Review chairman: Clinton didn't make Benghazi call

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • across the sea Topeno, Finland
    May 18, 2013 4:39 a.m.

    simple facts are...
    Obama and Clinton politicized Benghazi by FIRST creating an illusion of their politics succeeding in Libya, which included minimal and stripped down security for the ambassador.
    Second, disregarding ALL requests for even retaining the security they had just weeks prior. Third, after the murders blatantly distorting the truth and blaming the attack on a video, although they clearly knew that it was not. THIS was the worst of all accusations! By blaming the video the administration caused even more violance in the region and gave a false indicator of the video demonstrations by adding to it violance that was not part of it at all.
    Sadly Obama blamed Romney of politicizing Benghazi when they had done it months earlier.... and still continue.
    US ambassadors are first and foremost representing the PRESIDENT! But this president did not represent/protect his ambassador. BO and Hillary knew what was taking place.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    May 15, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    It would be perfectly understandable if after the attack Sec. Clinton came forward and said "We messed up. They asked for additional security and did not get it." However, the fact that they made up a story with no intelligence to support it and repeatedly told the American people that its because of an internet video. The only reason to make up a story is if you are trying to hide something.

    Also, early on it was made very clear that Pres. Obama was not involved in decisions made that night. He allegedly had one brief conversation about it and there was no follow-up A U.S. Consulate is being attacked while the Ambassador is there and the President does not even follow-up on it before going to bed?! Either Pres. Obama is as cold-hearted as they come or there is more to this story.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    May 14, 2013 6:54 p.m.

    The bottom line is that Ronald Reagan was responsible for IRAN-CONTRA.

    Ronald Reagan lied for 19 months regarding his administrations culpability.

    No Problem!

    The bottom line is that George Bush was responsible for the deaths of over 3000 American Citizens on American soil. He was responsible for security.

    No Problem!

    I'm sure @whatnext would agree with this sort of logic.

    According to his logic, Reagan and Bush should be held to the same standard he has held Democrats.

    To do otherwise would be sheer hypocrisy.

  • whatnext Clearfield, Utah
    May 14, 2013 9:27 a.m.

    The bottom line is Hilary Clinton was responsible for the security in that region. If you remember it was reported request after request where sent asking for more protection due to the increasing threats of violence in that area. Repeatedly their request were denied. There is know way she did not know what was going on in Benghazi unless she had her head buried in the sand. The decision to not send more troops to help before the attack may have been made by someone else, but she was aware of the growing risk of violence in the area and could have over ridden that decision. The way I see it there was time to act before the attack took place and if that is true then everyone who made the decision not to act should be held accountable and that includes Hilary Clinton and anyone else in the chain of command who should have had knowledge of the situation.

  • George New York, NY
    May 13, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    They have turned a tragedy into a political circus for personal gains the GOP should be ashamed.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    "The administration covered up"
    Covered what up? The terrorist attack? Within 2 weeks, everyone knew and spoke openly about the terrorist attack. Not a very effective "cover up".

    I appreciate your passion for a conspiracy, though. Every conspiracy has a motive, wo what is it here? To gain an advantage in the election? That can't be it. Again, within two weeks, everyone spoke of Benghazi as a terrist attack. Even Mitt Romney rejected a political ad about Benghazi. So, what was gained?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 13, 2013 11:00 a.m.


    You are missing the point. The administration covered up, and I don't see how letting the terrorists know that we know it's a terrorist attack is going to change anything. Besides, Obama refused to call it a terrorist attack, but then claims to have called it a terrorist attack from the beginning.


    Again, the issue is that Obama's administration lied about knowing it was a terrorist attack. You did not answer the question as to why Obama did that. My guess is that you have no answer and are proceeding to blame Bush like the Democrats tend to do when they can't face the pressure. At least Moderate tried to answer the question, although his claim of their "knowledge evolving" fails when you realize that Hicks and the Libyan president informed them immediately exactly what was happening and they knew soon enough that terrorists planned the attack.

    Again, I pose the question: If the White House knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning (Hicks testifies this is true), why did they lie about it being mob violence?

    Also, another more difficult question: Why were reinforcements told to stand down?

  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    May 13, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    All together now, say "a willful suspension of disbelief"!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 13, 2013 10:11 a.m.

    @RivertonCouger.... "they KNEW it was a terrorist attack!" ok..... so they did. So what. What is your next point. They knew it. Now what?

    We have known for 20 years that terrorist are trying to strike US targets in the past....and will do so moving forward.

    What difference does it make if it was declared a terrorist attack 5 minutes after, or 5 months after? Would our response been different? Would we all feel better or worse regardless of who did it? What is the smoking gun you all think you have found here?

    Please explain to me in the grand scheme of political events over the last 40 years... how this rises to the Grand Crime you all make it to be... especially in the context of all the other events that have come before it. Lets say there was complete and total incompetence here.... so now what? What crime was done? Greater than lying to the UN about our intentions in Iraq? Greater than Travelgate? Greater than the bombing in Lebanon.... or the Oklahoma City Fed building? Greater than the Atlanta Olympics bombing, or Ruby Ridge, or the Branch Dividians? Iran-Contra? WaterGate? Hosteges for weapons?

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 13, 2013 10:10 a.m.

    "Somebody please answer these questions: Why did they call it mob violence when they knew it was a terrorist attack?"

    Because knowledge evolves. Your expectation that they instantly know everything is unrealistic. You don't deny that there was a mob that day, do you? Sorting through all the information coming in from various sources, one had to consider if that mob played a role.

    Once the information sifted down to "this was a planned terrorist attack", you expect the administration to reveal everything. Is nothing classified in your world? Why do you insist that we let the terrorists know all that we know?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 13, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    So, according to Hick's testimony, he talked to Clinton on the phone while the attack was happening, yet the Democrats still want us to believe that Clinton didn't make the call? What did she do, go to the people under her and say, "You make the call, and make sure they know it's your decision, not mine"?

    What also makes me laugh is that they have said multiple times that they did not "mislead" the American people, but that is EXACTLY what they did when they called it spontaneous mob violence when apparently they KNEW it was a terrorist attack!

    Somebody please answer these questions: Why did they call it mob violence when they knew it was a terrorist attack?

    Also, I can't stand these AP articles. They are vilifying Republicans and defending Democrats as much as possible. Objectivity is long gone from the liberal media.

    This article makes it sound like they never called it anything but a terrorist attack. Well, I've got news for you AP: the White House already said before "we don't have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film."

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    May 13, 2013 9:12 a.m.


    "This is the problem I've had with this investigation. If it would just stick to finding out the facts and truth about the situation then that's a discussion we should have...."

    Absolutely. When fault-finding precedes fact-finding, it smells like partisanship straining at the leash. Integrity in government applies equally to Congressional investigations and how they are conducted as it does to those whom Congress is investigating. The dishonesty with which the McCarthy hearings did its work in the 1950s should be a lesson we never forget.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    May 13, 2013 8:39 a.m.

    Furry 1993 You say: That sounds to me like he took responsibiity for Benghazi. He also said he would have the most transparant administration ever. Does not look the case now. Yea right believe what Obama says.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 13, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    "When a ship runs aground, it is the captains responsibility. "

    Ok.... lets run with this example. if a ship runs aground... it is the Captain who is responsible. Exactly! Not the president, not the highest level admiral, not the president of the company that owns the ship... but the captain.

    Ms. Clinton was not the captain. The captain is the person who was in charge of security for that region. The system works through delegation.... not the "chief" making every or even most of the decisions. No company, branch of military, or church works without delegating responsibility.

    So while it is a cute little phrase - making the assertion that Clinton was the "captain" of the ship there for should be ultimately responsible shows a misunderstanding how the chain of command works.

    Mistakes were made. That is without doubt. I am not even a Clinton fan.... but this is just beyond silly.

    Using Hemlocks example, how in the world did the buck stop with Oliver North instead of running all the way up to President Reagan - whom I supported? The double talk\double standard is amusing.

  • Albert Maslar CPA (Retired) Absecon, NJ
    May 13, 2013 5:29 a.m.

    Politicians lie about Benghazi and everything else. But Why? If politicians are truly American, why cover-up "the truth that will set you free?" No God, No religion; No truth: No value. Has anything good ever come out of a lie; only more never-ending lies that always make matters worse. And the never-ending state of denial. Evidently the populace is in denial about the source of life, like today's know-it-alls created themselves.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 12, 2013 10:05 p.m.

    As a whole, American people cannot think for themselves. The media is the shepherd, and citizens are the sheep. The legalizing gay marriage, and Obama winning the last presidential election is proof.

    The media will decide the fate of Hillary, and Benghazi, not the Republicans.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    May 12, 2013 9:20 p.m.

    A1994 says it is incompetence.

    Depraved indifference would be a better description.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 12, 2013 8:28 p.m.

    Tongue in cheek responsibility is never the truth. The President's words were just words without meaning. President Nixon did a similar thing for months to two years and two months later, when he left the White House with his V sign between his legs. No one died in his debacle and he never fessed up to his part. He went down piece by piece with Spiro T. Agnew out of the way for another reason. This Vice-President is always running off at the mouth and no one takes him seriously from shotgun to abortion. He is the fall man and is the one that will take the hit for this problem, as Hillary is out of the picture except for being subpoenaed for at least one hearing. Her man has shown her the way to integrity and honor.

    In the debate, the President let the moderator fill in his gaps with her words and lack of journalistic ability.

  • runnerguy50 Virginia Beach, Va
    May 12, 2013 5:16 p.m.

    I have voted for both parties the last few years so I feel objective in saying the Clinton's are not people of high moral standard. Anyone who works with these people come out looking terribly and the Clinton's are absolved. It's a drama that has been played out over and over.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    May 12, 2013 4:56 p.m.

    Hillary Clinton needs to go away. Her Presidency would be as big a disaster as Barack Obama's. We have 4 Americans dead in Benghazi. We have a dead boarder patrol agent thanks to 'Fast and Furious' (not to mention countless dead Mexicans.) Now we have word that the IRS is targeting obvious political rivals of the left. It's all incompetence, wrapped in secrecy and plausible deniability. Obama and Clinton are saints with pure motives who are really the victims of mean old Republicans. They will never be held accountable for their actions because people like One Old Man think this is still about Democrats vs. Republicans.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 12, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    One follows plans and checklists that are approved in order to cut down confusion. The Ambassador from our country to Libya was in Benghazi for a reason, even though it was the most terroristic spot in Libya without proper support. If the CIA was involved, they would not have been at another location on the most potentially hostile day, 9/11/2012 when alerts were out for all middle-east embassies. The military weren't even involved and appears were holed up in their SAFE locations in Europe. They weren't even on a special alert to launch from a holding point somewhere off the coast of Africa north of Egypt or Libya. Tankers not available is a farce as tankers can hold at various locations for support. Military plans exist for this purpose and to have a Secretary of State and Defense both political bureaucrats without direction from the President is abhorrent behavior.

    Military men and women leaders cannot exist with this kind or lack of support. They have to have someone back them up. Of course, the 4-star Generals have not been very strong on their ethics and behaviors. When the top dog for the Generals display contempt, what?

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 12, 2013 4:18 p.m.

    one old man:

    What difference does this make?

    The media decides who will be president.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 12, 2013 4:14 p.m.

    As a military person, you have to depend on the chain of command to protect you through thick and thin. Every military and government employee defending our truth and freedoms have to depend on the next person up to defend you. That is why those CIA agents did what they did from their experiences and expertise and the code of ethics from the President on down to the lowliest in the field. Without that trust, you do not know where to turn. Whether being in a guard post with nuclear weapons in a foreign country, flying an airplane responsible for people on the ground and in the air, staffing a command post, making calls as to operational readiness or stating you are not mission ready, you have a trust. Whether President Nixon, Johnson, Clinton, Bush or Obama, you have to have trust. From the beginning, in September 2012, it wasn't a political move, it was a move of incompetence up and down the chain. Having lived in many countries, this demonstrates the kind of government that many shows everyday. Trust, Integrity, Honor/Ethics are a must not just political convenience. Those that say this is political don't understand leadership.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    May 12, 2013 4:11 p.m.

    @JWB 2:08 p.m. May 12, 2013

    Quoting President Obama in his debate with Romney 10/17/2012: “Secretary Clinton has done an extraordinary job but she works for me,” he said. “I’m the president and I’m always responsible.

    “The suggestion that anyone in my team, the secretary of state, our UN ambassador, anybody on my team, would play politics or mislead when we have lost four of our own is offensive.

    “That’s not what we do,” Obama said. “That’s not what I do as president, that’s not what I do as commander in chief.”

    That sounds to me like he took responsibiity for Benghazi. Shame on anyone who says differently.

  • tabuno Clearfield, UT
    May 12, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    Somehow critics have bought into the American action-thriller movie fantasy about how fantastic and amazing military intelligence and rapid special operations can be where solutions are solved in the last hour of a movie. Unfortunately the real world doesn't work this way. Hopefully our Republican Congressional critics can somehow be called down to reality as their voices because their influence in the real world impact real live people not actors who can die and live another day.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    This is the problem I've had with this investigation. If it would just stick to finding out the facts and truth about the situation then that's a discussion we should have. It's the matter of turning it into partisan sniping against Secretary Clinton or the President that turns me off of this and even this chairman who is very critical of the response is frustrated with the attempt to turn this into something else for political gain.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 12, 2013 2:08 p.m.

    Government runs on a chain of command. President Truman knew who was responsible for actions, when he lived by The buck stops here. This President doesn't know what that means. Anyone that is born in this country knows what that means. Hillary misled the people prior, during and after the last election. She had the responsibility to reprimand her appointed Ambassador to the United Nations when she misspoke after Benghazi. She was the wife of President Clinton for 8 years with her aspirations of the top spot so she could have the man who didn't know the definition of is is as her first lady. Hillary has lost sight of Integrity and the definition of that. She is not qualified to be a President if she can't stand up and speak for herself. Even after she resigned, she hasn't spoken up. This is a liability for her. President Obama has already shown his metal for 5 plus years. He took credit for Osama but doesn't take credit for Benghazi. The President's face in the Romney debate was telling for our top leader of Joe Biden who routinely does the dirty work of the President.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2013 1:52 p.m.

    Ms. Clinton's primary responsibility was serving as Secretary of State, not campaigning for president. She has all the credibility of her husband.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2013 1:29 p.m.

    When a ship runs aground, it is the captains responsibility. Ms. Clinton cannot have authority without also having the responsibility. It is sounding more like the "brilliant" corporate CEOs who lost billions of dollars claiming that they had no idea of what was going on. When the athletic director ignores sexual predation by a coach, the university president who looked the other way resigns too. As the summons and complaint in a negligence lawsuit says, "Ms. Clinton knew or should have known...."

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 12, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    Republicans are desperate to do anything they can to impede Clinton as a possible presidential candidate because they know they have no one who will be able to defeat her in an election.