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
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.
I look at the last 2 presidents in wonder
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Yes! This country has been completely ruined because of Benghazi!
"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.
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)
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").
re:Truthseekerthe 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!!!
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"
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
@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.
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?"
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.
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+
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.
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.
"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.
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."
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.
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.
I think a lot of you don't know the difference between a scandal
(wrongdoing, like Nixon, Blagoyevich, etc) and making a mistake...@JoeCapitalist2Actually the New York Times does investigate it, even
recently with articles like "A Deadly Mix in Benghazi".@VanceoneDemocrats 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
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?
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.
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.
Only among people who weren't going to vote democrat anyway, so essentially
Move along, nothing to see here....
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.