Mystery of Benghazi mess deepens

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Nov. 4, 2012 1:25 a.m.


    I did not say there was no evidence. I was just saying that no amount of evidence will ever convince you that Obama was wrong. Have the testimonies that have been presented concerning the attack (i.e. they were warned of an attack, they did not provide adequate protection, etc.) not count as evidence? Or does Obama, as the savior of our nation (as proclaimed by democrats in 2008), have such power that his word is automatically designated as fact without rebuttal?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 3, 2012 8:02 p.m.

    So in other words, Riverton Couger, you have absolutely no evidence.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    Nov. 3, 2012 2:59 p.m.

    Since when does Obama need to "investigate" how much he knew? Why can he not tell us what he knew and when he knew it? It is so silly to imply that he needs to investigate what he knew and what his orders were.

    The way I see it Obama could come out and say it was all his fault, he knew it was an attack and attempted to cover up his failures, release the videos, and STILL some people on this board will say "Where is the evidence?"!

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 3, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    Uh, wrz, read whose book? What is all in there? Are you talking about Presidents Obama's books? If so, there aren't several, there are 2, I believe, and there is absolutely nothing in them dealing with Benghazi, how could there be? But yes, I am aware that the President smoked pot and used coke when he was younger. At least he admits it, and I don't care. And it has nothing to do with Benghazi.

    "You ignore evidence presented to you"

    Counter intelligence, what evidence? That's the point, nobody has presented evidence to back up these wild claims. Nobody.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:47 p.m.


    what evidence?

    "I find those people that abuse and censor in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to be a particularly nefarious group."

    now who is playing the victim?

    We all want the truth but all you offer are conspiracies which only serve to retraumatize the victims families not move us closer to the truth.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:19 p.m.


    "So, wrz, you would love to provide evidence, but you don't have any. So you guys will just make up stuff."

    It's in his book. Read his books. There are several. It's all in there.


    I'd call it more like ugly.


    "... and why is he refusing to divulge it?"

    He can't afford a picture of ineptitude this close to an election. So, for him the best solution is just keep the whole affair under wraps until after the election. And then, it won't matter. Even after that, if he wins, it will continue to be unresolved. But then all the air will have gone out of the story and it will collapse go the way of all old news.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 8:07 p.m.

    @ jim l 7:20 a.m. Nov. 1, 2012

    Because Glennie is the pinnacle of credibility, right!?

    In more important & pressing news; Bama & LSU play tomorrow.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 4:34 p.m.


    Of course you don't understand, because you do the exact same thing as George: You ignore evidence presented to you that does not fit into a narrow left-wing view of the world, then you attempt to shame anyone with a different opinion into silence by discounting inconvenient facts as merely being "wild conspiracy theories" that hurt people.

    I find those people that abuse and censor in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to be a particularly nefarious group (which is why I am far less conservative than I am merely abhorrent of political correctness).

    The families are demanding knowledge, not silence. Therefore using feigned concern for the families as rationalization for bullying anyone not cowing to Obama into silence and advocating sweeping tough questions under the carpet, is the truly "disrespectful" and offensive tact.

    If your respect for the families was motivated by anything more than the need for political cover - you would be demanding the truth; not rationalizing smokescreens.

    Advocating obfuscation is a perpetrating behavior - not a "sensitive" or "tolerant" one.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 2, 2012 2:40 p.m.

    RG - let me understand your logic. A lie or misinformation was told by a person of authority, and you are saying the ones who are to blame are the ones who believe the lies.

    Good grief, we have moved to new levels of blame shifting. It's not the fault of the one misleading, it is the fault of he people who believe the lie or misinformation.

    Partisanship now moves to new levels..... honestly and blame are relative to which party you belong too.


    If Obama had bad information, and made a bad decision based on that... that is his fault. If Bush made a bad decision based on bad information, and Hillary believed him and supported him... it is Hillary's fault.

    I think we can all see where this is headed.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    @counter intelligence

    I don't hardly think George pointing out the complete lack of respect that the posters show towards the victims families is the same as him playing the victim sorry.

    As to the rest of your post we know have five pages of wild conspiracy theories and childish name calling by the conspiracy theorist and still no evidence to support any of the claims made. So once again show me the evidence.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 12:39 p.m.


    Your ability to play victim when others do not fall in line with your dogma is amazing

    This administration:
    Knew about poor security
    Denied security requests
    Watched the act unfold
    Withheld help
    Inflamed a story about a video
    Parsed words for cover

    Only the most naive Obama groupie would wait until their house completely burnt down before admitting there are huge flames behind that massive smokescreen

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 2, 2012 12:02 p.m.

    Re: spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT

    What did Obama know about the terrorist attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, when did he know it, and why is he refusing to divulge it?

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:45 a.m.

    In the Independent article redshirt mentions, the Libyans claim they warned us about immanent attacks. However, from the same article:

    A State Department spokesman maintained: "We are not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the US Mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent."

    So who you gonna believe? The Libyans? Or the Americans?

    -So, wrz, you would love to provide evidence, but you don't have any. So you guys will just make up stuff.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 11:23 a.m.


    "To the other posters that are making extreme claims (it was all part of an Obama kidnapping plot. Good heavens! ), please provide evidence to back up your incredible claims. Be precise and cite your sources. Good luck."

    We'd love to provide evidence but the Obama Administration is trying its best to keep the whole thing covered up... just like his college/university documents that D. Trump is willing to pay $5 million to have released. This guy, Barack Hussein Obama, promised transparency in his presidency. What we get is secrecy and cover-up.

    And while I'm at it, why could anyone vote for this guy who has questionable background, use of illegal drugs, association with criminals and socialists, and possibly a foreigner and not even eligible to be out president. Good grief! Have we as a nation gone nuts?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    To "Tolstoy" since you are too lazy to do some simple internet searches, here is all the proof you need, yet will probably ignore.

    "Libya: We gave US three-day warning of Benghazi attack" from The Independant. Here they list out some of the key things previously stated:

    "diplomatic sources who said that the threat of an attack against US interests in the region was known to the US administration 48 hours before it took place."

    "The British consulate in the city was shut after an ambush of a convoy carrying Dominic Asquith, the UK ambassador"

    Benghazi is 480 miles from Italy, where there were members of Delta Force, and other rapid response teams waiting. The battle lasted for 7 hours. That was more than enough time for those troops to be air lifted to where they were needed. Plus there was a Spectre gunship in the area, that was never called in. Why?

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 10:25 a.m.


    The article from CNN to which raybies was referring may the editorial by William Bennett on Nov 1, 2012.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:56 a.m.

    So your argument that it is not a conspiracy theory is another conspiracy theory? interesting.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:55 a.m.

    @Kyle loves BYU/Jazz:

    "I don't understand how the President can get away without answering any questions about it."

    Three reasons:

    He told us months ago that he and his administration had Al Qaeda on its heels. Benghazi, and riots in other Muslim dominated countries such as Egypt Syria, Tunisia, etc., shows he doesn't.

    He thought the Arab Spring was a movement to more democracy in the Mideast. It wasn't.

    Part of his heritage hails from the religion from whence terrorism springs. He'd rather not be be seen being associated with it while running for president.

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    Re: Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    "Once again if those are the "facts" then where is your evidence to support your claims?."

    The facts are what the father of the murdered former Navy Seal is asking for. Obama has gone mute on the subject. Like Operation Fast and Furious they are hoping to bury the story.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 2, 2012 9:13 a.m.

    @ Thomas

    Once again if those are the "facts" then where is your evidence to support your claims?. "Fact" without support is at best theory and in this case nothing more then conspiracy theory.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Nov. 2, 2012 7:58 a.m.

    UBD, if the facts are as you say, the White House would have come clean from the get-go. They still haven't come clean. Instead they obfuscated for 2 weeks. Obama has tried to have it both ways by blaming the events on a video and slipping some ambiguous words is a speech. They haven't been waiting for all the facts -- they've been trying to get their story straight. That should be obvious.

    As for body-bags, there would have been many more if Woods and Doherty hadn't disregarded the order to stand down.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 2, 2012 7:43 a.m.

    Hillary Clinton's statement accompanying her vote on the Authorization to Use Force:

    "Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 2, 2012 7:36 a.m.


    Congress, including the Democrats were foolish. However, they voted in Oct/Nov of 2002 and war didn't begin until several months later.. Hillary Clinton's statement accompanying her vote her vote:

    "My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

    So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

    After the vote, Saddam Hussein allowed UN Weapons Inspectors back into Iraq for the first time since 1998. When Bush chose to invade Iraq, Inspectors had found little evidence of WMDs, and requested more time.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 2, 2012 6:35 a.m.

    " A full contingent of Marines within 45 minutes from fist call for help. As Sen. McCain said, we never leave our own in harms way."

    Yeah.... in Italy. And not 45 minutes in helicopters. You are going to fly marines in from Italy, with no plan, no awareness of the situation of the conditions on the ground. How many body bags did you want being flown back? We tried that before, with a lot more planning, and a lot more logistics support, and it ended disastrously in Somalia. It is bad that this happened, but it would have been even worse had Generals sent in unprepared troops into a situation they were not prepared for just so some could live out their John Wayne fantasy of the troops heroically riding over the Hill to save the day.

    The body bag count would have been much higher if our government had followed this FoxNews cowboy script. Some people actually pay attention to history, and learn from it.

    ""a coward cannot know a heroes heart." .... and a hero doesn't foolishly put his pals into combat with no plan, no understanding of the theater. Were talking real lives, not political rhetoric.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 2, 2012 6:31 a.m.

    Inelligence officials told reporters Thursday that when the CIA annex received a call about the assault, about a half dozen members of a CIA security team tried to get heavy weapons and other assistance from the Libyans. But when the Libyans failed to respond, the security team, which routinely carries small arms, went ahead with the rescue attempt. At no point was the team told to wait, the officials said.

    They said the outmanned and outgunned team members made all the key decisions on the ground, with no second-guessing from senior officials monitoring the situation from afar.

    The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide intelligence information publicly.

    According to the detailed timeline senior officials laid out Thursday, the first call to the CIA base came in at about 9:40 p.m., and less than 25 minutes later the team headed to the consulate. En route they tried to get additional assistance, but were unable to get much aid from the Libyan militias.

    By 11:30 p.m., all of the U.S. personnel, except Stevens, left and drove back to the annex, with some taking fire from militants along the way.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Nov. 2, 2012 6:20 a.m.

    @ UtahBlueDevil and Truthseeker: If bad intelligence led to the Iraq war, the dems believed that intelligence just as much as Bush did. Dems conveniently forget, for example, that Hillary was alarmed about the WMDs and said we should go get rid of them, and Kerry voted for the war. They were not the only dems who believed in the WMDs. Plus, the Iraq war was voted on by congress, as the constitution requires, while Obama’s Libya war was not.

    @George and Truthseeker: “there is an investigation on going” …. and that is the point of the administration – to have it on going, and going, and going…so that by the time it is over (which will be well past the election) we’ve all forgotten about it and moved to other things. Obama knows well that he lied about the video being the reason for the attack, but claims to still be “investigating.” No, he’s just trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 11:33 p.m.


    There are emails. There is a paper trail. An electronic one, but a trail. This isn't made up. No matter what Hillary Clinton calls it, there are emails that clearly ordered our people to 'stand down.'

    Doesn't it seem just the tiniest bit odd to you that so many people in this administration got it so wrong?

    "...I do have to ask what are you going to do Wednesday morning or when ever it is announced who the winner is if Obama ends up wining a second term?"

    I think we will find out Tuesday night that Mitt Romney has won. But regardless who wins, this story isn't going away. Four Americans are dead and there are actual emails that show that someone made a decision to let them die. You put a lot of your faith in people whose soul purpose is to get elected. I don't.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:07 p.m.

    "I would gladly be in the Obamas shoes rather than the Bush administrations shoes when history looks back and decides who mislead the American people at the greatest cost to human life."

    Well put.

    The facts will come out when the investigation is complete.

    End of story.

    In the meantime, Republicans can entertain themselves with the conspiracy theories....

  • John NZ Wellington/NZ, 00
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    Have to agree with "one old man"

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:22 p.m.

    All I can say is thank you Jason Chaffetz for your investigation and wanting to find out who is responsible for the lack of leadership. What has jim matheson said about this cover up. I haven't heard him say anything about it. This alone would lead me to vote for Mia Love if I had a vote in Utah. One former military leader said tonight if nothing else comes from this obama has broken the code of leaving no one behind. That alone will have a lasting effect on our military.

  • Tom in CA Vallejo, CA
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:12 p.m.

    Romney didn't try in the debates to make a "big deal" of the Benghazi situation/cover-up/scandal, because he knew the anointed one would simply give him the run-around, take up valuable time, and get away with it. Obama's pad answer is, "we are still investigating".

    Funny how Fox News journalists have done their "investigations", and are light years ahead of the president's investigations. The facts will eventually all come out, and Obama will be exposed for what he is - a weakling, a poor commander in chief, an inept leader, and a liar.

  • donquixote84721 Cedar City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:59 p.m.

    When one enlists in the United States Military, active duty or reserve, they take the following oath:

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    Seems like pretty good motivation to obey any order you're given, right? Nope. These articles require the obedience of LAWFUL orders. An order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal.

    If any law infringes on MY Constitution, it is NOT Lawful.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:58 p.m.


    "lefties" do not have to "deny" anything since you and yours have failed time and again to provide on shred of evidence to support your claims.

    Now I have no idea who will win come next tuesday but I do have to ask what are you going to do Wednesday morning or when ever it is announced who the winner is if Obama ends up wining a second term? eight years of the type of bitter mindset you and others have shown is very unhealthy not only for your mind and body but also your soul.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:44 p.m.

    "This will be the most transparent administration in history."

    And here we are in the middle of a cover up. Amazing that the lefties are in such denial. The President is not giving us the truth. He's not even talking. Who gave the order to stand down? Who let Americans die? Who gave Mexican drug cartels guns? Oh, and by the way, what is in the Heath Care Bill? This man is the worst kind of politician. To top it all off, he has no plan for his second term and has left us with a worse economy than he inherited. Game over. This guy is done next Tuesday.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:27 p.m.

    Time for Obama to man up, and explain not only Libya, but guns to Mexican cartels as well.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:14 p.m.

    while I am certainly not a Romney fan I think the fact that he has not ran with all these wild conspiracy theories shows at least a minimal amount of decorum and decency on his part which is more then I can say for the posers on this thread,

  • George Bronx, NY
    Nov. 1, 2012 7:39 p.m.

    @no name
    people believe wild conspiracy theories not because the facts are not known but because they want to believe that the government is evil and out to get them. Some facts have been released there is an investigation on going. you can make the choice to follow the facts as they are released or you can choose to run after the wild conspiracy theories. its your choice but the reason those in the media that are not covering the conspiracies is because there is nothing to support those claims and are choosing not to inflict further harm to sell a few papers or a internet radio show. The DN used to know what journalism and integrity meant but have clearly lost sight of it.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 1, 2012 7:24 p.m.

    Ok.... lets just say that the white house didn't use the word terror and under estimated the threat. Lets just assume that this is all true and accepted by all.

    Now with that said, even if this is all true, I still don't get the indignation by the NeoCons on this site. If the deaths of 4 people raises to gross incompetence, what does the bad intelligence that led to the deaths of over 4,000 service people, and nearly 70,000 civilians in Iraq rise to?

    I would gladly be in the Obamas shoes rather than the Bush administrations shoes when history looks back and decides who mislead the American people at the greatest cost to human life. It is an amazing display of bravado by the ultra conservatives to be trying to make this gap of intelligence in Libya to be greater than what preceded it in Iraq.

    4 lives versus all toll more than 100,000 in Iraq. Really folks? You want to start drawing comparisons in judgement?

  • djk blue springs, MO
    Nov. 1, 2012 6:53 p.m.

    the media will do all it can to hide the ruth. chris christie is a two faced turkey like obama is. photo ops and media ops. i am so done with the pre election drama. i want obama out and romney in. our country needs to recover and heal. obama uses any tactic for attention. he is using the 'sandy storm' as his new glory moment. he treats the country like trash then when election time is tight he comes out hugging and smiling. i personally am tired of obama and biden and their gadianton warriors !

  • No name Provo, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 6:50 p.m.

    The best solution would be that the government releases facts they know about the attack to the public. Seems simple enough, yet we still do not have clear answers either way. I feel it would clear up so much confusion, and would restore some type of closure to the families who lost loved ones.It's no wonder people are coming up with theories. We haven't received answers, so obviously people are going to speculate. I was watching the news (I believe the CBS evening news) back in September and the report stated that the attack was the result of a youtube video that sparked protesters to attack. The report stated names of the individuals who made the video, and also noted that the video was posted several months before the attack, and had few views until around the attack on 9/11. It's hard to know what to believe when I saw/heard one thing and then got a completely different story a few days later. After listening to the interview Glen Beck did with Tyrone Woods father, I know there are vital details that, for whatever reason, have not been revealed that someone needs to answer for.

  • SoCalChris Riverside, CA
    Nov. 1, 2012 6:44 p.m.

    The mainstream media was in a feeding frenzy over an outed CIA agent a few years ago. The story was trivial by comparison.

    Here we have 4 dead Americans, including an ambassador and CIA personnel, denials of additional security beforehand and desperately needed help during the attack, a complete abandonment of fellow Americans, and a cover-up -- and a shrug of the shoulders from our state-run media and some people on this thread.

    It's amazing to me that Obama can blame the events on a video for 2 weeks but slip the generic words "acts of terror" in his Rose Garden speech, and his faithful followers will buy into it and say -- see he's been candid! Even Candy Crowley had to admit that was nonsense.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Nov. 1, 2012 6:02 p.m.

    You don't even need to deal with reading you can google the full speech of all three on video and watch his lips actually form the words and hear him say it.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 5:21 p.m.

    I'll tell ya..I don't trust that romney fella. I'm voting Obama. Again.

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    Nov. 1, 2012 4:54 p.m.

    Love mitt.
    Hate barrack.
    They all lie.
    It's the truth

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 4:42 p.m.

    @flying finn

    this man came to reporter s in a time of what I can only imagine of great grief and probably anger and fox and people like you have taken advantage of his situation and without any evidence to support your claims used it for your own dishonest purposes.


    What liberal lie? read the transcripts from the three events I sited its right there in black and white. I am sorry the facts are getting in your way but they are what they are.

  • Wildcat O-town, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 4:41 p.m.

    Looks like the Righties are already giving up on winning the election and creating their "grounds" to impeach Obama during his second term--pathetic.

    I guess it is not enough for some of the the paranoid Righties for a speech dedicated to Benghazi to have the phrase "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation..." Now every sentence in every Obama speech will have to mention the subject being addressed in the whole speech because the Righties will say it was meant in an overall terrorism context.

    GOOD GRIEF! Only five more days of the Romney Reader, then the D-News will have to give that up and go back to justifying BYU football independence 24/7.

    "I stand by what I said, whatever it was." Willard Mitt Romney

    Amen Mittens! Amen.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 1, 2012 4:26 p.m.

    To "AnH" what was illegal about what Bush did?

    Before we went into Iraq, Bush followed federal law and received authorization for military action for an extended period of time.

    What law was broken.

    You realize that under Obama's watch, more soldiers have died than in the previous 8 years under Bush. So, if Obama is so wise for with such a high casualty rate, Bush must be a super genious.

    It is clear that you, and your ilk are grasping at straws if you call a legal act illegal.

    Benghazi should be a concern because per federal law, if an ambassador or embassy is attacked, the President is to be informed immediately. If the laws were followed, and the President knew, why didn't he do anything? If the laws were not followed, why is the President NOT doing anything?

    Either way, there appears to be a coverup. Should we be willing to allow a President to be involved in a coverup where an ambassador and soldiers were killed?

  • cindyacre Shelley, ID
    Nov. 1, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    The "offending" video was released in July. Why did it take until right before 9/11/2012 for it to "offend" people? Why were the producers of the video supposedly coptic Christian but their aim was to incite violence? There are so many questions to be answered.

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 3:58 p.m.

    Candy Crowley admits she got it wrong and that the President did not refer to Benghazi as a terror or terroist attack. She commented, "I think actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word."

  • Social Mod Fiscal Con West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 3:56 p.m.

    A review of the official transcript on the White House website and the video from the Rose Garden address shows that not once did the president call the Benghazi attack a "terror attack." He used the word "terror" exactly once, late in his address:

    “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” From the context, it was clear that his reference to "terror" was general. Not once did he apply that characterization to Benghazi.

  • AnH Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2012 3:37 p.m.

    Can any of us imagine the consequences of putting this much scrutiny on the Bush administration and its illegal Iraqi war? That four Americans died is terrible. That thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died due to a lie that was clearly exposed before the attack was even launched is so very much worse that I find this entire concern with Benghazi coming from the right hypocritical to say the least. Obama may or may not have made mistakes, but when put against our past republican presidents, Reagan being almost as bad as Bush with his dishonesty about the Iran/Contra affair, Obama looks especially wise. Meaning is all about context, and it's clear the right wing is grasping at straws.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Nov. 1, 2012 3:01 p.m.

    More evidence! Obama doesn't like the America as he his apology tour demonstrated.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 1, 2012 2:18 p.m.

    To "spring street" aparently you believe the liberal lies. According to the original reports by CNN, it wasn't until September 20 that the White House finally said that Bengazi was a terrorist attack on the ambasador. See CNN article "Clinton: No sign that Stevens believed he was on an al Qaeda hit list". In there they clearly state that "The White House, for the first time Thursday, declared the attack that killed Stevens and three other people a terrorist attack." The article was written on September 21, so that means it wasn't until September 20th that the White House finally said that Bengazi was a terrorist attack.

    You can believe the latest spin, or you can look at what was originally said. Personally, this whole thing looks like a huge coverup.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Nov. 1, 2012 2:16 p.m.

    The reason the "mainstream media" isn't falling all over this story is because there's no evidence to back up any of these wild claims. If there were any real proof that these allegations are even half as bad as you guys would like to believe, they'd be all over it. The idea that they're "protecting" President Obama is laughable.

    I'm guessing that you don't even realize the problem you're creating for yourselves here. I'm sure you like to imagine yourselves as crusaders seeking the truth, but from outside of your right-wing bubble you just look like people who hate the president so irrationally that you'll grasp at any straw in the hopes that he won't be re-elected (Today's New York Time 538 blog gives him a 79% chance of winning on Tuesday.) Even Geraldo Rivera is criticizing the "GOP bloodlust" that's trying to whip this story into something it's not, and when you've lost someone as over-the-top as him, it might be time for some rethinking.

    Sadly, I'm guessing that won't happen...

  • SLMG Murtoa Australia, Victoria
    Nov. 1, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    Now some aggressive reporting by Fox News' Jennifer Griffin has expanded scrutiny to the attack itself

    As soon as I read those words I know what is coming, another Fox beat up to beat up on the Obama Administration. Lots of words with little substance other than extreme right wing whining and I wasn't wrong. Undoubtly there were mistakes made but none were deliberat, but as usual Fox News is going to make it into something that they can rant about while other news passes them by because it isn't as sensational.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 1:25 p.m.

    Redshirt, I imagine the article raybies is talking about is: Bennett: Obama, what happened in Benghazi?

    It is not a news article, it is an op-ed. It is by William Bennet. You know, Bob Bennet, the staunch conservative.

    The op-ed seems to be just repeating what FOX said. I don't agree with the conclusions Mr Bennet reaches. But I imagine you might appreciate it. So there it is.

    To the other posters that are making extreme claims (it was all part of an Obama kidnapping plot. Good heavans! ), please provide evidence to back up your incredible claims. Be precise and cite your sources. Good luck.

  • Flying Finn Murray, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 1:05 p.m.

    @ spring street

    It was the father of the Navy Seal who brought this to out attention, and it was he who is asking why President Obama isn't answering his questions. If President Obama had done his job this man's son would still be alive. Shall we all stick our heads in the sand and pretend that it didn't happen?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 1, 2012 1:03 p.m.

    The main source for this "investigative" piece..... FoxNews un-named sources.

    The facts will come out.

    Many wont like them regardless of which way they lean

    Conspiracy people will have a hay day with this making up all kids of wild claims they can't support other than they read it on the internet somewhere.

    And sane people will look for a measured and thoughtful analysis of what happened... when all the facts are in.

    But until then, we will have the grassy knoll types, the Bush planned 9/11, that Pearl Harbor was a ruse to get us into the War theories. There are people out there that want to think the worst of other people, and no logical discussion is going to change their mind.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Nov. 1, 2012 12:33 p.m.

    I doubt the Republicans will as interested in this issue after the election as they are now.
    Romney was clearly wrong (and offensive) in his attack during the debate. Obama called it a terrorist attack the next day.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 11:44 a.m.

    To "raybies" can you please post the name of the story that you found on CNN. Since liberals refuse to believe Fox, maybe some of the more sensible liberals will believe CNN reporting that there is a coverup going on.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 11:44 a.m.


    the fact that fox news and people like you keep exploiting that fathers grief is just further evidence of George's point.


    people keep claiming he never called it an act of terror yet he did three times in the first 48 hours. in the rose garden on 9/12, in denver on /913 and again in Nevada on 9/13. the CIA made a statement two days ago stating that they where at no time told to stand down, do you have proof otherwise? The official story of what happened to the ambassador states he was taken to a different safe house type area and that is where he died and that at no point was he drug through the streets. DO you have proof otherwise.Do you have any proof there was a live feed that was being watched? do you have any actual proof of any of the claims being made?


    can you say wild conspiracy?

  • the_narrator claremont, ca
    Nov. 1, 2012 11:29 a.m.

    "even though, as Reuters reported, White House officials had been told within two hours that it was a planned terrorist attack."

    Have you read actually read the Reuters report and leaked emails? There is NOTHING in them that says it was a planned terrorist attack.

    Terrible reporting.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    Can you say...coverup?

  • Republicantthinkstraigh Anywhere but, Utah, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2012 11:12 a.m.

    I'm glad to hear all the Pub's clear up this issue. Heck, why even do an investigation lets just send Fox News in to do the reporting. They seem to have all the facts.

    No matter that Ambassador Stevens was at the CONSULATE not the EMBASSY, which was more heavily guarded but in Tripoli. Lets not forget that its KINDA hard to stop a mob set on murdering and destruction. It's easy after the fact to say "We should have had more protection", nobody could have seen this coming. Yes, they requested more security but you can thank the Pubs for cutting spending on security.

    And to all those who say Obama is a murderer... Get real Please. I could say Bush murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 with that justification. "He should have seen the warning signs, because of President Bush 3,000 Americans are dead." Doesn't make sense right? Then quit being one-sided. Just a bunch of hypocrites. Republican=Hypocrite on every single issue!

  • Scott12345 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:57 a.m.

    Thanks for being so measured in your article! THIS kind of article is an excellent example of the very best reporting, that we need MORE of. (Unfortunately, news is such a 24-hour cycle, reduced to sound bites, that we just don't get many of these types of stories anymore.)

    It will be very interesting to hear the results of the inquiries and investigations.

    My thoughts go out to the families who experienced loss of their loved ones. Those who gave their lives protecting others (who also reduced the casualties that would have happened without their help) are heroes that deserve the public admiration. They deserve their stories, and the full truth, to be told. To have the "official" story switched several times is an absolute disgrace, and borders on despicable behavior. Come clean, tell all, and honor our dead heroes. Yes, someone's career will probably end when all is told. Maybe several. Well, do what's right. (A general was already forced into early retirement over this.) If "they" didn't do what was right in the first place, we don't want them in such high places (making life and death decisions) anyway.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:56 a.m.

    About two hours ago CNN wrote a story about the "coverup" and CONFIRMED more or less all the claims that FOX News has been bringing to the attention of the American people. The facts being reported by FOX News are correct. They denied there's a coverup. Yet if you go to their website, IT IS NOT LISTED ON THEIR FRONT PAGE. I found it doing a targeted news search.

    This is how an internet news coverup occurs. They write the stories so that they can later point to them and claim they're fair and balanced, but what you don't see is how much exposure those stories actually get on their website. If they never allow the story to reach the front page, and bury it beneath hundreds of opposing opinion pieces that have either nothing to do with it, or denigrate the candidate they don't endorse, they are showing political bias--while trying to leave themselves evidence so that they can point back at it once they're called on the carpet for media bias.

    They are expert liars, because they've told the truth the whole time, just hide all the inconvenient parts.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:54 a.m.

    Asking Obama to come clean on Benghazi is like expecting Nixon to volunteer the Watergate tapes to the media. Not going to happen. The ONLY way you will ever find out the details from the White House is if you have a GOP led senate and an appointed oversight committee led by the GOP who crack this case open for all to see. Obama is a coward and a liar but that is what the man has always been so nothing new here. Obama lied about the video. Obama instructed others to lie about the video. Obama gave the order to our waiting forces to "stand down" even as he watched real time this 7 hour attack play out. The plan all along was to present this to the American people as a video inspired mob attack and nothing more. Obama allowed 2 brave Navy Seals to die so when Obama now says "we leave no one behind" ... what sort of spineless man is this guy? Barack Obama is a man without honor and 50% of America love him for it - what does that tell you about that 50% (or 47% as Mitt correctly stated)

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    Obama is losing votes fast on the Benghazi issue.

    Anyone want to take bets that he will go on the air on Mon. evening to offer an "explanation" (notice I use quotation marks)for Benghazi?

    It gets him back a few voters; yet doesn't provide enough time for any kind of fact checking BEFORE the election.

    Nov. 1, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    I think the families of those killed should file a wrongful death law suit against the government and this administration for failure to protect them. This would then bring all the information out into the open and address the real concern of protecting all individuals in the service of America.

    I do not care what administration is is office, we need to protect those that are put in harms way.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:42 a.m.

    @ George You have it wrong. How long before the WH fesses up to what really happened so the families can feel some peace. According to those claiming it's a conspiracy theory, let's hear what your theory is that completly exonerates the president. If it smells like a fish, it most likely is a fish, or at least contains something really putrid.

    A day or two after the attack, Glenn Beck put out his theory. His ideas made sense. Even before anyone was calling this a cover-up, he called it. Peter's ideas add a new level of intriguing possibilities. There was definitely something clandestine going on.

    If the right doesn't keep this story alive and keep asking for answers the WH would let it die a silent death. The left (as demonstrated in George's comments) would love to sweep this under the rug for another week. But they are actually making the POTUS look more culpable by their continual denial that anything was amiss. Conspiracy theory, my foot. Far more than a theory going on here. What's going on is stonewalling and a blatant cover-up.

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    If terrorist attacks on US citizens are a "bump in the road", then we are headed down the wrong road. Terrorist attacks need swift punishment, otherwise, terrorists become emboldened. We should be hunting down whoever did this?

    Does the Obama administration even know the names of the terrorists that attacked yet? Or have we given up on justice?

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2012 10:16 a.m.

    Re: George Bronx, NY
    "The only mystery here is how long they far right is going to continue this completely tasteless behavior ..."

    About as long as the liberal media pandered to Cindy Sheehan. Have you not heard that the father of Tyrone Woods, former Navy Seal killed trying to save the life of our Ambassador in Libya, wants the truth .... and Obama had gone mute on the subject?

  • BigRich Orem, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:51 a.m.

    In viewing the Sandy Hurricane disaster, O'bama promised "we won't leave anyone behind." Where was that promise on September 11? The simple truth is, someone made the decision that it was better to let these 4 people die rather than attempt a rescue. It was better to try to convince the public that it was an unorganized riot sparked by an obscure anti-Islamic video rather than an organized terrorist attack. Why can't people see the obvious? Those in charge didn't want another 9/11, small or large, on their watch. I find the whole thing disgusting. If I were family of these four heros, I would be incensed, which obviously they are.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:45 a.m.

    Peter, that is a good thought.

    Last week some information surfaced that the Ambassador was meeting with the Turkish ambassador discussing arms shipments through Turkey to Syria for the rebels, there.

    That could explain why the Ambassador was there on 9/11 one of the most dangerous places for a United States of America diplomat in Libya as the Ambassador told about in his August memo to the Secretary of State and others.

    Knowing what the Ambassador knew on security, why would he be in Benghazi on potentially the most dangerous day and night without adequate protection, even with coverage from the Annex?

    More will surface about our involvement or lack of involvement.

    To think of our capability just across the water from military units that could handle that situation, if done timely. If you don't give our people protection, when available, will our diplomatic corps and others be willing to do everything they can for our country, the United States of America?

    From the shores of Tripoli could have been a Marine outpost again. The song is invigorating to sing and to understand what those Americans did so long ago.

    As with Nixon you pay now or after election.

  • CT98 Saint George, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    The Obama Administration is clearly hiding something by the fact that they refuse to answer details about the situation. They are waiting until after the election to come clean with the info.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:36 a.m.

    It is hard for me to believe this administration wouldn't fess up to the problems they caused for us diplomatically, militarily and for the intelligence gathering capability. To have to top CIA director types involved is a dishonor for their employee's years of dedicated service to preserve our country. The CIA is an agency that should be at the forefront of helping restore faith in this situation. The cloud of secrecy was blown when the annex responded to their comrades at the consulate.

    To not have a situation room with the highest of authorities meeting together to discuss what they would do appears to be absent. You would want those that could do their required assessments of the situation and then take appropriate action.

    When you know the August date for the classified document and that both GOP and Democratic conventions were in the next couple of weeks, the Administration was very diligently working on their strategy and tactics for those conventions and lead up to them. The debates would be in preparation and study.

    When thinking about those very important events, it appears this Administration was too busy to take care of employees in small insignificant countries.

  • Say No to BO Mapleton, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    Obama, in his own parsed words, claims that he knew terrorists did the deed.
    He also told us he took personal responsibility for the actions of government.
    So, what's the problem?
    Obama blew it and deserves to be releived of command on November 6th.
    This is a referendum on the way he handled the mess.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    The only mystery here is how long they far right is going to continue this completely tasteless behavior that shows a complete lack if respect for the families of the victims that must endure this daily display of wildly inaccurate recounting of their loved ones tragic death.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    I tried to find some creditable facts in this story but found none.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    I've read just about everything printed on the Benghazi attack and I think your theory makes the most sense of anything I've read.
    I haven't been able to understand what motivated the administration to stand by and do nothing.
    You provide an interesting motivational hypothesis.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:18 a.m.

    Even with a hint of any suspicion of a devious act, the Commander-in-Chief has lost respect for those he is sworm to protect. Omission and Commission of an act that violates the trust people who are in the far outplaces on assignments for our country. I remember the look on the faces of the Nixon group when they were caught. That took a while to play out in the Congressional and Court system. I remember seeing some of those men at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama in their gentlemen type of quarters for prisoners.

    Not a great time for our country and requiring that we had a President who was not elected become President due to complicity by both the President and Vice-President.

    Honesty is the best policy. If it meant to deceive, then it is not the truth. If it is not in the performance of duty, then it is not authorized.

    For the fact that the Ambassador requested aid and seeking help for his people and not answered must be a answered.

    Why would the Ambassador be in Benghazi on 9/11 knowing his facility and security were weak and non-sustainable. Annex was more.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:09 a.m.

    Thanks to Jay Evensen for his 31 October 2012 piece on "Why doesn’t the Benghazi attack story have legs?". That has so many good comments from people in a positive way under this difficult situation.

    I believe the Deseret News is publishing information about this to keep people informed of United States of America government documents that show what was requested.

    On the 13th of September 2012, Jay Evensen wrote a piece that diplomacy was so important and is such a vital aspect of what the Department of State and our leaders have developed over the past 250 years, even prior to our becoming a nation.

    Diplomacy is part of the integrity and honor code that our government purports that they have in the jobs.

    I think of the tens of thousands of dedicated servants in our government, who do their jobs day in and day out for our country, in a lot of cases in the most difficult locations and situations.

    President Nixon didn't get taken down by the media. He took himself down by his acts and bringing his closest advisers down with him.

    You commit an act not part of your job procedures, you lose.

  • sparkey Clearfield, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 9:08 a.m.

    It's almost like the Ambassador knew something about Obama and/or his administration's policies and was a potential risk for some sort of whistle-blowing event so he was "taken care of" in a way that avoids even the potential for such whistle-blowing to come to light. Of course this may not be true at all but something smells aweful "fishy" about all of this!

  • Rifleman Salt Lake City, Utah
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:37 a.m.

    Re: KJB1 Eugene, OR
    "Since when do rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories count as news?"

    They only count when they involve Republicans and Bush. If this had occurred under Bush's watch the liberals and the new media would have been all over it. Does the name "Cindy Sheehan" ring a bell?

    Google "hypocrisy".

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:32 a.m.


    "Since when do rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories count as news?"

    Where is your accurate, unbiased and purely informational "news" source? Since "news" from any source is going to have some level of bias in it. Some more than others.

    Since when did the murder of US citizens, which could have been lessened or prevented, but because of the inaction of the president are now dead, has not been "news"?

    There was more coverage by your "news" networks on Mitt Romney volunteering and gathering money and supplies for the people affected by Sandy. Taking time to belittle, downgrade and mock his efforts to help people; than asking the barack what really happened in Benghazi.

    You can blame Fox News all you want. But, I am glad that there are different voices out there. Different levels of "news". Different sources to make decisisions from.

    Unless you prefer a North Korean style of information or another country run by a dictator. And just be told how good your life is and the rest of the world is suffering. Even though you're starving. But, don't ask the regime questions. They're "too important" to answer to the people.

  • JimE Kaysville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:27 a.m.

    Kudos to DN!!!!!
    I'm appalled at how the national media is keeping this out of the news so they can help get Obama re-elected. Heads should be rolling for this disaster.
    Hopefully they will on Nov. 6th.
    But I still wonder if criminal negligence should play a role.
    My vote is yes.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:24 a.m.


    The blunder in the second debate was Candy Crowley's blunder. Obama's speech on Sep. 12 refers only to general acts of terror. He did not say that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack. Read the speech.

    The defense secretary is on record saying, "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on. [We] felt we could not put forces at risk in that situation."

    The fact is, they were watching the attack unfold in real time. They knew what was going on. And -- knowing what was going on -- they left those men to die.

    There was a counter-terrorism force in Italy that could have been there in two hours. The decision to deploy them in Libya would have to have gone before the president. The problem for him was, his re-election campaign was telling everyone that Libya was a foreign-policy success -- not descending into chaos.

    So he chose to let them die, and then lied about it, and now he's saying nothing at all.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:23 a.m.

    Wow, the conspiracy theorists are out in force this morning.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:18 a.m.

    The usual crowd now whining: "Why isn't Romney talking about this?" Talk about it and he's politicizing the disaster, don't talk about it and it must not be true. Really??

  • johnnylingo62 Gray, TN
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    Romney has already brought up Benghazi and has left it up to forthcoming reports to validate what he has already alluded to. Since the mainstream media isn't reporting it, evidence of bias becomes even more clear. this all shows how polarized and desperate the liberals have become. Truth is no longer the goal of journalists - every story is skewed to flatter or defame. Who Where Why What How are no longer the foundation of a NEWS story. What we have now are propagandists, storytellers, and entertainment soundbites.
    The story of General Ham's sudden retirement is the most telling evidence I see that Panetta is delusional and unable to lead the armed forces - and of course, Obama his boss - the buck stops here - is not up to the task of making really tough decisions in real time.

  • peter Alpine, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 8:09 a.m.

    Theory--Benghazi was a planned kidnapping of Ambassador Stevens, so that obama could come to the rescue and offer to exchange the blind Sheik for Stevens. He would save the day and easily win reelection. Hence, American forces were told to stand down because it was not a terrorist attack. Problem, two navy seals disobeyed orders, went in as trained to help Stevens, because they were unaware of prearranged kidnapping plans. Stevens was killed by arms he helped smuggle through Turkey to the very jihadists he helped arm. This is a big coverup by the WH.

  • A1994 Centerville, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 7:59 a.m.


    "Since when do rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories count as news?"

    Four people are dead. The White House changed its story SEVERAL times on this issue. If there is nothing to hide, why is the President dodging the questions? None of this story makes any sense. Are you so partisan that you're okay just ignoring these facts?

    Nov. 1, 2012 7:55 a.m.

    If anyone thinks the GOP will still care about Benghazi after the election, I have a Ground Zero Mosque to sell you.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 7:50 a.m.


    You are questioning why Governor Mitt Romney hasn't brought this up.

    What you should be asking is why the barack hasn't mentioned anything about Benghazi. Why hasn't barack talked about how he watched in real time as Americans were being slaughtered. Why hasn't he talked about his commanding decision to tell soldiers to stand down and watch Americans die. Why did he push the blame on a youtube video for weeks that had already been out for months, for this "random" protest that caused a bump in the road? Why hasn't he brought the terroists to justice? Why did he go fund raising the day the murders occured? Why couldn't he look the parents in the eyes and tell them he did everything possible to protect them? Why did he turn down request for security?

    About the debate. Mitt won all three. The supposed Benghazi flap, turned out Mitt was right on it. Barack generalized the attack as an "act of terror". Same as work place violence etc. He never called it a terroists attack, that is what Mitt was pointing out. But when the moderator is in your pocket....

  • Dand_Ute WEST JORDAN, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 7:47 a.m.

    We will not know any more about this until after the election, and when we do, if the things we are hearing now we will have a newly reelected president up for impeachment within two months.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    It's amazing how fast the white house released photos of the situation room after osamas death. They quickly released a photo after Sandy. Yet they refuse to release any information about Benghazi. They refuse to talk about it. So much for the transparency they had promised, "hope & change".

    Now as information comes out we know they were communicating with the people on the ground. Watching the events in real time. We know the men on the ground were begging for their lives and air support. Obviously they knew enough to activate special forces and get drones in the air. Yet, they never launched them. Why? Why not at least a missle when the CIA had a laser lighting up the location of the mortars? Why couldn't air support be brought in? Are we worried about libya leaders disapproving? We didn't care about Pakistan or other nations with terroists. We blow them up with civilians. So why now? Why hold back now?

    The truth is barack couldn't make the call. barack did not lead Seal Team 6 into Pakistan. barack isn't capable of making those decisions. barck could barely be a community organizer leader

  • md Cache, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 7:22 a.m.

    @ Terry: I concur with you completely. B.O. wants this to fizzle until the election is over. Impeach Obama!

  • jim l West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 7:20 a.m.

    The main stream liberal media wants pres. obama elected again. Look at what glenn beck had to say about this situation. Very interesting.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Nov. 1, 2012 6:57 a.m.

    Since when do rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories count as news? If this were such a smoking gun, why hasn't Mitt Romney even mentioned it since his blunder in the second debate? I know that Obama has the momentum going into next Tuesday and you guys are desperate to prop up Romney, but come on...

  • raybies Layton, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 6:36 a.m.

    This is an important ugly story that's being suppressed because of the political implications.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Nov. 1, 2012 5:51 a.m.

    All this business about a video sparking a protest was a massive coverup attempt, although very clumsily done, but with the cooperation of most of the media. Hillary, went around apologizing for the video when she knew, or at least Obama knew, that was a phony reason. This coverup is much bigger and more important than Watergate, and it involved deaths of Americans whom the government could have and should have been protecting, but didn't. If a GOP president were in charge, the media would have been very, very eager to investigate this. The hypocrisy of the mainstream media today rivals that of the scribes and Pharisees at the time of Christ. But someday, "all [the administration's] iniquities shall be dspoken upon the housetops, and their secret acts shall be revealed." (D&C 1:3)

  • Terry Sandy, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 1:43 a.m.

    Nixon was crucified by the liberal media and forced towards impeachment/resignation for a bungled cover up in trying to sneak the other parties campaign strategy! In this Scandal, all evidence points to the Obama administration to #1 reducing security in a dangerous Libya against many dire pleadings for more security. #2 they ignored the calls for help for 7 hours during the attack! #3 Had the nearby special agents that are now dead listened to those orders to stand down, many more would have died. #4 we know from white house e-mails released that at this exact same time they knew the terrorist group taking credit for this attack and yet for weeks they still misled the American people that this was all the cause from a low budget youtube video! (for which the author is now in JAIL!) Obvious that the Obama team tried to cover up their gross negligence in their lack of security and in not sending these US Citizens any help during the attack despite their desperate calls for assistance. What happened to leave no man behind (official policy!) Disgraceful Liberal Media ignoring the story altogether! Obama's far more deserving of impeachment than Nixon!

  • Ironhide Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 1, 2012 1:00 a.m.

    This is infurirating to read. So much dodge and weave. So much cover up. So much washington bull. Do politicians really believe we can't tell when they dance around a question and DON'T answer it? Do they not know what that does to their credibility? Like we're all a bunch of fools who can't see through the typical two step. I think the part that gets me the most is that BO is going to be re-elected with these blatant disregards for security not being answered for. And there's nothing we can do about it. He won't say a word until after the election is over. I don't care what he knew. He appointed the people that are responsible for making these decisions, so it is his to answer for.

  • Kyle loves BYU/Jazz Provo, UT
    Oct. 31, 2012 11:41 p.m.

    I don't understand how the President can get away without answering any questions about it. I mean the only guy who has had the chance to ask him anything in the last couple weeks is a local newsman from Denver? Why doesn't the President ever appear before the media?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Oct. 31, 2012 11:09 p.m.

    And the DN pretends that rumors and right-wing conspiracy theories are "news." If this is such a smoking gun, then why hasn't Romney even mentioned it since his blunder in the second debate? Even Condoleezza Rice has said that not all the pieces have been put together yet and that the investigation should proceed without being politicized.

    I know you guys are desperate to prop up Mitt Romney, but this is just silly.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Oct. 31, 2012 6:11 p.m.

    Bengazi Sept. 11, 2012. Amiercans were dying and Obama is still lying. Do You Really Trust The Government???? I do not!!! I also do not trust the main stream media. Beware the Government Media Complex. Something is Rotten in Denmark oh excuse me Washington D.C. 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

  • Whattheheck? Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 31, 2012 5:52 p.m.

    Thank you DN for keeping the "Benghazi mess" a story in the news, and for raising new information. We need to keep this in the forefront and make sure our honest questions receive honest answers (if that's possible). The burden IMO is on the president's shoulders. He would be more attractive as a candidate if he owned up to his responsibility regarding this. All he looks like now is the little kid trying to hide the fact he had his hand in the cookie jar.