her.

  • Coach Biff Lehi, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    I would actually like to know, like Susan Collins says in some of the comments on the findings, why did the administration try and blame the events on demonstrations gone wrong? Why was Candy Crowley allowed to defend the President Obama in the debate when Romney brought up the subject? If you can't see political leanings in the press on this issue, you never will.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:29 p.m.

    "Hillary already said "what difference does it make" so according to her finding out who was responsible and why isn't important...obviously because it would incriminate her."

    Wow. Just wow. You think you can take that a little bit more out of context?

    "like Benghazi has been dropped?"

    Benghazi has been dropped? Do conservatives even listen to themselves?

    You are commenting on a story about a Senate Intelligence Comittee report that is highly critical of the state department and others. This story is being extensively covered by ALL the news media. There is no question this will have serious ramifications on a presidential run by Clinton, and this guy says it's been dropped. Unbelievable.

    UtahBlueDevil, thanks for providing more context from the report. Do you really think some people here will incorporate that into their thinking?

    For those comparing Benghazi to the bridge scandal, schnee is absolutely correct, "I think a lot of you don't know the difference between a scandal. . . and making a mistake..."

    Also, Benghazi has been in the media nonstop and extensively for over a year. I imagine very little will be heard of the Bridge scandal in even a few weeks.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:20 p.m.

    re:Patriot
    'Hillary already said "what difference does it make" so according to her finding out who was responsible and why isn't important"

    quote in context:
    Clinton:
    "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC (intell community)has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime."

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Jan. 16, 2014 2:00 p.m.

    Did the author actually read the report? I am guessing no.

    The report put blame a lot of places, including...

    The intelegence agencies for not seeing or predicting the level or risk

    "Intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the U.S. 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 ambassador himself for twice turning down enhanced security from the Marine Corp

    "Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the military's Africa Command, twice asked Stevens to employ the team, and twice Stevens declined"

    And as to the reason why justice has not come through yet, the report states

    "the findings also noted what the FBI had told the panel -- that 15 people cooperating with its investigation had been killed in Benghazi, undercutting the investigation. It was not clear if the killings were related to the probe"

    I am not a Hillary fan. I hope she doesn't run. But just perhaps Erik should actually read the report, and report on it, rather than relying on MSNBC for his sources. Do real journalistic work - not the Cliff Notes version.

  • Steve Cottrell Centerville, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:53 p.m.

    Her response was NOT "what difference does it make?" Her response was "what difference does it make now?"

    Just an observation that when she was being interviewed and this famous quote was provided, the action at Benghazi was past and it was then too late to take action. It may well be appropriate to criticize her for not having acted sooner, but at the time of this investigation, it was far to late to change what had already past.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    I think a lot of you don't know the difference between a scandal (wrongdoing, like Nixon, Blagoyevich, etc) and making a mistake...

    @JoeCapitalist2
    Actually the New York Times does investigate it, even recently with articles like "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi".

    @Vanceone
    Democrats do care, it's just that our priority is figuring out what went wrong and how it can be prevented in the future whereas the Republican priority is "how do we turn this into a political win for us".

  • Vanceone Provo, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:20 p.m.

    Well, people who actually care about our foreign policy and whether our government is competent would want to hear about Hillary's gross failures and total inability to run an executive department.

    So yeah, Hutterite--Democrats couldn't care less about this, could they?

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:17 p.m.

    Patriot:. 'I wonder if Tricky Dick had said "what difference does it make" concerning Watergate if the congress would have just dropped it...like Benghazi has been dropped?'

    All I know is that given the current environment if Nixon was a Democrat today and Watergate happened last year, the press would have ignored the whole story and labeled it a "phony scandal". No one at the Washington Post or the NY Times would have touched it and we would all be saying "WHO?" when someone mentioned the name of Woodward or Bernstein.

    Investigative reporting into scandals these days only applies to people with an R after their names.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 1:05 p.m.

    Wow... an article on the recent new info on Bengazi and a Democrat Presidential hopeful's scandal today... Wonder where they found this?

    I thought all that mattered today was the traffic jam in New Jersey and if Gov Christie was involved. I guess I was wrong.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    Only among people who weren't going to vote democrat anyway, so essentially no.

  • esodije ALBUQUERQUE, NM
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:35 p.m.

    Move along, nothing to see here....

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 16, 2014 12:34 p.m.

    Hillary already said "what difference does it make" so according to her finding out who was responsible and why isn't important...obviously because it would incriminate her. I wonder if Tricky Dick had said "what difference does it make" concerning Watergate if the congress would have just dropped it...like Benghazi has been dropped? Oh that's right , Nixon was a Republican.

    the political environment in this country is a disgrace to our history.