@LDS Liberal - "Jason Chaffetz wants Senator Orrin Hatch's job
.........". My, you say that like it's a bad thing
LSA LibLet Chaffetz have Hatch's job....he serves us well. He
after all, is not your man but ours.
"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
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.
I think Jason Caffetz is doing an awesome job.
Chaffetz needs something to do. Why not this!
@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
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
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.
Embassy attacks under Bush:2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan,
Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune2004: 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,
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?
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
@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.
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.
re.UltraBob:Benghazi is a minor event? Watergate pales in comparison. What
the Democrat response shows is how hypocritical they are.
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?
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??
Re: Bleed CrimsonWay 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.
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.
@ 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.
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!
"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."George,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.
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.!
@ 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.
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!!!
Chaffetz and the faux news "outrage" is just shameful and embarrassing.
Ignore the cluster that was Iraq and obsess over this.
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.
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.
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
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!!!
Re: JWBThere 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?
@ Happy Valley HereticI 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!
BadgerbadgerMurray, UTDid Saddam Hussein have bombs? Of
course. =============== Did Saddam Hussein use any bombs
to attack the United States of America? Of course NOT!
Jason Chaffetz wants Senator Orrin Hatch's job so bad he can almost taste
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.
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.
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.
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.
@rivertonSimply 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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
To Maverick. It's hard for Jason to fix the economy when we have a
president doing all he can to destroy it.
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.
Why doesn't Jason tackle an issue that actually matters? What is he doing
to fix our economy?
The administration thought this would go away as the Fast and Furious program.
Getting around integrity won't help them.
@riverton 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
v2010Did 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.
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