Rep. Jason Chaffetz front and center in Benghazi hearings

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Herbert Gravy Salinas, CA
    May 13, 2013 1:53 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal - "Jason Chaffetz wants Senator Orrin Hatch's job .........". My, you say that like it's a bad thing

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    May 12, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    LSA Lib

    Let Chaffetz have Hatch's job....he serves us well. He after all, is not your man but ours.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 10, 2013 7:50 a.m.

    "Chaffetz votes to cut funding for embassy security, then turns around and wonders why the embassy wasn't secure. Could he be a bigger embarrassment??"

    I can think of a bigger embarrassment. Imagine being asked for more security at Benghazi because an attack was imminent and then refusing it. Then imagine that the embassy at Benghazi was attacked by terrorists and then you tell troops on the runway ready to help their fellow citizens to "stand down" because they "can't make it in time". And then imagine that after the attack you blame the attack on mob violence incited by an anti-Muslin video when you knew it was a terrorist attack (be sure to tell the public in a presidential debate that you called it a terrorist attack from the beginning).

    Than imagine that even as the details come out, you are supported by the press and the Democrats because you are the Savior of the world and can do no wrong.

    Now THAT's an embarrassment!

    Let's ask religious leaders to make Obama's lack of integrity a moral issue and get his administration out of the White House.

  • New to Utah PAYSON, UT
    May 10, 2013 6:47 a.m.

    Liberal press loves Obama and Clinton. They have been covering their backside on this disaster in typical fashion creating strawmen they see as being unkind to their president. The facts are horrible four Americans killed including the Ambassador and help was not forthcoming.Chaffetz showed great courage to seek out the truth. I watched some of the hearings and all I saw were Democrats pushing back to protect Obama and Clinton.

  • O'really Idaho Falls, ID
    May 9, 2013 8:19 p.m.

    I think Jason Caffetz is doing an awesome job.

  • Something to think about Ogden, UT
    May 9, 2013 7:05 p.m.

    Chaffetz needs something to do. Why not this!

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    May 9, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    @nonprofiteer - very nice job of obfuscating the issue. We've been battling terrorism for many years, and yes, our facilities have been attacked. The extended inquiry has never been about the fact that the Libyan facility was attacked, and I'm guessing you know that. The utter incompetence of the attack response is one thing to look at, for sure, but beyond that is the brazen cover-up of the incompetent response and continued lying by the administration about it.

    Go ahead and give us all the details about the attacks under Bush in which his administration covered up bungled responses, then you'll be making a relevant comparison.

    Furthermore, State and Defense Department officials have already confirmed that budget cuts had absolutely nothing to do with reduced security in Libya, so that's just another dishonest argument about the security. Are you really going to argue that, when it comes time to prioritize security, the low priority is in the Middle East, on the anniversary of 9/11? If that's the argument, your tolerance of incompetence from this administration is truly remarkable. I'm guessing you would not be so tolerant of Republican incompetence in the same circumstances.

  • wYo8 Rock Springs, WY
    May 9, 2013 5:37 p.m.

    Thank You Jason, I have a 15 year old son who I would hate to be called to defend our country under a Clinton Administration. Yes Bush made mistakes but He never said it doesn't matter now. He never told any troops to stand down, etc. when they could of helped. I would take Jason over hatch any day. What has hatch done lately except to pad his retirement. He is about as helpful as McCain.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 9, 2013 5:23 p.m.

    The CIA personnel weren't even at the Consulate prior to the hot situation starting. They were at a separate location. This whole thing happened without the President and SECSTATE being involved, no leadership during campaigning. Mitt Romney didn't have anything to lose if he kept the President's feet to the fire. The President used his power and influence with the media to trample on the GOP, whether McCain or Romney, and especially Chaffetz.

  • nonprofiteer SLC, UT
    May 9, 2013 5:02 p.m.

    Embassy attacks under Bush:
    2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune
    2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan. From a July 31, 2004, Los Angeles Times article, 2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. From a December 6, 2004, New York Times, 2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria. From a September 13, 2006, Washington Post, 2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times 1/12/07, 2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia. From The New York Times, 2/21/2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen. From The New York Times 9/17/08,

  • nonprofiteer SLC, UT
    May 9, 2013 4:51 p.m.

    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) criticizes the handling of Libyan consulate security despite voting to cut embassy funding. ...... Later in the interview, CNN Anchor Soledad O'Brien asks, Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security? Chaffetz answers,Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have15,0000 contractors in Iraq. We have more than 6,000 contractors, a private army there, for President Obama, in Baghdad. And we're talking about can we get two dozen or so people into Libya to help protect our forces. When you're in touch economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things. O'Brien responds, Okay, so you're prioritizing. So, when there are complaints that, in fact, that there was not enough security, you just said,absolutely; that you cut, you were the one to vote against to increase security for the State Department, which would lead directly to Benghazi. That seems like you are saying you have a hand in the responsibility to this. The funding of the security?

  • Gregory Hill Richboro, PA
    May 9, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    No doubt Benghazi (like the Marine Barracks massacre under President Reagan) was an embarrassing tragi-comedy of security errors and miscommunications.

    But the biggest problem in understanding and fairly assessing what happened is what cannot be openly discussed.

    The primary purpose of the Benghazi compound at the time was to support covert activities, and therefore whatever was done there (even security) had to be coordinated between the State Department and the CIA with the danger of "blowing cover" in mind (which gets operatives killed). It is always hard to coordinate security when covert operations are afoot because of "need to know" restrictions and the bureaucratic tensions they engender.

    The desire to protect "means and methods" (which, translated, means covert operations and covert operatives) no doubt led to a perfectly understandable and appropriate "cover-up".

  • Danish American Payson, UT
    May 9, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    @Sorry Charlie: Ask the 600,000 Kurds who were killed WMD that Saddam didn't have them. I didn't agree with the way the way was prosecuted but to say Bush lied is such a far stretch of the truth that to say it shows ignorance. Every Intelligence Agency include Briton's, France's, and Israel's concluded WMD's existed. And they did. Nerve gas is a WMD.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    May 9, 2013 2:07 p.m.

    If Benghazi is such a minor event, then why did the administration go to such great efforts to cover it up. We have the evidence now. The reason there has not been a congressional investigation of the Bush administration regarding WMD's is the democrats were in one the sale. Bill believed there were WMD's and said so.

    Why is a big deal? because we have a government that will lie to us no matter who is in power.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    May 9, 2013 1:22 p.m.

    Benghazi is a minor event? Watergate pales in comparison. What the Democrat response shows is how hypocritical they are.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    May 9, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    The Obama administration has continually sided with the totalitarian side of conflict. They did it in Honduras, they did it in Egypt, then Libya, and now Syria. They were covertly supplying arms from Benghazi to Turkey and transshipping to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. When Al Quida got wind of it they tried to kill the facilitator, Ambassador Stevens, because Al Quida is the mortal enemy of Saudi Arabia, who supports and finances the spread of Wahhabism throughout the world, hoping to establish a Caliphate. The Obama administration is infused with Muslim Brotherhood adherents who are eliminating any reference to Muslim jihad in the military and State Department. Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood is killing hundreds of Christians and causing thousands of Christians to flee their native counties.

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

  • Whatever Springville, UT
    May 9, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    Chaffetz votes to cut funding for embassy security, then turns around and wonders why the embassy wasn't secure. Could he be a bigger embarrassment??

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    May 9, 2013 11:10 a.m.

    Re: Bleed Crimson

    Way to go with your point! I'm still amazed that the Obama defenders try to bring up Bush when defending the Obama ineptness. If we had such an inept Repbulican in office, I would be willing to admit it. Will Ernest T. and some of these others ever find fault with BO? Noooooooooo. It's like Bob Beckle admitted to Bill O'Reilly one night on FOX. Bob said his dad told him that Republicans are evil and don't ever vote for them. Bob has never gotten over that and to this day believes it. Sorry excuse for the open mindedness that liberals fancy themselves to have. I think a lot of them are Bob Beckels.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 9, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    It is the discredit to Utah and America that we allow our representatives in our national government to put such a minor event as Benghazi ahead of all the other problems facing our nation.

    Since Fox News has been the main driver for this wayward bus, we must assume the importance of the event is more in business than to the people of America. To the businessman, the events in Benghazi are a much greater threat to business than the event in Texas where a business killed 14 ordinary American people.

    The other aspect of this is the need for conservative, republican, businessmen, and the financial gods of the world to discredit and harass the democrat President of the USA. Probably not because of his threat to business but because he might help people in general with his socialist ideas.

    In any case the people we have sent Washington as congressmen and senators are the wrong people if our intent was to save America.

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    May 9, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    @ v2010

    "From 2002 to 2008 (Bush years) 7 US consulates/embassies were attacked, 38 people killed and no republican Senator or House Representative was front and center"

    Since your going to bring up the Bush administration, I'm going to bring up the Clinton administration. First: The World Trade Center bombing in 1993 killed 6 people and injured more than a thousand people. President Clinton didn't do anything about that. In 2000 the attack on the USS Cole resulted in 17 American lives lost and injuring 39; President Clinton didn't do anything about that either. Quit blaming Bush for everything that goes wrong with President Obama.

  • Scott Farcus Beaver, UT
    May 9, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    LDS Liberal
    "Jason Chaffetz wants Senator Orrin Hatch's job so bad he can almost taste it!"

    Give it to him!

    We need more men like Chaffetz in Washington to take down the corruption of the Chicago style politics!

    Where's the voting booth? Ill vote for him!

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 9, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    "Simply because I disagree with you does not mean I am not informed it simply means I have not bought into the revisionist timeline and facts of what really happened."


    The reason I call you guys misinformed is because if you were informed, you would know that the timelines I am referring to are not "revisionist", but actual timelines from liberal sources. It is obvious that there is a coverup. Again I invite you to look at those timelines that give the truth and details. To be honest, I haven't seen Fox's timeline of it, but I would imagine it is more correct than your side of the story. I also haven't listened to any political radio in the last 4 years, and I have never been a regular listener.

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    May 9, 2013 10:26 a.m.

    I know a good reason why the Pres. shouldn't be impeached.

    Joe Biden as Pres.

    NOW I know why Obama picked Biden for v.p.!

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    May 9, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    @ LDS Liberal - Isn't that an oxymoron?

    "Jason Chaffetz wants Senator Orrin Hatch's job so bad he can almost taste it!"

    I would welcome Jason Chaffetz with a big banquet for him to feast because he deserves it. He's one of the few politicians that stand for and defend good American core values. I would be the first in line to vote for Chaffetz if he were running against that useless Senator Hatch.

  • Obama10 SYRACUSE, UT
    May 9, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    Good for Rep Chaffetz. The administration has been covering this up from day one and it is time we get answers. Please keep pushing forward!!!

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:55 a.m.

    Chaffetz and the faux news "outrage" is just shameful and embarrassing.
    Ignore the cluster that was Iraq and obsess over this.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    May 9, 2013 9:43 a.m.

    Nixon lied about Watergate and he was driven out of office by both Democrats and Republicans. But no one was killed. The Obama administration not only lied but four Americans were killed in the process. Do the Democrats have enough integrity to join with the Republicans and deal with this disgraceful behavior of the president, or will they once again have a double standard? This is the Democrat party's chance to show they are real Americans.

  • Informed Voter South Jordan, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    Three cheersa for Chaffetz. Anyone who dismisses this as politics is blinded by ideology. The facts are being revealed that the administration abandoned the four Americans. That alone is derilection of duty as a minimum. Shameful to watch democrats and their low information supporters fail to acknowledge how the victims were not helped and special forces troops were ready to go on the tarmac in Tripoli were ordered to stand down (that means, "do not go" if anyone needs the definition). It is foolhardy for some to write Bush did or didn't do this or that, or Chaffetz is only interested in criticizing Obama et al. Get real and be honest! The decisions by the Administration were terrible and their cover-up made things even worse.

  • donn layton, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:32 a.m.

    RE: Monk, Chaffetz is getting what he wants out of this hearing. He wants to be "front and center". It's likely not for noble purposes. Wrong,

    Who gave the stand-down order, and why? Fox and CBS have both reported that there was a stand-down order issued during the battle in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Four Americans died, while as many as 30 survived. Assistance could have come in from U.S. bases in Italy or possibly from bases in the Middle East. There was a drone, unarmed, overhead, and there have been reports that an AC-130 gunship was also overhead at some point during the prolonged battle. A target was painted and sent to the AC-130 by special ops on the ground but it was denied to light up(destroy) the terrorists.
    As a Vietnam Veteran I could not imagine our air support(helicopters) ordered to stand down.

  • aj6145 clearfield, ut
    May 9, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    So why can't the "Obama team" just tell us why the military was told to "stand down"? I don't care about what the "Bush team" did when they were in office. We can discuss that on a different forum. Someone needs to answer that question to the American public. That's why we want an investigation, because that makes NO sense!!!

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:24 a.m.

    Re: JWB

    There is a story going on that what was really happening with Ambassador Stevens was that he was on secret, low key, fact finding mission about possible WMD. Two of the guys with him were ex Navy Seals. Many ex special forces guys go into the CIA and do the clandestine type stuff for which they were trained. That makes me suspicious as to why the ambassador was not with what should have been his usual detail. However, whether any of this stuff will come out, who knows. I do know, that we have not heard a lot of the truth yet. Only the lies as I alluded to above. By the way, where were the Marines? Marines guard embassys world wide, and in a dangerous area like that we should have had a two companies or more there. Where were they? Any answer to that Obama and Clinton?

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:19 a.m.

    @ Happy Valley Heretic

    I know you only want to see the democrat representative from Utah in the limelight, but he has to do something useful to get there.

    Ever heard of photoshop? Revisi...

    Oh, never mind. You won't listen anyway.

    m. g. scott is spot on!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:16 a.m.

    Murray, UT

    Did Saddam Hussein have bombs? Of course.


    Did Saddam Hussein use any bombs to attack the United States of America? Of course NOT!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:11 a.m.

    Jason Chaffetz wants Senator Orrin Hatch's job so bad he can almost taste it!

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:09 a.m.

    I don't agree with Representative Chaffetz on everything but the President and the Department of State have not been open and forthcoming with the "truth". We elect the President and the Congress for a purpose. The Congress is our quality review board. They have the power and authority to do what they are doing. They pass laws and approve budgets. They want answers and even though it has politics in it, the President is also a political animal and the career diplomats appear to have been thwarted by coming forward. They are the Lieutenant Calley from Vietnam timeframe. Ambassador Rice fell on her sword that Sunday when she made those statements trying to defend the action or inaction of the administration. Those men that died didn't know that support for them was called off. Why was the Ambassador from the United States of America in Benghazi that day without security and coordinated support? This was not random action by novice attackers. The Secretary of Defense should have pushed the President to action but he wasn't a real Secretary of Defense, just a politician and bureaucrat. Street fighting in Benghazi is having the mafia in Chicago without FBI.

  • m.g. scott clearfield, UT
    May 9, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    Anyone of you who think the Administration did not try to cover up this story are simply showing how in the tank you are for Obama no matter what he does. That is bad citizenship. You should, as an American first, want the truth to come out. I did not believe or support the Bush lies, the Reagan lies, the Clinton lies, ect. And from my 50 plus years experience know all Presidents and administrations lie at times. It is the duty of the press and the people to hold them accountable, not cover up because of petty politics. Shame on all of you who stand by the lies by Obama, Clinton, Carney,ect who said for weeks that this was bacause of some movie that no one ever saw. It was terriorism and they all knew it from the beginning. That is fact. But the Obama people tried to cover it up for election purposes. And now it is the same so that Hillary will not be held accountable for her possible run in 2016. Shame, shame, shame.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    May 9, 2013 8:13 a.m.

    Nothing new, nothing to see but a politician who loves to be front and center.

    Nixon wasn't forced to resign, he chose to.

    If Saddam was so dangerous why were we giving them so many arms?
    Why so many pictures with Old man bush holding hands walking around with Saddam?

    If you only listen to AM radio entertainers for News, I can see where you would be confused about the facts, since most of the time those clowns are quite fact free.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 9, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    House Democrats wanted to have full hearings--including bringing in the military, but Republicans refused. Why? Republicans claim they want to know what happened in Benghazi.

    As for Mr. Hicks:

    A State Department spokesman, Patrick H. Ventrell, said the department had not and would not retaliate against Mr. Hicks. Mr. Ventrell noted that Mr. Hicks “testified that he decided to shorten his assignment in Libya following the attacks, due to understandable family reasons.” He said that Mr. Hicks’s current job was “a suitable temporary assignment” at the same salary, and that he had submitted his preferences for his next job.

  • George New York, NY
    May 9, 2013 8:01 a.m.


    Simply because I disagree with you does not mean I am not informed it simply means I have not bought into the revisionist timeline and facts of what really happened.

    As for Iraq the bush administration claimed that Iraq had weapons they did not have and no matter how far badger tries to torture the facts of what bush claimed and what happened in Boston bush and his team clearly mislead the public and got a lot of people killed. You can now aim it was because sad dam was a bad guy but the fact remains we were lead into a war under false pretense.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 9, 2013 7:30 a.m.

    Sorry Charlie,

    I cordially invite you to look up the Benghazi timeline. You are clearly misinformed about what happened, and I cannot fill you in on all the details in fewer than 200 words, so please educate yourself on the issue. I know you liberals love factcheck websites (with an org at the end), so feel free to go there.

    As for the Iraq war, Saddam Hussein was widely considered the most dangerous man alive at the time. Any soldier who has been there can say that we did a good thing (that's all I've heard from soldiers who have been there).

    Pat sums it up well; if Nixon is forced to resign for something like Watergate (which is harmless and innocent compared to the Benghazi coverup), then it is only right that Obama would resign. At least he would resign if he were a man of integrity.

  • Monk Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 9, 2013 6:55 a.m.

    Chaffetz is getting what he wants out of this hearing. He wants to be "front and center". It's likely not for noble purposes. Hard to stomach this guy.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    May 9, 2013 5:18 a.m.

    This is political postering pure and simple - Congress needs to focus on working together (scary thought) and doing the things that will help "We the people" - not just their polical futures!

  • Joan Watson TWIN FALLS, ID
    May 8, 2013 11:50 p.m.

    I intently watched and listened to the hearings on Benghazi and Tripoli. The so called 'whistle-blowers' I absolutely believe spoke truly and are crditable witnesses to what happened. Also the revelation of what has happened to their government careers since they have openly discredited and challenged the Obama's administration's role both before and after the terrorist attack. Every American citizen regardless of party should be asking some serious questions concerning the power structure of government - just who is responsible and who is to blame when governmental lethal mistakes happen.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 8, 2013 11:42 p.m.

    I can't wait for the next murderer to take the stand and say in his/her defense, "He died 2 years ago. What difference, at this point, does it make, whether it was my fault or whether it happened spontaneously?" Thanks for a new defense Secretary Clinton!

    This is the story that EVERYONE knew was dirty, but the left and their press denied it anyway, for the love of Obama and "The Party". The left was busy sweeping, like a curling crew, to hide it under the rug.

    @ Mavick

    When the truth hurts your guy, attack the messenger and distract from the issue. The tactic is predictable, even laughable, but the tragedy forbids.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 8, 2013 11:37 p.m.

    Sorry Charlie -

    Did Saddam Hussein have bombs? Of course.

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction, i.e. a small bomb.

    So THERE WERE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION IN IRAQ, by the definition of the USofA. (Not to mention the chemical weapons Hussein had.)

    The lie that there were no WMD needs to be put to rest, and the US Federal charges against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should do just that.

    Incidentally, weapons of mass distraction is a democrat party tactic to try to keep their politicians who are in office out of trouble.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 8, 2013 11:11 p.m.

    Did Ambassador Pickering and Gen. Mike Mullen not do an adequate job of investigating? Are they part of the "cover-up?"

    What new evidence of a "cover-up" did Republicans find from the "whistle-blower?"

    Are they going to bring in the military now and ask them why they didn't send help?

    This is nothing more than Whitewater revisited--an attempt to derail any chance of Hillary running for office.

  • George F Salt Lake , UT
    May 8, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    To Maverick. It's hard for Jason to fix the economy when we have a president doing all he can to destroy it.

  • Pat Salt Lake , UT
    May 8, 2013 10:54 p.m.

    Having lived through the Watergate scandal, I am truly grateful that Rep Chaffetz, and others, have the courage to ask the tough questions as to what happened during and after the Benghazi attacks. I am even more grateful the witnesses have the courage to answer those questions. Like Benghazi, Watergate happened shortly before a presidential election. Unlike Benghazi, nobody died from Watergate. If the president is involved in a coverup he needs to resign.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 8, 2013 10:28 p.m.

    Why doesn't Jason tackle an issue that actually matters? What is he doing to fix our economy?

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    May 8, 2013 10:17 p.m.

    The administration thought this would go away as the Fast and Furious program. Getting around integrity won't help them.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    May 8, 2013 9:59 p.m.


    no and neither did Obama, so what's your point?

    how many thousands of people died because of "weapons of mass distraction" that never turned up and republican still to this day try to defend the actions taken because of the false claims made? selective indignation much?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 8, 2013 8:13 p.m.


    Did Bush blame the attack on mob violence sparked by a video then later admit that he knew all along that it was a terrorist attack, then later say that he was still investigating? Did Bush tell the military to "stand down"? Did Bush's administration deny the embassies assistance when they asked, knowing that an attack was likely?

    If so, go ahead and start an investigation.

  • v2010 salt lake city, utah
    May 8, 2013 8:04 p.m.

    From 2002 to 2008 (Bush years) 7 US consulates/embassies were attacked, 38 people killed and no republican Senator or House Representative was front and center. Shame.