Published: Monday, Jan. 20 2014 12:00 a.m. MST
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 killedDecember 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
Democrats need this to go away so Hillary will be our next president!
@ 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
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
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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
"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
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."
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
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments