For Democrats and Republicans, a look at all that 'Benghazi' stands for

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    May 16, 2014 9:33 a.m.

    I've still not ever seen the Video nor can I find it on-line. Maybe it's there but I can't find it. This was a terrorist attack and not a protest. If I can't find the video, what makes anyone think that someone in Libya could find it and organize a "protest" so fast?

    The whole thing was a mess from the get go and the resulting attempt at cover up really hits the "most transparent administration in history" right where they live. In the credibility factor.

    Maybe nothing could have been done by the military, but there should have been at least a try at helping these folks. The administration did nothing.

  • let's roll LEHI, UT
    May 13, 2014 8:43 p.m.

    I agree with Ms. Clinton. The job is to figure out what happened and make sure it never happens again.

    That said, not sure any of these congressional committees are doing much to answer either of those questions.

    Seems more like grandstanding, but there shouldn't be a need for a congressional committee for the Administration to fulfill the commitment made by then Sec. Clinton.

    The onus is on the Administration to figure out what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. It's a fair question to ask the President and the former Secretary of State should she decide to run for President. Let the American people hear their answer and decide for themselves whether they've accomplished the job Sec. Clinton said was theirs to accomplish.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 12, 2014 10:12 a.m.

    Benghazi is evidense of an administration with no conscience.

    People were killed and it makes no difference.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 12, 2014 8:45 a.m.

    M-man - Sometimes the truth is still hazy after the investigating takes place. Bush certainly wanted nothing to do with any factfinding on 9/11, but finally caved a little by agreeing to appear - as long as there were no oaths and Cheney was able to say whatever he wanted. Result? A GOP victory with Bush able to begin his next 1000 speeches with 9/11 references.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 12, 2014 7:51 a.m.

    What if some Americans want some honesty and accountability from our government? That only happens when Democrats investigate Republicans, right?

  • Mikhail ALPINE, UT
    May 12, 2014 7:08 a.m.

    Conservatives are being accused of politicizing Benghazi, yet it was the administration that politicized it in the first place by developing a false narrative concerning Islamic hate as expressed through a video made by an American. This lie was concocted in order to protect the sitting President from political attack during an election season. All because of a false belief that more moderate Islamic thought would prevail if leadership in several Islamic countries would change. False beliefs led to false actions which led to lies. That is why the story is relevant. If the administration is incompetent and lying, won't it matter to get the light on the matter?

    Wouldn't it be nice if politicians could just come clean and be accountable for the misfeasance/ malfeasance? "We misunderstood and miscalculated - then we lied about the reasons." Those words would put this to rest.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    May 12, 2014 7:07 a.m.

    The truth is that our president manipulated the message for political gain.
    With that as a backdrop we can add the possibilities of a CIA rendition center in Benghazi and a gun running operation to Syria, both very distasteful ideas to progressives.
    Obama was saving his own skin ahead of the 2012 elections. What's wrong with that? Plenty, if you ask me.
    Of course, those loyal to Obama will say the issue has already been investigated. I say, it's not an investigation when the White House controls the evidence we are able to see.

  • Itsjstmeagain Merritt Island, Fl
    May 12, 2014 6:53 a.m.

    This was a tragedy. To say that he was left unprotected is not true. The Intelligence Community told State of dangers who told Stevens to get out and back to Tripoli. He refused which was failure one. He was offered protection in another US hardened facility and declined, failure 2. The use of locals as security was another failure, talk to the Libyan Govt. In essence, he was responsible for his decisions.
    What was an error was State and the WH jumping to satisfy the Republicans demand for information NOW. If it was a less political time, I would want the WH to say "we'll be with you shortly, after a full bipartisan review". That would hopefully avoid stitching known with unknown facts.
    It is still a shame. As a Republican this "Trial" will accomplish nothing but only prove there is no scandal and this is a party of wailers with nothing else to offer the American people.

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 10:46 p.m.

    It I sad that this event is now being used by Conservatives as yet another attack. I really wish that the GOP would place something on the table that would help American Citizens increasing wages, equal pay and assistance with refining the now successful health care programs. That would show that the GOP is there doing something.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    May 11, 2014 7:08 p.m.

    Mt. t is free is free to want all the Benghazi information there is. I don't happen to agree with his conclusions, but that's OK.

    What does concern me, however, is this. Benghazi lost the lives of four people. That's not good, but what did t think about the loss of thousands dead and wounded in Iraq? Didn't he notice the increasing evidence of bungling and corruption in that little eight year assignment? Because if it's OK with him as long as there's a (R) in the White House, then we know today's attack is just political.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    May 11, 2014 5:28 p.m.

    “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    Ask that that to the those that lost a father, or brother, husband.

    They will tell what difference it makes.

    Four lives were needlessly lost to terrorists that easily have been saved, if Obama did not turn his back on them.

    It does not matter if stevens turned down security, he and the others still could have been saved.

    The real question is, and it gets to the real cover up, is why was Steven in Benghazi in the first place?

    And why was Obama running guns to terrorists groups in Syria and to other terrorist groups in the middle east.

    The arab spring was a complete failure yet Obama was still pushing it and arming it.
    Yes the real cover up, just like he covered up guns to mexico and the IRS attack on free speech of conservatives during the elections.

    The obama administration is dirty as the day is long.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    May 11, 2014 4:00 p.m.

    While you cherry-picked the article for your own purposes, and despite evidence to the contrary, you just can't overcome the fact that this was failure of foreign policy. While the Senate threw the military under the bus for not being prepared, even though they didn't have military personnel on the ground to do an assessment to be ready for that particular attack, you still want to know "what difference does it make?".

    The difference, is the appearance of political white-washing during a Presidential campaign. If politics was the driving force in the decisions made in this attack, then the public rightly has reason to mistrust this administration. Mr Romney correctly warned of the issues in Libya, Syria and Russia, but was vilified for his stand. If he knew about the threat, why didn't this administration know it. Turns out, he was right. When all this is considered, the American public rightly questions the intent of the response and how the talking points were formulated. It's a question of trust, and if deception for the sake of politics is found, outrage is the result.

    That's the difference it makes.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    May 11, 2014 12:47 p.m.

    Was it really about a video?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 11, 2014 10:30 a.m.

    “The State Department under Clinton kept open the Benghazi mission with little protection in the midst of well-known dangers.”

    What well known dangers? Oh, you mean all the protests, in which fifty people died, over the video slandering Mohammed. Yes, that was going on at the same time.

    And as the article pointed out, Ambassador “Stevens also twice declined the U.S. military's offer of a special operations team to bolster security and otherwise help his staff.”

    Apparently the Ambassador could not see the future any better than Hillary Clinton.

    And yes it’s too bad that four Americans died . . . but whether they died because of a spontaneous protest or a planned terrorist attack . . . . “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

    Aside from this tragedy being exaggerated, lied about, and shamelessly exploited by “Conservatives” for political gain . . . “What difference, at this point, does it make?”