Benghazi truth matters

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 6:13 p.m.

    Perhaps 'gambled with' would have been better wording, you know, like gambling in the wall street casino, only this time it was 'lives' being bet instead of money. The US lost, by the way, or in other words, those our administration put at risk, DIED. The end result is what I said before.

    Fabrications, question dodging with an out burst that answers none of the hanging questions, indignation (like how dare we question the chief?), all to cover for their disregard for our ambassador's life.

    I guess the terrorists aren't on the run after all, and the world has not been made safe, as we were told.

    The planet doesn't seem all that healed.

    The economy is not really in recovery either. They have just turned up the rate of life support and steroids to make it look better before the election.

    So many lies. Benghazi caused by a video among them.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 12, 2013 9:46 a.m.


    "It matters because those four people may have died to re-elect some guy"

    What a salacious and rediculas comment. How would these peoples deaths - under any circumstances - help anyones election possibilities?

    Whether or not the deaths were caused by a random riot, or a coordinated terorsit attack doesn't change the point that the ambassador went out on the anniversary of 9/11, and that the Lybian security was inadequit, and we didn't have assets staged close enough to help.

    None of this helped Obama. It was not a rallying point. It showed that we are still exposed in dangerous parts of the world. Just like in Turkey, and just like in Algeria.

    The idea this was a ploy to win votes... it just shows how low and base this conversation has gotten.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 12, 2013 8:05 a.m.

    Time for inquiry as to each death in Iraq.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 9:33 p.m.

    It matters because the stories we have been told are fabrications.

    It matters because those four people may have died to re-elect some guy, a mission they didn't willingly sign up for.

    I hope that proves to not be the case, but so far all the stonewalling and fabrications make it look like there is a story here that certain democrats don't want ever known. Let the truth come out and lets make a fully informed determination once and for all.

    I would think the those of the administration would want to clear their names of this, and would cooperate with an investigation, if they have nothing to hide. That just doesn't seem to be the case.

  • homebrew South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    4 americans died. What difference does it make, If the people who killed them were out for a stroll, or were enraged by some video. They died! During the Bush administration 53 americans were killed in embassy's. Not a peep from the democrats demanding accountability. 3,000 people were killed on 9-11. Was the media and the democrats enraged calling for who said what and when? This whole story is the rightwing hate radio clowns stirring it up as a conspiracy, and Fox newsd doing the same. 4 americans died. We need to do whatever we can to make sure it doesnt happen again. Not cry conspiracy, and just keep stirring up the vitriol and hate. Remember 9-11. 3,000 dead. The 53 killed in embassy's under Bush's watch. All that was said about that was" At least he kept us safe" PLEASE!!!

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 12:25 p.m.

    from the transcript,

    "...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 they’d they go kill some Americans?"

    She was dodging even with this statement, because neither of these suggestions are what happened. Why was it so hard to say it was a pre-meditated 9/11 anniversary attack?

    Here are some truths we don't have because they are being withheld:

    Who had the memos requesting additional security and didn't act on them?

    Who were the people fired, and what were their specific failures in performance of duties?

    Who decided, when Great Britain and other countries took their ambassadors out, to we leave ours there with minimal protection?

    (The questions she was asked when she exploded):
    Why were the American people told it was a protest when it wasn't?
    Did you fail to ask survivors what happened?
    Why were there some who knew it was a terrorist attack, while the message to the public was that is was not a terrorist attack?
    Who decided to say publicly, it was a protest?

    The people deserve these truths.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 11, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    "To moral people, the truth always matters."

    I think a more correct interpretation of this statement is to many, being told the truth is a moral imperative, where as telling the truth is sometimes not as necessary.

    The truth here is a mistakes were made. A mistake was made by the Ambassador in keeping a meeting on 9/11 in an unprotected facility, when many warned doing so was unsafe. Read the manuscripts.

    The truth is early on, the government wasn't sure exactly what went wrong, as in 3 other capitals there were protest going on that were about this stupid movie that was made, and in that fog they didn't immediately identify correctly the root cause of those events.

    The truth is Ms. Rice was given bad information in her speech....

    And the truth is none of this proves a conspiracy or gross negligence by anyone. But that truth is not politically expedient. The Obama administration should have answered they weren't sure what happened in those hours followed. People have been fired for their roles. Mistakes have been acknowledged.

    The truth is this is politics - not a quest for truth.

  • Christian 24-7 Murray, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    To moral people, the truth always matters.

    To others, convenient half truths and lies are accepted as truth, because they support what they want to believe.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 11, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    Oh, and also Nate. What excuse? The president requested more funding for security, the Republicans gave him millions less then he asked for. Maybe if the Republicans had not done this these people would still be alive. We will never know will we? But we do know that the President saw a need for additional funding for security to protect Ambasadors and their people, and the Republicans thought this was an area that could be cut. That we do know. It takes some gall for the Republicans to criticize.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 11:39 p.m.


    Charlene Lamb was the one who denied requests for additional security in Benghazi prior to the attack.

    She resigned her position after the Benghazi investigation and report was completed.
    6:53 p.m. Feb. 10, 2013Like (1)
    Report abuse


    Oops Nate. Want to try again?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 10, 2013 8:58 p.m.

    Ok.... I get that Fox and company want to make this the most important story de jour, but lets look at some real problems. In the United States there is on average about 1.5 murders per hour. Put another way, each day, here, in the United States of America, each day, each and every day, there are 10 times more people murdered per day.

    Now we can continue to spend millions of federal dollars trying to figure out who changed the text of Ms. Rice's speach to say these could have come from protest of the movie - as was happening in 3 other cities at the same time, but what will that serve in the end. This is another "is" meaning type moment - a flash back to the Clinton inquiries which again wasted huge amounts of time and funds.

    Every 2.5 hours, more Americans are killed than were killed in this attach - this singular and only attack. This isn't about saving human lives - this is only about politics. If it were about lives, the real problem is here, where likely while you read this site, another American lost their life to murder.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 8:52 p.m.

    Bush didn't blame a video?

    More than a decade later, he has yet to take responsibility...

    *'George W Bush says Iraq intelligence failure is his biggest regret' - By Alex Spillius - 12/01/08 - The UK telegraph

    'Though the outgoing US president failed to take responsibility for the misfortunes that have beset the country during his eight years in office, he was candid about wishing things had gone better.'

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 6:53 p.m.


    Charlene Lamb was the one who denied requests for additional security in Benghazi prior to the attack.

    She resigned her position after the Benghazi investigation and report was completed.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    @mark "Maybe you don't want to rely on blogs at whizbang."

    Or, you could carefully read the article cited, and see that the comparisons were between FY 2011 and FY 2012 (actual funding, not requested funding).

    They got a budget increase in 2012, and Charlene Lamb testified that budget was not a consideration. Find a new excuse.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    To Mike Richards 6:53 a.m. Feb. 9, 2013
    You got the wrong administration. That should have read "GWBush has shown us what happens when an inept President occupies the White House. He has shown the families of those who died in the World Trade Center attack that he considered their lives meaningless, except as an excuse to invade and occupy Iraq, and in the process, voiced his contempt for those he serves.


    To Nate 8:22 a.m. Feb. 9, 2013

    @Roland Kayser

    Bush didn't blame a video.


    No -- unlike the Obama administration, George and his administration refused to accept accountability for his/their actions.


    To DougS 2:36 p.m. Feb. 10, 2013

    You comment is a bit skewed. Yes, the Far Right is doing its best to lie about, and mis-characterize, the Obama administration concerning (among other things) its actions at Benghazi. No, the Obama administration is not lying about (among other things) its actions at Benghazi. It appears that YOU are the one who cannot handle the truth.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 2:36 p.m.

    Tolstoy... I don't believe you could handle the truth. Your post sounds as though you believe the Obama administration was the "Far Right"... Perhaps that is so.. after all, they are the ones lying about Benghazi.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 10, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    We’ll look at both of these justifications, but first, let’s outline what Obama proposed for fiscal year 2012 (figures are rounded):

    Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.45 billion
    Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contingency operations): $247 million
    Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $938 million

    Total: $2.64 billion

    Here’s the amount passed by the House for fiscal 2012 (figures also rounded):

    Worldwide Security Protection (ongoing operations): $1.31 billion
    Worldwide Security Protection (overseas contigency operations): $247 million
    Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance -- Worldwide Security Upgrades: $755 million

    Total: $2.31 billion

    The difference between these two amounts is nearly $327 million --

    The above is from politifact

    So, Nate, you will notice that overseas contingency operations funding is included in the numbers. Maybe you don't want to rely on blogs at whizbang. Just saying.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 10, 2013 12:04 a.m.

    From the Mullens/Pickering ARB:

    "For many years the State Department has been engaged in a struggle to obtain the resources necessary to carry out its work, with varying degrees of success. This has brought about a deep sense of the importance of husbanding resources to meet the highest priorities, laudable in the extreme in any government department. But it has also had the effect of conditioning a few State Department managers to favor restricting the use of resources as a general orientation.

    The solution requires a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs, which, in total, constitute a small percentage both of the full national budget and that spent for national security. One overall conclusion in this report is that Congress must do its part to meet this challenge and provide necessary resources to the State Department to address security risks and meet mission imperatives."

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 9, 2013 11:36 p.m.

    Tea Party rationalizations ===

    4 deaths in Benghazi into creating a Mountain OUT OF of a mole hill.
    4,000 deaths in Iraq/Afghanistan and simply ignoring a Mountain INTO a mole hill.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 10:46 p.m.

    @ECR "...funding for embassy security..."
    @Pagan " to cut security funding..."

    Charlene Lamb, deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, gave testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform as follows:

    Q: “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

    Lamb: "No sir."

    Why would she say this? Because, when you count $236 million in Overseas Contingency Operations funds which were added to the regular budgets for embassy security and worldwide security protection, there was a net *increase* in funding. (See "Obama's New Lie" on wizbang.)

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 9, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    Your source?

    From the ARB (action review board), headed by Admiral Mullen and former Ambassador Pickering:

    "The interagency response was timely and appropriate, but there simply was not enough time given the speed of the attacks for armed U.S. military assets to have made a difference. Senior-level interagency discussions were underway soon after Washington received initial word of the attacks and continued through the night. The Board found no evidence of any undue delays in decision making or denial of support from Washington or from the military combatant commanders. Quite the contrary: the safe evacuation of all U.S. government personnel from Benghazi twelve hours after the initial attack and subsequently to Ramstein Air Force Base was the result of exceptional U.S. government coordination and military response and helped save the lives of two severely wounded Americans. In addition, at the State Department’s request, the Department of Defense also provided a Marine FAST (Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team) as additional security support for Embassy Tripoli on September 12."

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    Under President Obama, the attack on Benghazi and the tragic death of x4 American lives.

    Due, in large part to the Republican House voting to cut security funding to the Benghazi Embassy.

    Under George W. Bush, x12 terrorist attacks to US Embassies and x53 dead Americans.

    This does not include 9/11 or the American lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    You want the truth?

    We loose more Americans under Republican leadership.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    @mountain man
    your right the truth about the tragic lives lost in Benghazi only matter to those of us that wanted the facts. The rest only seek to score cheap political points with their wild conspiracy theories and false claims against our country but we tolerate the incompetence and dishonesty of the far right because we believe in the freedom of speech even when that speech becomes vile.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    the truth stopped being important to the far right the day the event happened this has been nothing but a pathetic atempt to score some cheap political points of these peoples tragic deaths

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 1:54 p.m.

    Spontaneous attack? 3 hours before the attack, the embassy requested additional security.. Military commanders in the area offered a platoon of marines and Air cover from a carrier group.. All were refused! Secy. of State stated that additional security was not possible because congress did not appropriate enough money.. How much would it have cost to simply say "Yes" to the military? No, there are matters of more concern here than what happened in another time or to another regime. There are reasons those security measures were denied, and the citizens need to know them!

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 9, 2013 12:16 p.m.

    From Huffington Post October 10, 2012 "Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

    "On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

    ""Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we’re talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you’re in tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things."

    So Republicans, and their surrogates like Needra Johnson, favor cuts to embassy security and then when that lack of funding results in tragic deaths, they start pointing fingers away from themselves. Typical.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 9, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    From the LA Times, Nov 2012:
    "“The adjustments were focused on producing talking points that provided the best information available at the time, protected sensitive details and reflected the evolving nature of rapidly incoming intelligence…The CIA drafted the initial talking points, and they were not ‘edited to minimize the role of extremists, diminish terrorist affiliations, or play down that this was an attack,’ said a second U.S. official familiar with how the material was edited.”

    From the Wall Street Journal, Dec 2012:

    “The officials said the first draft of the talking points had a reference to al Qaeda but it was removed by the Central Intelligence Agency, to protect sources and protect investigations, before the talking points were shared with the White House. No evidence has so far emerged that the White House interfered to tone down the public intelligence assessment, despite the attention the charge has received.”
    The report says that intelligence officials “still believe the attack was inspired in part by the earlier protest in Cairo over the video.”

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 11:15 a.m.

    Had our Benghazi consulate been attacked by protesters rather than terrorists, do you think Republicans would have eased up on their attacks on Obama? Of course not. Their talking point would have been: If Obama’s people are so incompetent that they can’t even protect our diplomats from mere protesters, just think how vulnerable we are to actual terrorists.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 9, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    What Susan Rice said on ABC 5 days after the attack:

    "Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In CAIRO as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.
    We believe that folks in Benghazi, a small number of people came to the embassy to — or to the consulate, rather, to replicate the sort of challenge that was posed in Cairo. And then as that unfolded, it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in — in the wake of the revolution in Libya are — are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there.
    We’ll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that’s the best information we have at present.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 11:14 a.m.

    Truth is not something we are going to learn about the American foreign policy and it’s consequences.

    By making the Benghazi thing greater that all other things going wrong with our foreign policy the republicans do great harm to their cause. Instead of hurting the Obama election, they helped it.

    On republicans.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Truth does matter. Of course the least honest White House in history was the Bush/Cheney reign so if outraged repubs were honest, their outrage would be directed at Bush/Cheney.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 9:37 a.m.

    Here's Secretary Clinton's entire quote:
    "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to 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.
    Honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is people were trying their best in real time to get to the best information,"
    This was in response to the complaint that Susan Rice, on Sunday talk shows, had referenced the video. And the reality is, the video WAS significant. It HAD led to protests outside many other embassies. Sorting out the differences between those protests and the attack in Benghazi, in real time, with the usual confusion and noise from conflicting intelligence reports, took awhile. What you cannot say, though, is that nobody cared about Americans killed by terrorists, or that there wasn't a concerted effort to figure out what happened, who was responsible, and how best to bring them to justice.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 9:30 a.m.

    This letter smells not of someone seeking some profound 'truth' about Bhengazi but rather the raking of muck.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    During 2000-2008, there were 12 attacks on our embassies resulting in 55 deaths. Anyone else remember Needra's letters to the editors demanding to "get to the bottom of those attacks?"

    Ya... Neither to I.

    Obama won now get over it

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    The truth HAS been told. Again and again.

    But the GOP refuses to listen because they hope they can convince people to vote for them.

    For voters with brains, that won't work.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Feb. 9, 2013 9:04 a.m.

    Actually what the Madame Secretary said was "what does it matter now" after she had given exhaustive testimony about what she had known and not known on that day. What the President knew and didn't know on that day, and about the intense investigations that were taking place regarding what had happened in Bengazi, and in the State Department. She had more than demonstrated her caring her sorrow, and her competence in uncovering the facts of that day and the preceeding days, one of which was that it actually wasn't that easy to know within hours whether or not the video had played any role in the attack. Couch quarterbacking is easy when you have two choices and blind luck awards you a win. What does it matter now was simply a frustrated response to the blind luck struttring of republican senators prancing around spinking the football trying to make political points while the real work was grinding away.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 8:42 a.m.

    Riding the Benghazi phantom media horse illustrates how the conservatives know only how to meanly attack and not govern.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    @Roland Kayser

    Bush didn't blame a video.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    I agree with the letter writer, and I'll take it one step further, Benghazi is the tip of the ice burg of lies told to us. For crying out loud just pass an honest budget!

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 7:08 a.m.

    Looking at video of Hillary's remarks, here's the statement she was responding to.

    Sen. Ron Johnson: "We were misled that there was supposedly protests, and then something sprang out of that, this all 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."

    At issue is the fact that Obama and his cabinet have been caught lying to the American people. A planned al Queda attack on Americans stationed in Libya was inconvenient to Obama's re-election campaign, so he lied about it, and he asked others to lie about it.

    Yes, there are four dead Americans. Why can't the truth be told by the people whose job it was to protect them?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 9, 2013 6:53 a.m.

    Those who think that they are royalty will never consider the consequences of their actions on the lives of the "pawns". They are so full of themselves that they pretend that they are not "temp workers" who work for the people. They think that they can lie. They think that they can cheat. They think that they can misuse power. They think that our purpose is to give them a great big airplane to use as if it were a toy tricycle. They think that our purpose is to entertain them, to feed them, to house them. They forget that they have sworn an oath to God and to the people of this nation to uphold the Constitution and to honorably fulfill the duties of their elected and appointed offices.

    Obama has shown us what happens when an inept President occupies the White House. He has shown the families of those who died in the Benghazi attack that he considered their lives meaningless. His Secretary of State, Hillery Clinton, voiced his contempt for those he serves.

    "What difference does it make?".

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 9, 2013 6:35 a.m.

    During the presidency of George Bush Jr. there were several attacks on U.S. embassies resulting in over fifty American deaths. Yet the people who are screaming the loudest about Benghazi never uttered a peep in response to all those attacks.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Feb. 9, 2013 6:28 a.m.

    Benghazi only matters to Americans who demand honesty and integrity from their government. All others need not be concerned, need not apply and demand we ignore this and sweep it under the rug along with fast and furious, the white house intelligent leaks and other scandals! More evidence of the very low level to which our country has declined;that we would put up with this incompetence and dishonesty.