Quantcast
Opinion

Charles Krauthammer: Benghazi — How to do the hearings right

Comments

Return To Article
  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    May 11, 2014 5:24 a.m.

    It is abundantly clear that the GOP is infinitely more concerned on what was said in the aftermath than about the "4 dead Americans"

    The bottom line is that the hard right wants desperately to believe that Romney lost because Benghazi was not called a "terror attack" by Susan Rice.

    The whole Benghazi issue has been blown way out of proportion. Even the GOP's worst case scenario on Benghazi is just not that big of a deal.

    Sorry, but it just isn't.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    May 11, 2014 7:36 a.m.

    There is consequences.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 11, 2014 8:15 a.m.

    For the people pushing these 'hearings', the only way to do them right is going to be to throw as much of anything that they can at Hillary Clinton, and see if that has an effect.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    May 11, 2014 8:33 a.m.

    The right is rapidly losing all credibility on the issue of Benghazi. Krauthammer and his ilk are in a losing battle to outrage the American populous by parsing every word of Whitehouse press releases, and by creating intricate time lines that "prove" that Hillary and Obama are part of some grand conspiracy.

    In addition they have lost all sense of proportionality, sitting on their collective hands after 9-11 while going ballistic after the unfortunate attack on our Benghazi embassy.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 8:38 a.m.

    "But the country deserves the truth. They'll get it if the GOP can keep the proceedings clean, factual and dispassionate. No speeches. No grandstanding. Gowdy has got to be a tough disciplinarian — especially toward his own side of the aisle."
    -----------------------

    Amen!

    The stonewalling from one party in the face of grandstanding by too many of the people from the other party is the kind of behavior that has kept me from joining any political party.

    I want to know **the truth**!! Nothing more, nothing less.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 11, 2014 8:47 a.m.

    This story still needs to be addressed. There are so many unanswered questions. This is a corruption issue, not a campaign issue.

    The same can be said for the terrorist kidnapping in Nigeria.

    The campaign issues are:

    17.6 Trillion in debt, and and still erupting like a volcano

    Lack of jobs in the USA

    People giving up on finding jobs and accepting socialism crumbs, instead of seeking vibrant life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

    The undermining effects of no job prospects on our young people, coupled with the disintegration of the families they come from, causing them to give up on school and life.

    Massive political corruption in the IRS.

    Offer ideas to solve these issues and you will have a campaign on your hands.

    But that said, Benghazi matters because national integrity matters.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 11, 2014 9:24 a.m.

    It is abundantly clear that the democrats are infinitely more concerned what was said in the aftermath than about the "4 dead Americans".

    That is why they lied.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 11, 2014 9:27 a.m.

    WASHINGTON — The Democrats are portraying the not-yet-even constituted House Select Committee on Benghazi as nothing but a partisan exercise.

    =========

    If it walks like a duck
    Swims like a dick,
    and QUACKS like a duck...

    It's a duck!

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 11, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    How to do the hearings right?

    By ruining Hillary's chances of becoming President.

    We all know that is what the right wing wants out of these. I bet they couldn't even tell you any of the names of those who were killed!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 11, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    If there is a real story to be found here, I think we should pursue it. But I think it is not unreasonable to also insist on the same requirements the Republicans demanded when the Democrats tried to pull this same theater less than 8 years ago with the Bush administration. I think the Republican committee should insist that everything said will be off the record, as they did 8 years ago. I think the republicans should insist that the White House has immunity, as they did 8 years ago. I think Republicans should consider somethings White House secrets, as did Dick Cheney when he was summoned to explain the discussions he had with oil executives just before the beginning of hostilities began in Iraq. The conservatives Republicans should grant to the Democrat administration everything they demanded as conditions to testify to the then Democrat run House Select Committee. Anything less would be hypocritical.

    And at the same time, the Democrats need to be careful about what they demand before testifying, because when the shoe is on the other foot, and it will be someday, they will need to grant Republicans the same concessions they are asking for now.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 11, 2014 2:27 p.m.

    "It advises the U.N. ambassador to focus on an anti-Islam Internet video, thus contradicting the perennial White House claim that Rice's blame-the-video five-show fable came just from intelligence community talking points and not from a White House in full campaign mode."

    By concentrating on the talking points offered by the administration after the attack tell me just one thing this does to make our current ambassadors and embassies safer?

    If you can't say one concrete thing that would come from this approach to the attacks that makes ambassadors safer you are just as guilty of politicizing the deaths of 4 Americans as your accusations against the administration. So don't be climbing on any high ground with all this it's not a mound it's a political swamp.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 11, 2014 2:37 p.m.

    @The Real Maverick "I bet they couldn't even tell you any of the names of those who were killed!"

    What you're doing here is called projection. I hope you will come to learn over the course of the investigation that the names and families of Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith are held in high regard by most Americans. Your expectation that their names would not be known is itself rather telling.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 11, 2014 3:39 p.m.

    It WAS a "campaign issue" when it happened (because it happened during the Presidential campaign, and they knew ANY failure in foreign affairs would come up in the Presidential debates). But the election is over now. It's time to take a look at it without the campaign pressure now... before we are in the NEXT election.

    IF we air it completely NOW... there's a chance it won't still be an issue when the next election comes around.

    It's in everybody's best interest to get this all out in the open NOW... Not rehash it later when Clinton is trying to be President.

    If we get EVERYTHING out in the open now... we can avoid a big ugly election surprise (which the media loves to spring).

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 11, 2014 4:49 p.m.

    @Nate
    "I hope you will come to learn over the course of the investigation that the names and families of Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith are held in high regard by most Americans."

    Yes, so why do you keep using them to try and get political gain? Read the senate select committee report for crying out loud... some of the questions being asked in these comments were answered years ago.

  • UT Brit London, England
    May 11, 2014 6:00 p.m.

    @Nate

    I actually knew Sean Smith, we spoke often on a forum we both belonged to. I am 100% sure the last thing he would want is for a republican committee to pointlessly drag these things up.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 11, 2014 9:16 p.m.

    @Schnee "...why do you keep using them to try and get political gain?"

    I have nothing to gain from this, other than finding out the truth. Why are you defending lies and stonewalling?

    "...some of the questions being asked in these comments were answered years ago."

    Okay, answer me this: where was the President all evening, and what was he doing?

    @UT Brit

    I didn't know Sean Smith, but from what I know about him, he would want the truth to be known.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2014 7:06 a.m.

    Obama/Hillary blatantly lied to protect himself during a campaign and now his myopic minions accuse republicans of politicizing the issue?
    Leftists destroy their own credibility.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 12, 2014 7:12 a.m.

    "Okay, answer me this: where was the President all evening, and what was he doing?"

    Okay answer me this; why does it matter where the President was all evening and what he was doing, and better yet how does knowing this make any of our embassies safer today?

    If knowing where the President was and what he was doing doesn't make embassies and ambassadors safer then this is all political nothing else. Which is exactly the accusation against the administration used to justify the hearing in the first place.

    Back in the "good old days"(the Regan years) hearings to investigate embassy bombings were bi-partisan (democrats being the minority)and held to improve circumstances and processes.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 12, 2014 7:43 a.m.

    @Nate
    Pleasant Grove, UT
    @The Real Maverick "I bet they couldn't even tell you any of the names of those who were killed!"

    What you're doing here is called projection. I hope you will come to learn over the course of the investigation that the names and families of Christopher Stevens, Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and Sean Smith are held in high regard by most Americans. Your expectation that their names would not be known is itself rather telling.

    2:37 p.m. May 11, 2014

    ===========

    What you are doing is Google searching ---
    at least shuffle the names so it at least LOOKS like you knew it without having to look them up.

    BTW -- as a veteran myself, I would be ashamed that my life and good name would be used and exploited for political purposes like this.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 12, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    pragmatistferlife
    salt lake city, utah
    "Okay, answer me this: where was the President all evening, and what was he doing?"

    ==========

    Agreed.

    Reagan SLEPT when 241 Marines were killed in a bombing,
    and his staff didn't even bother to wake him up to tell him about it.

    Where today's conservative think Pres. Obama is a little General,
    with his finger on the button,
    flying radio controled drones around all over the world,
    attacking terrorists, or protecting embassies, troops, and 350 Million individual Americas worldwide,
    autonomously and all by himself is simply ridiculous.

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 12, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    @Nate
    "Okay, answer me this: where was the President all evening, and what was he doing?"

    At least for part of it he was in the Oval Office. He'd told Dempsey and Panetta to deploy forces but pretty much nothing was available and ready to go. Most decisions were made by the Joint Chiefs and other defense related groups because well... they're the experts. You wouldn't want Obama personally trying to fix the Obamacare website, he's not a computer scientist.

    "Why are you defending lies and stonewalling?"

    There were mistakes and we knew basically everything by early October. I don't see any effort to fix the problems that occurred that day, I just see an effort to try and ruin Clinton's 2016 chances.

    @Counter Intelligence
    "Obama/Hillary blatantly lied to protect himself during a campaign"

    He called it an act of terror within a couple days and by the end of the month they already had the main facts straightened out.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 12, 2014 11:49 a.m.

    Reagan sleeping during the bombing in Lebanon... must be the thing to say in response to this today...

    Google "1983 Beirut barracks bombing"... Wikipedia...
    IF you want the whole story (not just the political hack version).

    ===

    It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

    #1. The attack in Beirut happened in the amount of time it takes for a truck to plow through the barricades and detonate.

    Unless Reagan spent his whole life in the situation room (just in case something happened)... there was no time for him to get to the situation room in that amount of time.

    #2. There was no information that the marines were in more danger that day (they were in danger every day), but it wasn't 9/11, and we didn't have intel that something was planned for that day. We did 9/11 2012.

    ===

    The truck detonated at 06:22... CH-46s from Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron (HMM) 162, were airborne by 6:45 AM.... (minutes)

    IF we had responded in minutes to news of the attack on our embassy in Benghazi... we could have stopped it before it became deadly (we had hours)

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 12, 2014 12:32 p.m.

    Scream Benghazi, ignore Iraq. Ignore the 12 or 13 similar attacks under Bush, while screaming Benghazi.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    May 12, 2014 2:28 p.m.

    Ernest,

    Bush left office in January of 2009. He no longer holds power in this country. His minions are not looking to run in 2016. (And incidentally, he didn't lie about attacks that occurred during his tenure. They were terrorist attacks, and he admitted it.)

    What exactly do you hope to gain from such an investigation?

    Feel free to investigate, for your own interest. But public funds should be spent on things that effect the public today and tomorrow. Benghazi still does. Our lying uncaring president still is in power. How many more will he let die to save his face? Do we want to allow that?

    Then there are his minions who may want to run for election down the road. We have a right to know who they are and what their real record is.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 12, 2014 2:34 p.m.

    @Ernest T. Bass,
    RE: "Ignore the 12 or 13 similar attacks under Bush, while screaming Benghazi"...

    I tried what you suggested. I tried screaming "Benghazi"... while ignoring the 12 or 13 similar attacks under Bush... what was supposed to happen?... people at work just looked at me like was crazy...

    ===

    Is it supposed to change something if you REMEMBER the attacks that happened under Bush... while screaming "Benghazi"...

    I doubt it will change anything... but I'll try it if you think it would change something...

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 12, 2014 3:32 p.m.

    ‘Charles Krauthammer: Benghazi — How to do the hearings right’

    ====

    Gee, I don't know.

    Pick a Show trial - any show trial...

    Perhaps they should study how 'ol Sen. Joe McCarthy did it,
    or
    perhaps the Salem Witch Trials,
    Spanish Inquisition?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 12, 2014 4:26 p.m.

    "How many more will he let die to save his face?"

    So now somehow he let the four in Benghazi die to save face. This just gets more and more bizarre as it spins along.

  • livenwalter audubon, PA
    May 12, 2014 8:26 p.m.

    The committee really has two jobs: 1 Conduct the hearings. 2 Deal with the tidal
    wave of negative media coverage ad hominem attacks from libs that will surely
    accompany the hearings. If they don't do (2) competently, they will be the
    losers, regardless facts found in (1).

  • Curmedgeon Bountiful, UT
    May 12, 2014 9:01 p.m.

    Of course, now we have liberals claiming that that Ambassador Stevens was not killed, but died as a result of smoke inhalation, and still spewing "the Video is at fault" stuff.

    So by liberal logic, the 9/11 victims were not killed by terrorists, but because the twin towers collapsed.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    May 12, 2014 10:46 p.m.

    @Schnee "At least for part of it he was in the Oval Office."

    Great. After twenty months, we can now account for 30 minutes of the President's time. Panetta and Dempsey said they had only one conversation with him. Where was he the rest of the time? The compound in Benghazi was under attack for eight hours.

    Nixon's gap was only 18-1/2 minutes.

    Think on this: if Obama is willing to let us believe that he was asleep at the switch rather than telling us what he was really doing, it must be really damaging.

    "There were mistakes..."

    There were willful lies. Carter Ham told Panetta within 15 minutes of the start of the attack that it was a terror attack. Between that time and 10:30 PM the story changed to "blame the video." Where was Obama during this time period, and what orders did he give? You don't know. Twenty months have gone by, and the country still does not know.