Explaining Benghazi

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    May 14, 2013 4:30 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    Let's see...

    Deflecting blame for Fast & Furious worked
    Deflecting blame for fiscal irresponsibility worked
    Deflecting blame for Solydra worked
    Deflecting blame for sluggish economy worked
    Blaming Republicans for EVERY national problem has worked
    Blaming Republicans for interest in the Benghazi debacle has mostly worked
    Slamming at every possible event: Republicans, Tea Partiers, Conservatives, and anyone who dares disagree with him has worked.

    The only thing the Obama Administration has in their arsenal is to deflect blame. With a heretofore willing press to peddle his propaganda, I'm sure he's comfortable with Hillary's protective bubble.

    But now they've bitten the hand that fed his hubris, and offended journalists are now feasting on the previously impervious beast they helped to create.

    Facts will be very inconvenient to Democrats in 2016 when (if?) the press actually pays attention to them.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 11:49 p.m.

    When is the investigation of the Iraq war deaths and decision to boot boots on the ground?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 13, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    Let see...

    Sarah Palin didn't work,
    Mitt Romney didn't work,
    Hispanics, Women, Young People, GLBTs, the Poor, the Elderly and every other minority group didn't work,
    Fiscal Cliff didn't work,
    Invading other countries didn't work,

    the only thing the GOP has left is to publically embarass and blame Hillary Clinton from running in 2016.

    Based on everything else they've tried, the Party of "NO" plan to win the WhiteHouse in 2016 isn't going to work this time either.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 13, 2013 4:14 p.m.


    Apparently you haven't been following the Benghazi hearings last week and the testimony of EACH of the witnesses. Am I correct? I guess all these witnesses were lying too ..huh? You just can't get yourself to accept the fact that your king is corrupt can you ...along with his jesters. If you refuse to turn off MSNBC then I'm sorry for you. The facts speak for themselves and they don't lie ...unlike your leader. Don't really feel like recounting all the facts and the timeline but suffice to say 4 hero's died in Benghazi and 2 disgraceful cowards were re-elected. By the way...I would bet you are perhaps one of two people left in the US who still believes this terrorist attack had anything to do with a video...you and Jay Carney. Actually Jay - like Susan Rice - is told what to say and when to say it irrespective of common sense.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 12, 2013 10:06 a.m.

    "However in this discussion, since in fact the lies are being told ABOUT Hillary Clinton in an attempt to smear her, and are not being told BY her, your comment misses the point."

    Oh, so it was mob violence incited by an anti-Muslim video? Thanks for clearing it all up for us, Furry. I thought Obama said it was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden.

    You democrats can't have things both ways. Nixon was put under pressure after trying to cover up Watergate. Let's see how much pressure democrats put Obama under now that we know he covered up Benghazi.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2013 2:01 a.m.

    This is the Republicans only hope. Sad.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2013 8:22 p.m.

    You're admitting lying and incompetence on the part of the administration, but think it's just fine because of past problems? In those instances have you documented lying and cover up as happened after Benghazi? The White House has never said the problem was lack of funding for security. Nice try at letting the administration off the hook.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 11, 2013 5:48 p.m.

    @regis 5:20 p.m. May 10, 2013

    "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like (heck)." - quoted by an Illinois native, Carl Sandburg, in The People, Yes (1936)

    Hilary seems to have learned that adage pretty well.


    I know that adage -- I learned it in law school over 25 years ago. However in this discussion, since in fact the lies are being told ABOUT Hillary Clinton in an attempt to smear her, and are not being told BY her, your comment misses the point.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    May 11, 2013 3:34 p.m.

    When government officials lie to protect their reputation they have already lost. Time and the truth always reveal their foolishness.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    May 11, 2013 7:44 a.m.

    The real truth: Bengazi, Americans were dying, Obama is still lying!

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    May 11, 2013 7:03 a.m.

    UtahBlueDevil: "Ok... it was a terrorist act versus a random act by a militia gone out of control. Now what. How does this change the task ahead? What difference does this now make?

    It makes a big difference because the lying was going on during a presidential election and the lying was to deflect attention away from Obama so he wouldn't have to pay a political price for his cowardice. Perhaps the deaths would have occurred anyway but the response and the lying about it for political purposed was was disgraceful and showed how little character Obama has. How far would Nixon have gotten if he used the excuse you use: "What difference does this now make?" Republicans didn't support Nixon when he lied. Perhaps it is time for the Democrats to stand up and be Americans instead of political wimps.

  • aceroinox Farmington, UT
    May 11, 2013 1:41 a.m.

    Any one who sincerely thinks this is "no big deal" has not watched this week's Congressional hearing. If you had, you would be as outraged as the rest of us:
    - All the intel from those on the ground in Libya indicated this was a terrorist attack from the beginning. Ignoring that, the President, Secretary Clinton, and Ambassador Rice all blamed it on an obscure YouTube video that was not an issue in Libya.
    - Our security forces already in Libya who were primed to board the C-130 to Benghazi to protect and rescue our personnel were twice told to stand down.
    - When Congressman Chaffetz flew to Libya to investigate on behalf of the Congressional oversight committee, the State Department instructed Greg Hick, the head of mission in Libya, to not allow himself to be interviewed or to be one-on-one with Chaffetz.
    - Several key eye witnesses were not interviewed by the State Department's Accountability Review Board, which was charged with investigating the incident.
    - No stenographer was present during the ARB's interviews. Witnesses were not allowed to review the ARB's report to ensure their testimony was entered accurately.
    ...and there is MUCH more. Watch the hearing!

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 10, 2013 11:42 p.m.

    Oh boy, where do I begin?

    To those pointing out the embassy attacks when Bush was president, the lack out outrage is due to the fact that Bush didn't cover up the facts with lies.

    "Obviously no one, including Obama and Clinton wanted any Americans to get killed."

    Obviously the order for the reinforcements to "stand down" was to protect the ambassador and his protectors. That makes sense.

    "So again. What is the big scandal?"

    The scandal is that the White House knew an attack was happening, gave orders to stand down, knew the attack was from an armed militia group but called it mob violence, only to say later that they knew it was a terrorist attack.

    Obama is lying. You can't have it both ways: Obama claimed that he called it a terrorist attack from the beginning (see the presidential debate), but it is also true that he called it mob violence resulting from the video. So, which is it, Obama? Mob violence or terrorist attack? If you knew it was a terrorist attack, why did you even bother with the "mob violence" excuse? Anyone, please feel free to answer.

    That is the scandal.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 10, 2013 8:11 p.m.

    @Open Minded
    Maybe some of the conservatives want to blame poor intelligence and that Bush made a "mistake" like liberals want everyone to thnk about Benghazi. As I've already stated, I think both administrations lied, in both their respective cases. Politicians lie to cover up what is politically detrimental, or take political advantage depending on the circumstances. I believe the Obama administration did make a mistake, and then lied about it to minimize or escape blame. I believe the Bush administration lied about WMDs so we would all be sent on a wild goose chase while he used military power to secure american oil interests in the middle east. That's just my opinion, however, because if there's anything harder than believing a politicians words, it's proving beyond a reasonable doubt they in fact lied and covered their tracks.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 10, 2013 7:33 p.m.

    "I don't see how it's politically advantageous for the administration to lie for a week before getting it straightened out. Logically it makes more sense for this to be a result of just being wrong".

    I don't discredit that there may have just been mistakes, but this was a pretty costly mistake if that's in fact the case. Emails suggest the administration and state department knew these were terrorist attacks shortly afterward and instead chose to continue peddling the youtube video. You honestly don't see how covering up what may have even been a mistake is advantageous? Maybe the question is better stated as, did the WH and state dept lie to cover up their misjudgment and ineptitude ("just being wrong") to prevent themselves from being blamed, which would have been politically detrimental, rather than advantageous. That is certainly a plausible scenario. All I'm suggesting is our government officials are corrupt from the top down and aisle to aisle, and to assume any of them are honest even some of the time is a naive assumption.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    May 10, 2013 6:34 p.m.

    Hey Open Minded Mormon I agree with you on a lot of what Bush did wrong with the long term wars. Bush never told the American people that he wanted to break Iraq then stay around for 10 years to try to fix it with a democracy. He misled us by only talking about WMD to justify getting us into the war. Shame on him and his administration for that. That includes Powell, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, ect. However, I'd be careful about the 3 trillion of un-funded spending if you are trying to defend Obama. Obama has doubled the un-funded spending to about 6 trillion.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 10, 2013 6:20 p.m.

    I can't help but notice the lack of integrity amongst the uber-cons.

    I previously noted I would be happy to share in their outrage over how the Obama administration has handled Benghazi...

    But ONLY by the same mete and measure as Bush's lies and deceptions over WMD's, 175,00 dead Iraqi's, 5,000 dead American's, 75,000 American casualties, and $3 Trillion in un-necessary and un-funded spending.

    But Mike Richards, J Thompson and the like can't even come to terms or man up that Bush did ANYTHING wrong.

    Benghazi was a mistake. There - I admit it, and I support your stupid witch-hunt.


  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    May 10, 2013 6:05 p.m.

    To all of you who think the Bush administration attacks prove something. The point is, Bush DID NOT lie to the American people about what they were. Terriorist attacks. Obama and Hillary and others made up a story. That is what this is all about. The lies. And of course the non-rescue and stand down. Remember, most of the Watergate folks were caught for lying under oath. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath. Lying to the American people is serious when you have been given the trust to hold public office. So, you Obama supporters, get that straight.

  • regis Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 5:20 p.m.

    "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like (heck)." - quoted by an Illinois native, Carl Sandburg, in The People, Yes (1936)

    Hilary seems to have learned that adage pretty well.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 10, 2013 5:07 p.m.

    Why do liberals try to divert attention away from Obama's lies and deceptions by telling us that Bush "killed" thousands or even hundreds of thousands? Does that diversion change Obams's culpability? Using that same logic, how many thousands has Obama "killed"?

    Obama lied. Hillary Clinton lied. Susan Rice lied. They lied about the cause of the Benghazi terrorist attack. They lied about the people who attacked Americans. They lied about what we could have done. They lied and lied and lied.

    Bill Clinton lied about having sex with an intern. For his lies, he was impeached. No one died in that incident.

    Richard Nixon lied about Watergate. His lies concerned what happened AFTER the burglary. No one was killed. He resigned for the "good of the Country" when it was obvious that the next step was impeachment.

    Obama watched the attack in the "ready room". He saw what was happening with his own eyes. He saw that terrorists were attacking Americans on American soil. He chose to do nothing - then he lied about what happened.

    What is at issue is the fact that he lied - repeatedly.

    Is he better than Nixon or Clinton?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    George W. Bush took us to war in Iraq on false pretenses where several thousand people died unnecessarily. Obama's team mishandled a situation and straightened it out within two weeks. Conservatives are such hypocrites.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 10, 2013 4:24 p.m.

    Patriot.... you know... when you can point to a perfect republican... oh wait... conservative, please do so.

    The facts were there were multiples of riots that day in multiple cities. That is a fact. Many of these 'disturbances' did have a element of that stupid film as their basis. This too is a fact. In the larger scope, no one, not even the smartest republican/conservative could tell you which groups were doing which riots.

    This idea that you have found the smoking gun of this administration... that this is evidence of gross incompetence shows just how thin and weak the anti-everything argument has gotten. If this is absolutely the worst thing that comes out, we are all lucky.

    You all really need to find something more constructive to do with your lives. The endless pursuit of everything and anything negative is really sad. There are so many ways to create and impact change.... running with this media hyped stuff is sad.

    Richards... over 100,000 civilians died under Bush. 3,000 Americans died under Bush. Tens of thousands of American soldiers came home from Iraq dead or injured under Bush.

    Your indignation feels hollow

  • Ajax Mapleton, UT
    May 10, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    The DN article on the Benghazi controversy is unfortunately another example of the ends justifying the means. Whether the assault on the U.S. consulate was planned or spontaneous or even spun one way or the other in the immediate aftermath of the attack is of little real import, as numerous posters have well explained.

    Rather, besmirching the Democrats and in particular Hillary Clinton (of whom I'm no fan) seems to be the DN design. And for me this is the problem. If Democratic policies and Hillary Clinton are what troubles you, then why not say so? I respect that. But why the need to always resort to trumped up, falsely exaggerated charges to somehow "prove" your point of view? Why not leave that to Rush, Sean, Dick and Ann?

    In the meantime where do we turn for legitimate honest news coverage and informed opinions?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 10, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    Those who are covering for Obama need to compare what he did to what happened to Nixon. Nixon was not in the "ready room" watching the Watergate BURGLARY. In Watergate, nobody died. Now let's look at Benghazi. Obama was in the "ready room". Obama knew that people were going to die. Obama knew that Tyrone Woods had "painted the target".

    Nixon covered up a BURGLARY.

    Obama is trying to cover up death and destruction to Americans by terrorists.

    There is a difference in magnitude. What Obama did during and after the terrorist attack is far worse than what Nixon did.

    The Democrats railroaded Nixon out of office for lying. Now they're covering for Obama for lying and for allowing the death of Americans on his watch when he could have done something to try to help. Democrats are covering for Obama and his administration when they decided to LIE about Benghazi. Democrats are telling us that Benghazi happened a long time ago.

    How LONG did it take Democrats to drive Nixon out of office?

    How long will they support a President who makes Nixon look like an angel?

    People DIED. Obama LIED.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 1:48 p.m.

    The left wing around the country and especially liberal DN readers are in full panic mode, DefCon 4. In the second presidential debate Mr. Obama was offended when Mr. Romney implied that there was a Benghazi coverup. He vowed that he would never politicize the affair. Mitt was right on. Congressional hearings clearly have shown that Benghazi was politicized and that the president, Ms. Clinton, Susan Rice and Jay Carney lied. Liberals try to deflect and talk about Bush, Fox News, et al, anything but the incompetence and mendacity in the White House. It's all very Nixonesque. As David Geffen, the liberal billionaire, said when he stopped supporting them, the Clintons are not truthful. There seems to be contagion at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 10, 2013 1:42 p.m.

    @Furry1993 "...decreased funding for embassy security..."

    From an oversight hearing, Oct. 10, 2012 --

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

    Charlene Lamb: "No, sir."

    Recall that Charlene Lamb's job was on the line, and that she was in fact, later removed from her position. If lack of budget had offered her a job-saving excuse, don't you think she would have taken advantage of it?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 10, 2013 1:28 p.m.

    "are so eerily silent when it comes to John swallow. Why is that?" Maverick, the John Swallow problem has been turned over to independent investigation. What you are disappointed in, is the failure to convict on the word of Jim Dubakkis.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 10, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    Benghazi was just a spontaneous protest due to a video produced by a right wing guy slamming Muslims. Barack and Hilary did everything in their power to save the lives of the 4 who were killed. Barack and Hilary are so sad that this "spontaneous protest" ever happened and wish people would be responsible before making U-Tube videos. We are all thankful for the ever-watchful eye of our great leaders to protect us and come to our aid when threats occur. Oh... and there was no cover up or lying or politics involved either... just so you know. It is imperative that we prepare Hilary Clinton for her first term as president of the United States in 2016 and keep her from silly distractions such as this little Benghazi thing...where 4 brave Americans lost their lives. Just remember - Obama is honest and so is Hilary and we can always trust them to tell the truth.

    This completes the MSNBC talking points for the day....

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 1:26 p.m.

    I don't see how it's politically advantageous for the administration to lie for a week before getting it straightened out. Logically it makes more sense for this to be a result of just being wrong.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 10, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    "The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself politically."

    What a silly comment. If it had immediately been acknowledged that this was a terrorist retaliation for the taking of Osama bin Laden..... what political damage would Obama incurred. What?

    4 people were killed - one an ambassador. This is administration shaking news if it were the result of terrorist? Why now... and not when 3,000 civilians were killed on US soil.... or a couple hundred marines in Lebanon.... or sailors on a US Destroyer bombed in the gulf. What "damage" was he trying to protect himself from.

    The partisan attacks over this event started before the bodies of these 4 men were even extracted. The Republicans wanted their WMD moment. They are still looking for that WMD moment. This isn't it.

    It is tragic. It showed failures in our system, by career people who were long in place before this administration was a twinkling in anyones eye.

    Obama is no more to blame for this, then is Bush to blame for 9/11. Sometimes world events get out of our control. Get used to it.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 10, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    Obama and Clinton lied then covered up ... helped of course by their ever ready media outlets of NBC - CBS and CNN. You would have to either be living in a log cabin in the deep woods of Montana or be a regular MSNBC viewer to not know this whole ugly thing was a tragic and treasonous cover up - for political purposes. Barack Obama will do ANYTHING to retain power and I think he even surprised his most hardened attackers at the levels he will stoop to in order to win an election. The man is a corrupt Chicago political machine - void of conscious and honor. Clinton is a chip off the same ugly block. Both are disgraceful traitors that not only embarrassed the US in Benghazi but were THE reason 4 Americans hero's lost their lives.

    The aftermath of Benghazi - 4 dead hero's and 2 re-elected cowards. Sorry liberals but your king has no clothes.

  • Cougsndawgs West Point , UT
    May 10, 2013 12:30 p.m.

    I find the comments on this piece both laughable and fascinating. The finger pointing of the left saying the right is trying to make Obama look bad, the right pointing to the left saying they lied.
    NEWS FLASH- THIS JUST IN...politicians lie! It never ceases to crack me up how dems delude themselves into thinking Obama is honest and doesn't lie...why? Because he's liberal and sits on the same side of the aisle as you? Same goes for republicans and neo cons...delude themselves into thinking bush was honest and never covered anything up...as if oil had nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
    C'mon people. Politicians lie to gain favor and get votes, and regardless of which side of the aisle we sit is it really so hard to believe that, god forbid, Hillary Rodham or Obama would actually lie to gain political advantage? That bush would lie to maintain America's energy interests in the Middle East? Maybe in both Benghazi and Iraq they were errant or telling the truth, but to fight each other about a politicians ethics is an exercise in futility.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    May 10, 2013 12:28 p.m.

    So let's say that Susan Rice had said 'terrorist attack' instead of 'spontaneous attack arising out of video protests.' How would anything be any different? What matters is catching the guys who did it, and improving embassy security. Neither of which was impacted by a few comments on Sunday talk shows.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 10, 2013 11:48 a.m.

    It's so odd to me that those who scream so loudly against Clinton and Obama are so eerily silent when it comes to John swallow. Why is that?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 10:46 a.m.

    After perusing your comment I think you're bitter Romney lost and have no sense of what law is in this nation. At this point Republicans have beaten this dead horse so bad they've got nothing but a bottle of glue to show for it.

    "Obama's lies don't matter. "

    There's a difference between lying and being wrong.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 10:44 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    "Benghazi makes Watergate look like a Sunday School picnic. "

    Are you kidding me? Watergate involved criminal action. Benghazi involves sloppy mistakes. I'm not sure what your logic would then extrapolate to when it comes to the failure of stopping 9-11 or the blunderous war in Iraq for phantom WMDs.

    "The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself politically."

    Actually he did call it an act of terror in the Rose Garden (thinking that was a reference to 9-11 is incorrect, he was clearly talking about the current event that took place) and took responsibility for the failure in the 2nd debate.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 10, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    Oh please. When the Republicans confess their grotesque manipulation of the truth in the run-up to Iraq and apologize to the THOUSANDS of dead and the American taxpayer footing a trillion-dollar war bill--at that moment I will start believing this Benghazi thing is anything but a nasty little political tantrum. In the meantime, spare me your ridiculous outrage.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 10, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    8 months later Carney is outraged at being asked about something 'so yesterday'. Really?? So maybe we should just drop charges and investigations for all crimes older than 8 months? The criminals would love that.

    From the article, "What difference, at this point, does it make?" asked former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her testimony before Congress, implicitly conceding that the Obama administration had been less than truthful — but so what?

    So apparently they frequently tell filthy lies to cover heinous acts, and they are accustomed to getting away with it. What have we missed?

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 10, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    So the jest of your comment LDS Liberal, is that President Bush lied and thousands died because of it. So because Bush lied, Obama's lies don't matter.

    Remember, before you vote for Hillary in 2016, she lied about WMD's in Iraq, and she lied about Benghazi. Her honesty factor is very low.

    And you are aware Obama has continued to prosecute the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. (For Oil?) He still has not removed all troops from these countries and continues to block oil development at home requiring continued dependence on oil in Iraq. And don't say for humanitarian reasons, because he along with Bush did nothing for Darfur.

  • Ralph Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 10:22 a.m.

    "what would have changed politically is that a large chunk of the rationale for Obama's reelection was that the death of bin Laden had the terrorists on the run, so acknowledging the fact that terror is still alive and well would have undermined a key component of Obama's reelection strategy."

    Ah yes, and had a "key component of Obama's reelection strategy" been undermined, he would not have been re-elected, and Hillary's chances for election would be diminished as well.

    Thus, we know the impetus for all the uproar.

    This whole contrived "cover-up" what is known in the international diplomacy arena as a big "nothin-burger".

    Enjoy your lunch, Fox "News" acolytes.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 10, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    KJB1 and Ranch, Your right where is the outrage, oh wait, you know what happened under Bush, The issue is not the attacks, the issue is the lying coverup. Remember Clinton was not brought up for impeachment because of the Monica stupidity. It was because he lied about it.
    The reason Bush's popularity dropped is because a majority of country believed he lied to them.

    As now reported on CBS, CNN, NBC, and ABC, the President lied, Hillary Clinton lied, George Peneta lied, Susan Rice lied. A man's integrity is only as good as his first lie.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 10, 2013 10:14 a.m.

    The lives of Americans killed by terrorists on American soil are not important to the Left. They cover up the ineptitude of a President who did nothing as Commander in Chief. They cover up the lies told to the entire world after the Benghazi attack. They cover up the fact that Tyrone Woods "painted" the target, meaning that there was either an armed drone or an armed aircraft in the immediate area that had the the capability to strike that target. They cover up the fact that Tyrone Woods was killed because "painting" the target revealed his location to the terrorists. They cover up the fact that Tyrone Woods was told to "stand down". They cover up the fact that because Tyrone Woods disobeyed a direct order, that more than thirty Americans were saved.

    They cover up. They twist. They distort. They pretend that Obama was not responsible for "doing nothing" in a time of crisis. That "doing nothing" is the problem. He chose to let Americans die and then to lie about it because he was in the middle of an election.

    He won the election, but he lost everything that was important in life.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 10, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    This horse is dead. But republicans can make it live and breathe again.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 10, 2013 9:39 a.m.

    Johnson: When was the first time you spoke to, or have you ever spoken to, the returnees, the evacuees? Did you personally speak to those folks?

    Clinton: ..I waited until after the ARB had done its investigation because I did not want there to be anybody raising any issue that I had spoken to anyone before the ARB conducted its investigation.

    Clinton: I would recommend highly you read what the ARB said, because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown

    Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests...
    Clinton: With all due respect, 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 that they’d they go 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.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 10, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    REP. RAUL LABRADOR (R-ID): I just have a quick question for Lieutenant Colonel Wood and Mr. Nordstrom. Given the information that you saw on TV and your knowledge of the situation in Libya, did you come to a conclusion as to whether this was a terrorist act or whether it was based on some film that was on the Internet?

    NORDSTROM: The -- the first impression that I had was that it was going to be something similar to one of the brigades that we saw there, specifically the -- the brigade -- and it's been named in the press -- that came to my mind was Ansar al-Sharia.

    It was a -- a unit or a group that Lieutenant Colonel Wood's personnel and I had -- had tracked for quite some time, we were concerned about. That specific group had been involved in a similar but obviously much smaller scale incident at the end of June involving the Tunisian consulate in Benghazi where they stormed that facility and it was in protest to what they claimed was an anti-Islamic film in Tunis. [House Oversight Committee hearing on consulate security in Benghazi, 10/11/120

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    May 10, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    Having just perused a "time line" recap of the events concerning Bengazi, I am of the opinion that: 1. Hillary should be charged with lying to congress. 2. Obama should be impeached for complicity in the deaths of American Embassy personnel. John Boener should be awakened and asked to take the lead in the foregoing actions.. BTW, none of the time line data was published in the Des News...

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 10, 2013 9:14 a.m.

    I will join the FoxNews/uber-Cons outrage with Benghazi,

    With precisely the exact same mete and measure of outrage that I do the OTHER Consulate and Embassies attacks under GW Bush, and the 5,000 men and women killed, and 35,000 seriously maimed and wounded though out the Middle Eastern Wars for Oil [not counting the 55,000 soliders who've committed suicide since returning home, or the 200,000 soliders still suffering permanent hearing loss and PTSD].

    So, let's see .. Benghazi?

    There, are you happy now?

  • patriot vet Cedar City, UT
    May 10, 2013 9:10 a.m.

    From the different versions of the news stories and the wildly different opinions from the commenters, it is clear that the first 5 days after the Benghazi attacks our govenment was in the "fog-of-terrorist-attack" (similar to fog-of-war). The same conditions have occurred in virtually every terrorist attack. And the same outcomes: (1) We find out who did it. (2) We kill them. (3) We learn from it. (4) It happens again, in a different way.

    Now the politicos take hold and the spins are running. One of the problems is the purpose of the political skirmish is not to correct or fix anything. It is simply to make one or the other party look bad for purely political purposes. The Congress (Senate and House) have become so bitterly divided that all possble means are employed to increase the division.

    I hope the vast majority of Americans can see through and beyond the political games at play.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 10, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Republicans are shooting spitballs at the wall in an effort to discredit Hillary Clinton. Remember when they accused Hillary of faking illness--a concussion--to avoid having to testify before Congress? Remember when Congressional Republicans spent 10 days and 140 hrs investigating the Clinton's Christmas Card list?

    "Remember how Senate Intelligence committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) delayed until after the 2004 elections any investigation into how the administration might have misused intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war? Well, in late April he announced his intention to again postpone that still-unfinished investigation, presumably until after the 2006 elections. In March, his committee also rejected, on a straight party-line vote, a Democratic call for a probe of the administration's wiretapping program. Senate Republicans have blocked the Armed Services committee from hearing the testimony of the retired generals who have publicly called for Rumsfeld's resignation.
    (Washington Monthly June 2006)

    Do Republicans seriously think this is going to help them in the next election?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 10, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    "what would have changed politically is that a large chunk of the rationale for Obama's reelection was that the death of bin Laden had the terrorists on the run, so acknowledging the fact that terror is still alive and well would have undermined a key component of Obama's reelection strategy."

    Gee, and all this time I thought that Obama won reelection because he gave away all that free stuff.

    The American people know without doubt that "terror is still alive and well" The attack on the embassy in Benghazi did not change that. Give the American people more credit than that.

    And, sorry to say, there will be more. And they will happen under GOP presidents and they will happen under Democratic presidents.

    If you think differently, you have a naive world view when it comes to terrorism.

    And Mountanman

    "there were 54 terrorist attacks during the Bush administration with no investigation"

    Why no investigations? Maybe because the Democrats didn't push them for purely partisan reasons. As has been detailed. There were many similar attacks during Bush.

    To say that they were all "Al Qaida attacks during the Iraq war, IN Iraq." is clearly not true.

  • JerseyGirl Sandy, UT
    May 10, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    Autocorrect got me. Don't know what "ponta Roy" is. I was trying to say "spontaneous."

    Roland, Obama did no such thing. He said "no acts of terror" will shake this nation, referring specifically to the 9/11 attacks in 2001. To claim he was referencing Benghazi, which he continually blamed on YouTube in the remarks you cite, is revisionist history.

    Truthseeker, you are citing discredited sources. Even the Obama administration has even forced to concede that there was never any doubt this had nothing to do with the video.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 10, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    "As the Intelligence Community collects and analyzes more information related to the attack, our understanding of the event continues to evolve. In the immediate aftermath, there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests earlier that day at our embassy in Cairo. We provided that initial assessment to Executive Branch officials and members of Congress, who used that information to discuss the attack publicly and provide updates as they became available. Throughout our investigation we continued to emphasize that information gathered was preliminary and evolving."
    ( Shawn Turner, Office of National Intelligence 9/28/12)

    "To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video.. A spokesman for Ansar al-Shariah praised the attack as the proper response to such an insult to Islam. "We are saluting our people for this zeal in protecting their religion, to grant victory to the Prophet," the spokesman said.
    (NYTimes 10/15/12)

  • JerseyGirl Sandy, UT
    May 10, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    JoeBlow, when you know there was now ponta Roy's demonstration, and you repeatedly and loudly claim there was, that's a lie. Hardly a stretch. And what would have changed politically is that a large chunk of the rationale for Obama's reelection was that the death of bin Laden had the terrorists on the run, so acknowledging the fact that terror is still alive and well would have undermined a key component of Obama's reelection strategy. Easy peasy - no conspiracy theory required.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 10, 2013 8:27 a.m.

    The outrage over the Benghazi attack was drummed up by Fox News to defeat Obama in the last election. Now it's being used to defeat Clinton in the next election. It was a tragedy, there was certainly incompetence involved, but that's it.

    As to the video, there were demonstrations about it in many Arab countries going on at the time. It was not unreasonable to think that this was part of those same demonstrations. But the president did call the attack "an act or terror" the very next da6y.

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    May 10, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    Thanks for the editorial. I have tweeted and asked why Des News wasn't covering the hearing.
    Dems don't seem to understand what a cover up is. They sure knew when it was Nixon who was trying to cover up a 3rd rate bungled burglary. It was never proved that he knew anything about it before it happened.

    Now we have a pres and sec of state who lied about the reason for the attack. Why?

    The pres made 1 phone call. Where was he the rest of the night? Why wasn't he engaged and sending help? They had asked over and over for more security and Hillary turned them down and even reduced security-Valerie Jarrett has more security in the WH than Amb Stevens had. Hillary said she never knew about it. Emails say differently.

    Remember 0bama had destroyed terrorists & these were terrorists.
    They also have put a target on the back of the film maker, who still is in jail.

    Lying about this? What else? Cost of health care? Fast & Furious?
    Is it OK for the pres to lie to the American people?
    I submit it isn't!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 10, 2013 8:19 a.m.

    "The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself politically"

    Quite the stretch.

    But, lets say you are correct. Lets say that they knew it was the work of terrorists but initially claimed it was a spontaneous demonstration.

    How did it "protect him politically"?
    What would have changed for him politically had he claimed it was terrorism?

    Take your assertions to their conclusion.

    I am still curious......

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 10, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    To those how claim there were 54 terrorist attacks during the Bush administration with no investigation you are being dishonest! You are counting Al Qaida attacks during the Iraq war, IN Iraq. Another difference is the Sec of State didn't lie about the attacks in Iraq and blame it on a video no one saw. Hillary is lying and she knows she is lying. The 3rd difference is that the Benghazi attack was down played and lied about to deflect White House malfeasance during an election. Just come clean! If what Hillary is saying is true she ahs nothing to fear! Its the constant cover-up the lying and the stone walling that is the problem.

  • JerseyGirl Sandy, UT
    May 10, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    The scandal is that Obama deliberately lied to protect himself politically. They knew from the first moment that there was no spontaneous demonstration, but they lied, because the guy who got bin Laden was uncomfortable acknowledging a terrorist attack just weeks before an election. Citing all the times embassies were attacked under Bush misses the point entirely. If Bush had gone before the United Nations, as Obama did, and claimed those attacks were not the work of terrorists but rather spontaneous YouTube video demonstrations that got out of hand, the press would still be hounding him about it today. This is a huge double standard.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 10, 2013 7:43 a.m.

    "So the new approach, it seems, is to pretend it doesn't matter." ..and just how does it matter what it's called at the moment of occurrence or even shortly thereafter? That was Hillary's point, and it's still the point.

    Albeit Mr. Richards is not accurate..at all..about the readiness of the military to respond, but even if he was, would it make a difference to the military if those calling for help said we're under a terrorist attack or just said we're under attack and we think it started when a mob got out of control?

    Benghazi makes Watergate look like a Sunday school picnic. And I suppose it probably makes the Iran Contra deal look like child's play. That is really funny Mike. If you recall multiple people went to jail in both instances. Even if someone should have called Benghazi a terrorist attack how many years in jail do you get for that?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 10, 2013 7:24 a.m.

    I consider Benghazi a breakdown. It was unfortunate and certainly in hindsight should have been handled differently.

    But, I dont see the big scandal.

    Obviously no one, including Obama and Clinton wanted any Americans to get killed.

    So again. What is the big scandal?

    Is it because it was initially NOT called a terrorist attack?

    In hindsight, had it been called a Terrorist attack from the onset, what would have changed?

    Would the Americans still be alive?

    Would Romney won the election? Is that what some think?

    As has been pointed out, there are many killed in Embassy's over time.

    Yes, it is tragic and sad. But, hardly unprecedented.

    So again. Someone explain. What is the big scandal?

    I sincerely don't get it.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 10, 2013 6:13 a.m.

    "The administration's cynical manipulation of this story "

    Really.... The political exploitation of these events is the most blatant example of partisanship at any cost I have seen in a long time. The millions of dollars and distraction away from other issues this nation is spending on determining if this was a terrorist act or the random result of a mob gotten out of control show how the cost of a partisan victory has no upper limit.

    Ok... it was a terrorist act versus a random act by a militia gone out of control. Now what. How does this change the task ahead? What difference does this now make?

    I am all in favor of getting to the root cause of the intelligence failure and if anything could have been done in response. But as one who works in the oil and gas business.... I fail to see the same quest for answers for the families of those killed on Deep Sea Horizon. Nor do I see a rush to hearings to see how three young lades could be held sex slaves for 10 years. Why are these failures ok?

    This is partisanship - not a quest for justice.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 10, 2013 6:05 a.m.

    Excellent summary of facts that needed to be written. That editorial should be written in every newspaper in America and every American citizen should read and ponder the facts instead of allowing press secretaries to distort history so that Obama will not be "embarrassed".

    Benghazi makes Watergate look like a Sunday School picnic. It's time that Obama was held accountable for his actions as Commander In Chief. It's time that everyone involved in the Benghazi cover-up be held accountable. Lives were lost. American lives. The military was ready and willing to act. The military was ordered to "stand down". Who issued that order? Who commanded military commanders to NOT do their duty to protect American soil and Americans who were on that soil when those Americas were under attack by terrorists?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 10, 2013 5:51 a.m.

    US Embassy and Consulate attacks under George W. Bush

    Jan 22, 2002; US Consulate at Kolkata, 5 killed
    Jun 14, 2002; US Consulate at Karachi, 12 killed
    Feb 28, 2003; US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 killed
    Jun 30, 2004; US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 killed
    Dec 6, 2004; US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 killed
    Mar 2, 2006; US Consulate in Karachi; 2 killed
    Sep 12, 2006; US Embassy at Syria, 4 killed
    Mar 18, 2008; US Embassy at Yemen, 2 killed
    Jul 9, 2008; US Consulate as Istanbul, 6 killed
    Sep 17, 2008; US Embassy at Yemen, 16 killed

    Total deaths: 60
    Outraged Republicans: 0

    Can we spell Hypocrites?

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 5:44 a.m.

    The Obama administration was covertly supplying arms from Benghazi to Turkey and transshipping to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria, in violation of UN declarations. This explains the reduction in Benghazi security and ham-fisted coverup. When Al Queda learned of the arms shipments to the Muslim Brotherhood they tried to kill Ambassador Chris Stevens who was coordinating the arms shipments. Al Queda is the enemy of Saudi Arabia, which supports and finances the spread of Wahhabism throughout the world, hoping to establish a Caliphate, initially by subterfuge and then by force.

    The Obama administration now has many Muslim Brotherhood operatives who are eliminating any reference to Muslim jihad in our military and State Department. The administration refuses to call Muslim jihad by its proper name and instead uses terms such as "workplace violence". Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood is killing and abusing hundreds of Christians and causing tens of thousands of Christians to flee their native counties.

    Why is our government supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and its killing and abusing of Christians in the Middle East? Barack Hussein Obama has no satisfactory explanation.

    Is the Obama Administration supporting the greatest threat to the United States of America?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 10, 2013 5:40 a.m.

    In this discussion, please have Jason Chaffetz explain why he willingly decreased funding for embassy security, and why he is not being held accountable for that now.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    May 10, 2013 5:34 a.m.

    Nothing became of Fast and Furious, What am I to expect from Benghazi. Trust and confidence, What a Joke. no one is laughing.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    May 10, 2013 1:32 a.m.

    There were 54 attacks on diplomatic targets during the Bush administration that resulted in the deaths of 13 Americans. Where was the outrage then? Or is this yet another desperate attempt to distract us from how Republicans have nothing to offer but hatred of Democrats and tantrums?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 10, 2013 12:41 a.m.

    "In order to restore trust and accountability, Congress should continue to clarify who knew what and when those oh-so-distant eight months ago."
    Seriously? Congress is dysfunctional, at best, and you expect them to agree on what happened? Even if every Congressmen signed off on a statement that laid out the facts, the unity would end with the next Sunday talk show. The facts about Benghazi were long ago tossed aside in favor of political rhetoric.