Wonder who changed the CIA's talking points?

Guess the White House has some explaining to do.

Remebers the song "And when we get behind closed doors, then she let's her hair hang down....

"So much much for transparent government."

Eric, Bush had no real intelligence 9/11 would happen. Obama knew it was 9/11. He knew requests had come for additional security. The Compound had already been attacked a month or so before. There is a BIG difference.

Joe,

My feelings exactly. For me I can only say that when he places his hand on the Bible he MUST tell the truth. It's between him and the man upstairs. I wonder how much he was paid or given in exchange for some BS? He can go to hell for his time if he does not speak the truth. And for those of you commenting on 911 and blood on Bush's hands, what would you have done? I suppose just kept your thumb up you A** and went on about business as usual. Your boy can't blame Bush anymore and that just gets Libs all worked up. God Bless the U.S.S. of A!

Eric-913730 Its sad you step on four brave Americans deaths and the poor people who died in 911

Eric-913730: Then you agree that blood is on Obama's hand. Blood was definitely on Bush's hands for 9/11.

Rockyroad-531554

Remebers the song "And when we get behind closed doors, then she let's her hair hang down....

"So much much for transparent government."

For all the security they have put in place to make sure nobody knows what's going on, this article could have been distilled into one sentence: "General Petraeus was seen walking through a door."

It's just like Eric to go off topic. 4 people are dead, they asked for extra support, the WH knew this, they denied knowing anything, the whole thing stinks.

How can you libs try and deflect attention from Obama and try to say that Benghazi is a non issue? We get that you have some weird love affair over Obama but when 4 Americans are killed that is where you as citizens and tax payers have to question what our leaders are doing. I was very critical of Bush over alot of things and I was not sad to see him go at the end of his second term, that is my job as a tax payer and voter. Wake up and stop carrying Obamas golf bag.

Ooohh! The heartbreak of Viagra! And what about that "Extend" product? A combination is more dangerous than an unattended Cocked Glock on a psycho ward!

Oh Eric, soooooooooooooo adult!!! Bill Clinton let's bin laden loose, and it's Bush's fault. OK, blame Bush. I don't care; but you give Obama a pass on this? Is there footage or audiotape of people asking for help for a month before 9/11? A month beforehand! Even a simpleton should understand advanced warning, shouldn't they?

You truly worship your leader, don't you? Do you begin to know how sophmoric that sounds? Obama gets to let people die cuz we think................. Oh yeah, well.... nyja-nyja-nyja-nyja-nyja-nyja! No wonder the incompetent got re-elected..............

"Witch hunt"

If only those in the White House were only that innocuous!

Simply put- It was a seven hour attack that went from one compound, down the street, and over to a safe house. Is anyone really going to attempt to convince us that the country with the greatest intellegence network, the most advanced technologies, and the greatest military wasn't able to figure out that it was an attack with hundreds of organized fighters and couldn't send in ANYONE as reinforcements within those 7 hours?!? That's the issue folks- lots of protocals for situations like this, but nothing done.

Eric,

You are a party hack. Nothing more and nothing less. How about all the Dems that wanted the funding pulled? No mention of that? At least some of your other lib pals try to back up their claims with some sort of facts. Now go home and get your f-ckin shine box.

JerseyGirl,

You say, "Eric, Bush had no real intelligence 9/11 would happen".

Rewriting history are you? Condy Rice and the entire Intelligence community knew Bin Laden was planning an attack on the U.S. IN THE U.S. That fact has been well written about. But, Bush failed to act on the intelligence. So, please, know your facts before you post what you do not apparently know about..

I don't offer the Bush ignoring the intelligence as a justification of what happened in Libya. I want the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. But, until we know all the facts, I will withhold judgement.

JoeNY

I agree, Im affraid though they are gonna try to hang him out to dry,if it was said that King disagreed with his recollection.

ERIC:

Clinton let him get away after an attempt on US soil

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2011/05/05/bin-laden-lived-to-fight-another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/

BTW, 2 wrongs - even if you blame Bush (who cares?) don't make 1 right. Obama is inept at everything except freebies and giveaways - at the taxpayers expense. 76% of foodstamp recipients are his worshippers followers. Makes everything crystal clear.

The problem is this administration believes it's lies. This administration Top down is nothing but a bunch of power hungry thugs who believe that they can lie and blame anyone else but themselves. They have conned 51% of the American people and so they think they are correct. We will never get the truth from Obama or his Administration because they know not how to speak the truth.

The blood of America is on all hands who voted for this fool.

Just to add something to everyone bringing up Bush to try and deflect attention from Obama. What if Republicans walked around saying that it didnt matter if Bush knew and that Dems are making an issue out of nothing? Do you see how insane that logic is?

Thanks Gary for adding nothing constructive to the discussion.

Hey Pinhead! That's right 51%. In America we call that an election for the people by the people. Of course I am sure that you, Cheney and Bush sleep Ok with all the American and Iraqi blood that has been spilled on your behalf......

JoeNY

Simply put- It was a seven hour attack that went from one compound, down the street, and over to a safe house. Is anyone really going to attempt to convince us that the country with the greatest intellegence network, the most advanced technologies, and the greatest military wasn't able to figure out that it was an attack with hundreds of organized fighters and couldn't send in ANYONE as reinforcements within those 7 hours?!? That's the issue folks- lots of protocals for situations like this, but nothing done.

The greatest Military in the world was just a few short hours away, no support was sent, why? That is the question that all of the sane people in this country want to know.

Mac,

Tell that to the parents that want answers to their sons deaths. It might be funny to you libs but it is not funny to the parents that lost a child. Have you seen any of the interviews with the parents? Did you laugh and make fun of them because they said Obama was a heartless turd? Keep it classy you scum bag libs.

No surprise that the repubs sttempt to keep dragging some side issue to eternity if they can in order to avoid real issues. To them, the benghzai incidence is a good chance for them to distract the americans and to attack the white house. They have a master's degree in exploding even a non-issue into major national issues, such as president Clinton-Lewinsky affair. not that the benghzai is a non-issue, but it's not a major issue. Yet the repubs would sweep just about every major issues generated by their party members under the rug. The repubs behavior is very typical of underachievers always making trouble in order to get attention. The best any american can do is totally ignore these clowns!!!

Two questions on the same subject asked directly to the President were not answered in either case. (Once in the town hall debate and the other in his press conference this week)

1. "Who was it that denied enhanced security, and why?"

2. "On 9-11, did you issue any orders to protect their lives?”

So who in the Obama Administration becomes the 'scapegoat' when it's revealed that someone 'changed' the report to ignore the obvious intelligence conclusion that it was indeed a terrorist attack - conveniently protecting Obama until AFTER the election. And of course, virtually ALL of the media 'played along' (except Fox) by not asking any tough questions until after Obama was reelected. Now they can 'pretend' to do their jobs.

Jersey Girl, you should have stopped at "Bush had no real intelligence." And anyone looking for truthful answers from the CIA under any president's watch (regardless of which party is in the white house) will probably have better luck tracking down Santa Claus next month.

Frankly, I am less concerned with "who said what" regarding Benghazi...and more concerned with the ECONOMY and the perilous FIGHTING in Gaza.

The real problem I have with the administration is not what they didn't do before the attack (for this, they are just incompetent), but instead with their handling of the information after the attack.

The administration sent Ambassador Rice on the Sunday talk shows, where she made statements that were not true even based on information that the State Department had in hand at the time. If she was unaware of the situation, as Obama now claims, why was she the representative of his administration 5 days after the attack? Can't have it both ways. Either she was lying, or she is an incompetent tool of the administration. Either way, she didn't demonstrate the skills to be Secretary of State.

Congratulations on that 'Change we can believe in' that you voted for.

We have a combination of the sleaziness of Nixon and the incompetence of Carter all rolled up into one.

Scram. THANK-YOU!

Irish 21

Tell that to the parents that want answers to their sons deaths. It might be funny to you libs but it is not funny to the parents that lost a child. Have you seen any of the interviews with the parents?

Yes. I have. And two of them pleaded with Romney not to exploit their sons' deaths for political purposes -- including Ambassador Stevens father and sister. But the Republicans care nothing for these people, as the senile old crank McCain proved when he decided to hold a press conference to further grandstand on Benghazi and missed an important hearing on Benghazi.

Rewriting history are you? Condy Rice and the entire Intelligence community knew Bin Laden was planning an attack on the U.S. IN THE U.S.

So Bush had intelligence that Bin Laden was going to attack the WTC on Tuesday morning on 9/11/01? *eyeroll* Wow, so Bin Laden actually told Bush he was going to attack WTC on 9/11?

Re-read what you just wrote, "an attack on the U.S. in the U.S.

Listen people, everyday the WH gets warnings of attacks threatening the US, it happens everyday. The US is so large. Which part is Bin Laden going to attack? when? where?

Al Qaeda is not that stupid to pinpoint an attack. Duh.

Benghazi was different.

Benghazi was attacked four times, from April through June, 2012. With the 9/11 anniversary coming up US Ambassador Stevens in August pleaded with the WH and the State Dept. for more security.

Everyone knows the rest of the story.

The Republicons are claiming that the "American people" are up in arms about a nonexistent coverup. But the truth is that the only people who are trying -- and failing -- to make Benghazi a political issue already hate Obama and are desperately making up bogus reasons to justify their hate, most of which is racially based. It's no surprise that the cons are going after Susan Rice (black), Eric Holder (black), and of course the President of the United States, who is also too dark complected for their liking.

But notice they won't go after David Petraeus, the man most directly responsible for any intelligence screw ups. Petraeus is a member of the Good Ole White Boys Club, and is worshiped by the cons for his supposed (and dubious) military genius.

The embassies asked for more funds, from congress and not the president, the house of rep is in charge of appropriations (spending), and republicans voted to cut the amount they needed.

CBS has a copy of the transcript from the CIA that susan rice and congress were given, the CIA at the time received 2 conflicting reports (from libya) but the initial report suggested a protest, but as it became clearer that the attacks were organized, terrorism was suspected.

if the president called it a protest instead of a terrorist attack (by the way he called it a terrorist attack), of what benefit would that be to him? the (the republican led) house decides who gets money from the government, not the senate and not the president according to the constitution (the omnibus spending bill) US Constitution article 1 section 9.

SynHolliday said;

His criticism should have been there then, it should be here now. Because McCain is biased is completely irrelevant to whether this needs to be investigated. Obama extended Bush's Patriot Act,

Yes. Believe me, I am not happy with that.

defended warrantless wiretapping,

As I understood it, it was deemed OK in situations of national security. Just like many defend TSA's violation of rights on the basis of security for all, like many say that drones in US skies are OK, because it' supposed to keep us safe.

Gitmo is still open,

Yes, it is. One: because its a US Military base and will require an act of Congress to close it; and two: if you're only talking about the prison complex, well, some of the people in Guantanamo Bay have been cleared of all charges--they were handed over to the US simply because their countries didn't want them anymore; many of them are political dissidents whose only crime was to not agree with the One In Charge. Their country refuses to repatriate them, the US won't let them stay, but they are innocent of supporting/contributing to the attack on 9-11. They are in Gitmo because no one can figure out what to do with them--they are stuck.

If you have a solution for that that doesn't involve death for these proven-innocent people, I'm sure the government would love to hear it.

and he demanded the Bush version NDAA's indefinite detention of non-U.S. citizens without hearing or trial be changed to include U.S. citizens before he sign its extension (I remember all the outcry over civil rights violations pertaining to non-U.S. citizens, Obama took it even further),

Actually, incorrect. There has been an NDAA--a National Defense Authorization Act-- for almost every year. It authorizes military spending. The document that President Obama signed this year is the NDAA for FY2012--and the indefinite detention clause to which you refer is in newly-added sections 1031-1033.

Bush didn't pen those controversial sections--John McCain and Carl Levin did, allegedly in secret, in 2010. The original wording of the bill was 'mandatory indefinite detention without charge or trial' for anyone suspected of terrorism (not proven, just suspected.) President Obama refused to sign it, declared he would veto it, so Congress changed the wording to mandatory detention for non-USCs, and discretionary detention for USC's, and declared a trial would be necessary.

so where are all the Democrats who were rightfully complaining about those things before he was elected? I hear the crickets chirping. Seems the bias goes both ways.

President Obama was not going to be able to stop the NDAA for FY2012 from passing no matter what he did. In May of 2011, the House of Reps passed it 96-32, and the Senate passed it 93-7. The President could say he would veto it, but as you'll remember from civics classes in high school, a Presidential veto can be overridden by a 2/3 vote in Congress, which it clearly had.

The only thing President Obama could do was force the change in wording to 'discretionary detention' of USCs, which therefore gave us some measure of protection because the terms are that it's up to him to declare who will be able to make those 'discretionary' decisions (within 60 days of the NDAA for FY2012 passing) and he has thus far not done so, so it cannot be enacted until he does...and he can continue stalling on that until it comes time for the NDAA for FY2013 to be submitted, at which point we all hope the offending sections will be removed. If not, he can continue to simply stall it until 2016, at which point it will become the responsibility of whoever is President then.

This was one of the reasons why I hoped Romney would not be elected because I was positive Romney would appoint someone to make that decision and the relevant sections would commence enactment.

The Ambassador had been reporting as far back as July that they needed better security. There were numerous articles about all the request made. Also it was NOT the funding cuts that left them unable to properly defend themselves and this is also been the subject of news reports by many agencies not just "fox".The reports also said that the events were watched in realtime in DC so they had to know that this was more than a little protest over a dumb video. The adminstration was warned that something ws going to happen around the 9/11 anniversary. A child could tell you this particular date would be a great time to have amped up all foreign and domestic security!! In the Rose garden speech Obama did NOT directly say that Benghazi was a result of a terrorist act. He talked about acts of terror in general. For some time afteward all the reports from the administration were still blaming the events on the video. Approx $70,000 was spent by the administration making denouncements of the video and anti-islamic insults. WHY??? What people want to know is why insult the intelligence of ALL Americans by perpetuating the false statements that this video was the direct cause of all the violence and death!!!! Why is it so hard for Obama to get why people are against Susan Rice taking Clintons' job when she is clearly willing to go before this nation and lie about this incident???? This is supposedly the most transparent administration in our nations history??? Well let's get transparent and hear the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help me god from Obama and everyone involved!!!! Is the first problem swearing on the bible to be truthfull?????

armurray

The real problem I have with the administration is not what they didn't do before the attack (for this, they are just incompetent), but instead with their handling of the information after the attack.

The administration sent Ambassador Rice on the Sunday talk shows, where she made statements that were not true even based on information that the State Department had in hand at the time. If she was unaware of the situation, as Obama now claims, why was she the representative of his administration 5 days after the attack? Can't have it both ways. Either she was lying, or she is an incompetent tool of the administration. Either way, she didn't demonstrate the skills to be Secretary of State.

Good points.

I really don't buy for a second that the administration was so incompetent that days after the attack they still didn't know what happened - I don't believe it's realistically possible to be that incompetent.

Poor Eric just cant take it that someone in the O's group might be lying. Of course they struck the line to keep this from going political and the media ignored until after the election just in case if might damage the messiah, personnally I doubt it would have but heavens forbid that anyone might bring up some of his attempts to be a savior of the world that were nothing more than politics as usual...lies that is. His difiance and lack of compremise will continue and things will not change, people rarely change from their inner beliefs and he believes he has all the answers and him alone.

For all of those complaining about Bush - please stop with the deflection.

I agree, Bush was incompetent - but that doesn't mean it's also ok for Obama to do whatever he wants.

The bigger issue is the fact that most of the dumb-ass libs on this blog DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. This isn't a witchhunt as has been suggested....this is asking very legitimate questions on what happened and why certain decisions were made. The very act of asking those questions is offensive to so many people who fear that their messiah is, indeed, not perfect. I'm not saying that Obama did anything wrong...but I do want the questions asked. Why don't you libs want to know what happened????? And, BTW, defending Obama by pointing out some issues with Bush policies IS NOT A DEFENSE. Would you give one of your children a pass on doing something wrong if he says "but sissie did it too?" No, you'd go get "sissie" and take care of her as well.....

armurray

The real problem I have with the administration is not what they didn't do before the attack (for this, they are just incompetent), but instead with their handling of the information after the attack.

The administration sent Ambassador Rice on the Sunday talk shows, where she made statements that were not true even based on information that the State Department had in hand at the time. If she was unaware of the situation, as Obama now claims, why was she the representative of his administration 5 days after the attack? Can't have it both ways. Either she was lying, or she is an incompetent tool of the administration. Either way, she didn't demonstrate the skills to be Secretary of State.

Hey! Hey! Hey!

If you gots a problem with Rice you gots a problem with me. Sound familiar? Macho man couldn't answer why Rice was sent out on national television when she has nothing to do with national security.

GOPKnuckledraggers "When the State Dept requested more money for Security at Embassys and Consulates why did the GOP vote NO............ That is the Million Dollar Question"

They didn't vote no to more money for Embassy security. That was Obama's decision. Nice try at 'shifting the blame' though - something Obama has become quite good at.

@Irish21#1.35: Classy huh? You think it's classy to use the deaths of 4 people as a political tool against someone you don't like. You think those people's families enjoy such? They've already asked people like you not to do that. This will turn out to be a pile of "I believe", "I think", "see this link", etc., all bullsh^t. The whole premise people like yourself have put forth is, not only without logic, it is totally stupid. You want to believe in "Haints" fine. Just keep your lunacy to yourself!

Democrats don't care about the truth they care about to protect Obama from an embarrassment. This was not an spontaneous attach, Rice lie , lie , lie,lie ,lie five times in TV News to protect Obama reelection. This is wrong . CIA knew it was AlQaeda behind and they told Obama but all the Agencies agree to circle the wagon , calling a spontaneous terrorist attack, not a planned attack by a terrorist group, that it is something totally different. Syntax matter and Obama was smart using grammar to have both sides and mislead Americans.

jdmbo3 said:

The greatest Military in the world was just a few short hours away, no support was sent, why? That is the question that all of the sane people in this country want to know.

Yes, support was sent:

About 9:40 pm (local time) large numbers of armed men shouting "Allah Akbar" descended on the compound from multiple directions. The attackers lobbed grenades over the wall and entered the compound under a barrage of automatic weapons fire and RPGs, backed by truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns. A Diplomatic Security agent viewed on the consulate's security cameras "a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound." He hit the alarm and started shouting, “Attack! Attack!” over the loudspeaker. Phone calls were made to the embassy in Tripoli, the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington, the Libyan February 17 Brigade, and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound (the annex) a little more than a mile away. Ambassador Stevens telephoned Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks in Tripoli to tell him the consulate was under attack. Mr. Hicks did not recognize the phone number so he didn't answer it, twice. On the third attempt Mr. Hicks answered the call from Ambassador Stevens.

Diplomatic Security special agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management officer, in the main building's safe haven. Other agents retrieved their weaponry and tactical gear from another building. They tried to return to the main building but encountered armed attackers and retreated.

The attackers entered the main building and rattled the locked metal grille of the safe haven. They carried jerrycans of diesel fuel, spread the fuel over the floor and furniture, and set fires. As thick smoke filled the building, Stevens, Smith, and Strickland moved to the bathroom and lay on the floor, but they decided to leave the safe haven after being overcome by smoke. Strickland exited through the window, but Stevens and Smith did not follow him. Strickland returned back several times but couldn't find them in the smoke; he went up to the roof and radioed other agents.

Three agents returned to the main building in an armored vehicle; they searched the building and found Smith's body, but not Stevens.

A quick reaction force from the CIA annex arrived and attempted to secure the perimeter and locate the ambassador but were unable to find Stevens in the smoke-filled building. The team then decided to return to the annex with the survivors and Smith's body. While en route back to the annex, the group's armored vehicle was hit by rifle fire and hand grenades. The vehicle was able to make it to its destination with two flat tires, however.

Diplomatic security officers informed their headquarters in Washington about the attack just as it was beginning at about 9:40 local time (3:40 PM Eastern Time). By 4:30 Eastern, Pentagon officials informed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the attack. The Pentagon ordered an unmanned aerial vehicle that was in the air conducting surveillance on militant camps to fly over Benghazi. The drone arrived at 5:11 and began providing a video feed to Washington. At 5:41, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned CIA Director David Petraeus to coordinate. The CIA, which made up most of the US government's presence in Benghazi, had a ten-member security team at its annex and the State Department believed that this team would assist the consulate in the event of an attack.

Eric-913730

Benghazi is an issue, so is Republicans not approving the funds necessary to secure embassy's don't you think?

Eric, you seem to forget the vote on that extra security like all of the other liberals do

147 GOP-149 Democrats. That dog won't hunt.

Hey Libturds, there was a 911 commission, so don't get Your hair up for the Republicans wanting to sink Barry Boys ship. We need to see where all this leads, it's only fair !

Scrambolo said:

This Republican fantasy is being led by John McCain's continual irrational partisan rant! Why? Because he is arrogant, jealous and vengeful and, quite frankly, angry that Obama was reelected. It is my opinion that he would do or say anything to besmirch the President. It is dishearting to see a military hero, to ALL Americans,

John Mccain is not viewed as a 'decorated war hero to 'all Americans.' I found out his reputation as 'decorated war hero' was somewhat under question while exchanging messages with Vietnam era vets, among whom was a former intelligence analyst active during Vietnam, and he told me that John McCain was never tortured for information, he traded information for medical attention. Per McCain's own words:

They wanted military rather than political information at this time. Every time they asked me something, I'd just give my name, rank and serial number and date of birth.

I think it was on the fourth day that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size, shape and color of a football. I remembered that when I was a flying instructor a fellow had ejected from his plane and broken his thigh. He had gone into shock, the blood had pooled in his leg, and he died, which came as quite a surprise to us—a man dying of a broken leg. Then I realized that a very similar thing was happening to me.

When I saw it, I said to the guard, "O.K., get the officer." An officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as "The Bug." He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, "O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital." He left and came back with a doctor, a guy that we called "Zorba," who was completely incompetent. He squatted down, took my pulse. He did not speak English, but shook his head and jabbered to "The Bug." I asked, "Are you going to take me to the hospital?" "The Bug" replied, "It's too late." I said, "If you take me to the hospital, I'll get well."

-US News and World Report, May 14, 1973

Th military code of conduct, according to the intelligence analyst I spoke to and my own research, is that no special favors are to be accepted in exchange for information. Yet the passage above, which he wrote himself for a newspaper, indicates that he did. Then in his book Faith of Our Fathers, McCain himself admits that he did so:

"Demands for military information were accompanied by threats to terminate my medical treatment if I [McCain] did not cooperate. Eventually, I gave them my ship's name and squadron number, and confirmed that my target had been the power plant."

-Page 193-194, Faith of My Fathers by John McCain.

And then there's this from US Veterans' Dispatch:

Nov. 9, 1967 (U.S. government documents) Hanoi press began quoting him giving specific military information.

One report dated read, "To a question of the correspondent, McCain answered: 'My assignment to the Oriskany, I told myself, was due to serious losses in pilots, which were sustained by this aircraft carrier (due to its raids on the North Vietnam territory - VNA) and which necessitated replacements. From 10 to 12 pilots were transferred like me from the Forrestal to the Oriskany. Before I was shot down, we had made several sorties. Altogether, I made about 23 flights over North Vietnam.'"

In that report, McCain was quoted describing the number of aircraft in his flight, information about rescue ships, and the order of which his attack was supposed to take place.

That would be a violation of the Code of Conduct. Now, as I was not there I can't judge, but dislike of him is pretty clear among many of the Vietnam-era vets I've had the privilege of speaking to and the shadow of controversy is enough to raise doubt (for me.) While I would not go so far as to call his actions in Vietnam 'treason', as many of these veterans do, I respect their right to consider him a traitor in their eyes.

But on a completely separate note, the Constitution of the United States declares that 'no person' shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. It doesn't differentiate between legal or illegal, citizen or not, terrorist or innocent, it simply says 'No person'.

Section 1028-1031 of the NDAA for FY2012 states that the US military has the authority to detain any person suspected of terrorism without any charges being filed, indefinitely, until the War on Terror is over. If the suspected person is not a us citizen, detention is mandatory; if the suspected person is a US citizen, the detention is discretionary after an interrogation session. The original wording of the section as John McCain and Carl Levin wrote it stated that detention was mandatory for everyone, whether USC or not; President Obama said he would veto it until the wording was changed to 'discretionary'.

(However, note that it had already passed the House by a vote of 96-32, and passed the Senate 93-7. President Obama could have vetoed it and it still would have passed since it had the 2/3 majority vote in Congress required to override a Presidential veto. There was nothing President Obama could do to stop it.)

Indefinite detention without charge or trial is blatantly unconstitutional,and in my opinion anyone involved with writing and passing that travesty is a traitor to their oath as public elected officials to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, John McCain is in my eyes, a traitor.

Benghazi is an issue, so is Republicans not approving the funds necessary to secure embassy's don't you think?

There are thousand of embassies around the worl but has to be stupid with even a low budget do mot protect the places were Americans are in risk. Who set priorities we need to know who is responsable to deny more protection to Ambassador Stevens

Eric

As usual you take a Hubbel telescope to Republican failures and a blind eye to the Democrat failures. Being Partisan is one thing, and blood brothers another.

Amanda-2017567

jdmbo3 said:

The greatest Military in the world was just a few short hours away, no support was sent, why? That is the question that all of the sane people in this country want to know.

Yes, support was sent:

About 9:40 pm (local time) large numbers of armed men shouting "Allah Akbar" descended on the compound from multiple directions. The attackers lobbed grenades over the wall and entered the compound under a barrage of automatic weapons fire and RPGs, backed by truck-mounted artillery and anti-aircraft machine guns. A Diplomatic Security agent viewed on the consulate's security cameras "a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound." He hit the alarm and started shouting, “Attack! Attack!” over the loudspeaker. Phone calls were made to the embassy in Tripoli, the Diplomatic Security Command Center in Washington, the Libyan February 17 Brigade, and a U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound (the annex) a little more than a mile away. Ambassador Stevens telephoned Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks in Tripoli to tell him the consulate was under attack. Mr. Hicks did not recognize the phone number so he didn't answer it, twice. On the third attempt Mr. Hicks answered the call from Ambassador Stevens.

Diplomatic Security special agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management officer, in the main building's safe haven. Other agents retrieved their weaponry and tactical gear from another building. They tried to return to the main building but encountered armed attackers and retreated.

The attackers entered the main building and rattled the locked metal grille of the safe haven. They carried jerrycans of diesel fuel, spread the fuel over the floor and furniture, and set fires. As thick smoke filled the building, Stevens, Smith, and Strickland moved to the bathroom and lay on the floor, but they decided to leave the safe haven after being overcome by smoke. Strickland exited through the window, but Stevens and Smith did not follow him. Strickland returned back several times but couldn't find them in the smoke; he went up to the roof and radioed other agents.

Three agents returned to the main building in an armored vehicle; they searched the building and found Smith's body, but not Stevens.

A quick reaction force from the CIA annex arrived and attempted to secure the perimeter and locate the ambassador but were unable to find Stevens in the smoke-filled building. The team then decided to return to the annex with the survivors and Smith's body. While en route back to the annex, the group's armored vehicle was hit by rifle fire and hand grenades. The vehicle was able to make it to its destination with two flat tires, however.

Diplomatic security officers informed their headquarters in Washington about the attack just as it was beginning at about 9:40 local time (3:40 PM Eastern Time). By 4:30 Eastern, Pentagon officials informed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about the attack. The Pentagon ordered an unmanned aerial vehicle that was in the air conducting surveillance on militant camps to fly over Benghazi. The drone arrived at 5:11 and began providing a video feed to Washington. At 5:41, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton telephoned CIA Director David Petraeus to coordinate. The CIA, which made up most of the US government's presence in Benghazi, had a ten-member security team at its annex and the State Department believed that this team would assist the consulate in the event of an attack.

10 men with small arms and a remote controlled toy equipped with a video camera overhead against a well armed force of many. It's such a tragic situation.

Republicans say Clinton could have captures Osama bin Laden but what if he had. Clinton like Obama could not do anything to please the Republicans. Even when he tried to kill OBL with a cruise missile the Republicans were crying "Wag the DOG". If Clinton had succeeded the Republicans especially the Bush family would have been howling in protest of killing an innocent man especially since the bin Ladens are friends of the Bush family.

The Clinton administration tried to warn the Bush administration that OBL was a threat to our national security but were ignored. Even Clark who stayed on with Bush tried to warn them until the point he was forced out because they didn't want to hear his warnings. Now a bunch of political hacks want to blame Clinton for 9/11 but want to disavow any blame of the economy on Bush.

If the Obama administration wasn't sure that the intelligence of terrorist in the attack on Benghazi was fact it hasn't been the first time that members of the White has ignored intelligence from the CIA. The Bush administration ignored all intelligence from the CIA that stated that Iraq did NOT have WMDs. They picked through the intelligence of Iraq to get what they wanted to hear and ignored the rest. They listened to a suspect liar because it was what they wanted to hear yet the Republicans in the House and Senate never raised a question before nor after the attack. Now they want to go after Obama for something even it true much less an issue than what Bush did. I said all alone that Pelosi should have opened an investigation of Bush and Cheney while they were in office. It's what the Republicans would have done.

Don't you people realize that, if the US indeed had time to counter attack, the Arab world would have saw that as an attack on the people of Libya? There was no proof of just who the attackers were so if the US had sent in troops to fight off the attackers it in the eyes of the Arag world would have been an attack of the people of Libya. Doesn't matter who they really were.

DocHolliday-2979123

I thought you said you won the election, only four people died not enough for a full investigation right Doc. I do not hear anything about the people dying in other places as well. The story pure and simple was changed so it did not reflect badly on the President. Lets see the video and let America judge. I find your lack of integrity surprising because libbies are still blaming Bush and Rice for starting a war that had been going on since 1991. You say you moved on but I also find that story lacking. Good try though

What would have been the benefit of lying. They told the public what the intelligence community told them. With the other protests in the middle east that day over the video. It would have been a good conclusion to say that this also started the same way, and spiraled out of control when opportunistic extremists saw a chance to attack. Why do you people believe that any American would want to have Americans die on their watch. I am a liberal and i think Bush was a toolbag, but I do not believe that he wanted Americans to die on his watch no more than I believe that Obama did. What kind of attack it was does not matter, it was an attack. There would have been no benefit to flat out lie one way or the other. You floks are mad he is your President i get it , but stop with the witch hunt. You guys sould like the same crazies that think 911 was an inside job.

GaryColumbus

Republicans are using their lies, spins and innuendo to ultimately create a stink they can turn into an impeachment witch hunt.

Translation: Obama was caught in a big, bold LIE and the left-wing media machine may not be able to bury this one. Reverting to the Alinsky rules - we will blame that which leftists are most guilty of on the Republicans and our confederates in the media will push the story. This is how we win elections.

STFU and get your a$$es to work on the economy you damn worthless deadbeat Teapublicans!

Translation: You conservatives get to work so we can tax the hell out of you and redistribute that money to democrat voters!

oscar-1391552#1.65: You, and so many others need to understand; the majority of the people will not join all of you, not because we are rejecting the real truth, but because we are rejecting your lies which you call truth. See oscar; most can spot a lie really quick. Now oscar, please rejoin your friends, and continue with your imaginings. LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!!! Aw, sorry, it was just a shadow. Cuse me!

Thank you, Mac Forrester.... You're comment is dead on!

Opinions are welcomed but to make accusations... to suggest that people are guilty of some wrong doing because of what you've read on a blog or seen on television is absurd.

But Mac, what would one expect from the wonderful people that promote birther theories or support the use of tax payer dollors to teach the biblical myth of Creation?

MacForrester and campdog,

So you think it is right to promote Ambassador Rice to Secretary of State if she was guilty of lying to the American people? Your suggestion is to just ignore the facts because they don't support your views.

I see the Hostess/Twinkie bankruptcy story got almost equal billing. Apparently, when catering to the current culture, the media can't decide which is the most important. Either that, or the Petraeus affair is slipping in the ratings.....

Barb, you have a lot of misconceptions/misinformation here:

Obama's people have made excuse after excuse as to why military help was not provided to the 30+ embassy employees, including the 4 Americans that were murdered...and another excuse is that our military was hours away and regardless if they were sent they would not make it in time to save the 4 who were murdered.

The US military was at the Embassy, not the consulate. The embassy is in Tripoli, the consulate is 400 miles from the Embassy, in Benghazi. A consulate is little more than a suite of offices used for local meetings.

At the time of the request from Doherty and Woods, Ambassador Stevens was still alive and so was Doherty, Woods and Smith. We know that Doherty and Woods were murdered 7 to 9 hours after their repeated request to the White House for military support. Doherty and Woods went to the Embassy to save Ambassador Stevens and the 30+ people there, but were told by the Obama people and possibly Obama himself to stand down.

Smith and Stevens were the only two that died in the consulate attack, and it was from smoke inhalation.The attack started about 9:40 PM local time at the consulate. Ambassador Stevens arrived at the Benghazi hospital at about 1 AM local time:

Diplomatic Security special agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith, an information management officer, in the main building's safe haven/panic room. Other agents retrieved their weapons and tactical gear from another building. They tried to return to the main building but encountered armed attackers and retreated.

The attackers entered the main building and rattled the locked metal grille of the panic room. They carried jerrycans of diesel fuel, spread the fuel over the floor and furniture, and set fires. As thick smoke filled the building, Stevens, Smith, and Strickland moved to the bathroom and lay on the floor, but they decided to leave the safe haven after being overcome by smoke. Strickland exited through the window, but Stevens and Smith did not follow him. Strickland returned back several times but couldn't find them in the smoke; he went up to the roof and radioed other agents.

Three agents returned to the main building in an armored vehicle; they searched the building and found Smith's body, but not Stevens.

At about 1 am the body of Ambassador Stevens was found by local citizens and taken to the Benghazi Medical Center. At the hospital Stevens was administered CPR for 90 minutes by Dr. Ziad Abu Zeid. According to Abu Zeid, Stevens died from asphyxiation caused by smoke inhalation. A 22-year-old freelance videographer, Fahd al-Bakoush, later published a video showing Libyans trying to extract the unconscious ambassador from a smoke-filled room, where he was found unconscious.

Some of the Libyans who entered the compound tried to rescue Stevens after they found him lying alone on the floor in a dark smoke-filled room with a locked door accessible only by a window. A group of men pulled him out of the room through the window, and then placed him on the courtyard's stone tile floor. The crowd cheered "God is Greatest" when Stevens was found to be alive. He was then rushed to the hospital in a private car as there was no ambulance to carry him.

Dr. Ziad Abu Zeid was the Libyan doctor who treated Stevens. He said Stevens died of severe asphyxiation, that he had no other injuries, and that he tried for 45 minutes to revive him. The doctor said he believed that officers from the Libyan Interior Ministry transported the body to the airport and into United States custody. State Department officials said they do not know who took Stevens to the hospital or transported the body to the airport and into U.S. custody.

Doherty and Woods were at the CIA annex that was assaulted around 4 AM that morning--three hours after Ambassador Stevens'death. Doherty and Woods were never at the Embassy that night, the Embassy was 400 miles away in Tripoli.

After the consulate attack and before the annex attack, Libyan government forces met up a group of Americans (believed to be eight reinforcements from Tripoli) that had arrived at the Benghazi airport and went with them to the CIA annex at about 4 am to assist in transporting approximately 32 Americans at the annex back to the airport for evacuation. As they were at the annex arranging for the transportation back to the airport a single shot rang out, quickly followed by RPGs and then a mortar that hit the annex roof killing Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods while operating their machine gun while Ubben suffered shrapnel injuries and several broken bones. According to Ubben's father, "The first [mortar] dropped 50 yards short and the next two were right on target."

DB Akron

Eric

As usual you take a Hubbel telescope to Republican failures and a blind eye to the Democrat failures. Being Partisan is one thing, and blood brothers another.

No DB, I believe it's just the opposite. The Republicans cannot see anything they have done wrong and that's why the American people did not believe them this last election. Republicans have no creditability anymore. They have lied and made mountains out of molehills to the point that they are seen as a bunch of sore losers with a chip on their shoulder. Whinny McCain and Graham are making fools out of themselves to the point that even other Republicans are just shaking their heads wondering where they are coming from. Pathetic.

I want the truth to come out, whatever it may be. Let's face facts, even if the Obama administration is caught in a lie, he won't be impeached, or at least not removed from office. Clinton was impeached for lying to congress but never removed from office, Obama has little to fear but embarrassment. As far as the comments about Bush and 9/11, the fact is that they had no ACTIONABLE intelligence on what, where, or when a terrorist act was going to happen. They new something was brewing that may or may not have involved public airlines in the US that is all. At last report Atlanta and Chicago were the nations two busiest airports with flights landing and taking off every thirty seconds, that is a lot of air traffic to cover and that is just from 2 cities in the US. The attack could have involved a flight from anywhere in the world headed into the US which amounts to hundreds more which we have no way of covering. So to say Bush did nothing, I ask those people, what should or could he have done? Because there were reports, we know the intelligence services were engaged in an investigation. Without something concrete to work with it is pretty hard to act. In the case of Benghazi, there were not only intelligence reports, but also requests from state department officials on the ground in the area of the attack. Their requests were made a full month prior to what happened. A decision was made not to send increased security, as bad as it sounds, I'm fine with that because decisions are made based on a tremendous amount of information and circumstances. It is easy to blow a call when the focus is on something else. My problem is why the cover story? Why blame this on a youtube video clip when the intelligence community new full well this was a coordinated terrorist sponsored attack? Why the lies? Obama would have you believe that all the wholesale slaughter done by American drone attacks have put Al Qaeda on its heals or broken its power. That is simple Bull$hit to make everyone feel fuzzy and warm. The war on terror isn't against Muslims, it isn't against people, it is against an Ideology which blames the west, particularly America, for all that is wrong in the world. The war against terror is more akin to the cold war than it is to Vietnam, Korea, or either of the two world wars that we fought. More importantly is the actions of the administration and the motivations of the actors in this sad melodrama. Though 4 Americans lost their lives, the why has become more important than the what! Wake up you cool aide sucking fools! Sweeping this sort of garbage under the carpet is what has destroyed the integrity of our political system. Obama ran on a campaign for transparency in government, let's have just that. Find out the why, then find out who is responsible and start cleaning house. Let the people truly take back our government from the lying frauds that for the most part run Washington now. Not only on the left, but on the right as well.

Larry-2260635

The Clinton administration tried to warn the Bush administration that OBL was a threat to our national security but were ignored

Larry there is an exellent documentary called "The Path to 9/11" , it shows Clinton fail ,he let go Obama when he got him on his hands. Former Secretary of State Margaret Albright share the blame.

This documentary of course was attached by liberals because it was telling the truth instead to blame Republicans, something the media propaganda machine love to do.

Mac Forrester

oscar-1391552#1.65: You, and so many others need to understand; the majority of the people will not join all of you, not because we are rejecting the real truth, but because we are rejecting your lies

You have been calling lies all reports we got from Fox, but deeper we go , we are finding out that those where true, starting with the lie of ambasador Rice a lie Obama also repeat in the UN even he already knew it wasn't true.

I did not have sex .................( Clinton)

oskar said;

There are thousand of embassies around the worl but has to be stupid with even a low budget do mot protect the places were Americans are in risk. Who set priorities we need to know who is responsable to deny more protection to Ambassador Stevens

That's what all these hearings are about. According to what I heard, Ambassador Stevens and diplomatic personnel in Libya were asking for an extension for the US Security Support Team, headed by Lt. Colonel Andrew Wood, to continue in Tripoli after their second deployment extension was scheduled to end in June (the SST had already been there one deployment + 18 extra months, the diplomatic party were asking for another 18 month extension):

Asked for comment to the memo and Wood's comments, a spokesman for the House Oversight Committee told ABC News: "Diplomats working in Libya viewed security provided by highly trained Americans as critical to their safety and mission. The Oversight Committee's investigation continues to seek answers about why - even as threats against Americans increased - senior State Department officials erroneously decided such security was no longer needed."

In February, the embassy reported to the State Department that the "security environment in Tripoli remains uncertain and unstable. Although there has been a marked decrease in the number of militia checkpoints around Tripoli, the Transitional National Council (TNC) has not yet succeeded in demobilizing the multiple militias or bringing them into a centralized command and control structure. There continues to be large numbers of weapons throughout Tripoli, with gunfire heard throughout the city on a daily basis."

The State Department pushed the American diplomats to develop plans to transition its security staffing to one that incorporated more locally based assets, but its ability to do so was "severely limited by a number of factors," the February memo states, including inconsistent support from the Libyan government, no reliable "armed, uniformed host government security at our residential and office compounds," no "real progress on the policy framework required to support a transition to an armed locally engaged body guard force," silence from the Libyan Minister of Interior when it came to formal U.S. "requests for firearms licenses, training sites, or static, host nation security."

The request concludes: "Given the unstable security environment, projected staffing increases, lack of physical and technical security upgrades in place and continued high volume of VIP visits, Embassy Tripoli requests an extension" of the Security Support Team for four months, which "will allow us to implement the security transition plans recommended by the Department. A loss of SST now would severely and negatively impact our ability to achieve the Department's policy and management objectives at this critical time in Libya's transition."

Investigators are exploring whether anyone at the State Department told the Embassy specifically not to request another extension.

You Rabid dogs want the truth? Go ask your MIC why they sacrificed four decent American lives.

The greed of the MIC has no limits.

Translation: Republican obstruction as usual. They didn't learn a single thing about losing the election so they are throwing tantrums, threatening secession and firing people as retaliation in a pathetic attempt to make the Obama economy worse. As Romney said about Detroit, let Hostess and Papa Johns fail and go bankrupt.

Fox feeds speculation to Republican conspiracy theorists and they ignore alternate explanations while constructing elaborate conspiracy theories.

Where was all that voter fraud?

Where was Petraeus blackmailed into keeping his mouth shut on Benghazi?

Where did Obama not say this was an act of terror on day 2?

Who is covering up what?

Lots of speculation, few if any facts.

That's entertainment on Fox News. Enjoy the delusion while it lasts.

Well ok, we are making some progress. At least now we know the facts were changed. Now the next step comes into play. Who changed them and who requested the changes to be made and why? And who was it that saw the original, unchanged, version? I'm willing to bet that the changes were not made by the CIA reporters without being nudged to do so by the Obama political operatives after they saw the original version of the report. Was it Mr. Obama himself, D. Axelrod, V. Jarret, Hillary or S Rice or some other Obama operative that demanded the changes? Fess up folks. The more you hide it the more trouble it is going to cause.

GOPKnuckledraggers

When the State Dept requested more money for Security at Embassys and Consulates why did the GOP vote NO............ That is the Million Dollar Question

Yet that same State Dept testified that money was not the reason they denied the security requests for Benghazi. They just didn't think it was necessary. The Benghazi security guards made $4 and hour. Get a clue. If the State Dept can buy new Chevy Volts and throw champagne parties in Paris then it can afford more $4/hour security guards for an Ambassador who repeatedly requested more security.

Stop this "Blame the Republicans for Al-Quada" non-sense. They could have increased the State Departments funding by $20 Trillion and it would not have mattered since the STATE DEPARTMENT decided that extra security was not necessary. Why is that so hard to understand?

The bigger question is why hasn't anyone been fired at the State Dept for this?! If my incompetence in my civilian job contributed to 4 of my employees dying I would have been FIRED on the spot! Why hasn't anyone in this "transparent" organization been fired yet? Is the Federal Government so bloated and inefficient that it takes MONTHS to figure out that someone should be fired? Being that Fast and Furious killed 2 Americans and over 100 Mexican civilians and no one was fired for that gigantic brain fart (in fact the Sr. Managers were PROMOTED) I guess we shouldn't hold our breath for this administration to be accountable to the public.

So if the President knew within 24 hours, why did rice go out and preach her nonsense for days on end? Why didn't anyone stop her and say, "hey, we know its a terrorist attack, not some spontaneous reaction to a video." Was this about the election? If so- its OVER. Stop covering up! You already won! NOW we want some accountability!! People in the State Department and whoever covered this up need to be FIRED.

If they are lying to the American people about this, what else are they lying about?

Enough of the, "But Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush Bush Bush..." Bush IS NOT PRESIDENT. Its as if people on here are screaming, "But MOM!! Bobby didn't eat his vegetables!! Why do I have to?" If anything, after Bush's numerous mistakes you would think that we would have a HIGHER STANDARD for the behavior of a President. But no, its, "Mommy Bush did it so can I...."

The GOP's nation of Angrywhitemenistan! Just to rub it in a little more.

http://www.cagle.com/news/election-2012/page/7/

And how's that Karl Rover Donald the Tramp thing working for the Teapublicans hm?

Jo-Ann said:

Benghazi was attacked four times, from April through June, 2012.

If you're talking the US consulate in Benghazi, then no, there were only two attacks:

• In April 2012, two former security guards for the consulate threw a homemade 'fish bomb' over the consulate fence; the incident did not cause any casualties.

• The Imprisoned Omar Abdul Rahman Brigades released a video of what it said was its detonation of an explosive device outside the gates of the U.S. consulate on June 5, which caused no casualties but damaged the consulate's perimeter wall, described by one individual as "big enough for forty men to go through."The Brigades claimed that the attack was in response to the killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi a Libyan al-Qaeda leader who had just died in an American drone attack, and was also timed to coincide with the imminent arrival of a U.S. diplomat. There were no injuries, but the group left behind leaflets promising more attacks against the U.S.

The other two attacks were on a Red Cross facility and a British consulate in Benghazi.

@ oskar-1391552

Bush also had a chance to get Bin Laden after the USS Cole was bombed but in fact never even tried. The Taliban were willing to hand over OBL if we would not attack. Bush refused. So don't start the BS that 9/11 was all Clinton's fault because he failed to get OBL. Bush had plenty of warning to stop the attack but needed a disaster as an excuse to start a war. The Bush administration even stated that Saddam was partly responsible for the 9/11 attack in order to get the people on his side so he could attack.

Remember that the bin Laden family were family friends of the Bush family. Yes even Osama bin Laden.

Why is it that you libs won't simply admit it when Obama f**ks up?....I mean, he does it often enough. No, its always "well, Bush did this, or Reagan did that"; so what?! Bush and Reagan had nothing to do with failing to secure the embassy in Benghazi, providing Susan Rice with bulls**t talking points for the TV shows, or any of the other lies and coverups involved here. I mean, your juvenile excuses are as bad as those coming from the White House. Now we are told, on cable news, that Rice wasn't lying because there were actually two separate attacks; the first one spontaneous because of the video (that almost no one saw), and then the second one by el Quaida. Why offer up such weak, phony crap? Why not just be honest and own up to screwing up?

If a man can lead a double life, and have affairs behind his wife's back, he can LIE to anyone.

Don't trust 5 Star General David Petraeus---at this hearing re: the Sept. 11th Attack in Benghazi, Libya.

Don't trust any man who lies to their wife about not having affairs---they are Pathological Liars---

And the same goes for women---it's all about LIES.

Enough of the, "But Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush Bush Bush..." Bush IS NOT PRESIDENT. Its as if people on here are screaming,

Ah, the hypocrisy of it all. You want to criticize Obama for something of a lesser issue than what Bush did yet you defend Bush. All we're saying is that it is hypocrisy to criticize one person for doing something and not criticize others for the same acts simply because they happen to be of a different party.

@scrambolo Comment collapsed by the community

This Republican fantasy is being led by John McCain's continual irrational partisan rant!

Is there anything more ridiculous than someone using an irrational partisan rant to criticize someone else for doing the same?

King K

Who changed them and who requested the changes to be made and why? And who was it that saw the original, unchanged, version?

Right on the money.

Why keep bringing Bush up??? There was no precursor to 9/11/2001. That was the precursor for 9/11/2012 and the reason we should have had heightened awareness and security in an obvious hotspot. The back-and-forth about previous administrations (including Clinton) is pointless. This is the here and now- two wrongs do not make a right. Four Americans are dead, there is a cover-up. Get to the bottom of it in a bipartisan manner and fix the problem so we aren't going thru this in the future. Existing security could have been pulled from other embassies not as much of a security risk (France, for example) prior to that date to bolster defenses, at least temporarily, due to the increased risk around the date.

The only thing that really matters in this is when did the President know this was a terrorist attack and when did he release that information, the rest is a smoke screen. Maybe the 4 Americans don't die if you give them more protection, maybe more Americans die if you give them more protection. The only why those Americans don't die in that embassy is if you stop that attack before it starts, but than ask yourself how many would or could have died doing that, that is an intelligence failure, not the Presidents fault. If the President was aware of this being a terrorist attack and realest false information than he's a lair, and covered up and attact on American soil.

The four deaths of our Americans in Libya is horrible. The fact that they begged for help and were denied is deplorable. That the WH misled the people of the US by sending out Ms. Rice is typical because the WH thinks the American people are fools. And most of us are. What is even worse about this mess is that there is a guy sitting in jail because he made a movie that no one, except for someone in the WH who found it in a Google or YouTube search, has seen. His rights have been trampled on and no one gives a rat's a$$ about that. His right to free speech, something guaranteed for the citizens of this great country but also for our press to keep our politicians in line, has been made a mockery. And no one cares.

Just like most of the dems who don't care that four Americans died because, as one poster said above, "it's not a big deal, there are more important things going on"

You know, I've been seeing a lot of people commenting based on misinformation. I'm going to set a few facts straight here:

1) Ambassador Stevens asked for an extension on his SST from the State Department, and he asked it for the embassy in Tripoli.

2) The official US Embassy is in Tripoli. The consulate, where Ambassador Stevens died, is in Benghazi, about 400 miles away. It is a set of office buildings surrounded by a wall. It is not a regularly-staffed office, no people actually work out of it, it is a satellite location for the diplomatic team to conduct meetings with parties on the east half of the country.

3) Stevens and Smith were the only two that died at the consulate; Doherty and Woods, both former Navy SEALS privately contracted by the CIA, were killed in the attack on the CIA annex some distance away three hours later. They were killed while helping 30+ Americans evacuate.

4) Stevens was NOT raped, tortured sodomized or anything of the sort.

5) Part of the responsibility for the incident must lie with Ambassador Stevens himself. He traveled to the consulate that day from the (fortified and guarded) Embassy in Tripoli for some local meetings that took longer than he expected; he decided not to travel back to the embassy, but to stay overnight at the consulate and resume meetings the next day. There were only about seven people in the consulate that night when Stevens saw his last visitor (a Turkish diplomat) out of the building at about 8:30 local time. Knowing the area was full of unrest, and protests had been going on about the anti-Muslim video throughout the day (a Libyan witness interviewed about the incident said he saw a few members of the militia responsible gathering ordinary people outside the consulate to protest the video) in hindsight the decision to overnight in a building with inadequate protection was inappropriate.

6) There were roughly about 125-150 attackers.

7) The Libyans were extremely sorry and there was an outpouring of support. There were demonstrations in Benghazi and Tripoli on September 12, condemning the violence and holding signs such as "Chris Stevens was a friend to all Libyans," "Benghazi is against terrorism," and other signs apologizing to Americans for the actions in their name and in the name of Muslims. The NY Times noted that young Libyans had also flooded Twitter with pro-American messages after the attacks. It was noted that Libyans are typically more positively inclined towards the United States than their neighbors. A 2012 Gallup poll noted that "A majority of Libyans (54%) surveyed in March and April 2012 approve of the leadership of the U.S. -- among the highest approval Gallup has ever recorded in the... region, outside of Israel." Another poll in Eastern Libya, taken in 2011, reported that the population was at the same time both deeply religious conservative Muslims and very pro-American, with 90% of respondents reporting favorable views of the United States.

8) A week after the attack on the consulate the ordinary people of Benghazi rose up against the militants responsible, storming their compound and driving them out while shouting slogans like 'Justice for Chris' and 'Libya Lost a Friend' as they did so. Two days later the Libyan government declared these unauthorized militias illegal and decreed they disband. The decree also made public carrying of weapons illegal; and the next day hundreds of Libyans handed over their weapons. The government also started raiding bases and compounds held by these rogue militia, to the general approbation of the people.

9) On September 12, during press conference in the Rose Garden called in response to the attack, President Obama said:

"...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. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Whether he meant that to mean he did view the incident as a terrorist act or not is up to personal interpretation.

Larry-2260635

Enough of the, "But Bush did this, Bush did that, Bush Bush Bush..." Bush IS NOT PRESIDENT. Its as if people on here are screaming,

Ah, the hypocrisy of it all. You want to criticize Obama for something of a lesser issue than what Bush did yet you defend Bush. All we're saying is that it is hypocrisy to criticize one person for doing something and not criticize others for the same acts simply because they happen to be of a different party.

Larry - like I've said repeatedly on these boards and in this thread - I'm not a Bush fan and I think he was one of the worst presidents in our history. However, Bush's failures do not justify Obama's actions.

@Armurray#1.74: Yes. I would be very happy to see Susan Rice as "Secretary of State". She's highly qualified and competent. Did you actually see and hear her on those sunday am shows? I did. She never told even one lie. Actually, what many on your side have been telling are proving that this lady did not lie. You folks are sucking an imaginary, but exhausted tit.

Mac Forrester

She never told even one lie.

Knowing or not she was laying she did. She was sent to the press with specific instructions from the White House, by the way she is the UN Ambassador , why Obama put her on this situation , too many questions and no answers. At least we know by Obama he is behind all this charade.

Why do so many people here use Bush as justification for things that Obama does? It's as if they believe all those who criticize Obama supported Bush. That's flat out wrong. Many always viewed Bush as an evil no different than Obama. Obama said himself that if he couldn't get the economy back on track in his first term (he specifically mentioned three years), then he should be a one-term president. Not even Obama is mindless enough to used the "Bush" excuse anymore. People keep defending Obama on the economy, but what has he done? He carries on Bush-era massive war spending, he carries on Bush spending of money our government does not have. What specifically has he done? What specifically would Romney have done differently. I didn't see anything specific, just a lot of talk from both of them.

If Obama didn't agree with the constitutionality of the NDAA, then how does he justify his kill list of U.S. citizens?

Many here in these threads still think they're going to get some fantasy type of punishment for our president. The fact is that this hearing has no intention of punishing anyone but to answer unanswered questions. Move on with your lives, please!

Eric Nordstrom was the State Dept. official who requested extra security, not the Ambassador.

Nordstrom requested extra security for ALL consulates in Libya. But due to the fact that the attack was on Benghazi, the extra security (on other cities) is irrelevant now.

"the number of guards at the Benghazi consulate when the attack occurred was at the number Nordstrom said were needed. He wanted five; three were based there permanently and two more traveled with the ambassador."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/18/sorting-out-truth-attack-libya/

The biggest security force was of course at the Embassy. Why would the Ambassador go to Benghazi at that time of revolts everywhere and for whatever reason, is obscure. He could have appointed any one else for a helping hand in Benghazi.

Roy Wilson: Actually they House did refuse funding requested by the administration to the tune of more than a quarter billion dollars for embassy security. That's on the public record. Probably a bit embarrassing for the republicans in the house, but hey, that's the way this thing goes.

I'm surprised, in the end, that Rice was actually closer to the truth than republicans would have had me believe. She said that the best guess was that armed terrorists used a video inspired protest as cover for their attack. In reality, the protest over the video started at that location at the end of the terrorist attack.

Wow, so completely different. Everybody should have known that. She must have been lying. Obama must have put her up to it. When do impeachment hearings start? No better response to a terrorist attack against Americans than to tear each other apart politically.

The GOP

INTELLIGENCE

is

speculation.

Redhead Ranting said:

What is even worse about this mess is that there is a guy sitting in jail because he made a movie that no one, except for someone in the WH who found it in a Google or YouTube search, has seen. His rights have been trampled on and no one gives a rat's a$$ about that. His right to free speech, something guaranteed for the citizens of this great country but also for our press to keep our politicians in line, has been made a mockery.

Mr. Nakoula was previously sentenced to federal prison for stealing peoples' Social Security numbers, opening up fraudulent banking accounts with those numbers, writing himself checks against the accounts of the real holders of those SS numbers, then withdrawing the money, to the tune of maybe thousands of dollars--and he did it all online using aliases.

He did time in federal prison, then was offered early parole so long as he refrained from using the internet without prior consent from his federal parole officer, did not use any aliases, did not engage in fraud and misrepresentation.

He violated all of those parole terms:

1) No internet without prior consent from federal parole officer: By posting a casting call for actors to act in this film, he violated this term of his probation;

2) Not allowed to use aliases: The casting call was put out in the name of Sam Bacile--this from the actual casting call on the internet 9remember, once you put it on the Net, it stays on the Net!)

3) Not allowed to engage in fraud and misrepresentation: The actors never knew his real name. He signed the checks that they were paid with with 'Sam Bacile', not Mark Bassily Nakoula; the film's intent was never revealed to the actors and actresses, the film they believed they were hired to act in was called 'Desert Warrior' and they were told it was a historical 'Lawrence of Arabia' type film, and we still don't know where he got the money to hire these actors.

He in in jail now because he violated those terms of his parole. And with the fuss now made out of this movie, if allowed to remain free he could very easily steal more social security numbers, set up fraudulent accounts, steal enough money to flee the country.

If you feel he shouldn't be in jail, then would this mean you'd means you'd be perfectly willing to give him your social security number, thereby 'donating' your bank account and any life savings you may have to help him flee the country?

Let's see.... On the stump... Biden and Obama. Al Quada is: on it's heels, decimated, on the run, distroyed....And so on. Then they stump what a success libya was. Sept 11/12 CIA reports next dayTO THE WHITE HOUSE Al Quada kills 4 Americans in Libya. What did the white house do? LIED, Lied and lied more.

On a new front... Iraq came out today to and called for Arab countries to use Oil as a weapon against the USA.

Then yesterday: On Wednesday Obama
Took the First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the United
States . The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete
ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international
treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control,
the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal
legislative process in Congress.

You all were a bunch of blind bats when your reelected this guy.

Amanda- I don't think the guy shouldn't be in jail. He sounds like a slimy guy that spends a lot of time doing bad things. I don't dispute that at all. However, he shouldn't be in jail because he made a movie. He's the fall guy and while I'm not going to crusade for his release he was used by the government because they needed someone to make the perp walk publicly.

Lilirocks said:

Why would the Ambassador go to Benghazi at that time of revolts everywhere and for whatever reason, is obscure. He could have appointed any one else for a helping hand in Benghazi.

Because he loved the country, loved the people, believed fervently in what he was doing and had high hopes for their becoming a success story.

Ethan Chorin of the NY Times was scheduled to meet with Ambassador Stevens in the morning as regards modernizing a hospital--the same hospital, ironically, to when he was taken after the attack. (that meeting in the morning was likely part of the reason why Stevens decided to overnight in Benghazi rather than return to the embassy in Tripoli, see the highlighted passage in the artile pasted below). Chorin was in Benghazi the night of the attack, and he heard the sounds of the attack from where he was staying on the other side of the city. Here's his account pasted below.

Bear with me, I know it's long, but he and the Ambassador were personal friends and many of his comments help clarify what kind of man the Ambassador was, and I find myself in complete agreement with Mr. Chorin's hope that this incident not derail the ties between Libya and the US that Ambassador Stevens gave his life to build:

ON Wednesday morning, my colleagues and I were to meet in Benghazi with J. Christopher Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya, to discuss a plan for a new division of emergency medicine at Benghazi Medical Center, the largest and most modern hospital in eastern Libya. The meeting never took place. The night before, militants laid siege to the American Consulate in Benghazi, killing the ambassador and three other Americans. The ambassador was taken, without a pulse, to the hospital we hoped to upgrade.

The draft agreement we were working on was the kind of visionary effort to improve life in Libya that Ambassador Stevens liked — in this case, a collaboration between doctors in Boston and Benghazi, brokered by a nongovernmental organization that a Libyan-American and I had organized after the recent revolution. Our goal was a center that could also serve as a training facility for all of eastern Libya. It was the kind of public-private and Libyan-American partnership that Ambassador Stevens believed could help Libya move beyond decades of stagnation and despotism.

On Tuesday night, even as the men who would kill him were closing in, Ambassador Stevens told us by phone how happy he was that the project was nearing fruition. He told us it was important to show our government’s support for such initiatives, and we made plans to meet with the medical center’s director general, Dr. Fathi al-Jehani, at the hospital the next morning. Dr. Jehani himself had been a target of violence for his forward-thinking views.

About half an hour later, I called the ambassador’s security detail to discuss the visit, only to hear the words “we’ve got a problem here” — with an alarming expletive inserted. The line went dead. And we were left to listen helplessly as the sounds of distant violence carried across the city to our hotel room — a long rocket-propelled grenade volley, and machine-gun fire that continued for the better part of an hour.

Ambassador Stevens arrived after midnight at Benghazi Medical Center, where we were to have met. Its emergency room staff, which included Libyan expatriates who had returned from well-paid jobs abroad, worked for 45 minutes to try to resuscitate him. It was no use.

The tragedies of this situation simply compound one another. For a forthcoming book about the Libyan revolution, I have interviewed scores of current and former Western officials, many of whom were either pessimistic about or indifferent to Libya’s growing pains. In their eyes, Libya continues to be a sideshow of the broader Arab Spring.

Ambassador Stevens did not agree. I discussed Libya’s future with him last spring in a Washington cafe, as he awaited confirmation as ambassador. He had already been the deputy chief of mission in Libya, and he had been the United States envoy to Benghazi during the dangerous early days of the revolution. So he knew Libya, and he believed that it could become one of the first full success stories of the Arab Spring — that Islamic radicalism there could be nipped in the bud if Western governments acted decisively to put the country on a path to stability and social progress.

Now, his death may derail the very processes he championed.

Mr. Stevens understood that Libyans had suffered under Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, and that conflict and post-revolutionary instability were to be expected. He also understood that some, if not all, of the hatred that had pushed some of Libya’s youths to join radical factions in Afghanistan and Iraq had sprung from years of neglect and oppression. Now, he felt, new opportunities needed to be created to wean these people away from ideologies rooted in hate.

No doubt that was one reason he made a point, as ambassador, of continuing to visit Benghazi, the East’s largest city, despite the clear risks; there had been attacks on other high-level diplomats there in the previous months. It is a mystery at this point why the consulate compound was so lightly fortified, but I would not be surprised if Mr. Stevens had decided to stay overnight in Benghazi simply because his list of planned meetings with Libyans there was too long to be accomplished in one afternoon.

The morning after the attack on the consulate, my colleagues and I returned to the medical center, where we witnessed an outpouring of sadness and, as one physician put it, shame. The emergency room staff members who worked to save Mr. Stevens broke down in tears, as did the physician in charge. Some knew or had met Mr. Stevens; some had not. But all were aware that he had been a champion of Libya, and of Benghazi in particular, and that his death may have rolled back Benghazi’s stupendous revolutionary accomplishments by months — even if it does not set off a period of heightened instability in eastern Libya. Many Libyans outside the hospital also offered condolences and expressed profound regret for America’s loss.

In the West, we can now expect a strong temptation among governments and private enterprise to declare the Libyan experiment a failure, and to respond by disengaging, retreating or focusing only on the extirpation of radical elements. That would be a terrible mistake. The attack has already entered into the American presidential debate in a base fashion, with Mitt Romney’s first instinct being to criticize President Obama over the timing of his denunciation of the attack. But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton got it right when she spoke of the Libyan people as allies in the fight against extremism.

The gravest mistake would be for the United States to write off Libya as an irredeemable terrorist haven, or for politicians in Washington to regret having intervened in support of Libya’s rebels. Libya is still far better off today than it was under Qaddafi. The grip of fear has been broken. Election posters festoon the country. Election schedules have been met. And there is a rich expression of individual opinions.

Nevertheless, the Libyan people need support to consolidate gains, and to continue a fight against largely foreign-financed radicals who wish to hijack the revolution in the name of intolerance. And the United States must help the Libyans do that. The loss of Ambassador Stevens will, I hope, goad the Libyan government into matching its discipline about election schedules with far bolder steps to crack down on extremists and disarm the country’s militias. And Libya should press the American government for even more support in that effort, even as it encourages American organizations to find common cause with their Libyan counterparts to improve the lives of Libya’s citizens.

This week the United States lost one of its most admirable public servants, and I can report that at least some Libyans are profoundly aware that the loss is theirs as well. As we arrived at the airport under armed escort, a member of the airport ground crew said: “Today I will go home, I will take off these clothes, and I will put on only black. As a Libyan, I am so sorry this has happened.”

--Ethan Chorin, New York Times, article titled 'What Libya Lost'

To all you right wing bottom feeders. Four Americans die in Benghazi--tragic event. Thousand of Americans died in 9/11. Thousand more died in Iraq. Thousand more are dying in Afghanistan. BUT! No outcry from you bottom feeders on any of those deaths! Why is that!? Could it be because none of those despicable events can be tied to Obama, now could it?

You people are so pathetically predictable is not even funny. What happened to all the hoopla about the economy? About Jobs? About the deficit? Could it be that the main reason the economy isn't moving as fast as it could be because the Tea Party republicans are getting in the way? So, you pathetic bottom feeders need to stir up anything that will give you some sense of existence and continue to try to find enough smoke to blame on Obama.

GIVE IT UP! None of your crap worked during the election and it won't work now. The republicans lost the White house; they lost seats in the Senate; they lost seats in the House. THEY LOST PERIOD! Get over it! For once, use what little gray matter is still between your ears and concentrate on moving this country forward. The Benghazi affair will be resolved. And just like Fast-n-Furious, the truth will come out. Nothing regarding Benghazi will hurt Obama, no matter how much you bottom feeders keep stirring the feces.

I realize it sucks eating crow, but give it a good chew, swallow and move on. It will do wonders for your nervous system.......

Redhead:

He's not in jail because he made a movie, he's in jail because he violated his probation!

People who violate probation/parole go back to jail. A sex offender who is caught failing to keep his address current with the sex offender registry after receiving parole/probation go to jail. Someone who went to jail for drugs and is caught again goes back to jail to finish his sentence. It's a basic fact of our criminal legal system.

Break the law, go to jail. Do good in jail, get out early with certain restrictions you must not violate during your probation. If you violate those restrictions you go back to jail to serve your entire sentence because you've just proven you're not worthy of the trust placed on you by the courts to stay out of trouble as a condition of early release.

He's not being shown any preferential treatment, either for or against.

Redhead Ranting:

Nobody saw the video? Really, that's what you think? The middle East erupts in protests over the video, and nobody saw it? Come on, don't do this right wing echo chamber thing again. There are facts, and they are true, whether Fox wants to admit it or not. Come out and join us in the real world.

Armurray.....

So you think it is right to promote Ambassador Rice to Secretary of State if she was guilty of lying to the American people? Your suggestion is to just ignore the facts because they don't support your views.

I can't write for Mac but as for me, I find it inappropriate and patently unfair to make an accusation based on nothing but unsubstantiated blather. I will gladly amend my point of view as soon as someone comes forth with the objectively derived and verified evidence required to form an accurate opinion.

Bottom line....I can't ignore facts because I do not know the facts.....and to my knowledge, until the investigation has been completed neither do McCain, Graham, Beck or you.

If Rice lied to the American people she should not be promoted.

There is no reason to think that Rice lied to the American people.

Unless you want there to be...

I'm with camp dog: still a bit more to learn before jumping to conclusions.

@Lilirocks#1.103: Absolutely correct, both in your information and assessment. Thank you and best regards

@Snakebone#1.105: You are correct. Republican hierarchy are beginning to let this go to avoid further embarrassment. Course republican minions, some of which yet serve in the US House, don't really know what embarrassment is, and probably will continue on, if for no other reason than to not ever be found doing anything meaningful for the people. Regards

If ANYONE in the Bush Administration had been asked to comment immediately after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, they would have announced it was an accident. This would not have been a lie - it would have been an official statement of facts as they were known at the time. The fact that, shortly thereafter, it proved to be a terrorist attack does not make the statement a lie.

I listened to the audio book version by the chairman of the 911 Commission and there was understandable confusion for several hours after the first plane hit. In fact it took a long time for the various arms of government to communicate in figuring out just how many hijacked planes were involved.

There was nothing sinister here. It was a steady release of details as they became known - to a media hungry for details.

Can any fruitcake out there tell me what the Obama administration had to gain by lying?

Amanda, thank you for the heartwarming report. I do agree and hope nothing of what he fought for will be lost.

It is embarrassing the hate of some here in our country who try to use a kind life and tragic death like the Ambassador's for their political purposes.

It just they the Vagina Nazis Party have no real policy the American people care about, so they are sturing up crap to feed to the coo-laid drinkers.

When I say Susan Rice never told one lie on those Sunday am shows, I mean, in contrast to what those who claim she did, said She said. I have repeated what She said many times on this forum. Never once did Susan Rice blame the incident on one sole thing. Initial reports indicated one thing that might have caused another thing etc. Early information ambiguous and sketchy. Still receiving information. Precise cause not yet known. Information quite fluid. I watched the good Lady on two different shows that am. Comparing what She actually said to what most on here claim she said reveals the claimers to be the liars. Same with the statement attributed to the President from the Rose Garden. Fair is fair. Lies are lies. Doesn't matter to whom the two things are directed.

Keep it classy you scum bag libs.

Ummmmm, ok, scum bag.

Dear Mac Forrester, please go back and read Ms. Rice's comments. They are readily available, transcribed for you to read. She did say that this was in no way associated with terrorism and that it was because of some video and was a spontaneous action. She continued this dialogue for over a week or two and at no time did anyone stop her. Whether she lied on purpose or because she was lied to, the lie remains and the buck stops with the President who said so yesterday. So, he lied and deliberately lied so that he could help his campaign. Someone should face charges and I think it is the President, Hillary, and whoever was responsible for perpetrating the lie. I hope Petraeus tells them all who did it.

Syn Holliday said;

If Obama didn't agree with the constitutionality of the NDAA, then how does he justify his kill list of U.S. citizens?

As near as I can figure out, all these rumors about a 'kill list' arose after American terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki was placed on it.

Yes, he was a citizen. But he went out to the Middle East and joined the extremists who were killing our soldiers. Under US Code, that's a declared renunciation of citizenship and so he wasn't considered a US Citizen when he was killed in a drone strike in Yemen. They are considering making that a law now--the Enemy Expatriation Act, currently upcoming through Congress, will strip citizenship for those who support terrorism against the US or its allies. While I agree that this could end up being a double- edged sword since the list of acts that constitute suspected terrorism is so long and far-reaching, I will say unequivocally that if you are killing our soldiers in another country, then yes, I do agree that your citizenship should be stripped--being a citizen of this country is a privilege, not a right, and if you so clearly demonstrate that you do not want it, then you should not be entitled to it simply by virtue of having been born here.

I'm a now-naturalized citizen, former undocumented/stateless, and I can tell you without a doubt that the day I could take the Oath of Citizenship was the proudest and best day of my life (and not just because I'd spent the last three years indefinitely detained without charge or trial in a deportation camp because the government lost my adoption paper.)

Anyone who cannot take this Oath, and mean it, should not be considered a citizen. Period. Being a citizen carries many benefits, but you have to pay for those benefits by taking on certain rights and responsibilities like voting, jury duty, etc, and one of those responsibilities is to defend America, it's laws, people and Constitution, against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This guy clearly violated that by going over to join them so I don't consider him a citizen.

And the issue the President has with the NDAA as written is that 1) one can be detained on a suspicion; the charges do not have to be proved, no warrants need to be issued, prior to detaining someone for 'suspicion'. (Mr. Al-Awlaki was beyond suspicion, we knew beyond a shadow of doubt that he was over there killing our soldiers.) 2) the NDAA also calls for an interrogation prior to detention (come on, you only have to see Abu Ghraib for an example of how that can go wrong) and 3) that the original wording said no trial needed to be held prior to the decision to detain.

Having experienced 'indefinite detention without charge or trial' myself, I like to think I know better than most what that would entail, and trust me, you don't want it.

(I was adopted as an infant, never told before my parents passed away in a car accident, so when USCIS found they'd lost my adoption paper and came to me looking for a copy I couldn't give them one they detained me in a deportation camp and told me i would remain there until i gave them a py of the paper.

I couldn't be deported because prior to my adoption I was stateless--an infant abandoned overseas with no birth certificate or other documentation; I couldn't be charged or have a trial because losing a piece of paper is not a chargeable, triable crime. I wasn't brought here illegally, all of my paperwork had been duly filed, paid for and signed by my parents, and the only hings that went wrong were 1) USCIS lost my paper; and 2) Dad and Mom never told me I was adopted so I did not have a copy of the adoption decree and had no idea where to find it. I sat in that deportation camp for three years writing letters to every courthouse in every state we'd ever lived in trying to find it. i did finally and they issued me a naturalization certificate and released me--but if I had not found that paper, or if the courthouse where it had been filed did not still exist I would still be in the camp.)

I sat in a deportation camp for three years fighting for the privilege of having what Mr. al-Awlaki threw away. No, he does not deserve citizenship!!!

Bush had chatter about a possible attack that could happen some time. We also had many intelligence agencies that were not working together. We had horrible airport security that we all felt was very safe. We learned many lessons that fateful day and paid a horrible price at the same time. We have attempted to fix those problems. Obama had a direct request from a specific location for more security. At that point they had two options. Send more security (I know us on the right voted down funding for additional security). The next option is if that person is in danger then remove them from the area. End the risk.

Lets look at the General. We had a president impeached who stayed in office who had an affair. POTUS would be more of a security risk in this type of situation. Now we have the CIA directer leaving his office due to an affair. Once that is the big story and people move their focus then they come out and say that he didn't jeopardise national security. Even POTUS is supporting him so he doesn't go to jail. The whole thing stinks of one giant cover-up.

Perhaps some of you are correct that Benghazi is about racism. We have a "black" President (Obama), "black" Attorney General (Holder), and a "black" United Nation Ambassador (Susan Rice); and the 4 Americans that died in Benghazi were "white." Hmmmmm perhaps if these 4 Americans were "black," the "black" President would have sent cheetah style military help, rather than snail style military help; and the "black" U.N. Ambassador would have said the attack was due to a terrorist attack rather than a YouTube Video; and perhaps the "black" Attorney General would have told the "black" President about the Petraeus affairs, involving all "white" characters, months ago when it came to his attention.

@ Mac Forrester:

You are exactly right. I would add two points. First, CNN has a timeline, with quotes, of administration statements about the Benghazi attack, starting with the September 12 Rose Garden remarks of Obama and Clinton. It is simply impossible to conclude that there was any coverup. In fact, days before Susan Rice went on the Sunday talk shows, an administration official had told CNN that it was "a clearly planned military-type attack." Al Qaeda itself is mentioned beginning one week after the attack. In early comments it is sometimes suggested, but always tentatively, that the YouTube video and the date itself could possibly have played some role in the timing of the attack. The rest is just the administration learning more and getting a clearer picture of the whole story. To conclude that this is a coverup requires more than partisan blinders. It requires blatant dishonesty.

The second point is that it was several days after 9/11/01 before we knew who all 19 hijackers were, and nine days before Bush addressed Congress, demanding that the Taliban give up bin Laden.

Sure, we could wish that everyone had perfect foresight. We can wish that al Qaeda knocked on the door of the Consulate at the outset of the attack and said, "hey, just wanted to let you know this is an attack, not a protest, and it has nothing to do with no stinking video." But the four people who were killed that night, all of whom knew a hell of a lot more about Benghazi than you or me, didn't foresee it, either. Stevens chose to stay in the relatively unprotected Benghazi consulate rather than the more fortified Tripoli embassy on September 11, even knowing exactly what security he did and didn't have. To criticize this lack of foresight, you have to realize that you are criticizing the four dead heroes as well.

Of course, maybe we'll find out that our President had a Presidential Daily Briefing a few weeks before the attack that said "Al Qaeda determined to strike US interests in Libya." And maybe we'll find out that our President sat in a little first-grader's chair and read a children's book for about 10 minutes before even beginning to address the situation.

We might. Now that would be something worth criticizing, wouldn't it?

Barb210, with the exception of a handful (yes compared to the population in the country) of guys in white hoods and people with shaved heads most people don't give a crap what color their skin is. It is people complaining about race problems that are causing the race problems in this country. There will always be small groups that will always be raciest but you find that on both sides (Black Panthers).

BTW most people that post raceist comments on here are just trying to get attention.

Barb:

Please go back and read my post at 1.76.

I'm just turning the tables on those whose only excuse for 4 American deaths and anything Obama does wrong as being racism. If it wasn't for MSNBC and the constant ranting racist rhetoric in the liberal media and posts on here, I would have never known that Rice, Holder, or Obama were "black." My perception of skin color was eliminated years ago, it is the content of a human's character that defines a person not their skin color. My grandbabies are half white and half black, and I don't want them to go through the discrimination that those of the past have had to go through and I will die, kill, and fight for those little ones.

@JoeNY. Interesting points you have made, and I can't agree more about this administration telling the truth. Have you noticed how people that have even the slightest disagreement with this administrations highest political leaders, and I don't think I need to name names. But it seems that those that disagree truthfully, and have proof seem to find themselves under extreme scrutiny to either resign, or be relieved of their important positions. Makes one wonder if someone is afraid that if the real truth came out that said fearful incompetent person or persons may be charged with crimes capable of impeachment or prison sentencing procedures. Just a little more food for thought.

maybe it is just me - I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about the White House not saying it was terrorists? Does it matter? You can call them Terrorist, Murders, Girls Scouts, Cheerleaders for all I care - still the same results 4 Americans dead - due to lack of security. Learn your lessons and move on!!!! Next

@ Self Educated Voter. Would it matter if 4,40,400,4,000 or 40,000 people were killed due to somebodies incompetence or lies. Maybe you need a course in reading comprehension. Just saying. Yes, it does matter. Have you ever served?

@ floridamom1:

I have read those transcripts. Your portrayal of what they contain ("She did say that this was in no way associated with terrorism") is, at best, extremely misleading. She did say that the attack appeared to begin with spontaneous demonstrations against the "Innocence of Muslims" video, but that it appeared to have been hijacked by extremist elements and an investigation was underway to determine if they were linked with al Qaeda. This was perfectly consistent with the talking points she had been given by the CIA:

"The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the US Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the US diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

And you have to remember that as of Sunday morning the US investigators hadn't yet been allowed into Libya.

So, let's look at what Ambassador Rice said:

First of all, on CNN's State of the Union, she was not asked what caused the Benghazi attack or whether it was associated with terrorism. She was asked whether the administration expects to see more instability in the Middle East and why hasn't President Obama been able to reset the state of our relationships with the Muslim world. She answered first by talking about a number of demonstrations, like the one in Cairo, that clearly was related to the video. And when she spoke specifically about Benghazi, she said " that horrific incident where some mob was hijacked ultimately by a handful of extremists." That is hardly "this was in no way associated with terrorism."

On ABC's "This Week," she was asked directly about claims by the Libyan government that al Qaeda was involved, and similarly to her CNN answer, she said "it seems to have been hijacked, let us say, by some individual clusters of extremists who came with heavier weapons, weapons that as you know in -- in the wake of the revolution in Libya are -- are quite common and accessible. And it then evolved from there. We'll wait to see exactly what the investigation finally confirms, but that's the best information we have at present."

And on CBS' "Face the Nation":

"we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that--
in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily
now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into
something much, much more violent.

BOB SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had
been plotted out several months ago?

SUSAN RICE: We do not-- we do not have information at present that leads us
to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part
in this?

SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear
that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence.
Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists
or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."

So, yes, Floridamom1, someone is being dishonest here. But now everyone who reads this thread, anyway, knows it isn't Ambassador Rice.

A coverup? Humbug.

@RonB they cherry pick the statements they want to emphasize, they don't care if its true or not.

What is wrong with MSNBC? Petraeus testified about Benghazi, and there is no report to be found here. So if you are here still arguing about Rice and some cover-up, you should know you are using outdated information. The AP, which is apparently vastly superior to MSNBC, has already reported the facts:

"(Petreaus said) that classified intelligence showed the deadly raid on the US Consulate...was a terrorist attack, but that the administration withheld the suspected role of specific al-Qaida affiliates to avoid tipping off the terrorist groups.

"(He explained) that references to terrorist groups suspected of carrying out the violence were removed from the public explanation of what caused the attack so as not to tip off the groups that the US intelligence community was on their trail..."

"Petraeus also said it initially was unclear whether militants infiltrated a demonstration to cover their attack."

So, this all means that Obama was correct on Sept 12 when he called this an act of terror, and Susan Rice was spot on about what the intelligence community was saying at the time. The only information either of them left out was classified information, and as we can all now see, classified for the good reason of trying to bring the perps to justice.

It also means that all this political grandstanding, first by Issa, now by McCain, has had the effect of releasing classified information about Libyan operatives working for us in country - thereby endangering their lives - and also releasing classified information about who was behind the attack, thus making it more difficult for Obama to hunt them down and bring them to justice.

Great job, republicans. I hope it was worth it. For my two cents, I would have expected this from a hack like Issa, but I am really disappointed in McCain, who I thought would have known better.

What if there was a shooting or a murder on your street?

Would you let the police do their job and do their investigation, as they have been trained to do?

Or would you march down to the scene, demand to speak to the officer in charge, demand to know all of the details? Would you presume that you be given all of the information right there? Would you accuse the officer of not anticipating the crime? Would you pick apart his statement? Would you accuse him of covering something up to protect his superiors?

Look again at Benghazi. There was and still is an ongoing investigation. Information is still being disseminated. We want to be certain we have evidence sufficient to find and hold accountable those responsible.

What kind of Americans are those of you who find a sinister plot under every rock? Who suspect without any proof that corruption in our government is at work? Who are too impatient with due process? Who are unable to understand that as an event develops, circumstances change?

By jumping to conclusions, you may be yourself responsible for contaminating the evidence and the policies that will lead to the truth.

Ron B. and Snakebone, great posts!

Back at you, Fielden. I'm still waiting for MSNBC to print the story. Interesting that they haven't, particularly since the story completely debunks the 'lying to the public' and 'coverup' accusations. I thought MSNBC was so liberal, they would obviously jump all over the story. Guess maybe the rightwing echo chamber was wrong about that one, too.

So explain not mentioning terrorism at the UN summit by Obama on September 25th with the whole world watching?

No sinister plot------just a person who is negligent and incapable----you can kill OBL but you can't act during a 7 hour attack and deny any help to American lives. Need to find the people who did this----they were on Libyan talk shows that week. Gimme a break. Obama is a failure, the least qualified person in any setting.

We re-elected a boob.

Hey jscumuc69! Your post is FULL OF CRAP!

Look up Joel Gilbert, and the book the Dreams of My Real Father! Maybe it might be way over your head!

You want to know who Obama's real daddy is,Read that book,and look it up.You'll get a real education!

Three quarters of the people on this site,have no idea of what the hell I'm talking about!

All that stuff about him being an arab american president is as I said a is a pile of Crap!Your right in one respect his mother was white,but his father was not the Kenyan,and a muslim and all the other Crap that the Propaganda News Media put out there.His father was a black american,named Frank Marshal Davis! He was a black man in high standards,of the American Communist Party!The Kenyan was a prop that married his mother,and gave the kid his name.That's it!He's not his biological father.

Obama has been a liar right from the get go! From the time he was born,all the way up to the this Benghazi Situation!

As I read through these comments I see that some of you have been at it all day, with the back and forth, but one thing does stands out so very clearly... everybody is claiming they want the truth... posting links to this article or that... cutting and pasting comments from other people who know even less than you do and in some cases care even less because they have revenge or blood in their sights... others still are pointing finger at this administration or another, and Presidents and Congress alike, but they demand the truth.

But if it's one thing this old soldier knows it is this, pick your battles wisely... because at this point in this story the truth really doesn't matter anymore, because who would believe it anyway... who would know it when they see or hear it? You don't really care about the truth, you all present your little cases for why you are right and everyone else is so damned wrong or stupid... or both, but you always remember to add that little caveat about wanting the truth... do you really?

Funny thing about the truth and what Col. Nathan R. Jessup said... "You can't handle the truth!"

Oh yeah... I'm just as guilty as the next person, but I'm staying out of this.

@FloridaMom1#1.122: Respectfully ma'am you are wrong. I recorded both the shows of which I speak. That Tape was indeed brought up often by Her Questioners, and She surely said the reaction to that tape could have been the major contributing cause of the attack, and that they believed it was, especially with what was going on in Egypt, but as more accurate information became available that might change. Etc.,etc,etc.

Now, Ma' am, please remember the riotous attacks began in Egypt about 12 to 15 hours before the Benghazi attack. These two countries share a long border, and both were pretty much in the middle of chaos, both having just overthrown their leaders and the people were most assuredly fearful of a power vaccum. Most importantly though, remember, the Egyptians really were all to hell about that sorry tape. Fact, for days it looked like the Egyptians might break through our Embassy defenses and kill or harm some or all of our people there. Accordingly, anyone with any sense would have been suspicious of the same thing in Libya. Attempting to parce language to generate false intent or blame relative to a tragedy is really a very low form of sorriness. To exploit the murder of good Americans for political gain is beyond despicable, and I contend criminal. I hope you are not such a person.

I like your comment, AllAmericans. In a flood of words, the truth comes disguised as just more words.

I think demands for the 'truth' here came first from republicans who wanted to influence the election. Democrats piled on those demands for 'truth', for the most part to get ammunition against accusations flying around in a vacuum. Now there's no going back.

But the fact of the matter is that the 'truth', at least on certain specifics about 'what we knew' about the Benghazi attack, was a classified part of a military operation against the people who attacked us. Now that we know the truth, it turns out that we ... shouldn't.

Again, I'd expect this kind of thing from Issa, but I am disappointed in McCain. I'd always thought he was a bit more serious about foreign affairs, and understood something about ongoing military operations.

Brutaltruth: Well, at least you're not going in for the 'lying' and 'coverup' thing.

As for Obama's incompetence, well, y'all been saying that since before he was elected the first time. I guess after a while the accusation just sort of loses credibility. But we'll see; there is still more investigating going on, we'll have to see what shakes loose this time.

Snakebone... Now that we know the truth, it turns out that we ... shouldn't.

... funny how that works ain't it.

SomewhereintheUSA! ... Look up Joel Gilbert, and the book the Dreams of My Real Father! Maybe it might be way over your head! ... You want to know who Obama's real daddy is...

Dude... I got to tell you, that is some real meth'd out trailer-park sh#t you got going on there son... you need to go and get that checked out before you go "noodling with your buds this weekend.

owl #1.50 - More House dems than repubs voted to cut spending.

4 Americans died. A tragedy. Incorrect or ignored intelligence. Possible cover up. It's upsetting.

Perspective is a good thing, however. 4,500 Americans died in the Iraq war because of incorrect or misleading intelligence (not to mention Americans wounded or Iraqi's killed/wounded). Therefore I think we should be at least 1000 times more outraged at the Iraq war than the Benghazi attacks. Yet, I think it would very difficult for many conservatives posting here to be 1000 times more outraged than they currently are.

If you are so upset about this issue, you ought to be calling for war crimes against the Bush administration. Otherwise you're participating in politics as usual.

***************************YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH***********************

9/11 2001:

Director of the CIA Bush, later President Bush (41) built up the CIA. President Clinton (42) Gutted the US Intelligence Agencies that left the US Blind and Deaf to the Events leading to the 9/11 2001 Attacks, after the Bipartisan US Congressional 9/11 Commission (Committee), former President Clinton saying, "I'm a so sorry".

Osama Bin Laden:

After the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombing, US Ally Saudi Arabia had detained Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and offered President Clinton extradiction of OBL. President Clinton refused. US Ally Saudi Arabia asked for US Evidence of OBL's involvement with the 1993 First World Trade Center Bombing, President Clinton refused; so without sufficient evidence US Ally Saudi Arabia released OBL. US Military Asymmetric Warfare Teams attached to the CIA's SAD/SOG shadowed OBL Worldwide requesting President Clinton's Termination Authorization so that they could go home. President Clinton refused stating the US No Assassination Policy.

It was not until 2006 after President Bush (43) Amended the US No Assassination Policy that the Termination of OBL could be accomplished in accordance with the 2006 previous Mission to locate and capture OBL, with the Termination of OBL being considered a Mission Failure.

Iraq:

2003 Operation Iraqis Freedom in accordance with President Clinton's US Law, H.R.4655 "Iraqis Liberation Act of 1998" Justification Section 2 Weapons of Mass Destruction, Section 3 US Policy Overthrow of President Hussein, with US Congressional Appropriations. President Clinton's Failed attempt as Operation Desert Fox that resulted in the condemnation of the Islamic World naming te US the Great Satan.

LIBYA:

Concern Citizen-856329 - As far as I'm concerned the one issue that will keep coming back is Libya. If you fact check this story the truth really comes out. This administration is hiding something.

You do know that factcheck.org is like motherjones ($50,000) as funded by the DNC.

What do you want to know about Libya (US AFRICOM):

Without disclosing Classified (information withheld from US Public):

Life during President Gaddaffi, contract with Libyan Citizens in his "Green Book": Loans to Libyan citizens were given with "NO interest". Students would get paid the average salary for the profession they are studying for. If you’d be unable to get the employment the state would pay the full salary as if you were employed. When you got married the couple got an apartment or house for free. You could go to college anywhere in the world, the state paid 2,500 euros plus for accommodation and a car. The cars were sold at factory cost. Libya does not owe money, (not a cent) to anyone, No credits. Free education and health care. 25% of population with a university degree. No beggars on the streets and no homeless. Bread costs $0.15. Gasoline $0.33 per liter, during the attacks $0.66 per liter. Human Rights and Libyan Citizen's Rights as praised by the UN and UA (African Union). All this disappeared after the Overthrow of President Gaddaffi.

President Gaddaffi and Libya as a US Ally, to get the President Bush US and UN Sanctions and Embargoes lifted so he would ship Libyan Oil to the US European Allies: Collaborated with the CIA. President Gaddaffi had his Libyan Military hunting the Islamic Jihadists at Libya. Stopped his pursuit of Nuclear Power. Turned over his Chemical Weapons to the US. Transfer of US Islamic Jihadists Prisoners from Guantanamo to President Gaddaffi's Prisons (including later President Obama's). Human Rights and Libyan Citizen's Rights as praised by the UN and UA (African Union).

The Fundamentalist Islamic Arab League of Nations is demanding President Gaddaffi's Death for Collaborating with the Christians, Jews, Unbelievers, a Death Penalty Fatawa is issued.

Most of the work that the Libyan Citizens do not want to do are done by Foreigners brought into Libya, and have no Libyan Citizens Rights nor the Libyan Citizens Entitlements listed in President Gaddaffi's Green Book.

The Holy Warriors of Islam (aka Islamic Jihadists) are gathering at Libya, after the Overthrow of US Ally Egypt. Many Intelligence Agencies are stating that these Islamic Jihadists are the Fundamentalist Islamic Al Quada Saudi Arabia (AQ), Al Quada Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al Quada Syria (AQS), Al Quada Yemen (AQY), Hezbollah, Al Quada Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), etc. as trained by the Quds Special Forces of the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran at the Fundamentalist Islamic Autonomous Kurdistanis Region of Northern Iraq, Syria, Southern Turkey, and Northwestern Iran to Overthrow the Established Governments of US Allies.

President Gaddaffi warns everyone about the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists gathering at Libya, President Gaddaffi's Military starts to fight them, the Islamic Jihadists go back and forth between Libya and Egypt, so President Gaddaffi's Libyan Military cannot eliminate the Islamic Jihadists without violating Egypt's Sovereignty. President Obama ignores this just like he ignored US Ally Iraq, US Ally Egypt, US Ally Saudi Arabia, US Ally Turkey, US Ally Pakistan, President of Syria, etc. until it was too late.

President Gaddaffi f**ks up, declares Libyan Oil Nationalization. Due to President Obama's Policies the US and US Allies have lost the Iraqis Oil, this makes the Libyan Oil of Strategic Importance to the US European Allies. Other Governments that previously declared Oil Nationalization, with them being Overthrown, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh of Iran (1953), President Hussein of Iraq "Modernization of the Arab World" (Iraqis Oil Nationalization). Failed US Overthrow attempt President Chavez of Venezuela (1999-2000).

Why Benghazi: Thousands of Islamic Jihadists flood into Benghazi with the Asymmetric Warfare intent of killing the Libyan Military Guards, seizing the weapons, ammunition at the the 60 bunker Hight Razma facility on the eastern outskirts of Benghazi and a 35 bunker facility on the eastern outskirts of Ajdabiyah." The term "bunkers" is a misnomer as some of these "bunkers" were the size of warehouses. After the Libyan Military Guards were massacred at these Libyan Munitions Depots, the Facilities were left unguarded. This is how about 20,000 shoulder launched portable SA-7 anti aircraft missiles ended up "missing"; believed to be currently in the hands of Al Quada and the rest of the Islamic Terrorists (Jihadist, Worldwide Islamic Military), possible use shoot down US and US Ally Commercial Airlines (Aircraft) worldwide (after all the other publicly known failed attempts); most US Military and US Ally Military Aircraft have detection and countermeasures (some are still shot down by SA-7s, mistaken for RPGs (similar warhead). ). Then inciting the Foreign Workers brought into Libya to demand Libyan Citizens Rights and Entitlements.

President Gaddaffi sends his Libyan Military to fight the Islamic Jihadists and Foreign Worker Protesters and Demonstrators gone violent (murdered Libyan Military).

President Obama then claims that President Gaddaffi is a "Dictator Killing his own people" (not Gaddaffi's own Libyan Citizens but Islamic Jihadists).

President Gaddaffi orders the Foreign Workers to leave his Country, most do not and actively join the Islamic Jihad to Overthrow President Gaddaffi the Collaborator to the Christians, Jews, Unbelievers; again the Fundamentalist Islamic Arab League of Nations demands the Overthrow of President Gaddaffi.

The Libyan Oil:

During the "G" Meeting at France, that was attended by SOS Clinton, the European Oil Corporations Lobby the European Politicians to Overthrow President Gaddaffi to stop his Libyan Oil Nationalization (majority of Profits remain in Libya); the Fundamentalist Islamic Arab League of Nations (Original Charter the Elimination of the Jews) as a new Member, League of Arab States, aka Fundamentalist Islamic Arab League of Nations, demands the Overthrow of Former US Ally President Gaddaffi and February 22, 2011 remove President Gaddaffi from membership (President Gaddaffi's Military killing Holy Warriors of Islam originally went to Libya to Overthrow President Gaddaffi as previously demanded by the Fundamentalist Islamic League of Arab States.).

These European Oil Corporations demand President Gaddaffi's Overthrow to stop his Libyan Oil Nationalization: BP (Britain), Total, Elf (France), Eni (Italy), OMV (Austria), Statoil (Norway), etc.. So instead of these European Oil Corporations hiring cheap Libyan Labor then keeping all the Profits, with Gaddaffi's Resource Nationalization, they would get almost nothing and the majority of the profits would remain in Libya. So in anticipation of their Governments Military Actions to Overthrow Gaddaffi to stop his Resource Nationalization, "Non essential" personnel were evacuated February 21, 2011.

US Army Special Forces LTC Woods and his Specialized Security Teams are at Libya since February. It is Routine to attach US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces to the CIA's SAD/SOG to conduct Targeting and Target Damage Assessments to minimize Civilian Casualties during Airstrikes and Cruise Missile Attacks. The US Military Asymmetric Warfare Forces Missions are routinely Special Reconnaissance, Special Surveillance, Foreign Internal Defense, Insurgency (training the locals to Overthrow a Established Government), Counter Insurgency (stop others from Overthrowing a US Ally's Established Government), etc..

President Obama as Commander In Chief Orders the US Military to attack Libya in violation of the US Law that Restricts or Limits the Presidential War Powers, US Law, 1973 War Powers Resolution (Act). President Obama failed to notify both Houses of US Congress 48 hours prior to ANY US Military Actions. US Congress does not have time to write a US Law with US Congressional Appropriations, like they did for President Clinton (42) and President Bush (43). President Obama uses not previously Budgeted for Discretionary Spending including to fund NATO's Bombs, Fuel, Cruise Missiles, etc.. Afterwards on behalf of President Obama SOS Clinton apologizes to US Congress, "I'm sorry".

The Results: President Gaddaffi is murdered. Most of the Libyan Citizens that benefited as President Gaddaffi Supporters flee Libya (See Life During President Gaddaffi above). The Islamic Jihadists get another Islamic Nation. Mediterranean Ports closer to attack the US European Allies aka Crusaders. US European Allies lose the Libyan Oil to the Fundamentalist Islamic Shia Republic of Iran's Ally, the Chinese. 20,000 portable shoulder launched anti aircraft SA-7 missiles end up in the hands of the Islamic Jihadists with their stated goal of shooting down US Civilian Airlines "to cripple the US Economy". Strategic Location for the Islamic Jihadists to get the other African Nations, just like Egypt was key to get Libya.

The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group were those Islamic Jihadist Foreign Fighters that were killing US Military at Iraq, they become the Government of Libya.

The Fundamentalist Islamic Al Quada Saudi Arabia (AQ), Al Quada Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Al Quada Syria (AQS), Al Quada Yemen (AQY), Hezbollah, Al Quada Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), etc. at Libya become Ansar Al Shariah to protect and instate Fundamentalist Islamic Shia (Sharia) Laws as the Rule of Law for Libya.

Ansar Al Shariah starts planning their attacks against the US And US Allies, and eliminations of Pro President Gaddaffi Supporters as Collaborators to the Christians, Jews, Unbelievers.

Update October 2012: As stated before Libya is Strategic to attack other African Nations, Ansar Al Shariah attacks Mali.

PRESIDENT OBAMA AND VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN FOR POLITICAL GAIN INFLAMED THE 1.5 BILLION ISLAMIC BELIEVERS WORLDWIDE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST THE US WORLDWIDE AS RELAYED TO THE ISLAMIC BELIEVERS AT ALL THE MOSQUES WORLDWIDE.

Biden at DNC (as well as 6 months before): "Bin Laden is dead, General Motors is alive"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKCwQnIygcw

With the Islamic Believer Demonstators and Islamic Jihadists Worldwide chanting:

"OBAMA OBAMA WE ARE ALL OSAMA" DEMO IN TUNISIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfaKSX3m7Tk

Cairo protesters- Obama we are all Osama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pJGX1JzyFc

President Obama then blames this on a video that most did not see because many do not have electricity, cell service, nor internet; and were told the video existed by the Imams at the Mosques.

Result DEAD US CITIZENS and the Islamic World's Increased Hatred of the US for the "Murder" (their word) of their "Holy Warrior of Islam" Superstar Osama Bin Laden. This is worse than going to Italy and Murdering the Pope and continually bragging Internationally. Most Pro US and Neutral Islamic Believers Worldwide then join the Holy Warriors of Islam against the US and US Allies. This becomes the Unifying Force for the over 1.5 Billion Islamic Believers Worldwide (Majority being Fundamentalist Islamic Believers).

And it was President Bush that kept GM alive with his: 2008 President Bush's GM and Chrysler Indicative Summary of Terms for Secured Term Loan Facility (Final Terms and Appendix).

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/22/barack-obama/obama-says-bush-administration-put-no-conditions-a/

US Army Special Forces LTC Wood and his US Army Special Forces Specialized Support Teams writes up a Security Assessment for the US Embassy at Tripoli, and the US Consulate at Benghazi, as well as an "On the Ground" INSUM for Libya. This Security Assessment would have gone thru multiple channels, the President's Own Executive Intelligence Agency, the CIA, cc President Obama; SOS Clinton and the US Department of State, cc President Obama; Secretary of Defense and Pentagon, cc, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, cc President Obama; Redacted, cc President Obama; Commander US AFRICOM, cc Commander US SETAF, cc Commander US EUCOM, cc President Obama.

US Ambassador Stevens is a Presidential Appointee, with Direct Access to President Obama.

US Ambassador Stevens states his concerns, and requests that US Army Special Forces LTCWood and his US Army Special Forces Specialized Support Teams remain at Libya, and or addtional US Security Forces (not Libyan). Before any of you start saying what could the few of US Army Special Forces LTC Wood and his US Army Special Forces Specialized Support Teams could have done, go learn about the previous Historically Documented DA (Direct Action) Missions of the US Army Special Forces.

I got to see the entire Video that is more than likely going to be posted in the future as an Islamic Jihadist Training Video, that starts with Ansar Al Sharia driving up with pick up trucks with heavy machineguns, and mortars mounted to the pickup truck beds and ending with the guy in the white shirt being interviewed with looters in the background. There are also the limited video surveillance cameras of the US Consulate Benghazi, the video recovery being one of the primary missions of US AFRICOM as coordinated thru US SETAF. Just because you don't have access, just like the mission cams, video conferences for the SR Mission that turned into a DA Mission (Raid) at Pakistan in accordance with President Bush's 2006 Amending the US No Assassination Policy and previously Presidential Delegated Authority Planned Mission; go right ahead, you can wait about 20 years and obtain the information about 20 years from now thru the FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act).

If you want to see the start to finish Islamic Jihadist videos attack on the US Consulate, learn to use the almost illegal means to circumvent the US Monitoring and Censorship that blocks the videos from the US based on IP Addresses, this training (how to) video is like the Islamic Jihadist's Training Video for their attacks against USMC Leatherneck (British Camp Baston) at Afghanistan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT62cLdygZE&feature=relmfu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOD2TbDlgVg&feature=relmfu

david-475776... if you're trying to make point either way, then I strongly suggest that you summarize, because nobody is going to read any of that.

What a joke! The losers are coming out from under the rocks trying so hard to forget the president kicked their ass in the election.

If you A Holes want to have an argument, let's first back up a bit and you explain to all of us why was it the Republicans went against a 300 million dollar appropreation bill to be used to strengthen the security at our embassies. After you guys wiggle around with that, then we can talk about the the non issue to do with all your screaming and whining, left over from losing the elction, busting your balls, if you have any, trying to create a bullsh!t scenario to lay on the president. What a bunch of punks the Republican party has become full of.

82AllAmericans - david-475776... if you're trying to make point either way, then I strongly suggest that you summarize, because nobody is going to read any of that.

Like I said YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. Facts are not personal opinions "to make points". And unlike Lawyers, the Truth is not accomplished by what Lawyers do as Errors of Omission (intentionally leaving out the details of Facts to win an argument, aka a Lie).

The questions that must be asked, are: "Who were the AC-130s assigned or attached to at that time, as previously attached to the US AFRICOM (northwest, aka Libya) Mission, Operation Odyssey Dawn". After establishing that, "Where they ever requested". (note: Do not tell me about the Unclassified wikipedia old capabilities of a AC-130).

"Was the Redacted at US SETAF requested as previously attached to the CIA's SAD/SOG prior to and during the US AFRICOM Mission, Operation Odyssey Dawn."

add to post#1.152.

Final question:

"Why was an unarmed RQ sent instead of a MQ armed with 8 Redacted sent, as the armed MQs were previously used during Operation Odyssey Dawn". It was known that those on the ground had Terminal Guidance to "paint" the known targets.

Pippo Schillaci - 300 million dollar appropreation bill to be used to strengthen the security at our embassies

******************************SHOWS JUST HOW MUCH YOU DON'T KNOW**********************

One, this was a US Consulate at Benghazi, NOT the US Embassy at Tripoli.

Two, SOS Clinton, "Funding was not an Issue". So ask yourself "Who" or "What" was the issue, considering her Boss is President Obama, and she is going to Resign and Tender her Letter of Resignation.

Three, She (Clinton) was correct about Candidate Obama during the 2007-2008 Democratic National Committee Presidential Nomination Debates.

jscusmc69: Are you one of those that signed a petition to secede from the United States? And if so, what are you going to do now that you and the rest of the RepubTurds's have finally found out that there was NO "Cover-Up Scandal" concerning Benghazi? Will you leave EARTH? And if you do, and if you have a horse--can I have it?

The point to be made here is..... NEITHER Ambassador Rice nor the President LIED ABOUT ANYTHING!!! The President himself called the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, "an act of terror", Ambassador Rice was ONLY telling the American people what she knew "AT THE TIME", in other words, what the C.I.A brief told HER, NO-ONE ever tried to deny that the attack was'nt an act of terrorism, ANY attack on American interests overseas is considered an act of "terrorism"! They just did'nt know for SURE if it was or was'nt, an attack by Al-Aqueda, so until ALL the FACTS (which some of you have a hard time with) are known ABSOLUTLEY. Keep the "conspiracy" and "cover-up" rhetoric to a minimum, (if you're capable), O.K.?

I am glad Petraeus told the whole truth this time to the congress. He probably did not before because he feared his affair would be exposed if he did not tow the line. Now that that is not hanging over him, he came out with the truth. At least we are one step closer to solving the mystery. The CIA is in the clear and apparently so are other security agencies. Those that adulterated the talking points are someone else. I am guessing the White House. Then one has to wonder why. This news article claims it was because it was classified, but that makes no sense because the congress got the BS version too. The CIA is supposed to give congress the truth even if they don't always give it to us. Several congressmen say how they were lied to the first time. There is obviously some other reason for the BS tale and also for not helping this ambassador.

The remaining clues seem to be: The Libya-provided guards took off just before the attack which shows they were in on it. That could put the government of Libya in cahoots with the terrorists. If that be true, the attack on the embassy was an act of war to which a normal American response would have been to attack Libya. I think the White House did not want to do that, so better lie about what happened. I saw another news show about the rockets being lobbed right now at Israel. Many of those rockets were smuggled through Libya. There may be a clue here.

Some of the congressmen at the meeting today say they saw a video of the ambassador being killed violently. Strange, my cousin says she ran into a web site (all Arabic) showing video of the ambassador being killed violently shortly after the attack. So footage of his violent death was out there on the net. For some reason it was not on the news except for one brief mention on FOX. So, for some reason, they wanted to play down how violently he was killed. Another mystery.

Then we have a spy trail. The woman who hobnobbed with the generals in Tampa is of Lebanese origin. She acted like some sort of spy.

Meanwhile the middle east is on the verge of a big war. All this is like the beginning of World War I. The ambassador is like that archduke that got killed before the outbreak of WWI. Pre-WWI was full of spies and intrigue.

The plot thickens. Stay tuned. More will out.

JERSY GIRL 1Eric, Bush had no real intelligence.......... As Fox Snooze would report your story. When are you gurls (that's guys and girls) going to realize YOU LOST not only the election but.........your minds. ROFL!

I know with the great intell you gurls get........ like about the election, it is tough to stay tuned in.

Karl Rove: “I think Romney gets 279 to 281 or 286 in the Electoral College.”
Newt Gingrich: “My personal guess is you are going to see a Romney landslide, 53% plus in the popular vote, 300 electoral votes plus. And we may come very close to capturing control of the Senate.”
Rush Limbaugh: ”You know, all of my thinking says Romney big…it’s not even close. Three hundred-plus Electoral Votes for Romney.”
Glenn Beck: “321 votes!! That’d be great, which would be a mandate, giant giant spankin’ — that’s huge!”
Dick Morris: “Romney will win in a landslide.”
Gov. John Kasich: “Honestly think that Romney is going to carry Ohio.”
Sen. Rob Portman: “Once this election’s over and I believe Mitt Romney is going to win Ohio and, therefore, I think he is likely to be our next president.”
Dennis Miller: “I think Mitt Romney’s winning. I don’t believe the polls. I don’t believe the hacks. I think he’s in great shape.”

"Instead, the initial talking points focused on spontaneous reactions to an anti-Islamic video as a spark for the attack."

If it takes so much time to decide whether Benghazi attack was a terrorist act or not, what is the caliber of some of these politicians?

McCain was one of the first "war hero" to jump in Libya!

Now he is jumping again on Libya, Syria, Iran and other places.

Bushes, McCains, Romneys and co know about Sunni Saudis and co, oil companies and their lobbyists money! They have outsourced their thinking to them.

Hillarys, Liebermanns and some more (both Republicans and Democrats) jump and dance when Jewish lobby starts them.

Of course, some smarter are with those who show them money or favors!

So we had Iraqi wars, Afghan war, Libyan intervention and future interventions in Syria, Iran and other places!!!!

In the US, we have to battle the budgets!

I guess when Pelosi said it was time to drain the swamp, it was only to make room for the Obama administration. So much for the most transparent administration ever. So much for honesty from Washington. Everything about the Obama administration is a political calculation. The simple truth about this attack in Libya is that if you don't like the current story coming out of the Obama administration, you will only have to wait a minute for the next version. Now Obama is hiding behind another investigation, how convenient.

to make Benghazi a political issue already hate Obama and are desperately making up bogus reasons to justify their hate, most of which is racially based.

Ahh....back to that good old, fail-safe race card. Please tell us Libs; Why does is always go back to "blame Bush" and "you're racist" very time there is criticism of your messiah?

Deflect, deflect, deflect but never accept.

Yeah, yeah. Barry got a little over 50% of the popular vote....but remember, more than two thirds of this country did not vote for/endorse your hero.

Those that want to blame Bush for 911 you are crazy. The Sudan Government offered Usama to Bill Clinton. They deal was to be brokered through Saudi Arabia. Bill Clinton and Janet Reno failed to get the deal done. If Clinton would have been doing his job and not the blow jobs, Usama would be in an American prison and 9 11 would not have happened.

I feel sorry for Petraeus for getting caught in a spy trap. It could happen to the best of us. I also recently found out that it was Obama who directly ordered Petraeus to fire McCrystal which makes me feel better about Petraeus. So I wish him luck. I hope that Petraeus exposes the fact that Obama and his administration political people let the Ambassador die on purpose. For 8 hours the CIA officers on the ground called for help and was ignored. The CIA officer on the ground did in fact send out an E-mail to the President and other Senior government officials because this action is Standard Procedure for emergencies of this kind. Fred Rustmann tells this in his book called "CIA inc.". Mr. Rustmann gives even a less serious example when intelligence report is rushed to the President. So there is No Excuse for Obama to claim to know nothing.Here is the example given by Mr. Rustmann; " However, if the agent were to say: "I was at a cocktail reception in Beijing and the Chinese leader's physician told me," I would be out of the door of the safehouse in an instant to rush back to the station to type up a blue-stripe, restricted handling,eyes only, flash precedence intelligence report that would go straight to the President of the United States and other government senior officials. Page 102 CIA inc. Fred W. Rustmann. As you can see by the Rustmann example which is far less severe than what actually happened in Benghazi. So you can see that it is obvious that the CIA officer on the ground did in fact notify the President. I hope that Petraeus brings this out in one of the many hearings that he has to attend because this is the whole point that Obama is guilty of murder as much as the terrorists on the ground in Benghazi. And who gave the order to "Stand Down"? It was not the CIA.

So the House GOP refused the White House's request for better funding for the security of our embassies and consulates in war-torn countries, because, in part -- as Mitch McConnell said, the Republican Party's number one priority was to make Obama a one-term President. Deny him and the Democrats, everything they can, even for things the right-wing agreed previously upon.

-----------------------------------------------

JASON CHAFFETZ (R-Utah) ADMITS HOUSE GOP CUT FUNDING FOR EMBASSY SECURITY: 'You Have To Prioritize Things'

Excerpts:

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) acknowledged on Wednesday that House Republicans had consciously voted to reduce the funds allocated to the State Department for embassy security since winning the majority in 2010.

On Wednesday morning, CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien asked the Utah Republican if he had "voted to cut the funding for embassy security."

"Absolutely," Chaffetz said. "Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country. We have…15,000 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 tough economic times, you have to make difficult choices. You have to prioritize things."

For the past two years, House Republicans have continued to deprioritize the security forces protecting State Department personnel around the world. In fiscal year 2011, lawmakers shaved $128 million off of the administration's request for embassy security funding. House Republicans drained off even more funds in fiscal year 2012 -- cutting back on the department's request by $331 million.

Consulate personnel stationed in Benghazi had allegedly expressed concerns over their safety in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks that killed four Americans, including Amb. Chris Stevens.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

I think I have the solution to solve these issues for both sides. We let the Republicans continue their Benghazi witch hunt. And the Democrats in the house and senate open hearings on how we got into the Iraq war,and revisit what the Bush people knew or didn't know about the original 9/11.Then they can bring Bush,Cheney,and their minions up on charges. That way both sides can be happy. And while their all busy there. We'll just let the President use EO's to get the needed reforms enacted. That way finally we can get something done for the country.

Bring it on Uncle Bob 512! Don't forget to include the entire Clinton administration in your investigation of 9/11 and our involvement in Iraq. You may not like what you hear. Just to refresh your memory though, it was UNIVERSALLY accepted by Clinton and the democrats that Saddam had WMD's. Might I add that the US Senate voted 99-1 in favor of going to war with Iraq, all but 1 democrat voted FOR the war with Iraq. So I say bring it on, let the guilty hang. Just be ready to accept the fact that the WMD justification, (one of many points used to promote the Iraq invasion), was the product of Clinton era inteligence, and was accepted as reliable throughout the world. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Man cheats on his wife with woman who cheats on her husband.

NEWS FROM 20,000 BC

OBAMA cheats on Americans by siding with Mexican illegal aliens!!!!

Now THAT is NEWS!

It's also TREASON!

If any of you people think that the President, any President, makes the staffing decisions pertaining to embassies then you're all stupid. Do you people think that there's a guy with a notepad in the oval office that patiently awaits the President to shout out how many support personnel to send out to every embassy for the day, then you're simply nuts. I would venture to say that never, ever, have the words been uttered to the President, hell ANY president, "So um, how many peoples you want to put on guard duty in the 'insert any name' embassy?" That type of low-level decision is left to enlisted soldiers if not a low ranking officer, maybe a captain, and if it had enough visibility maybe a lieutenant colonel, most likely not a full bird colonel, definitely not a brigadier general, or a major general, so a lieutenant general and full general is completely out. Now should I move on to the appointed staff and civilian personnel that come BEFORE the President, or do you people finally get it?

You can blame the President for every little thing that happens somewhere, because in the end he is at the top, but don't for one moment think that he really had any direct input in the staffing of the Benghazi embassy when it was attacked. The decision was on someone at least 8 commands before the President, so deal with it, go find another witch.

Well said!

Okay, put the lies out there, what were they?

So far, I have yet to see lies except from Republicans.

we know now..

there is al queda in the white house

@TRAPP211, oh yes, and he is out to get you. Be scared, very scared.

What is that old saying, "dumb, dumber, and dumbest", well take your pick people, old trapp fits at least one of the three. Talk about a sore loser.

"Al Qaeda in the White House"

Uh huh.........gotta love birthers..........Keep trying.

Eric, Obama has lied all along about Benghazi. He was in the White House situation room watching in real time what happened in Benghazi. The truth will come out and you will see who the real liar is. It was "Optimal" for this to come out during the election. Maybe had the media done their jobs, Obama wouldn't be President now. Real journalism is dead.

Post your links Jersy Girl. Everything you are saying is false.

Blaming Romney's loss on the media is novice debate Jersy Girl.

Two questions on the same subject asked directly to the President were not answered in either case. (Once in the town hall debate and the other in his press conference this week)

1. "Who was it that denied enhanced security, and why?"

2. "On 9-11, did you issue any orders to protect their lives?”

Why have these committees not got Clinton on the grill in there? She was SoS at the time and all this happened on her watch. I'm not in favour of witch hunts, but let us be fair - someone, perhaps several people dropped the football badly. Once we have discovered WHO dropped the football, we will be well placed to speculate on WHY, unless it is just straight incompetence. Players do not win trophies for dropping the football and if the truth brings some political aspirations crashing to the ground there is a measure of fairness in that, too.

If Clinton and / or Rice end up in the wilderness they will have only themselves to blame.

Eric, if all this would have come out before the election, it very well could've effected the outcome! This is obviously the reason the administration spun it the way they did, and of course the media were right in step with them. If You are to ignorant to see this, it doesn't surprise Me in the least. I voted for Bush, yet I wanted 911 investigated to the fullest extent, I didn't hold Him as My Messiah !

Eric-913730,

I think everybody is in agreement that Ambassador Rice told a lie when asked questions 5 days after the attack when she said the attacks were because of a video.

The question I have is did she know her information was false? If she didn't who told her what to say and why?

There is a difference between passing on mis-information and intentionally telling a lie.

and

Eric, if all this would have come out before the election, it very well could've effected the outcome!

I seriously doubt that. The fact that 30 people were saved seems to have escaped so many of you. This consulate is in an extremely dangerous area of the world. The fact that we haven't seen more deaths due to acts of terrorism is astounding and testament to our intelligence agencies and the security forces that have been assigned to protect them.

@Eric-913730

Okay, put the lies out there, what were they?

Any mention of the video in relation to Benghazi was a lie. Anyone still refusing to admit that has Obama's hand up their ass and are being worked like a sock puppet. So does that hurt or have you gotten used to it after all these months?

Ironic, isn't it, that the career of two women will be tainted by this scandal. I have always admired Ambassador Rice but could not believe the story she was regurgitating. They both took the sword and were good soldiers.....

@armurray#4.12-jb1961-Jersey Girl1: Ist; Ambassador Rice didn't lie. Those who say she did are themselves liars. I actually heard Her statements that sunday am. "jb1961", I agree with you relative to the claptrap narrative put out by the 911 commission. Regarding Benghazi though, you're apples to taters. Regarding "Jersey Girls" claim about Romneys probability of being elected; I contend that's bullsh^t, and pure sour grapes. Too many didn't like the lying sum-bitch. Look, you folks can howl about "could haves" and "I'll bet" till all the milk is clabbered, and it won't change a thing. You're all sucking a dry tit.

CIA operation gone wrong..move along.

Hoodieboy: Romney who??? You seem obsessed with Romney. He's not our Pres. or do you wish he were and that's why you keep bringing up Romney.

It just seems as if Obama is always kept out of the loop and then when the truth comes out it makes him look bad cause he is always clueless. If I was Obama I would be furious.

Burning Brightly - It just seems as if Obama is always kept out of the loop and then when the truth comes out it makes him look bad cause he is always clueless.

It is called Credible Deniability, Plausible Deniability, Political Distancing, etc., like Sergeant Schultz:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcxGFmYyPs&playnext=1&list=PLAE474E9616D0E268&feature=results_video

This is not the first time President Obama has done that. When you see the rats jumping off the ship (quiting the Obama Administration), do not walk to the Lifeboat RUN.

They had to lie as Iraqi wars strengthened seventh century despotic, highly corrupt, bigoted, barbaric and beastly Sunni Saudi Salaffi and Wahhabi versions of Islam and they have killers like al Qaida, Taliban, Salaffi and others operating with different labels.

One such bunch of Sunni Islamic extremists were responsible for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

How can one accept that their "strategic allies" (and God father for many) front organization were responsible?

It will take time to accept that Iraqi wars and wrong strategic allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have invented Sunni Islamic killing monsters/machines.

Also some immediate actions just like Iraqi wars on Syria and Iran are to be taken! That was the Sunni Saudis, oil companies, Netanyahus and their lobbyists are demanding!

It will be a decade before accepting the truth and realities!

Those layoffs represent the cutting cost of government. That's what happens when we tighten our belts to rein in the deficit. Isn't that the most important thing ever?

FauX News was never recommended for a weak mind like yours

Blame the fiscal cliff on Boehner and Cantor. Send those unemployed people right to their office doors.

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with the story?

union thugery!? how do you figure? the union voted to not accept the pay cuts at the risk of losing their jobs. the unior had a choice. i just don't see where you are coming up with all this crap and unsupported claims. where are the facts?

Earl, the reason, real reason Hostess is going out of business is because the stockholders, that's right the stockholders kept the failing CEO in place. Failed policies always mean ruin. Why do you think the bubble broke in this country in 2007?

It failed because of the failed policies put in place since 1980. Deny it all you want, but informed people know it. Why don't you know it? Never mind, you wouldn't understand anyway.

This will only be the beginning under this administration.

Why do you Republicans and Tea Baggers ALWAYS try to use scare tactics to get the public afraid and see things your way. Mitt tried using it in the debate about Iran will have nkkes in 4 years, fewer ships than we had in 1917. You guys have no genuine guts and revert to lies and hearsay without facts and it always backfire in your face. Another lie was Chrysler was shipping jobs to China to build Jeeps. You should have learned since Nov 6 these lies don't scare anyone and it cost you the election.

The GREED of both Unions and companies are what is making companies either fail or ship jobs overseas. Stop blaming just one side. You Liberal idiots have no clue about business.

You got to love a person that blows through 6 trillion and makes everyone else pay for it.

Jason-2757505 remember I've told you you have to earn respect it's not given to you because your the president get that through thick head. Obama will never in my life get it from me after turning his back on four Americans he has.

Eric-913730 Ya you won the election all right that puts you equal too a Mexican who also won the election

Since when is the President responsible for poor management at a bakery or for that matter a bad initial assessment of that attack on our embassy ? Get a grip. He won the popular vote and the electoral college. John McCain has lost all credibility. All he wants is another war for some reason and to get us involved more in the Middle East. Maybe we need to find out why that is, and why the House denied the necessary funds to the State department , that they requested in order to better protect our diplomats ? Haven't heard much about that , now have we ?

Same old stale comments about the President. Yawn. It didn't work before the election and they won't work now. The Republicans distracted Clinton during his second term and he still left us with a surplus. Obama is focused and working hard to ressurrect the country from the bad policies of the past, despite unending criticism and scandal mongers. If I remember correctly the only criminalality happens when a Republican is in the White House....Watergate, Iran-Contra, The recession and the S and L scandals of the eighties. Am I right? All Clinton did was get his rocks off, which isn't a crime , yet.

Two questions on the same subject asked directly to the President were not answered in either case. (Once in the town hall debate and the other in his press conference this week)

1. "Who was it that denied enhanced security, and why?"

2. "On 9-11, did you issue any orders to protect their lives?”

faye59

Why you have not heard anything is because the LEFT does not what that out that's why. In one of the meetings yesterday the left tried to make that the point that they were all their and it was shoved right back at him. This is a question you need to ask your congressmen the next time you see him.

do you dems honestly think Clinton has a shot at the 2016 election by the time all of this comes to light? She has already jumped on the grenade for Obama, information is coming to light that she ignored the problem, and she isnt black so there goes the 93% black votes, will be closer to 70% according to what i am reading, through in the fact that there is a chance we will be at 10% unemployment by 2016 and she doesnt have a prayer. if i were your i would start putting my apples into a different basket.

The City of Cincinnati just gave their City Manager a 9% pay raise to $255K and a bonus of $35K. This after cutting pay to city employees and laying off police and fire fighters. SO those of you who are suggesting that the Hostedd action is because of Union Thugs are way off base. WHat the City did is just what all businesses are doing raising executive pay, bonus and compensation and than wanting to cut workers, lower and middle management pay. It is not thuggery to want a fair playing field.

Hollykb,

Cincinnati is another good example of the Democratic machine lining the pockets of their own members to increase votes... Just of like the unions.

Hostess is going out of business and laying off 18,500 people due to obama union thuggary

No Hostess is going out of business because they aren't profitible, they have been losing 100s of millions every year for awhile. A few years ago they cut their teamster union employees salaries by 20%, now they want to do the same thing to the bakers union employees.

They failed to grow their brand, the majority of people quit eating white bread in the 90s. Instead of developing products that fit in the new market, they continued making twinkies.

This is how capitalism works, you see a demand and you supply the product, if you product is no longer in demand you find one that is or you go out of business.

@dmill-3826165

Why do you Republicans and Tea Baggers ALWAYS try to use scare tactics to get the public afraid and see things your way

Was it republicans who had the ad showing grandma being pushed off a cliff? Was it republicans who had an ad with old ladies saying they'd "burn this mother @!$%#er down"? No. Please don't be ignorant enough to believe that this tactic is only used by republicans. Perhaps if people would hold their own political party to task we'd be better off as a nation. Instead we get a bunch of @!$%#ing morons pointing their fingers at the other guys while giving their own party a total pass for doing the exact same @!$%#. How @!$%#ing stupid is that???

@Backcountry164: It was republicans who made those ads. We all know it. Republicans are liars. We all know that. Republicans do stupid things then blame them on others. we all know that. You really aren't giving us any good information here Backcountry. Just go on back to your turd hunt.

@allenjames

Jason-2757505 remember I've told you you have to earn respect it's not given to you because your the president get that through thick head. Obama will never in my life get it from me after turning his back on four Americans he has.

Ok, changing names? Again, where did I mention Obama, my response on this thread was what the hell did #5 have to do with the story about Gen Petraeus testifying on Banghazi attack?

macforester: Hello, republicans didn't create ads against themselves. Democrats created those "hateful" ads.

@Mac Forrester

@Backcountry164: It was republicans who made those ads. We all know it. Republicans are liars. We all know that. Republicans do stupid things then blame them on others. we all know that. You really aren't giving us any good information here Backcountry.

Republicans made an ad saying republicans would throw grandma off the cliff. I know I'm going out on a limb by assuming this but surely you can't actually be stupid enough to believe that.

Just go on back to your turd hunt.

LOL! Why would I need to waste any time hunting for turds when there are plenty of folks like you serving up bull @!$%# on NewsVine all the time? I can just click on your screen name and get all the turds I'd ever want.

you are totally smoking dope. this ben-gayzy deal is just one more republican attempt to discredict a fairly good president...the whole thing stinks of karl rove politicing. why don't you guys go get a life or something!

And as a close meeting SNDVL, you know this how? I suppose you will tell us that you attended that meeting. As of yet, no one is talking about what he said. Except for your made up manure. Gee, are you really that low informed, and have problems with critical thinking? seems like it.

" In addition, it was recognized as a terrorist attack from the start..."

By who? Where did you get this info. from?

gmcbride

We do have a life messing with you Obama protectors. Just remember the people followed a leader to their deaths to protect him some 67 years ago.

Petraeus testified Friday “that he thought all along he made it clear that there was significant terrorist involvement

Read the article golfsleft

allenjames

gmcbride

We do have a life messing with you Obama protectors. Just remember the people followed a leader to their deaths to protect him some 67 years ago.

Bring it on, Slick. A good many of us Dems are vets, very well armed, and willing to defend the CIC.

golfsleft:

RE: your post #6.3

Former General David Petreus testified, under oath, to intelligence panels TODAY, November 16, 2012, that, and I quote: "...he believed from the start that the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi was a result of TERRORISTS...." Now that is the who and when. As to where I got the information; the info is THE FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article on which you have commented! It has also been confirmed TODAY on ALL T.V. News outlets, including Fox News. Perhaps you should reread the article and repost. Have a GREAT weekend!

Does anyone really believe that those responsible for our country's wartime security and intelligence have an obligation to reveal sensitive information in real time to the "538" or the general public?

Could anyone on the face of the planet Earth be that stupid or ill-informed?

Well... OK, maybe Donald Trump.

Lyin in Houston, FauX News was never recommended for a weak mind like yours

Wow! What a retort! I stand corrected. Forget everything I just said. I never considered the amazing facts you eloquently used to refute my first statement. Thanks for sharing that wisdom with me.

Lion, what was covered up?

Darn LION IN HOUSTON, you just described the Bush years. Finally some of the GOP is getting a clue.

Faux News, Bush, blah, blah, blah, Liberals can never stay on topic.

What did you expect from a community organizer?

Lion in Houston

You have both deliberate cover-up and the most incompetent administration due to they can't even get the cover up right.

golfsleft

Lion, what was covered up?

= Obama's Ass.

I want to know the answers to the following questions. Why did the WH claim for nearly two weeks that a video was the reason for the attack even though there is evidence they knew it was a planned attack the day it happened? Incompetence or cover-up? How many times were security concerns raised before the attack and what was the response? Where was BO during the attack? We're there cries for help during the attack? How many and when? What was the response? If Susan Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi, then why was she sent to speak about it? When did BO find out about Patreus's affair? Why did it not come out before the election. Why was Broadwell's home raided this week if the affair was known about last summer?

Do you smart-a$$es know the answers? If not, shut the &$!@ up. These are all relevant questions but they are the tip of the iceberg. Finally, Bush's incompetence has NOTHING to do with this.

hoodieboy

Lyin in Houston, FauX News was never recommended for a weak mind like yours

LOL! Says the guy who can't manage anything other than to repeat the same moronic one-liner over and over again. Too funny!

Looking at your history all you can manage is name-calling and drivel. I suppose this does make you a master of the "weak mind" but it doesn't give you the ability to judge that quality in others.

Thats right. Don't let something silly like real facts get in the way.

@ nothingnewhere: Why not "Alfred E Neuman in 2016?!" He has a lot more smarts and a better chance of winning!

Andy27tx,

In the world of diplomatic relations, do you really think that the diplomats don't know who the spies are? It has been pretty much common knowledge for half a century that every embassy, regardless of who it belongs to, has an intelligence arm and operation running in it. It is the nature of those operations that get governments up tight. Of course there was at least one CIA operative in the embassy, and given the state of Libya at the time, probably several with several operations running to gather intelligence information. How else do you think diplomats know how much security to request to protect themselves?

The embassy is the eye's and ear's on the ground. They feel the pulse of that country and let us know what is going on as it happens. They also are representives of our country.

Unfortunately it seems there was no one on the other end when they said "Help". The date is 9/11 and we are being attacked.

Andy27tx,

Your youth and inexperience is showing.

Almost forever most Nations KNEW about the President's Own Executive Agency, the CIA, operating out of US Embassies, US Consulates, other Diplomatic Missions and Humanitarian Assistance Missions.

All Nations have their Intelligence Agencies doing that, just like everyone masturbates and will not admit that they do.

Andy27tx

Maybe it was because there was a covert CIA operation going on there and we didn't want to just broadcast out that we had the CIA in a sovereign country doing spy stuff.

Try to keep up dude, The CIA operatives were working WITH the Libyan Militias. Maybe gather some basic, readily available, facts BEFORE coming up with any cockamamie theories.

Gee, I wonder why we didn't fully explain what was going on in that embassy.

Gee, I wonder why liberals refuse to admit that their anointed one is just your standard, full of @!$%#, politician whose primary motive was to avoid any bad press right before the election.

miklit good post from snopes but it is undetermined as to it's truth. Anyway you look at it though it is not good. One thing we do know is they were attacked and killed.

miklkit,

I will let you know that it is normal for the Islamic Jihadists to video everything for later proof and bragging rights. The video created by them (Islamic Jihadists) are normally also used as "How to" "Do It Yourself, DIY" videos for other Islamic Jihadists.

These videos were available shortly after the attacks, arabic titles, and then were removed and blocked from US Access (based on IP Addresses). I had posted the links on Newsvine before (arabic titles, farsi titles) and found out that they were blocked from the US.

These videos are NOT the same as the one videoed by the guy that showed up almost 3 hours (00:00 hours, 12am) after the attack started (about 21:00 hours, 9pm); as the video that is available at the US that do not show everything from prior to the attack, the attack and afterwards.

david - And just where did you get all this secret information? Did you see the videos? Do you have an inside source? Are you and Islamic Jihadist? You sound like some wacko, conspiracy theorist. Take your meds and go back to bed.

FauX News was never recommended for a weak mind like yours

he knows everything ..after all he is president ....

Obama's world view concluded that the muslims couldn't have done this on their own. It must have been something else... Hmmm.... Eureka! A video must have made them do it. Remember Rowin and Martin's 'Laugh in?"

the devil made me do it!

Where is the press during this cover up? The only thing that brought Nixon down regarding the cover-up was an eager press. The only thing keeping Obama in the WH is an eager press.

Hoodieboy all you do is copy and paste the same thing over and over again. My guess is you did not even type that thought.

"The kenyan administration is commiting racketeering, conspiracy, extortion and murder.."

So don't go to Kenya.

Now you are swiming in the toliet bowl with Repugnant Turds and Tampon Baggers, bet you wish you were back on the ship

@MISSINGLINK, you didn't jump far enough 3 months ago. Try again, this time take some razor blades and matches plus a full gas can. I'm sure you can finish the job. Gee, what drivel from a jumping idiot. Like GOLFSLEFT said, don't go to Kenya.

no way idiot we will stand our ground and fight

hoodie... You're saying drink the koolaid (ala Jim Jones) and stop asking questions. A bad commentary on this presidents electorate.

hoodie - The Dems spent the last 4 years blaming/whining/complaining about the Repubs and Bush. Your memory is quite lacking just as your comments are.

You also forgot liberals are better liers and cheaters...

Another brain warped Tea Bagger. Come on over to the liberial side. See Sarah is a dinosar, Michelle Bacman barely won. That Tea Bagger crap is gradually fading away because it has no substance and the membership are loosers and liars.

@dmill: "looser" than who? ... and YOU can't spell! (one of the "liberal elite" haters!)

These koolaid drinkers (ala Jim Jones) have selective memory. Drink the koolaid and stop asking questions, we won the election.

The sad thing is that the ambassadors and their staff in hot spots have requested more protection, which is more money. Any idea what committee would say no to an increase in that budget? That is where the problem is. For all we know, President Obama was publicly saying what would best suit the people who are embedded over there. I am sure they are searching....He got Osama Bin Laden. I trust the search is on now, as well.

not hardly ..they ask for help long before it happened ..god,,, reread the news stupid

Fass Family: Who did they, ask? How did they ask? what is your source of information? Why are you getting upset to call me stupid? It looks to me like this is more to score political points! Why did Romney go public with accusations before he had any facts? If this, investigation produces any information that can show lies or deceit , we will surely know it when they finish! so chill out and wait for the results!

Why don't you give your account of what happened that day since you seem to know so much???

Google it yourself and find out. They did ask for help numerous times and were denied! The obama administration is lying thru their teeth. I'm sure if that had been your son/daughter that was murdered you'd be singing a different tune. All we are asking for is the truth, the families of the 4 murdered Americans deserve to know the truth!

Why don't you give your account of what happened that day since you seem to know so much???

It's a matter of public record that BO knew the embassy was desparate to get more security, and that several hours before the embassy was breached there were calls going out both from the Seal's barracks and the embassy for help. THey had been attacked before, that in itself was incentive enough for BO to DO SOMETHING! But in BO's usual Modus operandi he sat and did nothing. So yes, Dale u need to go to the stupid corner now, it's got yr name on it.

Sheryl, "google it yourself and find out" most likely will produce nothing but speculation, false interpretations, lies and media spins. The cause and effect of what happened most likely is classified information.

Equally ridiculous are these Sunday lounge chair quarterbacks saying what happened, what should have happened and who to blame. I don't see any of these Sunday lounge chair quarterbacks in charge of military units, in public office or acting as overseas ambassadors.

They sure seem to know it all don't they tho Mr. Ed?

Yes, who knew there was so much hidden talent out there? Too bad they're all not in public service instead of sitting in front of a computer screen, Googling for "facts." I'm tired of all this pretend sympathy and indignation. If Chris Stevens, a Muslim-loving liberal, had run for office, many of these same people would be insulting and abusing him, but as a means of attacking the president, he does just fine. Bunch of phonies.

This whole Benghazi incident was horrible and must be investigated as thoroughly as possible. But I wonder how much truth will be exposed by what Harry Truman called "nutty Congressional committees." Unfortunately, that's the way our government is run.

dale

The whole question of why revolves around a lack of preparedness that was requested by the ambassador weeks before this attack took place. If the security force had remained for another 4 months as requested while a transition to more local security forces took place, the attack probably would have never happened. A decision was made that ended up costing 4 American citizens their lives, it happens everyday since the war on terror started and God knows how long before that. The why now becomes questions over denials that this was a terrorist coordinated attack and the responses given to questions in the aftermath.

FauX News was never recommended for a weak mind like yours

No great country has most of the electorate deaf, dumb and blind. Regardless of party, they keep re-electing people who break the law and lie about it. Anybody who disputes this is one of the morons. You head the list hoodie.

@NICK, typical tea bagging lover response. Can't make a point without the name calling. Then you get mad when people do it against you? Hey, a lot of people have read Karl Rove's book. It's called deflection. And yours needs some work on it.

But yes, they keep electing the same people, McCain, Graham, Vitter, Cantor, Boner, are a few who comes to mind. Oh well, they are part of that "old white men" party we keep hearing about.

You have just validated my statement Sally. Now go make lunch for hubby.

To all you right wing bottom feeders. Four Americans die in Benghazi--tragic event. Thousand of Americans died in 9/11. Thousand more died in Iraq. Thousand more are dying in Afghanistan. BUT! No outcry from you bottom feeders on any of those deaths! Why is that!? Could it be because none of those despicable events can be tied to Obama, now could it?

You people are so pathetically predictable is not even funny. What happened to all the hoopla about the economy? About Jobs? About the deficit? Could it be that the main reason the economy isn't moving as fast as it could be because the Tea Party republicans are getting in the way? So, you pathetic bottom feeders need to stir up anything that will give you some sense of existence and continue to try to find enough smoke to blame on Obama.

GIVE IT UP! None of your crap worked during the election and it won't work now. The republicans lost the White house; they lost seats in the Senate; they lost seats in the House. THEY LOST PERIOD! Get over it! For once, use what little gray matter is still between your ears and concentrate on moving this country forward. The Benghazi affair will be resolved. And just like Fast-n-Furious, the truth will come out. Nothing regarding Benghazi will hurt Obama, no matter how much you bottom feeders keep stirring the feces.

I realize it sucks eating crow, but give it a good chew, swallow and move on. It will do wonders for your nervous system.......

My sentiments exactly!!!!!

Confused the difference between the two are many. But for you I will point out two big points that are so different

1.The knowledge the country had on Al-queda before 911 pales in comparison to what we know today. To compare the Intelligence between the two events is out right stupid on your part.

2.Bush did not sit at Ground zero and lie to the American Public about who did this to us like Obama did.

Both of those are facts ...End of story