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.
@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.
SchneeAttacking 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.
@ 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
@SCfanYep, and we're pretty confident too, since you're reduced
to attacking her age and parroting Rove's remarks...
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"?
JoeBlowI 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."
"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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
@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?
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
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."
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
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.
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.
This speaks volumes about the Obama Administration. It says that either Obama
does not listen to his advisors or else that his advisors are incompetentIf 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?
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
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.
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.
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?
"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.
"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
@ 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.
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.
"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
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
"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"