Quantcast

Comments about ‘Robert Bennett: Finding answers to Benghazi’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Jan. 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. 5 killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. 12 killed, 51 injured.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. 2 killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 36 killed.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. 2 killed

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 9 killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan, Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers.

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. 4 killed, 13 wounded.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. 6 killed.

All of these attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities occurred during the Bush administration. Neither Fox News nor any Republican politician treated any of them as anything other than a tragedy. Democratic politicians did not try to turn them into a scandal either. There were certainly mistakes made in Benghazi, just as there were in all of these other attacks, but the right wing freak out over Benghazi is pure political opportunism.

Thid Barker
Victor, ID

Democrats need this to go away so Hillary will be our next president!

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Roland Kayser. No other attack was blamed on a video that no one saw, covered up, investigation stonewalled from the White House and lied about to protect Hillary, who is ultimately responsible! That's the difference!
"A Senate report last week laid blame for the deadly Benghazi attacks on the State Department, the military and intelligence agencies. That was a blow to Democrats who wanted to blame it on delays at the George Washington Bridge." Jay Evenson

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

Hillary wants to know what difference it makes. It's this: she and Obama were going around selling the idea that Islamic jihadists were credible partners for peace in the region. To have beefed up embassy security with American forces would have been an admission that this view was incorrect. They weren't willing to do this, especially not during election season, when their actions in Libya were already being questioned. Our ambassador and the men around him paid with their lives.

This is why the Obama administration came up with the lie about the video, and why they stuck with it so insistently. It was their worldview versus reality. In the end, their lies couldn't cover up the fact that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack, carried out on the anniversary of 9/11.

E Sam
Provo, UT

Senator Bennett seems to think that this new Senate report has new information. It doesn't. It repeats the same points made by State's internal review after the incident.
What we've all known all along is this: mission security was inadequate, and was known to be inadequate before the attacks. Mrs. Clinton has said the same, admitting her mistakes in the episode. What angers the Right is nonsensical trivia, like the Susan Rice talking points folderol.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

The Senate has released their report. Unless there's evidence that shows that President Obama and Hillary Clinton attacked the embassy themselves, what does picking at this scab accomplish? Learn from these mistakes and move on.

Then again, Republicans don't need to bother with new ideas and actual policies when they can just keep parroting "Benghazi!" over and over and over...

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Mountanman,

"@ Roland Kayser. No other attack was blamed on a video that no one saw"

First of all that is blatantly false. The video was widely discussed in Benghazi and used to create and inflame the mob that forms at both compounds.

Secondly if that's the path you want to go down then to Roland's point where were the heads that rolled after we were actually warned in advance of the Karachi bombing?

Where was the impeachment push after it became clear that Bush had been warned specifically about Al Queda threats for months in daily briefings prior to 9/11, and instead kept his focus and the focus of the government on Sadham Hussein. All while the conspirators were being arrested, deported and returning.

Point is all terrorist attacks have details and specifics that are controversial and messy. So to pick out Benghazi and make it the one where all details need to be revealed and accounted for is pure politics. Nothing else.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Obama tells us that the "video" was widely discussed and that it inflamed "mobs" who then just happened to reach the boiling point on 9/11. He also told us that he knew nothing about the NSA spying on us. He told us that we could keep our health insurance and our doctors. He told us that he had "shovel ready" jobs waiting if we would just let him have a few trillion dollars to spread among this "friends". He's told us a lot of things, none of which have been true. Why would anyone believe him when he told us that a "video" caused that attack on 9/11 in Benghazi?

The Senate told us that had the State Department done its job, that that attack would not have taken place. How is that George Bush's fault?

Obama would like us to blame Hillary. Playing poker was more important to him than doing his job as Commander in Chief. Hillary thinks that it was no big deal. Many excuse Obama and Clinton. Obama and Hillary lied and four died.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Roland hit it on the head. In context of all the attacks and deaths in US consular facilities in the few years leading up to this one, tragic as they were, little was said and little political hay made of it. Wow, is this one being dragged around, though. It sure seems like a disingenuous effort on the part of the people doing it.

Ultra Bob
Cottonwood Heights, UT

Probably no other thing could ever well display the hate campaign against President Obama by the right wing and the republicans. That incident has been singled out of the thousands of unfortunate failures that our government, and certain private interests, impose on the world every day. There are many more worthy scandals to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money on.

The reason we have foreign embassies is for the assistance of commercial business in foreign lands. The reason we have military stationed all over the world is for the same reason. The reason we give away so much military foreign aid is also for the same reason. And the reason for these actions is the we allow business to control our government.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Pragmatist. Do yourself a favor and go back and read the Senate Committee report about Benghazi. It contradicts EVERYTHING Obama, Susan Rice and Hillary claimed! So the obvious question left is who is lying, the Senate committee or Obama and his staff? Since the answer is obvious, the only questions left is, why the lies, distortions and cover-ups? There is only one reason: protect Hillary!

Res Novae
Ashburn, VA

The obsession with the anti-Muslim video is bizarre to me. It drew considerable attention in th days preceding the attack. Other embassies in the region were being protested by mobs of angry Muslims. When the initial reports of the attack broke, my first response was that it was directly connected to those protests. The first response of much of the media was the same. Apparently it was the initial response of many in the intelligence community. It was a natural assumption to link the two events. I simply don't understand the accusations that it was used to deflect attention from an organized terrorist attack when in the immediate aftermath it was an easy conclusion after years of seeing the famed angry 'Arab Streets' in action.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Once again pure hatred for Barack Obama obfuscates the real dangers learned in Benghazi about US foreign policy and even about the people responsible for it's creation and administration. Lessons that should have been learned 10 years earlier in the Bush administration but were covered up and buried, only to surface again in places like Libya.

Talking points on Sunday TV shows, what role did the mob play (and there was a mob), videos etc. are all political fuel, and pretty much unimportant when compared to true life and death topics of intervention, allies, intervention consequences.

Hillary Clinton gave the Republicans the biggest gift of her career when she said "What does it matter" referring to videos etc. but they were way too blinded by the shiny penny of immediate political blame, as are most of conservatives on this thread.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

The White House's response to this tragedy has four priorities. 1. Protect the administration from any culpability. 2. Shield Hillary Clinton at all costs. Her incompetence must not be exposed. 3. Do not implicate al Qaeda. The president has said they are on the run because of his policies and we cannot contradict that. 4. Uncover the facts if they do not involve 1-3.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

I don't know what to make of this. I think what worries me the most, and sickens me the most is the political nature of it all. The accusations seem to be mostly political in nature. Some of the defensive responses surely have an air of politics involved.

What is clear is Stevens knew the environment he was operating in. When it comes to the military, there are those who say "they signed up for the duty knowing the risks" as justification to sending troops to that region of the country. Same can be said of Stevens and everyone else who was there in theater. They knew Libya was a very dangerous place.

And yet we mourn the loss of Stevens, undoubtedly a very patriotic man, we mourn his loss far greater than many on most others Just this week we lost more Americans in Afghanistan in a Cafe bombing - and no outcry. And why is this? Is perhaps there aren't political points to be made… therefor these lives go lost without much attention.

Why are four lives in Libya a much greater loss then hundreds in Afghanistan and Iraq?

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

mountainman - before you ask people to go read the report claiming " It contradicts EVERYTHING Obama, Susan Rice and Hillary claimed", just perhaps you should read it yourself first. Trusting talk radio or what ever your source is does not match actually reading the report.

Now that said, I am pretty sure even if you did read the report…. it wouldn't change your mind because you don't' seem to have any desire to find truth, but rather just justify your feelings of hate towards Democrats.

Show me the page and line number that states the military could have saved these people, but didn't because the administration held them back…. find it… and let us all read it.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

Of course, the budget bill passed last week cut the State Department's budget appropriations for embassy security by $223 million, and shot down State's attempt to consolidate its Vatican mission within the Rome embassy for security reasons.

Nope, the outrage over consulate security in a war zone isn't political at all.

louie
Cottonwood Heights, UT

"Perhaps it’s because she (Hillary Clinton) and others in the administration were so proud of their role in getting rid of Gadhafi, which they saw as the beginning of an Arab Spring that would transform the Middle East, that they were loath to even consider the possibility that post-Gadhafi Libya could be a dangerous place in which significant anti-American attitudes could germinate." Another GOP conjecture, just maybe? Why, Mr. Bennett, did you not cite other statements in the report that indicated Ambassador Stevens, himself, turned down an offer for a US military escort, before this event. Obviously, in hindsight, there where failures and a lack of coordination with the State Department and our Military, which was reiterated in the Senate Report.

Unfortunately we have other elected officials who start their congressional investigation with comments such as "Impeachment is on the Table", you really wonder how bipartisan their intentions are. By the way, after several months of investigation absolutely nothing has surfaced that would suggest an impeachment hearing...only in the hopes and fantasies of republicans.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Everyone agrees security was inadequate in Benghazi...after the fact. But who cut the funds for security? Our local representative, Mr. Chaffetz voted to cut those funds. Now he is red-meat angry about the lack of security in Benghazi. This is called "irony."

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

Actually Louie, Mr. Bennett's speculation about Mrs. Clinton's hubris is a plagiarism of a New Yorker magazine article. Wow, who would think Mr. Bennett a plagiarist?

In reality I think it's a very good question and one that doesn't necessarily conflict with Mr. Stevens refusal of added security. In fact it actually sheds light on just how complicated embassy security is in this part of the world and exactly the kind of question we should be looking at not what Susan Rice said on Sunday morning, or trying to make a second rate terrorist into an Al Queda operative. Second rate terrorists are dangerous all by themselves.

Unreconstructed, makes a good point that enhances the point I'm trying to make here. By being distracted with the concocted cover ups and videos no one has seriously discussed the consequences of American support for paramilitary groups in this area while blight fully going on our way cutting funding for security and threating war with Iran.

to comment

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