E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDuring a top secret briefing, lawmakers said David Petraeus made it clear the CIA believed terrorists -- not protestors -- were responsible for the deadly assault in Benghazi. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
Updated 3:00 pm ET -- Former CIA Director David Petraeus testified Friday before congressional intelligence panels telling members that he had believed from the outset that the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi was an act of terrorists.
NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell reported that members of the Senate Intelligence Committee said after hearing from Petraeus that Obama administration officials made a decision to hold back as classified information an explicit depiction of Benghazi incident as an act of terrorists -- therefore that description did not make it into the “talking points” that the administration prepared for officials when they went on TV talk shows and spoke to reporters.
Instead, the initial talking points focused on spontaneous reactions to an anti-Islamic video as a spark for the attack. Five days after attack, the administration dispatched U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to speak on the Sunday news shows to offer a preliminary explanation of the attack, which she attributed to an anti-Islamic video that was circulated on YouTube.
In the attack Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans – Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods and Sean Smith – were killed.
Keeping as classified the determination that the Benghazi attack was the work of terrorists may have been done in order to help pursue those very same terrorists.
“There might have been two tracks happening all along: the public statements that were reflecting part of what they may have known” and the classified information that terrorists had been the ones attacking the consulate. “The real question is if they knew it was terrorism all along – was there too much suggestion that a video or demonstrations may have been involved?” said O’Donnell.
House Intelligence Committee member Peter King, R-N.Y., told reporters Friday after Petraeus testified that the initial “talking points” from the Obama administration to prepare officials for what they should say publicly in the first days after the attack had been changed to delete references to any al Qaida involvement in the event.
Rep. Peter King said he was "satisfied" with Gen. Petraeus' testimony at the Senate hearings on Benghazi, though the former-CIA director gave, to King, a "different impression this time around."
King said he and his colleagues now needed to hear testimony from officials in the State Department, the Defense Department “and also people at the White House – to see if anyone at the White House changed the talking points.”
King told reporters after Petraeus testified that “his testimony today was that from the start (immediately after Sept. 11) he had told us that this was a terrorist attack, that terrorism was involved from the start.”
But King said that he himself “had a very different recollection" of what Petraeus had told the panel in the initial aftermath of the attack.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein comments following closed door hearings of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees regarding an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya.
"The clear impression that we (members of the House Intelligence Committee) were given (in the initial days after the attack) was that the overwhelming amount of evidence was that it arose out of a spontaneous demonstration and it was not a terrorist attack,” King said.
Rep. C.A. “Dutch” Ruppersberger of Maryland, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC’s Thomas Roberts after hearing from Petraeus that “I can’t agree that there was entirely an intelligence failure” in the days leading up to the attack.
The Daily Rundown panel, which includes former DCCC spokesman Doug Thornell, The New York Times' Jackie Calmes and Roll Call's David Drucker talk about the latest in the hearings on Benghazi.
He said, “The intelligence community did put people in the area of Benghazi and in Libya generally. It was a hot spot, it was an area where you had to be on high alert – they did not pick up the actual attack itself. So we’re evaluating whether or not it was or was not an intelligence failure.”
Another House Intelligence Committee member, Rep. Tom Rooney, R–Fla., told MSNBC’s Roberts that he’d learned from the Petraeus testimony how inadequate the protection at the consulate was on Sept 11.
“We had less than a handful of security there for the ambassador,” Rooney said. “First of all, I don’t know why the ambassador was there on 9/11 to begin with, but that’s a whole other story. Second we were relying really on local Libyan militia who – if there was anything coordinated about the two attacks, at the compound and at the annex, it is that there was a coordinated absence by the people who were supposed to be protecting us.” He said the Libyan militia “were nowhere to be found” when the assault occurred.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., says Gen. Petraeus' briefing before the Senate Intelligence Committee, concerning he Sept 11, 2012, attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was "comprehensive" and "added to our ability to make judgments about what is clearly a failure of intelligence."
Rooney added that President Barack Obama has said “he did everything he could” to protect the consulate. “He may have done everything he could, but it wasn’t enough because our people are dead.”
The investigation into the Benghazi events has become a major focus for members of Congress returning to the Capitol after last week’s elections. The episode has political implications not only for Obama but for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who may run for president in 2016.
Petraeus resigned one week ago after the revelation of his adulterous affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell.
Rice told NBC’s David Gregory on Meet the Press Sept. 16 that “putting together the best information that we have available to us today – our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo – almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video.”
She added that in Benghazi “opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode.”
Rice is said to be in the running to be Obama’s nominee to be secretary of state once Clinton departs.
ISAF via Reuters file
Meet the people who have been pulled into the scandal that caused Gen. David Petraeus to resign.
But Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and other Republican senators have made clear they will use any means they can to block her nomination if Obama does select her.
“I don’t trust her,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said of Rice, calling her “more a political operative than she is anything else when it comes to Benghazi.”
Obama defended Rice Wednesday, saying she had “represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace… Should I choose, if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity of the State Department, then I will nominate her.”
McCain on Wednesday introduced a resolution to create a special eight-member select Senate committee to examine the attack on the consulate. But McCain’s proposal got a mostly chilly reception Wednesday from Chambliss and other senators.
NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice recaps the causes and effects of recent violence against Americans in the Middle East.
Leave a Comment:
They begged for better security.
I mean, hell, they could have just been removed to safety.
How much does a plane ticket cost Democrats?
We couldn't afford a plane ticket to safety?
Teotally.... That is something being continuously reported by your conservative media. Actually, everything everyone is saying is coming from the media. Wait until all of the facts come out! It takes a yar for a criminal to go to trial for much smaller cases because it takes time to get all of the facts out. Give them time to figure this out before you all start jumping off the deep end.
The dates on Chris Steven's emails are quite clear.
The Republican party... The Party of BS, Conspiracy theories and beating a dead horse until there is nothing left but egg in their face!
No point arguing with crazy people. Just chill. The truth will come out. You act as if this is the first time the Government has kept the truth from us. How come you are not PO that there is a senseless war still going on and too many men and women have been killed for absolutely no justifiable reason!
For the poster above that said Bush did not know about 9/11 prior to the attack. how do you know that? How do you know you were not lied by the adminsitration?
Fedup or should I just call you Handout?
Again, all Bush knew was that an attack was imminent. Nothing else and the intel on that was unreliable at best. Again Clinton had stripped both agencies of funds needed for intelligence gathering to the point that all intelligence was unreliable. No one knew when, where, and how the attack was going to happen. The blame falls on Clinton. The blame for not getting Bin Laden when Syria had him also lies on Clinton. However, he could not get off the golf course to say yes. Hmmmm, golf, sounds like our current Supreme leader.
Again facts do not mean anything to the left. Eventually this will all blow up in the lefts face, leaving Holder the one to save the Calphalon President by not appointing a Special Prosecuter.
Hey President Obama, sleep well with the blood of four americans on your hands!
Worst issue ever to get this much attention. Obama's record on terrorism is unmatch by any previous administration. So the reason behind this turmoil is did the administration mislead Americans, because he thought it might cost him the election. Really? I can think of many more reasons that could have come into play. How about we don't let the perpertators know we are after them by saying the act was because of a video protest. Second question did the administration ignore calls for help? To which Embassy there were a number of them under siege? How much money should be spent on protection for Embassies and what country would allow the USA to bring in a brigrade of marines? This is all about political posturing and has very little to do with caring about the four people killed. We still have American service men and women dying daily in a country no American gives a dam about.
But are we really after them? What evidence do you have that there has been ANY attempt to get the guys who did this by our administration?
Riiiiigggghtt, that would be classified and we would not be given any information until it is done. What evidence do you have that there hasn't been any attempt?
Dick A Coombs,
I am so glad that you are not part of our defense plan or running the State department or in a position of any authority. Your comments about us misleading the terrorists with a lie is stupid at best.
The fact is now that the terrorist know that we are not going to respond to their attacks and that we are going to apologize for tactics that led to the capture of Bin Laden, the terrorsits have been empowered by this administration and the attacks will be bigger and more defastating that the first 9/11. And you actually think this president has an outstanding record against terrorism. What a fool and idiot you are. do you realize that the president and the left wing media no longer says anything about the War on terror?
For 8 years we were safe under Bush and that mattered to me more than anything.
From what I learned in the 2nd Presidential debate didn't President Obama with help from Candy Crowley adamantly say he called the Benghazi attack from the very first moment in the Rose Garden an act of terror? He said in the press briefing on Wednesday that he sent Susan Rice out to speak for him saying the attack was due to a spontaneous protest on Sunday talk shows five days after the attack. So why did he send out Susan Rice to lie for him?
After the general's testimony today the main question becomes who changed the CIAs talking points? Most likely the White House or Obama himself changed the talking points because the story didn't go along with their campaign thesis that Al Qaeda was no longer a threat and on the run.
To..Boiler""
I'd try reading exactly what Rice actually said ...it's even in the above piece
And you think she is completely innocent of any "spew" ?
To..She""""
Jeeeze ... what she said is there for all to see ...so what is it she's supposed to be covering up ..
Going to offend some folks here but so be it. After spending a year of my military career in South Korea & seeing some the video's of Kim Jong-Il & the North's high praises of him. I have to say some disturbing similarities exist between that and the loyalist Obama supporters in our country. One example the murals painted to honor Obama.
To.TJ"""
That's funny...
Yea it is to bad it is true another example Obama referred to by mainstream media as having a higher calling.
To..TJ"""
What....?
MSNBC's Wagner: Obama Running for President Because of 'Higher Calling', Romney Because It's 'Next Thing to Do'
& it's on video as well do a google search
To..TJ """
And ..
Not going to explain it to your mind is made up as is mine & I respect you opinion or views you may have.
To..Amunaka'''''
Why..?
To..She"""
Exactly ...
All Obama had to do was let them leave and come home.
Chris Stevens and the other would be alive today if he had.
Why did Obama leave them there when they were warning him that it was too dangerous?
Thanks...that has been my question all along. Why did they not just bring them home? Like our troops being murdered in Afghan they should not have been there at all. We do not need these people's (muslims) oil any longer-the h--- with them. Let them slaughter each other.
And after others, like the British consulate, had already gotten out of that hellhole.
Teatotally - maybe I missed something, did Chris Stevens want to leave and come home? As I read the news, I have seen Chris Stevens wanted to be in Libya, and that evening, he chose to stay in Benghazi.
choco63
WRONG! He was under orders! He chose to be an Ambassador and was assigned to Libya. He trusted (BIG mistake) obama. How many more of you idiots is he going to take down with him? Keep lying and covering for him the whole thing is unravelling and you need to get a clue.
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201211/sean-flynn-j-christopher-stevens-benghazi-libya-ambassador?currentPage=1
He was assigned to Lybia because that was where he wanted to be. Read the above article, it is poignant and moving.
Read the news folks. Very little of what transpired will come out, largely because the Consulate was there to support some CIA op that was going on in the region. The chances of the CIA letting us into what they had going on are slim to none at this point in time, it *might* come out later if/when the whole thing becomes a lot less sensative. With the CIA involvement, that means that there are names of locals who're on the line as well, informants who'll be put at risk if their involvment becomes known.
Everyone who was at this consulate probably knew what was going on. There are no innocent lambs here, simply unfortunate victims to the covert war between the USA and the terrorists who operate out of Libya.
What news-the media that has helped cover this up and get the king of the cover up re-elected? There is NO credibility left there. If you believe either one you are an idiot.
It becomes clear now that the truth is coming out.
Obama says spontaneous.
Chris Stevens letter warned of an attack.
Obama says it was a video.
CIA director's Al Qeada intel erased.
I can't believe what I am reading here from some of you American citizens. How can this event not be worth investigating. Obama is the Commander in Chief. It is his job to make decisions, important decisions, when needed. He should have been involved in the decisions made on 9/11/12. He should have sent help to our people while watching it unfold. As President, he should have made that decision right away. Why wasn't Obama on TV giving us updates, or at least a picture of him involved in the decision making? Why didn't he address the nation? American lives were lost that day, not on the battlefield, but on American soil. What kind of leader ignores something like this?
What message is he sending to the rest of the world by handling this the way he did? We can be attacked with no recourse whatsoever? Instead of just praising Obama, just because, perhaps more Americans should be educated on the dangers of our enemies. This is very much an important investigation, regardless of the political party of the WH.
debmissingusa
In this case he made a wrong decision or no decision and let 4 good Americans die!
Playboy Interview
I can't wait for the Playboy Interview with Paula Broadwell and Jill Kelley. Should be interesting what they have to say.
The Jill Kelley and Paula Broadwell double issue interview set. The most anticipated and collected set of Playboy issues for 2013.
I am sick and tired of the Republican shuffle, trying to score points by treading on the Dems. Yeah, 4 people died and it was a mistake. This is what happens in the Middle East in unstable political areas of the world. The people responsible will be punished and security procedures will be improved, but bringing down Clinton or some poor American bureauocrat is ridiculous and self servicing. It does nothing to advance this country. I'm surprised to see McCain playing this kind of politics, but I hear he lost a close friend. Graham is just a Republican tool.
Get to work on the budget. We have issues that can disrupt the entire world economy and threaten millions of lives or in 2 more years we're going to see a lot of Republican politicians looking for work! The people support Obama not Congress.
4 people died and it was a mistake?
The lies that followed were NO MISTAKE!
Tea-sip, five thousand died in Iraq because of lies that preceded that little dust-up ~ known lies; proven lies. I don't see any inquiry into that little miscalculation. Would you advocate for a full hearing on Iraq and force all those involved to deal with that issue? Thought not.
Four people died and "it was a bump in the road".
teatotally, the thousands of people who died in those Bush wars was visible
The WMD was invisible. Heehee!
Actually Pete,
500 Sarin tipped war heads were found and a french weapons inspector turned his back while military trucks headed out of a compound headed to Syria.
These stories were blocked by the left wing media and the other one came out in a book.
Nice try though!
Saddam took the time to bury his figher planes. And he wouldnt have snuck WMD's out of the country? Of course he did, Syria then to Iran!
Obama has got to be banging Rice, no other reason to be so
defensive.
Rice better be careful, or she'll be slamming drinks down in old Martinique with Vera Baker.
This is IMPEACHABLE x 100! GO GET 'EM General P.
After reading these posts one thing is very clear - Obama is NOT going to be bringing the country together. People either love him or hate him and unfortunately for the "lovers", they are not much of a majority. The popular vote was close and honestly, the country has far more people living here than the number of voters. Obama is polarizing the country into two distinct warring groups, both lusting for the blood and total destruction of the other. Yeah, he's going to heal the country alright. While you sit at your computer hating on the other side just think about whether you are helping heal the rift or widening the gap. I personally would love to see the US fail so that the voters get what they asked for... Too bad the "intellectuals" don't have a clue what "socialism" really means.
Anybody who says they want to see the US fail is a traitor. Go live somewhere else
RFull disclosure: I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. But I agree there needs to be a thorough investigation ... that's just good government (private or public institution) - the situation did go horribly wrong, so we need to figure out what could have been/should have done to avoid it, and correct the situation for the future.
But this is all complicated by the clear "powerplay" (for influence over State, Defense, CIA) playing out in Washington right now:
Petraeus was in charge of the CIA which should have had the intelligence that the act of terrorism was probably and imminent and specific information about where it would happen so if they had it and if they had notified the President about it, why wouldn't he have ordered more protection? Targetting increased security to that particular embassy would certainly not have cost much and would have been a plus not a minus for his re-election. The only logical explanations: a) CIA didn't have the intelligence ... intelligence failure b) they had partial but no actionable intelligenceb (still not able to connect dots), especially since there was spontaneous violence breaking out in many other locations due to the video c) CIA had the intelligence but didn't pass it on to those who could have taken action (still playing the insider game).
This is a clear failure of CIA leadership.
One thing is for sure, McCain was always Petraeus' mouthpiece and he was often openly critical of Obama for not deferring to Petraeus on every issue whether in US or our allies' best interest of not (like his vision of US as military state). Petraeus is now a flawed hero not just because of the infidelity (at least not to McCain as had this same flaw) but mostly because of his failure to adequately identify and mitigate the risk of the imminent attack.
What about Rice? She was using talking points and serving a role as a diplomat to try to calm down Muslim anger which was still spreading about the video. Anybody remember that period of time??? Based on the story spreading in public (by the media and internet bloggers) about the video, the Muslim world was exploding in rage. Agree that has all died down? Remember right after the Libya attack all the marches in support of US? So apparently Rice and State Dept did their jobs - to calm down the Muslim world- albeit having been given misleading information by the CIA. It's the CIA that didn't do their job either in providing good intelligence just before or right after and that failure ties directly to Petraeus. His republican fans though would like to see anybody else but Petraeus (their hero) take the heat, because that's what would allow them to maintain influence on the selection of Petraeus' and Hilary's successor. So it's obvious why their focus is not on what went wrong but who said what right afterwards and they are hoping to divert attention from their role in the whole stinking CIA debacle by pulling Petraeus out of the picture with the infidelity diversion and by putting Susan Rice into that picture with the Meet the Press diversion.
We're not that stupid. Or are we?
One other thing ... you don't see Susan Rice whining about the CIA giving her misleading information do you? You don't see her posturing for hero worship, do you? She's got more class and grace in her little finger than McCain and Graham combined.
The Chicago Mob is in full control...........
To Gavin """
Not deflecting anything just stating facts that are known
Let's have all the people testifying in the Benghazi investigation be subjected to a lie detector and this will clear up allot of Bull$hit.
Any of you complaining about the investigation/inquiry should have to hold down a consulate in an area heavily populated by Al Qaeda militants for the next four years of Obama's Presidency.
Amunaka... Is the biggest koolaid drinker of the all. Jim Jones is his mentor. Drink the koolaid and stop questioning this president's benevolent rule.
Sad the right doing a happy dance over the Benghazi tragedy and wishing and hoping in their last gasps of desperation and hate for Obama....
Amunaka I sure as heck am not doing a happy dance over this it saddens and angers me a great deal when us normal average everyday citizens don't get the straight story. Anyways I have work to do take and God Bless Amunaka
Amunaka - You don't have to be an Obama-hater to see that something is sadly amiss with our media that has steadily refused to cover this story and prefers to keep covering for this president who has been and continues to be way in over his head.
To..TJ""""
Of course you are just look at the glee dripping from the right over this tragedy just on this vine alone
who do you guys think you're fooling
To..just """
Now just how do you figure that ...you're commenting on this story ..where ..and what's the subject
who's refusing to cover what ....
Amunaka I am not in the service of one party or another. I didn't serve my country because of one party affiliation or another I served because I love my country and fellow citizens. If this was someone else in office I would be just as upset. A quote from one of our greats Martin Luther King below call some food for thought. Take care really got to get cracking lots of work to do today thanks for the interchange.
As the leader of the SCLC, King maintained a policy of not publicly endorsing a U.S. political party or candidate: "I feel someone must remain in the position of non-alignment, so that he can look objectively at both parties and be the conscience of both—not the servant or master of either."
If things don't go as expected for the 'King and his Court' in the Benghazi hearings, look for him and his ilk to charge Obama with instigating the Syrian rocket attacks on Israel to create a diversion. Remember, 'never let a good crisis go to waste.' That was the counsel of Rahm Emanuel but conservatives are grasping at any straw now and wouldn't be hesitant to use a liberal's admonition. This Benghazi string will play out before Thanksgiving and be swept away before Christmas. Most in congress know it and only a handful of super zealots regret that.
The whole Middle East is descending into war with Obama calling it "noise from afar".
Obama is incompetent and we'll be lucky if he doesn't let or make WW3 start.
This type of partisan "digging for dirt" was ok when the two candidate were running for office. They both were vying after the same prize. But, it's time to lay down your muskets, remount them over the fireplace and put on your hats of compromise, unity and support of country--and Obama.
I guess you conservative yo yos forgot to read the memo. THE RACE IS OVER ALREADY. GO HOME! HELLOOOOOO!!!
P. S. oh yeah, and rip up those petitions to split from the Union. It will go a long way in helping you with your recovery. Heehee. I'm still LMFHO over that one.
The CIA first is one of the best organizations in the world when they are allowed to be .
What probable happened was that a cover story was issue or a lie issued . Usually , this is
necessary, not fool the American people , but to give the terrorists the idea that they , the Administration ,
is so confused they are not working on the problem. This allows opening to figure who, ( what terrorists)
pulled off the murder . What is troubling is that 1 month before , as indicated by the story , they,. ( meaning the murdered individuals) "" indicated to the State Department that they could not defend themselves ." This should be the focus of the discussion , that is they , ( the State Dept ) was informed of the danger they were in . To which the policy or the response of the State Department was to do nothing ? The question is what is the response by the State Department to communications that say we are not safe or can defend our 'works" Heading up this effort was Petraus a General who like all Civil War Generals ." who if they were told they their units could not defend their " works " calls for immediate action . The Civil War parallel is important because the reaction to a call on not defending the works , would call for an immediate action , not well "We the State Department will wait for something to happen.-and then how are you going to write a cover story when this call for help existed ? The reason for the Cover Story then becomes not to discover your enemy , but to cover up what was to be revealed in a short period of time . This coupled with Petraus sex life and his distraction gives the possibility that this was a Sanfu by him . The other possiblity is that this whole scheme is to cover up Clinton political ambitions , as the next Dem Candidate for President . As to Obama he is making a political move then if this reasoning is correct , so that he is returning favor for favor and be able to allow Clinton to run.
Nobody has to lie about the administration being confused because they really are.
What did Chris Steven in Bengahzi, why was he not in Tripoli on 9/11. Nobody had to warn him, or?
Ok Petraeus just testified that the CIA called it terrorism and blamed it on Al-Queda from the start and then had those comments edited from the talking points. Well libs, what further proof do you need that your president lied?
I saw the President call the attack terrorism on television on Sept 12th at 10:43 AM. I guess you are a Republican who doesn't have a shred of honesty.
But lying is Republican policy.
Johndevine,
A fews after Obamas Rose Garden statement, Susan Rice goes on 5 major news stations saying the attack was in response to the video and were in fact not a preplanned terrorist attack but a spontaneous reaction to the video.
You have wonder who in the White House told her to say that. If it wasn't Obama then why didn't he respond immediately and correct her.
On the eve of the presidential election CBS News program 60
Minutes released a transcript of an interview with President Obama in which
he said it was "too early to tell" whether the attack on the U.S. consulate in
Libya was an act of terrorism.
Well it seems that Obama would disagree with Obama, rather contradictory positions wouldn't you say.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/05/benghazi-attack/1684503/ which is
John - Obama used the word "terrorism" as a generality because he was also commemorating the attack on 9/11/2001. If you carefully watch and listen to a video of the Rose Garden address, this is quite clear.
To..Tad """
That's not what she said ..it's all in the above piece
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.......