Quantcast
Opinion

Kathleen Parker: All the news fit for a president

Comments

Return To Article
  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    May 28, 2014 7:58 p.m.

    Joe Blow and Esquire -The absolute truth of the Benghazi tragedy will not matter in the long run - except to the parents of those who were murdered and to those who were on the ground and near the events of the tragedy and who knew it was a terrorist attack and who reported such to an asleep administration.. In fact, the cry from the consulate was "WE ARE UNDER ATTACK! That is a testimony even the most ardent supporter of the Obama administration cant excuse, nor can they excuse the repeated calls for more security - nor the fact that our military could not and did not respond to their cries for help.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 28, 2014 5:42 p.m.

    @Joe Blow "partisan accusations"

    As I've told you before, I don't belong to a party. I caucus with the Democrats, because they let me through the door without a membership card. I'm an American, period.

    "'It shows that they spent the first hours of the attack looking for a scapegoat.'"
    "Is that fact or conjecture?"

    Look at the evidence. The attack began at about 4:00 ET. Email was sent to the White House at 6:07 stating that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed credit for the attack. The CIA told the White House the attack was carried out by Islamic extremists. The YouTube email was sent at 9:11 PM ET to the Diplomatic Security Command Center, and it said "White House is reaching out to UTube [sic] to advise ramifications of the posting of the Pastor Jon Video." By 10:00 Hillary issued a statement blaming the video, which has since been proven false. Do you have a different definition for "scapegoat" than I have?

    "I agree that funding, was not a primary driver."

    It wasn't a driver at all. I'm not sure why you insinuated it was.

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    May 28, 2014 2:45 p.m.

    Schnee

    Attacking age? Try Reagan. Your side did plenty of that, and not without some good reason. In his 2nd term Reagan was definately getting past his mental prime. Hillary is getting close to 70 herself. Plus, she has obviously slowed down a lot from the person she was when First Lady, and even Senator. Even before that fall, she looked out of it while Sec. of State. Look at the film of the day after Benghazi with her standing next to Obama while he gave his "we'll get um" speech. She had that deer in the headlights look going on to the point that she should not have even shown herself in public that day. Then of course we have the valid question of her current health, and a possible concussion issue. These are not trivial things to consider when we elect our next President. I think for a lot if not most people 70s is just too far past the prime to have such an important job.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 28, 2014 1:10 p.m.

    @ RedShirt, spinning the facts to paint leaders in Washington does not serve the truth. "In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum...." Further, Stevens knew what he was going into and the question remains, why? As for the GOP, from another article, "Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security amid political attacks from Republicans that the Obama administration did not do enough to secure the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that was attacked last month."

    As for who I vote for in 2016, I'll see who the candidates are and decide at an appropriate point in time. I would vote this year to send someone else to Congress other than the incumbent.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 28, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    @SCfan
    Yep, and we're pretty confident too, since you're reduced to attacking her age and parroting Rove's remarks...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 28, 2014 11:57 a.m.

    Who is in charge? It seems that no one is in charge. It seems that Mr. Obama reads the newspaper to find out what happened, when he should have had briefings by people in his administration. He blames Bush for everything, and then he tells us that no one in his administration has received sufficient background information to form an opinion.

    That's nonsense.

    That's something that someone who is incompetent would say. That's something that would get a CEO fired from any other job.

    Mr. Obama is the CEO of the Federal Government. He IS responsible for everything that happens in his administration. His "right" to blame others ended on the day that he was sworn into office, the day that HE took the oath of office that requires him to uphold and defend the Constitution.

    No CEO likes to be found to be incompetent, but many have and many have been fired. Should Mr. Obama be exempt? Should he be retained because he is "likeable"? God tells us that He is no respector of persons. Should we be different? Should Obama be retained because he is "likeable"?

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    May 28, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    JoeBlow

    I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that in order to fix the problem one needs to know who caused the problem to begin with. Had I, and I assume many others both Democrats and Republicans, been President or Sec. of State, my first action would have been to call out any and all possible forces to try to save the people at the consolate. Every embassy has a contingent of Marines. Why not get some of them over to Benghazi? During the period of the attack no one knows how long it will last. Therefore order some movement of a quick reaction force into action. They may not get there soon enough, but how does one know until it all plays out? Did we have any allies within the Libyan government who could have sent help? If not then just what was Ambassador Stevens doing there with only 3 other aids anyway? And where were Obama and Clinton during this crisis anyway? Lots and lots of unanswered questions, which when and if answered may very well put us on the way to "fixing the problem."

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 28, 2014 11:28 a.m.

    "Explain how the GOP in Congress is responsible for anything."

    I have to agree with Redshirt on this one.

    The GOP in Congress has been completely irresponsible.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 28, 2014 11:13 a.m.

    To "Esquire" and the Secretary of State declined military personnel to guard the ambassador in Benghazi. The secretary of state also authorized hiring local security guards.

    Are you going to vote for Hillary if she runs for President?

    Is the GOP doing their job or not? Are they responsible for deployment of security personnel to embassies?

    Explain how the GOP in Congress is responsible for anything.

    Hilary Clinton was also fully aware of the dangers in Benghazi months before the attack. With limited funding and with a security risk, why didn't she do the same thing the Red Cross, the Brittish, and other nations pulled out because of the dangers.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 28, 2014 10:50 a.m.

    @ RedShirt, the GOP House fought against additional security for our embassies. Do they count as "dead weight"? Will you vote against the incumbents in this year's Congressional election? It would sure be nice to see some consistency, not just talk.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    May 28, 2014 10:09 a.m.

    To "JoeBlow" it could fix a problem. As I stated before, either the President is not listening to his advisors or else his advisors are not doing their jobs. If blame can be affixed, then that person or people can be removed before something worse occurs.

    We should take comfort that there are some people looking to get rid of the dead weight within the executive branch that poses a security risk to the US and our ambassadors.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 28, 2014 9:46 a.m.

    Nate,

    If the goal is to make partisan accusations and to place blame, no amount of information will change ones mind.

    You state "No. It shows that they spent the first hours of the attack looking for a scapegoat."

    Is that fact or conjecture? Mine was conjecture, as I stated.

    I agree that funding, was not a primary driver.

    What is sad is that nobody seems to be looking for the primary failure which allowed Americans to be killed..

    All these hearings are focused on blame, not a fix to the problem.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 28, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    @Joe Blow "Doesn't it seem to back up the notion that, at the time, the White House believed the Benghazi attack was related to the video?"

    No. It shows that they spent the first hours of the attack looking for a scapegoat.

    "You may want to look into various votes on increasing funding for security in places like Benghazi."

    Multiple officials have testified that funding wasn't the issue. Requests for additional security were denied for other reasons. Do you know what those reasons were?

  • SCfan clearfield, UT
    May 28, 2014 6:48 a.m.

    So nice to see the countries liberals defend the indefensible. To some of you not old enough to remember, Reagan was always accused by you guys at being out of touch, and asleep at the switch. Bush was of course accused of just being dumb. But now your guy, well, there is nothing wrong at all with his incompetency. How transparent. The sad part is you guys are now all in on an obviously aging woman, who is clearly not once what she once was, concussion or no concussion.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 27, 2014 10:21 p.m.

    kaysville cougar -

    "And you libs who keep defending him at every turn don't help in the cause of truth or freedom."

    Actually, it is those of you who keep defending lies and nonsense, who "don't help in the cause of truth or freedom."

  • Jory payson, utah
    May 27, 2014 3:25 p.m.

    I find it funny that people are giving Obama a pass saying he has to rely on the people below him to give him the information. If they withhold that information its not his fault. Yet when the CEO of BP was in front of congress using that same excuse, everyone was saying that is just an excuse and he should have known.

  • kaysvillecougar KAYSVILLE, UT
    May 27, 2014 2:59 p.m.

    I see that some of our favorite out-of-state libs who hate the DN are the majority of the posters on this article. It's sad to see so many get worked up into a lather when things go wrong for their guy and their party. Why can't we just ask for the truth no matter how hard it is? Kathleen Parker hit this one out of the park. It angers me that our president can be so condescending. How can he believe that the american people are stupid enough to believe that the things he should know as the POTUS, he found out at the same time the rest of us did. Either the media has become really good or he's shoveling something that belongs on the farm. Lets just say the media hasn't turned spectacular. In fact, I think because there aren't more media members like Parker, Pres. Obama has the bravado to keep shoveling. He knows he won't be held accountable. And you libs who keep defending him at every turn don't help in the cause of truth or freedom.

  • majmajor Layton, UT
    May 27, 2014 2:35 p.m.

    I didn't think we could get a worse leader as president then the latest Bush, but Obama is proving me wrong. The president appoints his subordinants, he is responsible for each of their failures. They seem to act as caretakers then anyone with any leadership abilities or interest.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    May 27, 2014 1:41 p.m.

    This speaks volumes about the Obama Administration. It says that either Obama does not listen to his advisors or else that his advisors are incompetent

    If Obama's advisors are being ignored by him, then there is a serious ego probem with the President since he thinks he knows everything and does not need to hear what his advisors know. The advisors specialize in certain types of information so that they can offer information based on their expertise.

    If Obama's advisors are incompetent, why are they still around? If you ran a hospital and had a group of highly paid doctors that were constantly getting things wrong, shouldn't they be disciplined or fired? Why keep people in a position of great responsibility if they are incompetent?

    Either way, I don't see it being a good thing that Obama finds out about the problems within his administration from the News outlets. Don't we pay lots of money to his cabinet and advisors to know what is going on and to pass that information to the President?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 27, 2014 1:27 p.m.

    Finally Kathleen Parker . . . another opinion piece in the DN worthy of ridicule.

    Naw, just kidding, LOTS of opinion pieces printed in the Deseret News are worthy of ridicule.

    "Finally, the problem of admitted ignorance may be less a matter of negligence than a symptom of an even bigger problem — the programs themselves. To admit that our government bureaucracies and our hulking programs are too big to succeed, however, is to admit to a failure of ideology."

    So . . . Obama didn't know about quite a few things before they happened.

    Guess what, Obama did not run on a platform of clairvoyance. He makes NO pretense of being a prophet.

    If you're going to blame Obama and the government for not knowing that certain events are occurring or would occur, then you have to blame FDR for the Japanese fleet movements and the subsequent Sneak Attack on Pearl Harbor.

    Likewise, you would have to blame Abe Lincoln and John Kennedy for their own assassinations.

    And apparently, by your logic, the Federal government was already WAY to big when the Barbary Pirates attacked US shipping back in 1784.


    See? I told you this piece was ridiculous.

  • David Centerville, UT
    May 27, 2014 12:55 p.m.

    No question, Obama doesn't bother himself with the duties and cares of governing or presiding. I can't recall an administration that is as disconnected, disorganized, and partisan.

  • Cinci Man FT MITCHELL, KY
    May 27, 2014 12:50 p.m.

    President Obama is an event organizer. He organizes what to do when something happens. So he has to read the news to learn what's going on. He has to use YouTube to position his administration in the most favorable light. I love it when @Esquire quotes Nancy Pelosi to excuse ineptitude regarding Benghazi. That was the best line of the day when she said it. Let's understand it -- Stonewall, then mislead, then lie, then falsely blame, then sigh relief and say, Benghazi has been well vetted. And then collect your paycheck. Politics are so predictable on both sides.

  • Laura Bilington Maple Valley, WA
    May 27, 2014 12:46 p.m.

    The sermons on the Wasilla Assembly of God website--some of which were said to be rather unpleasant in tone and intolerant of gays--were taken down within hours of the publication of Sarah Palin's membership in that church. The DN was silent on the sudden removal, and the reasons for taking them down. Can anybody tell me why?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 27, 2014 12:13 p.m.

    "The buck stops here," said Harry Truman, but even he could not be actually involved in the vast workings of every unit of every department of a national government. The President's job is creating and executing policy, not managing the VA's sick list.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 27, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    "Is anyone concerned that there was no IMEDIATE attempt to help/rescue those under attack at Benghazi? or that pleas for additional security had been denied?"

    Ms Watson,

    Have you bothered to look into this? Generals in command and in the know have testified repeatedly that there was really no viable way to intervene. Repeatedly.

    Additional security had been denied that is true. And this should be the focus on the whole Benghazi issue. But, it has been a foot note, and certainly not the focus of the GOP.

    You may want to look into various votes on increasing funding for security in places like Benghazi.

    Maybe you could ask Mr Chaffetz.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 27, 2014 11:59 a.m.

    @ Joan Watson, please, Benghazi has been well vetted. The situation was dangerous to begin with, it is essentially isolated and the U.S. had no forces nearby, if jets had been scrambled, it not only would have been too late but the target was too focused, and the Ambassador knew it was a dangerous situation and he went in regardless. There may have been security lapses, but it was a dangerous area, and still is. There have been many others in our past. Consider Lebanon under Reagan, where not only was there the famous bombing, our Ambassador was later kidnapped, tortured and killed. Isn't it interesting that the difference between then and now is that now the GOP is seeking to exploit the situation for political gain and fundraising, attacking our own, instead of focusing on the actual wrongdoers.

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    May 27, 2014 11:35 a.m.

    Is anyone concerned that there was no IMEDIATE attempt to help/rescue those under attack at Benghazi? or that pleas for additional security had been denied? This present administration deserves as much, or perhaps more outrage as did the former administration. Pres Obama spent the first year whining about the mess he inherited - it would seem the "mess" has no bounds.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 27, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    "finally we have something about which to be scandalized"...I love the wording. It suggests you've been hiding in the bushes all this time, throwing out anything and everything hoping it will stick as 'scandal'. Now you sense blood in the water and the response is 'finally a scandal', not 'how can we fix this? Your priorities are showing.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    May 27, 2014 10:24 a.m.

    Any President, of either party, like a corporate CEO, has to rely on the organization below to keep him or her informed. Thus, it is unfair to blame them personally for things that happen down the chain if they were not aware of the problem or did not exercise adequate oversight. However, once the problem is discovered, how the leader reacts is telling. Leadership doesn't always mean firing someone just because critics demand it. For example, the VA Secretary has the same challenges of only knowing what he is told, and in an agency of 280,000 employees, and where bad behavior happens at a facility in Arizona, the Secretary should respond and fix, and it will do little good to remove him (and it could be a setback in those efforts). I suspect the Arizona problem was not systemic, but localized. That is a far cry from when Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) was removed as Chairman - "In 2005, Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Tom Delay removed him as chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee for not toeing the party line and by insisting more be spent on veterans’ programs."

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 27, 2014 10:08 a.m.

    "In a world of faux outrage, finally we have something about which to be scandalized."

    Hard to argue with that Ms Parker. So after a few lines about the VA scandal,(something very worthy of investigation and fixes) you then pivot back to matters of Faux outrage.

    "Not to pound the Republican drum, which too often sounds like a car alarm, but was the administration's first impulse really to call YouTube?"

    One thing to note about your rant about the White House calling YouTube.
    Doesn't it seem to back up the notion that, at the time, the White House believed the Benghazi attack was related to the video?

    By the way, you ARE "pounding the Republican Drum"