Yep, doggone folks thinking this "Crisis Management" response from this administration is going to do the trick and sweep 4 killed Americans under the rug until after the election.

Shucks, it WAS THE VIDEO and a SPONTANEOUS REACTION by the "TERRORISTS".

It doesn't smack with what Fux Snews says they'll be here in about... CRRRRUD IDO BEAT ME HERE... ;>/

A couple of points in this timeline from the article raise even more questions than are answered:

-- Over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound, attempt to secure heavy weapons from Libyan allies and make their way into the compound under fire.

What type of "heavy weapons?" Why weren't they equipped themselves with heavy enough weapons to repel a heavy terrorist attack? Everyone knew that there were heavily armed radical militias in and around Benghazi such as Ansar al-Shariah.

-- At about the same time, the second team of security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and tries to negotiate for transport into town.

So they landed at the airport and had no transport of their own into town?? Wow. Who were they negotiating with?
Where was the contingency planning? How much time was wasted here?

If this timeline is supposed to make everyone feel better about what happened it's not working, at least on me.

It doesn't smack with what Fux Snews says they'll be here in about...

I realize that some of you don't want anyone to ask questions or delve any further into this, especially if it might reflect poorly on POTUS or the Sec. of State. Tough.

Obummer watched the attack in real time from the situation room and then went to bed and flew to
Vegas the next day and then onto Colorado.

Obummer should have stayed in D.C. and tended to business, not fly off to a fund raiser. Isn't that what a real commander in chief should do, take care of business first, the business of our 4 slain Americans.

Most said extremists with possible al-Qaida ties were involved. But a few reports, which the Obama administration emphasized in public statements, said the attacks could have been spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S.

Answer the questions America has for you O'bama, you COWARD!!!!

Here is the original story NBC had but they have altered it a bit.

3 hr ago By Lolita C. Baldor

Intelligence officials are offering a new timeline to rebut news reports that U.S. officials told rescuers to wait after the attack in Libya.

WASHINGTON — U.S. intelligence officials offered a timeline Thursday of the CIA's response to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, from its annex less than a mile from the diplomatic mission. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack, which occurred on the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

A minute-by-minute look at how the security teams' response played out. All times are local for Benghazi.

- 9:40 p.m. The CIA annex receives its first call that the consulate has come under attack.

- Less than 25 minutes later, the security team leaves the annex en route to the consulate.

- Over the next 25 minutes, team members approach the compound and attempt to get heavy weapons. When they cannot secure heavy weapons, they make their way onto the compound itself in the face of enemy fire.

- 11:11 p.m. A Defense Department surveillance drone - an unarmed Predator - that had been requested arrives over the consulate compound.

- 11:30 p.m. All U.S. personnel have departed the consulate except for Stevens, who is missing. The vehicles come under fire as they leave the facility.

- Over the next 90 minutes, the CIA annex comes under sporadic fire from small arms and rocket-propelled grenades. The security team returns fire, dispersing the attackers.

- Around 1 a.m., a team of additional security personnel from Tripoli lands at the Benghazi airport and attempts to find a ride into town. Upon learning that Stevens is missing and that the situation at the CIA annex has calmed, the team focuses on locating Stevens and obtaining information about the security situation at the hospital.

- Before dawn, the team at the airport finally manages to secure transportation and armed escort. Having learned that Stevens is almost certainly dead and that the security situation at the hospital is uncertain, the team heads to the CIA annex to assist with the evacuation.

- 5:15 a.m. The team arrives at the CIA annex, with Libyan support, just before mortar rounds begin to hit the facility. Two security officers are killed when they take direct mortar fire while engaging the attackers. The attack lasts only 11 minutes before dissipating.

- Less than an hour later, a heavily armed Libyan military unit arrives at the CIA annex to help evacuate all U.S. personnel and takes them to the airport.

This story wont be up for long hahaha. Abort NBC, ABORT!!!

It matters little. All I see from the Fux Snews bunch is the 5 year old on a car ride act.

But, when did they first look at the clock? Did someone right down the time? Was there a piece of cold pizza in the fridge?? What type of "heavy weapons?"

BTW, you can look up the military definition of "heavy weapons" easily if you tried. :)

I do understand this is a time line of the attack itself - which at this point was too late...... This does NOTHING to answer the question of repeated communications requests prior to Sept 11th attack asking for additional security based on intel. WHO denied the embassy's request for that additional security. Who was responsible for jeopardizing these American lives? IF its Clinton's large A$$ as she says it is, WHY hasn't she resigned or been fired?

There's a lot of questions unanswered!

I hope there's not an impeachment after the election (like Nixon..... and by the way NOBODY died in that fiasco).

The video was used by as an instigator to cause the riots for a chance to attack consulate and embassies.

The same thing happened here with rumor from Gingrich to instigate the attack on Obama for the weeks.

See, same tactic, not so much different in reaction. The same tactic that has been used for thousands of years and still effective until this day.

The Obama Palace Guards in the network media truly will do ANYTHING to cover for his failures.

Benghazi is WORSE than Watergate, and no kind of spin from Andrea Mitchell will change anything.

The truth is coming out. And it is DAMNING for Obama.

A friend of mine is a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and diplomat to a Middle East country, he would never say which one. He eventually decided to retire as a diplomat after repeated requests for additional resources had gone unanswered or flat our denied. In fact, more often than not, cuts were made instead so they stopped asking. It seems threats there were a very regular occurrence and they weren't even in what was considered the "hot" zone.

Long story short, following an incident in which a group breached the gate and made it to the front door of the embassy before being stopped, he decided it was time to hang it up. This man is no coward, trust me, he has more medals than an Eagle Boy Scout, the kind you earn the hard way. Fortunately this group of three or four men was unarmed but it showed how vulnerable they were. This happened around three years ago.

He predicted something like this would eventually happen but prayed it wouldn't. It seems his worst fears came true. The sad thing is, the outcome was totally preventable.

The sad thing is not only did this administration and the President lie to all Americans about the Ambassadors murder but the Ambassadors mother said on the radio she was upset that the President and leon panetta lied to her about the events leading up to her sons death.

Mr. President : You're fired.

Amazing how no matter how badly this man and his administration mess things up.....this network and it's liberal buddies will find a way to cover it up, burry it, or just plain spin it to their liking. Good luck spinning the landslide loss coming your way on Nov 6th. I know the polls are close...but again...more spin to prop up team "O". 11 Point lead amongst independents, much greater republican enthusiasm, tied amongst women and up almost double digits amongst men...oh and up in the two most reputable polls nationally. Hello liberals....heavy dose of reality headed your way...watch out!

This administration should burn in hell for the lies and transgressions its put upon the american people...how can anyone not read between the lies and see whats going on here. Oh i forgot it doesn't believe in god so there must be no hell...

Love my country, fear my government

All the repub politicizing is not going to change the fact that the worst failure of US national security ever was caused by Bush failing to do ANYTHING to stop the 911 attacks in spite of numerous warnings. Then after more than 3000 Americans died from that hideous attack on American soil, Bush and the repub-controlled congress had the audacity to use 911 along with false pretenses, such as nonexistent WMD, to start a totally unnecessary war that the repubs had been desiring for years (repub congress even passed a bill for it in the late 1990s), and more than 4000 Americans were killed in that war and tens of thousands more maimed for life, plus that unnecessary war added another trillion dollars to the federal debt, in addition to the huge price tag from the 911 attack itself.

Romney/Ryan are planning massive military spending increases and have talked very hawkish talk, thus endorsing the Bush era, Neocon, warmonger policies.

Obama has consistently and earnestly fought terrorism and kept America safe, and most importantly, got the US out of the unnecessary war that led to much chaos and many terrorist havens in the region. Obama has consistently worked with the CIA and military in stopping many terrorist attacks and leaders in additional to Bin Laden.

-- At about the same time, the second team of security personnel lands at the Benghazi airport and tries to negotiate for transport into town.

So our poor rapid response men were inserted into this crisis with no transport of their own from the airport?! What were they supposed to do, hitchhike?? Bribe passing motorists? (at 1-1:30am local time). Did no one think this through in advance? Or did we count on our "loyal" Libyan allies to be there for us when we needed them? (big mistake) but no one was answering the phone at allied militia HQ? Seriously, WhoTF planned this out??

Our Ambassador and nationals there should never have been in that situation where they were exposed so recklessly -- especially on 9-11 -- in that location and without any contingency plan that had a decent shot of providing support and relief in life-saving timeframe. Sounds like incompetence at the least. Maybe worse.

This attack was NOT hard to anticipate. It was predictable. Gee, I wonder what day the radical al-Qaida affiliate might favor for their attack on our Ambassador and installation in Libya? And that's the best we came up with to protect them?! Disgraceful!

POTUS and the Secretary Clinton have both said that they take responsibility for what happened there. So WTF does that mean? Anything? What does "taking responsibility" entail these days? Damn little it seems....

Wonder why Pakistan's choice for US president is Romney? That was a result of some recent world-wide polling on the US president race.

The politicizing of this terrorist attack in a war-torn country sounds very Bush-league.

No matter how much money you throw into Intelligence, you'll never know everything all the time. When I was living in the Middle East, I took a taxi to the souk (shopping area) only to find myself dropped off in the middle of an anti-US protest which I had to walk 5 miles to get out of. My cab driver was acting nuts, so my attention was on him and not what was going on outside and I got dropped off in the dead center of it - right where they were burning the US flag and screaming for the death of ALL Americans... and their I am with my bright red hair in jeans and sneakers looking not like anyone else there. Every step I took, I expected a brick to be smashed over my head.

Okay, here's the thing... I was in Intelligence for more than 18 years at the time with at Top Secret Clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information or Special Intelligence for you older crowd. So walking into this protest was a total surprise and when I got out, I went to where I worked and no one knew it was happening until I got there and told them.

Oh, and Mr. Bush was the President at the time.

I'm just happy it wasn't reported in the news how a red-haired American got killed that day and why the Hell didn't President Bush do anything to protect Americans over there!

Is George Bush running in this election? Why in the heck are libs still talking about him? Get over it! We get it Obama is great never made a mistake....GW caused all the worlds problems and the great one is just trying to fix it. Well, he's got about 4 days left....think he can do it........nope! Oh well, nice try.....enjoy retirement Mr. O!

Do these people understand what cutting funding for embassy security means? When you cut funding for a necessary program, something doesn't get funded and something doesn't get done. Cutting funding for embassy security means not all consulates are defended. If it wasn't this one it would be another one. It happened to be this one. What do you think is going to happen if you cut funding? If Romney were President and he had cut funding for FEMA there may not have been enough funding to respond adequately to this storm. Whose fault would that be? If Republicans in congress do not provide enough funding for embassy security is it the President's fault that there isn't enough security? Perhaps the Republicans in congress should think through what it really means when they cut funding for necessary programs.

Okay, here's the thing... I was in Intelligence for more than 18 years with at Top Secret Clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information or Special Intelligence for you older crowd. So walking into this protest was a total surprise and when I got out, I went to where I worked and no one knew it was happening until I got there and told them.

Leave it to a lib to pretend to be a secret agent haha.

Jeff-1592116

Not nearly as much imagination as it takes to be a liberal!

Looking back thru the past 4 years, many "Whens" pop up. Read them all to better understand where we are going as a country..
WHEN - he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as other candidates had done, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no experience at anything except community organizing, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into question, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public outcry, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were taught to sing his praises, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual indoctrination, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing could be found about him, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to produce a birth certificate, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco - a man of questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to a sweet deal on the purchase of his home - people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals, revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he stood before the Nation and told us that his intentions were to "fundamentally transform this Nation" into something else, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - it became known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and socialists, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed a Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory Czar who believes in "Explicit Consent," harvesting human organs without family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while banning all hunting, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was selected as Obama's Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar working on Cap and Trade as the nation's largest tax, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign when this was made known, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - Tom Daschle, Obama's pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - as President of the United States, he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once talking of her greatness, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the Palestinians over Israel, our long time ally, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he took American tax dollars to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United States, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to win, people said it didn't matter.
WHEN - he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could not pay it off, people said it didn't matter???

Yes it takes lots of imagination to believe Obama does what is in the best interests of America.

FORWARD??????????????

The warmonger, Neocon section of the repub party gets quite testy when more accurate information is made available that contradicts their lies and political spin. The full truth will be eventually be known regarding the Libya attack when it will no longer jeopardize security measures and the war on terror in the region. But the right-wing extremists politicizing this event do not seem to care about national security information breaches or on political spin that makes our country look weaker; they only seem to care about total and absolute power at any cost.

@Kornfed - TK, BB, GG, the codeword Umbra is now declassified so I can say that word, we used to call it the Top Secret Umbrella. You tell me if you're reading this and see these bi-graphs if I am what I said I was anyone who's been in the business.

And I never said I was a secret agent, you idiot!

Haha ha I just watched my 10 minutes of Fox; Hannity and the Marilyn Monroe drag queen Former Mayor of NYC. Hannity starts off with this Benghazi BS and then brings in Julianni to talk about the post hurricane break down of civility in the devastated area being Obama's fault because he took a photo op with Christi and left on a 4 state campaign tour this evening. They were talking about some idiot pulling a gun and people dumpster diving. How sad to politicize these poor peoples plight. Guns are pulled and people dumpster dive in NYC (and every other large city) on a good day. The NY Marathon is going to be run tomorrow, Life goes on. Certainly there is a life time of work to be done but we must also live. So yes the President after a three day hiatus is back to campaigning so what. Its the information age and he is in AF1, He could destroy the world from there if needs be. I recall a deer in the headlight, W reading to a grade school class and not moving on word of 9-11-01. Speaking of Cons with blood on their hands!

Freaking Robme has never stop campaigning or lying. Benghazi is a fluid story that will take a long time to understand. The republicans using this terrorist attack on this country for political divisiveness is giving our enemies comfort.

As for Watergate, are comparing Watergate to what ever is going on here, your just reading a Texas School Public System history book where Creationists have influence. Liars,damn liars and liars for the Lord.

TheKhanKubla

@Kornfed - TK, BB, GG, the codeword Umbra is now declassified so I can say that word, we used to call it the Top Secret Umbrella. You tell me if you're reading this and see thise bigraphs if I am what I said I was anyone who's been in the business.

I was secret service for Regan. I never heard of this...

@Kornfed - then you most likely only had a Secret clearance or at most a GENSER (General Service) Top Secret clearance. In which case, you most likely don't know who DIRNSA is.

OMG! Get over Bush already. He hasn't been in the picture for four years. It is getting so tiresome that everything Obama does wrong gets tied back to Bush, and when something can't possibly be tied to Bush in any way, the left has to tell us how much worse Bush was. Who cares? Let's get in the present day people and deal with the ass in the white house today and stop dwelling on the ass from four years ago. Let history decide which one sucked more, but for now, get Obama out of the white house before he completely destroys the country. If you can't bring yourself to vote for Romney then vote in a write in cadidate of your choice. Or exercize your right not to vote for anyone. But for God's sake if you have even one brian cell left you can't possibly back the empty chair.

PJS, many of George Bush's policies are running in this election through Romney/Ryan, and we are still paying dearly in the trillions and trillions of dollars that 911, the war on terror and the Iraq war have added to the federal deficit and in causing the Bush Great Recession. The economy is the biggest issue in this election, and the costs of 911 and the war on terror that 911 brought about, and then the Iraq war that the repub-controlled congress greatly promoted and voted for have added significantly to the debt and economic downturn. The Bush/repub policies of no tax increases to pay for all these repub wars, especially on the wealthy who could afford them, have taken the federal deficit to new lows and jeopardize the fiscal survival of this country. Yes, we cannot forget the Bush/Repub policies that have caused so much harm and are once again on the ballot.

TheKhanKubla

@Kornfed - then you most likely only had a Secret clearance or at most a GENSER (General Service) Top Secret clearance.

You have no idea what you are talking about....leave that to the experts!

Why is it so hard to admit a mistake and move on ! this is the same BS all time except now 4 died and still trying to defend there actions....

The simple fact is more security was asked for 3 times and denied and even after a threat report showed they would be in grave danger, they still dragged there feet and with 9/11/2012 fast approaching they were so sold on there own BS that al-Quaida was on the run they dropped the ball and should be tried for treason...

but of course that will never happen, just like those bankers and hedge fund bastards should have been tried for crashing the economy on a inflated real estate fraud !!!!!

correction 1.37 last para

Those using Watergate as a comparison apparently have been reading a TSPS history book where in Creationists have exercised influence.

Bush, isn't he in the Caymans giving a speech on how to hide assets offshore today.

@Kornfed - DIRNSA, Director of the National Security Agency... Um, only THE largest Intelligence Agency in the USA... And YOU didn't even know that abbreviation for its director? Come on, dude!!! I was in during most of the Regan era as well and these terms I've used were in place then.

If some think the response time was slow. Will I had to call the Sheriff on a 5150 person and it took them more that 1 hour to respond and they were only 35 miles away. If this had been a home invasion, there would have been casualties. May be me may be them

@Kornfed

"Most refer to me as yes sir in my profession!"

Ah, now the whole Benghazi mess becomes clearer.

Couldn't help it - you left yourself so very open for that one!

TheKhanKubla

@Kornfed

"Most refer to me as yes sir in my profession!"

Ah, now the whole Benghazi mess becomes clearer.

How so...spill the beans man!

@Kornfed

Face it - you lost the battle! Just hang up your hat and go out with some dignity!

""hernan33189

I'd like to see all the disappointed Repugnicans that now cry foul play, but didn't move a finger when 4,128 Americans were killed chasing WMD that they've already known that didn't exist. Even they release the identity of a CIA operative for revenge of saying that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Where are the hordes of disgusted Repugnicans claiming FOUL PLAY then???

Obama = 1 mistake (according to FAUX NEWS) = 4 deaths

Jr & Co = 1 mistake (according to the world) = 4,128 deaths

It's the arithmetic, STUPID!!!!!"

these same people probably also voted for a Bush a second time even though it was shown he ignored warnings about terrorist using plane as bombs and let 9/11 happen and 3000+ life's.

Not only are these goofs hypocrites they're EXTREME HYPOCRITES!

TheKhanKubla

@Kornfed

Face it - you lost the battle! Just hang up your hat and go out with some dignity!

Oh contrare...For one thing, anyone in the intelligence business would not risk his identity to make a mute point on a blog. Secondly, your instincts as an intelligence agent would have told you that I was full of @!$%# right off the bat.

Logic is a powerful tool...

For one, I'm retired. I never said I was still in active service. As to your second point, I've been pointing out that YOU are full of $#!+ from my very first reply.

So what you have been telling people is that they should follow the best liar, right? For the most part, people are sheep and most of them will follow the biggest liar right into the slaughterhouse! I've known that for a very long time and the votes on our discussion prove it!

And, I still won our discussion!

TheKhanKubla

For one, I'm retired. As to your second point, I've been pointing out that YOU are full of $#!+ from my very first reply.

Why even try? Everyone got it except for you!

Interesting timeline, where does the video come in? The hospital wasn't secure because it was surrounded by al-Qaeda forces, yeah that's a spontaneous mob. The fireworks start at 09:00PM and our guys are killed at 05:30Am, something is missing here.

@Kornfed - Actually, in the middle of our discussion, I was going to bring something up that I was involved in and I looked it up so I could get some accurate information on the subject and only then did I learn that this "thing" that I was involved in is recorded in history differently (the record is a lie) than how I remember it happening. It is actually the 4th thing now that during my lifetime that I have been involved in that is recorded differently than what I actually lived.

There is something I don't get and that thing is that most people believe the lies over anything else!

Well, I'm out of here, so it gives you a chance for the final word - make it count!!!

Help me out guys.

If you have any links, send me a message with the link and why it is significant. We can not tolerate a President who gets American citizens killed, and continues to let the media cover up his negligence.

I just started on the article, but if people help me out, I'm sure it will grow. Thank you.

http://JohnDoe2241225.newsvine.com/_news/2012/11/02/14870353-proof-of-the-lies

one sure can tell this timeline source is from msnbc, managed media. go to special operations speaks to get the real deal. also to the discussion between the nsa asset and the secret svc agent; this has been and still is one of our problems in intelligence, that is all the different agencies that do not share info and/or inter svc rivalries has caused us harm many times since ww2 and their development. I may have spent time in one or two and we all know there are always different versions of the truth spun up to fit current administrations of govt. regardless, the issue is responsibility always stops at the whitehouse or at least is supposed to. peace.

Oh, the crocodiles' tears. Thousands of people die in Middle East due to the war and I don't see these people here up in arms to condemn it.

Let's face it, this is just another attack just like the terrorist that used the video to incite the riots. Same tactics are being use here.

I watched one of Fox's, "balanced" news commentaries a few days ago. It was hilarious. They have 4 people sitting around bashing Obama on every conspiracy theory you can imagine and for balance they have 1 guy who mumbles every few minutes, well there's no proof. It's really funny.

The people who die in the Middle East die in the line of duty, fighting for their country, with all the support of the nation behind them. As compared to Ambassador Stevens, who was simply left out in a hostile foreign country with insufficient support.

If there is an incident where our troops are not provided the support they are supposed to be receiving, there generally is a court martial and someone is held accountable. Who has been held accountable for the death of Ambassador Stevens?

Here's a quote from Grover Norquist of what they expect from a Romney presidency.

All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.

The requirement for president?

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared

In other words Fuhrer Norquist wants a puppet in office? Sounds about right.

This was a tragedy, not a political cudgel. Stop politicizing it.

Sadly, John Doe, Ambassador Stevens was killed in conflict. He and everyone else at the consulate were aware of the ever-present risk of being killed while they were in such a hot zone. An act of warfare killed Stevens and several sons who joined the military. He accepted the appointment like a true American, knowing he might lose his life serving his country. He and all who were killed that day died while fulfilling the heroic duty of serving the United States.

The details of that day are only now becoming known. First reports indicate the rumor that President Obama told the military to "stand down" is false. I can accept the report is true just as much as I accept the 911 Commission's Report is true.

New rules for all Republican posters.

If you voted (twice) for Bush,who lied and caused 4,000+ American deaths in Iraq.

You have no right to fake concern over 4 deaths in Libya. You lost that right years ago.

This is a failure, period. You can get caught up in, and use for deflection, irrelevant details all day long.

This "time line" is irrelevant. The fact is, it was well known long before hand the embassy needed more security, which it was not provided.

BenghaziSandyman said:

Obama has now killed Osama bin Laden, an ambassador, 2 navy seals, and an aide. All by himself.

According to the article:

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed in the attack Sept. 11-12.

No indication if the two security personnel were Navy SEALS. And Ambassador Stevens wasn't killed, he died of smoke inhalation at a Benghazi hospital.

This is all well and good, but. And that is a very big but. Looking back over everything, something is fishy. Why is this just now coming out, almost 2 months afterwards. Why, if this actually happened, did the White House continue to blame it on a video. If CIA was actually on the ground, wouldn't they have reported back that this was indeed a terrorist attack. When Obama was repeatedly asked by a reporter why help was not sent, he would not answer it. Even during the debates, he never said anything. Why, when the house started their investigation, was this not brought out. They had democrats on the panel, wouldn't you think that they would have disclosed this sooner instead of letting the American people believe that no help was sent. What you have to do is stop looking at this from a Republican view point and a Democrat view point. With all of this, something just doesn't add up. This article, all it does is raise more and more questions about the whole thing.

Is George Bush running in this election?

Considering 17 of Mitt's people were Bush's people I would have to contend emphatically YES, YES, YES.

Ok, there you go. Republicans can now stand down about this non issue.

You've been grasping at anything to try any cut down the President's reputation, and deflect from the seriously flawed candidate you have put forth. It's too bad that it happened, but, Get over it.

@mike-2598123, If every politician that made a mistake was tried, we'd have no government at all as every decision made will be considered a mistake by someone (this is a universal truth) It is the mistaken belief that our leaders should be flawless at all times is an impossible dream.

Adam44 said;

So our poor rapid response men were inserted into this crisis with no transport of their own from the airport?! What were they supposed to do, hitchhike?? Bribe passing motorists? (at 1-1:30am local time). Did no one think this through in advance? Or did we count on our "loyal" Libyan allies to be there for us when we needed them?

It is the host country's responsibility to keep foreign ambassadors safe. Not the ambassador's country. We have ambassadors from every country all over the world here--would you advocate a contingent of Chinese armed guards standing in front of the Chinese embassy in DC guarding it? How about the Russian embassy? Security for the embassy was the responsibility of the Libyans. Now reportedly, earlier this year, there had been an incident close to the embassy, and that was swiftly dealt with with no loss of life.

Mike said:

The simple fact is more security was asked for 3 times and denied and even after a threat report showed they would be in grave danger, they still dragged there feet and with 9/11/2012 fast approaching they were so sold on there own BS that al-Quaida was on the run they dropped the ball and should be tried for treason...

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.

So yes, based on this one could say that Ambassador Stevens' diplomatic party asked for more protection, but he asked it from the State Department--his boss--to pass on to the President.

One would, however, be wrong in saying that President Obama ignored it--from the general tenor of the above-quoted report, it seems that he was never given the chance since senior State Department officials did not pass on the request from the diplomats to the administration, and it appears to be under question whether someone ORDERED the diplomatic team NOT to request the SST from the President.

Am I condoning what happened? No. it was an appalling tragedy all the way around, an the blame should rest on whoever it was who made the original decision NOT to extend the SST 's deployment or substitute another SST team for the departing one. But blame can also be laid at the Libyans' door, for failure to adequately protect our embassy; and for our own lack of funding. It was a systemic failure that contributed to the deaths of four people who did not have to die.

Now, if it comes out that no one at the State Department told President Obama that the diplomatic team requested an extension of the SST, then while he should be held responsible for the failure of his administration, he could not be held personally responsible for the deaths since he may not have known about the SST deployment extension request.

A senior intelligence official has issued a new timeline

Finally, almost two months later the script has been rewritten over and over just in time for the elections. Remember, the most important thing is not to make Obama look bad, who cares that Americans were killed by terrorists.

What I find truly amazing is how NBCSnooze can F-up an article so badly that it only makes their messiah look worse. Here is their article coming out 7-8 weeks after the event and the president had no idea that this information even existed. If he did then he is a bigger F-up than NBCSnooze by trying to blame it on youtube. If this information along with the video was available why not present both - he has people that should have been able to spin it to their cause. We certainly know thta he isn't smart enough to have done it on his own.

You wonder why people are still talking about George Bush?

Romney hired most of his advisors, neocon warhawks who lied us into a war in Iraq. The same guys that are pushing for war with Iran. Why do Republican presidents have such a great need to kill people. Every one for the last 50 years has started a new war.

Patty said:

Why, if this actually happened, did the White House continue to blame it on a video.

There were conflicting reports. Some intel said it was a protest over the video that got out of hand. Some said it was a terrorist attack. There was no way to know for sure it was indeed a terrorist attack until some extremist faction admitted they were responsible, or until our own intelligence confirmed it. Even the Libyan officials' claim that it was terrorist extremists fault would need to be investigated and verified before being accepted as truth because embassy security was their responsibility and they failed.

Now, if president Obama had come straight out and said 'we are getting conflicting reports, I don't want to say anything until we have confirmed reports as being true' and left it at that, I would have liked that better. But there are n doubt people who would immediately have come down on him for that to, so it was damned if you do, damned if you don't. The administration made a decision to go with an official story that was later proved to be wrong, and this was the price paid for that decision. if the President had called it an act of terror and was later proved wrong, people would be upset about that too.

Patty said:

If CIA was actually on the ground, wouldn't they have reported back that this was indeed a terrorist attack.

From the article, it seems that intelligence reports weren't in accord about who was responsible:

Also, immediately after the Benghazi attack, U.S. spy agencies produced conflicting reports on who was behind them, U.S. officials have said. Most said extremists with possible al-Qaida ties were involved. But a few reports, which the Obama administration emphasized in public statements, said the attacks could have been spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S.

When Obama was repeatedly asked by a reporter why help was not sent, he would not answer it. Even during the debates, he never said anything. Why, when the house started their investigation, was this not brought out. They had democrats on the panel, wouldn't you think that they would have disclosed this sooner instead of letting the American people believe that no help was sent.

the thinker said:

Here is their article coming out 7-8 weeks after the event and the president had no idea that this information even existed.

Sending American troops into a foreign country without the knowledge of that government constitutes a breach in that country's sovereignty (likely also why it cost the team precious minutes in 'negotiating' with the locals). While decisions were made in the heat of the moment, it would require meetings and calls between both heads of state for awhile afterward to smooth things over, make sure there would be no diplomatic incident, and ensure that no one's toes were stepped on and treaties between the US and Libya would hold. Simply put, they may not have been able to speak of this before now for confidentiality and sensitivity reasons.

The issue moving forward is where on the continuum between a military fortress secure enough to repel attacks and a business office an American consulate should be. That will vary depending on the security situation in each country relative to the ability of groups of armed terrorists to operate. Obviously in Benghazi, the consulate was not secure enough. Then the choice becomes whether to beef up security or close the office or accept that there are uncontrollable risks.

When the marines in Beirut were bombed during the Reagan admin, they chose to close the operation down rather than leaving them exposed to uncontrollable risks. When US soldiers were dying every day in Iraq, the Bush admin chose to ramp up security (and engage the locals). In Afghanistan we are choosing to close down the operation. Stevens knew the risks.

Amanda writes:

It is the host country's responsibility to keep foreign ambassadors safe. Not the ambassador's country.

First of all, Libya doesn't have a government that functions well enough to provide proper security for our diplomatic installations there. If you didn't learn anything else from this then you should have learned that.

Secondly, we have U.S. Marines stationed at many, if not most, embassies across the world, there for the express purpose of safeguarding our diplomatic personnel. That might not have been right for our consulate in Benghazi (wanting to keep a lower profile and all) but we certainly could have/should have had a rapid response team of special forces or some such personnel at least within timely striking distance if the worst were to happen.

And why suspect the worst??

1) Benghazi, the city and that region overflowing with radical, heavily armed Islamist militias: Not a Secret!

2) The anniversary of 9-11, a date that Islamic radicals love to attack America and kill Americans on: Not a Secret!

3) Attacks on our embassies in the region earlier that same day, most brazenly right next door in Egypt. Not a Secret!

4) An ambassador known to be lightly guarded and a sitting duck ripe for the taking in a lightly fortified consulate in Benghazi: Not a Secret! (at least to our enemies)

5) Libyan "allied" militias in and near Benghazi whose loyalty, competence, and resolve is exceedingly unreliable at best: Not a Secret!

6) A Libyan government that can't even keep order at the center of its weak power in Tripoli, is expected (by YOU Amanda) to provide security for our ambassador in Islamist-infested, militia rife, far-away Benghazi to the east?: Not a Secret!

7) Numerous sporadic attacks in recent months on that very same American consulate in Benghazi, along with attacks on the Red Cross, British interests in the city, and other clear signs of radical Islamist militancy and power in the area: NO SECRET!!

The only secret seems to be have been how woefully unprepared our government was for something just like this to happen, and even that was apparently no secret to our enemy.

This was an obvious, easily anticipated event that our leader(s) should have been fully prepared for. They weren't even minimally prepared.

So I ask again: What does "taking responsibility" (as both POTUS and Hillary have claimed) mean these days? Anything?? Apparently Not.

Alas! What will the nations morons do now? Benghazi! Benghazi! Some, eventually, will want their money refunded from "Frank Luntz" but He'll never give it back to 'em. The others will keep repeating Benghazi. Once fools learn a new word most like to continually repeat it.

ldo

Yep, doggone folks thinking this "Crisis Management" response from this administration is going to do the trick and sweep 4 killed Americans under the rug until after the election.

Shucks, it WAS THE VIDEO and a SPONTANEOUS REACTION by the "TERRORISTS".

Amazing...It seems to me the last Republican Administration lied us into a war the resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 Americans so their president could be a "war-time president". And ignored the intelligence that allowed an attack killing over 3,000 Americans. This Democratic President has a long long way to go before coming close to the ineptness of the last Republican President.

Joe Mota said:

The issue moving forward is where on the continuum between a military fortress secure enough to repel attacks and a business office an American consulate should be. That will vary depending on the security situation in each country relative to the ability of groups of armed terrorists to operate. Obviously in Benghazi, the consulate was not secure enough. Then the choice becomes whether to beef up security or close the office or accept that there are uncontrollable risks.

When the marines in Beirut were bombed during the Reagan admin, they chose to close the operation down rather than leaving them exposed to uncontrollable risks. When US soldiers were dying every day in Iraq, the Bush admin chose to ramp up security (and engage the locals). In Afghanistan we are choosing to close down the operation. Stevens knew the risks.

Reportedly there was a British embassy in Libya as well. There was an incident over the summer which, while there was no loss of life and was quickly handled by Libyan authorities, caused the Brits to withdraw diplomatic staff. Ambassador Stevens reportedly asked to be allowed to remain because he saw an opportunity for a better life for the Libyans. Ethan Chorin of the NY Times writes;

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.”

"Heavy weapons" are the kind of weapons that "diplomatic missions" don't have...if they did, it would be a "military mission". I agree that on 9/11 security should be bolstered. It seems the assault team that attacked the embassy was well trained and well informed...We may yet find a Western tie to this mess.

This story as told by NBC is incredibly misleading to the point of being journalistic malpractice. Yes, a security team left to help defend the consulate...but it was AGAINST ORDERS BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.

So be honest NBC and hold your sources to a level of honesty. The honest truth is the State Department ordered team members to STAND DOWN. Instead, they DISOBEYED THOSE ORDERS and IT WAS ONLY THEN THAT THEY WENT TO HELP.

Adam said:

First of all, Libya doesn't have a government that functions well enough to provide proper security for our diplomatic installations there. If you didn't learn anything else from this then you should have learned that.

I was speaking in general terms when I posted the message you quoted. Let me rephrase that for you: GENERALLY, embassy security is the responsibility of the host country. Also, there had been a few incidents close to the embassy earlier this summer that were handled quickly and efficiently with no loss of life. Security at the embassy in Tripoli seemed to have been adequate; Ambassador Stevens traveled to Benghazi that day for some meetings, which apparently took longer than expected and he decided to stay overnight at the consulate rather than travel back to the embassy.

Secondly, we have U.S. Marines stationed at many, if not most, embassies across the world, there for the express purpose of safeguarding our diplomatic personnel. That might not have been right for our consulate in Benghazi (wanting to keep a lower profile and all) but we certainly could have/should have had a rapid response team of special forces or some such personnel at least within timely striking distance if the worst were to happen.

I absolutely agree. There should have been an SST at the embassy ready to run out to the consulate at the first sign of trouble.

4) An ambassador known to be lightly guarded and a sitting duck ripe for the taking in a lightly fortified consulate in Benghazi: Not a Secret! (at least to our enemies)

From what I read, the decision to overnight at the consulate seems to have been a last-minute decision made by Stevens' party rather than travel back to the embassy in Tripoli and then back out to the consulate in Benghazi the next day.

So I ask again: What does "taking responsibility" (as both POTUS and Hillary have claimed) mean these days? Anything?? Apparently Not.

Once the report comes out and the investigation concludes, I fully expect we're going to see a lot of heads roll. but until the congressional investigation concludes, it would be like declaring someone guilty before evidence is presented in atrial. let's wait until we ave ALL the facts and see the report before we all make judgments, hey?

I'll give a sh!t about benghazi, when republicans admit that the Bush admin had LOTS of warnings about the 9/11 twin tower attacks and did just as much as Obama did in the benghazi situation.

As I recall, even AFTER we knew that Bush took us into Iraq over false pretenses (and yes, we knew by then that the "evidence" was trumped up and straight up made up) Bush was still re-elected.

If Bush deserved and received re-election...well then damn, OBAMA does too.

you republicans made your bed in the 2000's with indifference, how does it taste to be on the receiving end now?

and yes, two wrongs are making it all right.

Isn't it funny that the liberal media propagandists are so excited about spiting out a "quick response" puff piece that they don't even realize they only highlighting how bad the lies to the American public were.

Two U.S. "security teams" involved in the attack.

Drone coverage during the attack.

A follow up attack at the "Annex" where mortars were quickly used to kill two of the security members and then disappeared.

... And yet despite all of this "quick response" and involvement in the attack the administration came to the conclusion that it was a sporadic event based on a 6 month old YouTube video that just happened to occur on 9/11?????

If you can't face the reality of the Obama Administration lying to your face in a self-righteous attempt to prevent the tarnish of presiding over a terrorist attack... then you should at least acknowledge that they would have to have the most incompetent intelligence team ever in order to come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

John Doe,

What you and many others fail to grasp is the Ambassidor wasn't a soldier, this wasn't a war zone, he wasn't fighting an enemy. He was a civilian working for the State department in a country we are not a war with nor are we conductng any military operations in. All four people killed were civilians. That's right, another thing we also forget is the two civilian contractors weren't military either. Yes, in previous work they were military and they were SEALS. But when they were killed they were civilians working a security job.

Any State department employee in a foreign country, even a friendly one like Libya are always as risk because the represent Americans. Lots of people all over the world hate Americans and what we stand for. And I did say a friendly country like Libya, because that is what they are. Is it one with a weak civilian and almost non-existent military structure? Yes, but a friendly country none the less who wants to be our ally.

This is a far different situation than a military situation when we are at war with the country we are in. In that case, everybody is "hostiles". In those situations we even assume that their civilians are hostiles until the prove differently. Our military has hands on weapons, just in case. But we don't do that in friendly countries, we must assume their civilians are friendly until they prove otherwise and we don't conduct business with hands on weapons. We don't operate in friendly countries with rules of engagement.

Stuff can happen anywhere, but when we are at war, it's all about stuff happening and usually it's the military's job to make it happen.

I point out these differences because many on here just see Libya as another Muslim country we are at war with and view their citizens as just more "ragheads" that hate us.

It is important to see the differences and it is important that we operate differently in these different situations. We are there in Libya to make friends and work at developing working relationships. That different than war where it's about dominating and controlling our enemy as we work toward his ultimate defeat.

None of us wants to see American lives lost under any circumstances, but if we keep the differences in mind when we pass judgement upon things that happen and how they were handled, we need to judge them differently. How and why things happen are more understandable.

These were civilians in a friendly country. What happened here is far different than some Marines getting pinned down in Fallujah in the middle of the Iraq war. To respond the same way is lunacy because the situations are completely different. The problem is that to many sitting here at home, they can't seem to make the distinction. Trapped Americans who die in either situation are equally as painful and we should mourn their loss in much the same way. But the similarities stop there. We can second guess either situation and ultimately it is good to do so from the standpoint of learning, but we need to do so from the appropriate perspective. And in either case, finding someone to blame doesn't bring anyone back.

In the last decade we have lost about 7,000 US lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did we second guese each death occurrence individually? Did we publicly debate each situation where a death occurred? Did we try to find someone to blame in each occurance?

For now we need to mourn our losses and let those responsible critique what went wrong and what went right and when the investigation is over then we can pass judgement and critique it from the larger perspective. To turn this into a political debate before the facts are in is just wrong.

I know I'll take some flak from my right sided brethren on this but I can forgive Obama and his administration for everything that happened right up till the crisis was over, I understand the whole "fog of war" argument and acknowledge there was LIKELY a healthy dose of that involved with this incident. That is cutting an ginormous amount of slack they do not deserve. That said, I will never forgive Obama, Hillary, Rice, etc, etc, etc, for the bold face lies, repeated over and over, that followed, to the point of pinning the blame on an innocent citizen. Obama, you are lower than slug $hit! As well are the blind sheeple who will vote for this POS POTUS.

Obama has set this up so he can blame the locals for failing (little hard to blame Bush) and thinks he will come out looking Presidential. Well guess what it failed. When it is Americans in danger you go after your own not send in some locals that don't even go in armed. I would have had more respect for the WH if they had just come clean on it from the beginning instead of all the cover up and stalling. Makes most of us think they really are trying to cover up something bigger.

you are so right - cannot believe the news media isn't covering this and demanding the administration answer for their failure to provide adequate protection for our ambassador and the others serving in libya - you have provided more information on this issue and given a clear presentation of the other failures that the news media has chosen to ignore - issues that have resulted in the deaths of so many - the news media apparently feels more of an obligation to protect this administration than their sacred obligation to report the truth - it's time for reporters to live up to their responsiblities and begin demanding answers of this administration - they need to ask the hard questions and demand real answers

Here is a timeline for you idiot mgm:

9/11/12 4 Americans die in Benghazi.

9/12/12 Obama flies to Vegas to campaign

10/29/12 Hurricane Sandy hits the Northeastern part of the United States, more than 90 dead as of 11/1/12.

10/31/12 Obama shows up in Jersey for photo ops.

11/1/12 Obama flies to Vegas to campaign.

You seeing a pattern here?

Yep, the Benghazi attack and LACK of Commander-in-Chief response to the situation tells the American voters that Mr. Obama SHOULD NOT BE the Commander-in-Chief......PERIOD.

BTW: This is going to be added to Mrs. Clinton's resume when she "attempts" to run in 2016. Whitewater real estate fiasco is one thing, but the lack of her response to her subordinate(s) requests for help and resulting in their deaths is going to linger and haunt her POLITICALLY. Surprises me she has not submitted her resignation as SofS yet.

Where was Jr. when Katrina hits???

Where was Jr. in the aftermath of Katrina???

Where was Jr. when Osama Bin Laden family left America "unscratched"....????

Where was the "interest" of capturing OBL during the 7 years of Jr's Presidency????

See the pattern of the GOPPERS?????

I'd say it would be added to Biden's resume when he runs in 2016, but he won't be able to run in 2016 cuz Obama ain't gonna win.

Most said extremists with possible al-Qaida ties were involved. But a few reports, which the Obama administration emphasized in public statements, said the attacks could have been spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S.

Answer our questions O'bama!!! You work for US!

Wow after reading what MGM has to say I'm amazed that the FEDS have'nt done a study on stupidity. The way this GOV wastes large tax dollars on useless endevours for no reason other than keeping some think tank in operation just goes to prove , MGM you cant cure stupid!!!!!!

MGM: RE-read the article. The "new timeline" doesn't make any sense. The US has the most advanced weapons and most sophisticated intelligence in the world. A "new timeline" doesn't make any difference in the tragic outcome.

MGM very good points but were screwed with the cowboy mentality of this county

instead of focusing on are problems and making the U.S. of A a powerhouse again and getting off the fossiel fuel

I afraid that one of these days China will take over the world and we will be left behind!

They blamed it on a video. An all out effort to deflect what they knew was the truth. Sent Amb Rice to five different Sunday talk shows, Jay Carney and even Obama at the U.N. weeks after they knew the truth and wanted the American people to believe attack that killed four was a response to a VIDEO.. They out right LIED

Barb210...you said you trust what the military says over...anyone else? Why? They do not have a track record that even remotely approches telling us the truth about anything, ever. Remember Westmorland and Viet Nam, remember the explosion on the battleship???that was passed off a gay love spat..lie. Give us some examples when the military told us the truth? How bout getting Bin Ladin. One group in the military says one thing, soldiers on the ground write books that conflict with offical military reports...who's lying? Where did this trust in what the military come from?

Most said extremists with possible al-Qaida ties were involved. But a few reports, which the Obama administration emphasized in public statements, said the attacks could have been spontaneous protests against an anti-Muslim video made in the U.S.

Answer our questions O'bama!! You work for US!!!

Send Obama to Benghazi!

BenghaziSandyIdiot

GET A LIFE! You've been here all day you low life troll. How much are you getting paid to continually be slinking around posting on every political article a million times. Anyone with half a brain has already figured you out so take a hike. You're a brainwashed Repukelican we get it.......... now do everyone a favor and please STFU!

So, Obama is an all knowing, able to do everything and there is noone under him? I guess by that logic, we should fire everyone else and let's Obama do everything because that is the expression you guys are giving people.

Over 150 embassies in the world belong to the US. All the intelligent reports, I guess from your way of saying only Obama read them and noone else works on it.

Gee, first you had 2 weeks of reporting that it was all about a video. When it became obvious that it wasn't a video, NBC decided it was no longer news. Now, 4 weeks later the print a little article that ignores all the facts that have come out over the last 6 weeks and print a timeline handed to them by Obama's people and print it as if it is the only thing that has happened in the last 6 weeks. Just more proof that NBC does have a news agency anymore. They are just a PR machine for Obama and the DNC.

If I had gone to journalism school and sought to be a real journalist, I'd be really embarrassed about all this. But, that's just more proof of how low they've fallen. If I were running an event that journalists usually attend I'd be inclined to deny "press" passes to NBC as those are reserved for news organizations, just as I wouldn't issue one to Soros.

witchrunner

Gee, first you had 2 weeks of reporting that it was all about a video. When it became obvious that it wasn't a video, NBC decided it was no longer news. Now, 4 weeks later the print a little article that ignores all the facts that have come out over the last 6 weeks and print a timeline handed to them by Obama's people and print it as if it is the only thing that has happened in the last 6 weeks. Just more proof that NBC does have a news agency anymore. They are just a PR machine for Obama and the DNC.

If I had gone to journalism school and sought to be a real journalist, I'd be really embarrassed about all this. But, that's just more proof of how low they've fallen. If I were running an event that journalists usually attend I'd be inclined to deny "press" passes to NBC as those are reserved for news organizations, just as I wouldn't issue one to Soros.

OK Witchrunner, answer this one: How many Americans did the last Republican administration kill with a trumped up war? Here's a hint...over 4,000. And I'm not talking about a failure of intelligence. The last administration got over 3,000 killed with that one. I'm talking about actively pursuing an unnecessary war and doctoring the intelligence to justify it to the Congress and the UN.

Add to that Romney has hired the very same advisers GW Bush had that got us into that sh!t storm. And people like you want them back in charge! Why the hell would we vote the Neoconservatives back in power?

..? I won't drink the kool aid from either of our self-serving parties. However, this is a recently submitted "new" timeline. Mistakes were made and true leaders accept responsibility then take steps to make improvements accordingly.

"If everyone is thinking the same thing, then somebody's not thinking."

General Patton

The timeline fits with the published accounts from multiple sources and the non-partisan sources throughout the government. It was a tragedy and this information is invaluable in preventing similar attacks - but is inappropriate to be used as a political weapon.

I don't think it's coincidence that Fox News has once again lived down to it's reputation in seeing conspiracy and political intrigue where there is none. After all, this is the same network that did an "investigative report" on the moon landing and prior to that broadcast "Alien Abduction" as a documentary film. I have no issue with them bringing information to light on any story, but if you're going to be fair and balanced, then you need to present all sides with the appropriate level of professionalism. However; you can't argue with their business model - they do give their customers what they want to hear (just not what they need to understand).

Isn't it funny that the liberal media propagandists are so excited about spiting out a "quick response" puff piece that they don't even realize they only highlighting how bad the lies to the American public were.

Two U.S. "security teams" involved in the attack.

Drone coverage during the attack.

A follow up attack at the "Annex" where mortars were quickly used to kill two of the security members and then disappeared.

... And yet despite all of this "quick response" and involvement in the attack the administration came to the conclusion that it was a sporadic event based on a 6 month old YouTube video that just happened to occur on 9/11?????

If you can't face the reality of the Obama Administration lying to your face in a self-righteous attempt to prevent the tarnish of presiding over a terrorist attack... then you should at least acknowledge that they would have to have the most incompetent intelligence team ever in order to come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

pjam09

Isn't it funny that the liberal media propagandists are so excited about spiting out a "quick response" puff piece that they don't even realize they only highlighting how bad the lies to the American public were.

Please explain to all of us how this is even comparable to the WMD lies (including outing a CIA Agent over yellow cake uranium) of the last administration, that resulted in a war killing over 4,000 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis? Explain how any possible failure of this Administration in this situation that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans is equivalent to the failures to act on the intelligence that resulted in the deaths of over 3,000 Americans?

If you consider all of this equivalent, than there must be something else about this administration you think makes up for the difference in the number of dead Americans. Is it this President's party...or his race?

"He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past." ~George Orwell, 1984

What is REALLY insane is that ANYONE would actually believe this "New" revision of their Official Government History!

http://www.drudge.com/news/162441/benghazi-africom-general-fired-refusing

Sadly some of US will believe them all the while ignoring the fact that the Obomination fired Genera Carter Ham who wanted to intervene and posed for Pictures over the flag draped coffins of our dead!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/14/13865571-americans-killed-in-us-consulate-attack-honored-at-andrews?lite

Obomney / Byan 2012......$1,000,000,000 Wall Street Controlled....Endless Not Wars For Fun & Profit....Guaranteed!

Don't believe? Watch PBS and learn....... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I

"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever." ~George Orwell, 1984

Benghazi attack? This is the first I'm seeing this from MSNBC. What a joke. The "Senior official" said they tried to get help from local militias. How about send in a large team of Americans to save those people? That would counter Obama's philosophy- he wanted to get approval from the Libyans first. How about the President tells us exaclty what happened? He tweets out pics of him watching Sandy. Where's the pics of him monitoring this attack? There isn't one because he didn't think it would affect his campaign.

Glad to see some of those that I tried to show that you can not place blame soley on Obama,or they were trying to cover something up, are here on this vine today.

How would you like your crow? Well done,medium?lol

I tried to explain to you that Obama had to listen to his top commanders in the area, when faced with an unkown situation at night. Obama himself probably wanted more action but could not go against two generals in the are.

What Coral? Just trying to revise a little history yourself?

Obama FIRED the Commanding General of that Area and who wanted to intervene in Benghazi to save Americans lives.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/ (Suddenly & Magically So Revise A Little Yourself And Read As FIRED)!

Hmm talk about needing to eat some Crow.....Obama has his share coming!

"In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell

Watch Bengazi evaporate as an issue a second after the election.

Remember the 9/11 Mosque controversy?

@muw;

Obama FIRED the Commanding General of that Area and who wanted to intervene in Benghazi to save Americans lives.

The commanding general is about to retire he is 64 yrs old,nowhere does it say he was fired. Myabe he was relieved because Obama did not like his decision. He denies even being asked, so show me where he says he wanted to intervene?lol

You are making stuff up. Now show me where he(Ham) said he wanted to intervene, when your own blog source says he says he was not even asked?

@muw;

Although forces were on alert and ready to launch an operation if needed, the US military commander for Africa, General Carter Ham, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and Panetta all decided against any intervention as they had no clear picture of events unfolding in Benghazi, he said.

Nonsense Coral and at least I post the links to the sources of my claims.....where are yours from?

ThnkNotProgress.Org? The Committee to Re-Elect The Obomination?

Again spend a little time to Read & Research before you Spew!

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time.” ~ Abraham Lincoln (Attributed)

muw;

Nice non answer, sir this quote is all over the place if you have not seen it yet I would suggest you spend more time researching.lol

lNonsense Coral and at least I post the links to the sources of my claims.....where are yours from?

I have had this quote for awhile, and can give you a link,but I am surprised you have not seen this whole report

Of course you can not show me where Gen. Ham said they would not let him intervene.lol Just like I said it is made up.

This is on many outlets more in depth,just google the paragraph and it will lead you to them, if you wish. This one supports my claim though.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161356

Now sir I showed you mine now you show me yours. A link to gen ham stating they would not let him intervene.lol Or just admit you do not have it.lol

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time.” ~ Abraham Lincoln (Attributed)

Well if you cant come through sir,maybe you should look in the mirror and say this to yourself.lol

I fool nooone sir.I only sufffer them daily.

@muw;

Thats what I thought.

It is Fauxbama that is re-writing history. He will go down in history as biggest mistake America has ever experienced.

Uuuuuuuh, YOU WERE THE FIRST POSTER.....congratulations.

Barb210

How quickly you forgot GW Bush.

Ask yourself why is Bush in the Caymen Islands right now giving a speech and hasn't been anywhere on the campaign trail for Romney?

Fox News has more viewers than NBC and CNN combined.

geque....."Barb210 How quickly you forgot GW Bush. Ask yourself why is Bush in the Caymen [SP] Islands right now giving a speech and hasn't been anywhere on the campaign trail for Romney?"

Uuuuuh, might want to ask yourself why Oprah, Rev. Wright, and the Kennedy family is not on the ObamaWagon campaigning for Mr. Obama.

Guess I will have to help you out.......Reason: they were all thrown under the ObamaWagon by Mr. Or Mrs. Obama.

BTW: FoxNews has been the #1 news source for the past TWELVE YEARS.

President Bush has served his 8 years, and he has apologized more than he needed to apologize for mistakes made by his administrations including apologizing many times for mistakes made by Colin Powells misinformation. It is now OBAMA's administration, not PRESIDENT BUSH. When is Obama going to man-up and admit his wrongs and tell the American people the truth. We demand the truth!

I personally don't watch any major media news rather it be msnbc, cnn of fox. I do however read their websites for reports. Now that being said, if this were a Republican administration and the media felt they were not forthcoming they would be all over them and rightfully so. This administartion has been less than forthcoming, not that the media besides CBS and web journalists are asking. The media should be there for us. To find out if our government is betraying us. Not to prop up their buddies. My friends be damned if they do something wrong because I will call them out for their transgressions. I see that Andrea Mitchell was a co writer of this article. Recent events on her show, editing videos in a way to fit a narrative, only discredit this report. It may very well be altered for a narrative that her bosses want.

The media should be for the truth and their friends be damned.

The messiah will never fess up...its never his fault, not anything, the teflon potus....

The dittoheads are foaming at the mouth, tripping over themselves in rewriting history and repeating all their brainwashed spin that is not true.

When Reagan sends marines to Lebanon and 299 marines are killed by a bomb when they are all stationed in one building we all pull together as Americans. When men of middle eastern descent are reported by instructors of flight schools to the FBI for wanting to learn how to fly commercial aircraft but aren't concerned with learning how to land and it's ignored and those same men become famous on 9-11 instead of blaming Bush we pull together as Americans. When a comparatively minor incident where 4 are killed occurs under a black president the right makes up lies claiming embassy personnel called repeatedly for 6 or 7 hours and were refused help. They make up stories that the president was watching live video of the attack and ordered rescuers to stand down. In my opinion no real American would believe such nonsense. Maybe democrats are just better Americans.

I have never heard Bush apologize for anything.

But, the repubs/Bush got their much-republican-promoted war in Iraq through false pretenses under Bush and the repub-controlled congress, now they want future seniors and the poorest Americans to sacrifice their well-being and/or lives to pay for it and for the other repub spending deficits. They want future seniors to pay by making healthcare unavailable to them after Ryan's plans are passed that privatize Medicare after which the private insurance companies will price most seniors out of the market again because they will not pay for all the age-related diseases and conditions of seniors. Worst of all, the repubs want the most vulnerable US citizens (poor infants, children, handicapped citizens and the poor elderly) to pay for their wars and spending through massive cuts in food stamps and Medicaid. Another Bush/repub policy on the ballot through Romney/Ryan is for no tax increases to pay for the crippling deficit and the repub wars, especially on those who could afford them most.

Wars absolutely always require increased taxes, especially for those who can afford them most, in this case, those wealthy providers of foreign jobs because they do not want to pay the sky-high American cost of living, which includes the ever-inflating, world-record, US healthcare costs, that repub policies would help to inflate further when Romney/Ryan repeal the ACA and keep the 50 million or so uninsured which will continue to add their unpaid healthcare bills to the inflation of US healthcare.

Repub policies are the most harmful, and the costs of lack of security for the prevention of 911 by Bush and the repub-controlled congress along with the repub wars and other policies have been staggering, which is why they will never be forgotten, especially now when many of these policies are on the ballot through Romney/Ryan.

Could not have said it better, Larry.

And these same GOP screamers forget that it was a GOP president who had the highest tax rate in the 20th Century. Remember that under Ike, the top rate was 90% with far fewer deductions available. And with that tax rate, he helped pay down the war debt from two wars...WWII and Korea.

Barb210

It is Fauxbama that is re-writing history. He will go down in history as biggest mistake America has ever experienced.

Nope...that honor has already been locked down by George W. Bush (R-TX). The Texas Village Idiot (TVI) wasn't even bright enough to see he was being played by the Neoconservatives in his administration. Hell Dick Cheney was suppose to select Bush's running mate and chose himself!

During an Interview in 1999: "He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade. if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Of course, why don't Democrats understand if they just get 4,000 Americans killed in an unnecessary war, they'll have a successful presidency.

Don't give this Country back to the Neocons!

sharriannie-

Fox News has more viewers than NBC and CNN combined.

Anyone with half a brain would realize that the implication is that Fox News is not news. You see, ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN have to go for viewers with the same set of facts and verifiable stories... while Fox slants and twists and satisfies an audience full of latent hate. I would hope an entertainment station would get more viewers than a news station, but maybe I'm just looking at it wrong.

Larry, great post. You would think that logic, integrity, honesty, and just pure dedication and hard work would win by a landslide... but it looks like we'll need to settle for 51%. How can something so clear get so muddied with lies?

Thank you Old Doc!!

I've been saying that for years, Bush had a WORKING plan in place in April 2001 for a comprhensive invasion of Iraq. Hell, Iran has done more to substantiate an invasion than Saddam EVER did.
The Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was a territorial issue about Kuwait Stealing Iraqi oil! The Bush family has had Middle Eastern oil interests at heart since before George HW entered political office. In fact were closely allied with the Shah of Iran.
It is no secret that GW wanted retribution for daddy's "discrace" for seeing that a protracted war was not financially feasable, he distanced himself from GW during the early years of the war for EXACTLY that reason. (George HW Bush was also responsible for the second largest tax hike on the wealthy during the 20th century).

Your post supports what I've been saying since GW ran in 2000.

As a former Republican, who voted for McCain twice, I have to say, I am sorely dissappointed in the direction of the GOP/TP since before 2000.

Straining at a speck when a beam is in the repubs' eyes. Remember, the massive failure of Bush and the repub congress in failing to increase security to prevent the 911 attacks of which there was much warning in advance. Our economy is still crippled by the costs of the many negative effects of 911 and other bad repub policies and wars after 911. Remember, even the impeached Clinton was successful in thwarting the Y2K terrorist attacks.

Miss Barbie

You're not and never have been in the service so don't comment on what you know nothing about. Your post is beyond ignorant.

If I was our military, I would put down our weapons until this President is escorted from our White House because it is clear he has every intention of leaving them behind!

And yet you enthusiastically supported Bush, even though 9/11 happened on his watch. Apparently personal responsibility doesn't apply to Republicans. Wait, personal responsibility obviously doesn't apply to Republicans - you'll just blame Clinton.

You enthusiastically supported Reagan, even though he sold arms to Iran, left our Marines in harms way in Lebanon despite multiple warnings and then cut and run after his Iranian buddies had their proxies in Lebanon kill our brave soldiers.

Etc etc.

RealWorldProgressive - Remember don't mention Bush, they don't like it when people make comparisons to Bush because in their eyes you are now blaming Bush, but in reality they don't like anyone bringing up Bush and his blunders because it exposes their extreme hypocrisy. The only way to try and hide that hypocrisy is to tell us that Bush isn't president anymore and to stop mentioning him, yet they will bring up Reagan all the time to make comparisons.

I'll say it again, Romney supporters, look up his record as governor. You're playing a dangerous game by voting for Romney just to vote against Obama. No one making an educated vote could possibly vote for Romney, not with his terrible record as governor, and also ask Floridians how their successful businessman governor is doing. Do you really think Mitt will be more honest than Obama? If you do you're living in a fantasy world, the man has a long history of lying and that won't stop.

Barb210

When Obama has committed Presidential suicide, NBC stands moot on the Benghazi issue and has probably spent 5 minutes total reporting on the Benghazi issue since 9/11/12. Now that Obama is in trouble, NBC is trying to flock to his rescue. If I was our military, I would put down our weapons until this President is escorted from our White House because it is clear he has every intention of leaving them behind!

Let's see...This Administration 4 Americans die in an attack of an American Consulate.

The last Administration: 4,000 Americans die in an unnecessary war. 3,000 Americans died because the Administration ignored the intelligence and the previous CinC's warnings.

Where was your outrage then Neocon? Is it this President's party or color?

Isn't it funny that the liberal media propagandists are so excited about spiting out a "quick response" puff piece that they don't even realize they only highlighting how bad the lies to the American public were.

Two U.S. "security teams" involved in the attack.

Drone coverage during the attack.

A follow up attack at the "Annex" where mortars were quickly used to kill two of the security members and then disappeared.

... And yet despite all of this "quick response" and involvement in the attack the administration came to the conclusion that it was a sporadic event based on a 6 month old YouTube video that just happened to occur on 9/11?????

If you can't face the reality of the Obama Administration lying to your face in a self-righteous attempt to prevent the tarnish of presiding over a terrorist attack... then you should at least acknowledge that they would have to have the most incompetent intelligence team ever in order to come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

When Fox News reports the "news" just before a presidential election, everyone knows to take it with a grain of salt.

the whole Benghazi controversy is made up for the election

Barb, Pjam,
Were you two in the Oval Office when the administration received the intellegence reports?
As I recall, even FOX was reporting on the middle eastern demonstrations due to that silly Youtube video. It wasn't until AFTER the fact that they started in on the Al Qaida connection.

As usual, you right wingers are seeing the facts according to the bits and pieces you need to support your bias against Obama. I am not a supporter of Obama, but you people are astounding.

There were reports that came out about the orchistration of the demonstrations, and the "possible" connection the day after the attack. There was NO refusal of aid! You act as if you are AUTHORITIES on the facts surrounding what happened, when you are NO more an authority than I am.

I have both FOX and HLN on my monitors here at work, so I am seeing what both are reporting at any given time during the day. Your "opinions" have no support in fact.

You are an idiot.

Time for you to take some meds.

EVERYTHING the Progressives say is full of falsehoods (tame way of saying LIES). Using reserve psychology never works in politics, however you might want to try it out to make a hit in a bar.

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.

Plauson....I'm just sorry my son is protecting your sorry a$$, id like to see the look on your face if put in same situation as those americans in Benghazi...you'd piss your pants and cry like a baby....

Doc

you seem to want to gloss over a few facts. Under your beloved Clinton the law was passed that allowed us to go into Iraq. A lot of Dems voted to go into Afghanistan. And while we are talking about Afghanistan How about Obama's body count there? More troops have been killed there in his 3 1/2 years than Bush's 7 years.

Northern,
Afghanistan was "supposed" to be about Al Quida and Bin Laden. Bush threw that out the window when we invaded Iraq. He announced that our actions were NOT about Bin Laden.

BUSH should have been the one to have had the intellegence reports scrubbed on Al Qaida and Bin Laden after 9/11 and NOT invaded Afghanistan for a protracted war against the Taliban. The SEAL Teams should have been tagged to strike at whatever substantiated reports they had on Al Qaida activity AROUND the world. We could have had Drones strike wherever they were discovered, instead of costing this country, along with Iraq and Afghanistan hundreds of thousands of lives.
The effort we've conducted since Obama became POTUS is EXACTLY what we should have been doing from the start.

As we all know now, Bin Laden and Al Qaida were already working out of Pakistan. They have always had presence in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia. There is also an Al Qaida linked organization in the Philipeans, as well as Burma. From what I've heard there are Al Qaida in about 30 different countries around the world.
There has NEVER been a "Country" associated with Al Qaida. Conventional warfare does NOT apply here. Never has.

I regret my involvement in Iraq, not what we did once we were there. We gave Iraq a chance (if they don't waste it) but we should NEVER have gone in there. THAT was stupid. There was NOTHING going on there that wouldn't have waited until after we dealt with Al Qaida, who was the SOLE reason for the "WAR ON TERRORISM", not Saddam Hussein.

geque...did you?

pretty much because we ALL witnessed it happen you frean idiot. Stick your head in a microwave and get a tan geque.

Look for the benghazi drip drip drip

I guess the righties have not been keeping up with news on Benghazzi. Oh yeah, they don't get news on fox they only get fox crap!

The right wingers will believe Obama's a martian or any absurd conspiracy. They'll believe this black president would sit in the white house watching video of an attack going on for 6 or 7 hours and tell rescuers to stand down and believe some of our top military people on the joint chiefs would simply nod in agreement. You people have no morals and are really sick. You really think reasoning independants will really buy your nonsense?

I'm glad we waited for the president and hillary to tell us waht really happened, awww shucks lakerman, if it wasnt for Fox news, you would still be believing they were rioting over a video!! DUH!

wester: uh huh. And please tell us when Elvis gets here.

lakerman

You are right. President Obama is a liar and is willing to stand on the bodies of dead Americans that he said he wouldn't leave behind.

Check out what is said, anyone that ever served can see this
is a bald face lie, it is full of holes , this report is a big joke, and it don’t take a intelligence office to see it.

wildcard I served in nam and can personally tell you that the millitary is absolutly clueless some of the time and hows that the fault of someone who is not in the middle of it.

clark - So why would Hillary waltz out and declare that it was her fault after B.O. started taking heat?

Are we STILL talking about this? It was an attack on an embassy that should not have existed in the first place. I'm sorry Americans lost their lives but its freaking Libya! Why the heck do we have an embassy in a country that has no real government at this point?

Because OUR POTUS helped create that terribly unstable and dangerous situation there in Libya to begin with by bombing the previous (secular) regime there until Islamist radicals could take over. Remember Colin Powell's prescient warning about Iraq given to GW BUSH that went unheeded, "If you break it, you own it." ? Well, the same is true in Libya. We helped break it and now, unfortunately, the chickens are coming home to roost so-to-speak.

Here's why this is still a story. Romney and those on the right will do anything to win.

Mitt Romney was asked at his May 17 Florida fundraiser — the subject of a now-ubiquitous leaked video — how he could "duplicate" the 1980 hostage crisis scenario, credited with defeating Jimmy Carter.

In response, the presidential candidate said: "I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity."

Last week, the Romney campaign was accused of exploiting the crisis at the U.S. embassy in Cairo and the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans — and this little-noticed section of the bombshell video has already drawn attention in that connection.

Questioner: When Carter was president, we had hostages. Ronald Reagan was able to make a statement even before he became, he was actually sworn in, and the hostages were released…

Mitt Romney: On the day of his inauguration.

Questioner: Right. So my question is really how can you sort of duplicate that scenario?

Romney: I could ask you, I could ask you how you do I duplicate that scenario?

Questioner: I think it had to do with the fact that the Iranians perceived Reagan… That’s why I’m suggesting that something that you say over the next few months gets the Iranians to understand that their pursuit of the bomb is something that you would prevent. And I think that’s something that could possibly resonate very well with the American public.

Romney: I appreciate the idea. One of the things that’s frustrating to me is that in a typical day like this, when I do three or four events like this, the number of foreign policy questions I get are between zero and one. And the American people are not concentrated at all on China, on Russia, Iran, Iraq. This President’s failure to put in place a status of forces agreement allowing ten to twenty thousand troops to stay in Iraq- unthinkable! And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we had hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean, that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I’m afraid today that if you simply got Iran to agree to stand down on nuclear weapons, they’d go, “Now hold on. It’s really a-” I mean, if something of that nature presents itself I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.

Because OUR POTUS helped create that terribly unstable and dangerous situation there in Libya to begin with by bombing the previous (secular) regime there until Islamist radicals could take over. Remember Colin Powell's prescient warning about Iraq given to GW BUSH that went unheeded, "If you break it, you own it." ? Well, the same is true in Libya. We helped break it and now, unfortunately, the chickens are coming home to roost so-to-speak.

So you support Gaddafi? You do realize he killed a lot of Americans (and his own people) don't you?

its still a "story" because of the "story" Hillary and O were feeding the U.S. aka US, after the act occurred. How dare they say the TRUTH when the ELECTION is just around the corner....naw, lets blame it on some you tube video posted 2 months before, and publicize the arrest of the guy to really divert attention from the truth. YOUR an idiot Larry,wake the He11 up already.....take your head out of the microwave.

Jim: I'm an idiot yet you support a man who would be nothing but a puppet if elected. You don't even try and defend Romney claiming if any crisis occurred he'd do whatever he could to exploit it. Most Americans don't appreciate someone hoping for other Americans to die so they can exploit it. Romney was right when he announced Ryan as the next president of the U.S. Below is an excerpt from a speech by Grover Norquist. Explain this.

All we have to do is replace Obama. ... We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.

The requirement for president?

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared

Jonathan Reid said;

Why the heck do we have an embassy in a country that has no real government at this point?

Because while some people think the way you do, that it's hopeless, many other people don't. And Ambassador Stevens was one of those. Ethan Chorin of the NY Times writes:

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.

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.”

And we know now just how sorry they were that it happened--barely a week after this, the people of Benghazi rose up, stormed the compound in which the extremists who masterminded this were hiding, and drove them out of the city. Thirty people died doing it, but they accomplished what they set out to do. and there was little resistance from the Libyan military to repel the attack on the extremists' compound.

Isn't it funny that the liberal media propagandists are so excited about spiting out a "quick response" puff piece that they don't even realize they only highlighting how bad the lies to the American public were.

Two U.S. "security teams" involved in the attack.

Drone coverage during the attack.

A follow up attack at the "Annex" where mortars were quickly used to kill two of the security members and then disappeared.

... And yet despite all of this "quick response" and involvement in the attack the administration came to the conclusion that it was a sporadic event based on a 6 month old YouTube video that just happened to occur on 9/11?????

If you can't face the reality of the Obama Administration lying to your face in a self-righteous attempt to prevent the tarnish of presiding over a terrorist attack... then you should at least acknowledge that they would have to have the most incompetent intelligence team ever in order to come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

And we know now just how sorry they were that it happened--barely a week after this, the people of Benghazi rose up, stormed the compound in which the extremists who masterminded this were hiding, and drove them out of the city. Thirty people died doing it, but they accomplished what they set out to do. and there was little resistance from the Libyan military to repel the attack on the extremists' compound.

Well, apparently it was an equal opportunity mob since they also attacked and overran a government allied militia HQ too. Mobs have a funny way of doing that, attacking whatever is available. I don't buy that this was a mob singularly bent on driving Islamist militias out of Benghazi.

So you support Gaddafi? You do realize he killed a lot of Americans (and his own people) don't you?

Nope, never supported Gadhafi and didn't suggest that here either. What I'm saying is that our "Democracy Project" in the Middle East (aka the "Arab Spring" is resulting in bad being replaced by even worse. In this case a mostly secular regime (Gadhafi's), toppled and replaced by... well, a low-level tribal civil war that has resulted in a golden opportunity for al-Qaida types like Ansar al-Shariah to take root and flourish. They didn't exist there previously but now they do. Not only do they exist but they are so strong that the central government (weak as it is) is afraid of them and cannot challenge them. All this instability and conflict led directly to our Ambassador and others being killed there. The situation there has been extremely dangerous ever since Gadhafi was toppled, and getting worse ever since. With al-Qaida now a menacing presence where there was no al-Qaida before, yes I would say that things are definitely worse there now than before, even with Gadhafi in charge. Besides, he moderated over time and no longer presented any threat to our country or citizens. Still not a great guy but look what's replaced him: Worse! Same in Egypt.

Jack

As you noticed Faux No News has been going 24/7 on this story in an echo chamber for their mindless can't think for themselves zombies

You're right. Faux concentrates on conspiracy theories that only the mindless would believe. They won't spend time on exact time lines that prove their latest conspiracy theory is nonsense.

Jack - You think something was "debunked"?.... why don't you explain what it is?

The timeline of all the "quick response" and involvement of security teams only makes it all the more obvious that everyone involved knew exactly what they were dealing with... just as the victims of the attack knew themselves and sent to the Whitehouse in emails during the attack.

The truth WILL set you free! But try telling the fox zombies that.

This news release is such a lie! the current adminstration and the liberal news media that helps spread these lies should be ashamed of themselves.

If this is the administration's best case scenario then it's even worse than I thought.

Doughting Thomas: In America we're presumed innocent until proven guilty. It isn't anyone's responsibility to prove their innocence, it's the responsibility of those making the accusations to prove they're true. You accuse the news media and liberals of spreading lies but offer no proof. I assume you're an American. Surely you wouldn't judge anyone based merely on unproven accusations would you? Maybe you're Russian where they accept the concept guilty unless you can prove you're innocent.

IF the truth will "set you free" then WHY couldnt HILLARY or O tell us the TRUTH?? Why is the NewYORK SLIMES doing it for them???? It really does make you wonder....DOESNT IT???

Well, so far, the only reference to Hitler and Nazis has come from an Obama supporter in Post #6 trying to viciously smear anyone raising questions about what really happened in Benghazi.

I guess if you don't have a human being to support as your candidate for president you've got to attack Obama with all the lies you can. Bravo, righties, bravo.

Drk

What proof do you have that the story is false? Just because Fox has been running their version 24/7 for weeks doesn't make it so. Maybe they are the ones lying to you.

It appears you want it to be false so you can add another notch of I hate the President to your belt

geque, what proof do you have that this fabricated story is real? Why did it take 7 weeks to come up with this timeline after they spent over 2 weeks telling everyone the attack was because of a stupid video? CNN reported the time line that was backed up by the department of state from real time monitoring and time stamps on message traffic sent by the people at the embassy and at the CIA station in Benghazi. Where is your proof. Show me the comments from the department of state backed up by the real time monitoring of the events on the ground and show me copies of the time stamped message traffic validating this fabricated timeline.

What proof do you have that the story is false?

Even if true it's still a disgrace!

It totally boggles my mind that it took this administration 7 whole weeks to fabricate a time line that contridicts on location message traffic from people on the ground and people in the state department that said they were monitoring what was happening in real time. barack needs to be charged with treason and murder.

You boggle my mind. Would you demand Reagan or Bush provide a timeline for a similar incident? I don't recall Reagan providing 1 when 299 marines were killed in Lebanon or Bush providing one to explain how men reported to the Bush administration for training to fly aircraft but not land them went on to fly them into buildings. Why would any president think he had to put together a timeline to prove anything?

This is the United States of America. We believe in the premise innocent until proven guilty. You have any proof of your rants?

LARRY- I sat and and saw the 9-11 attacks on TV, WHILE they happened. WHERE were you, if you want to persuade people to buy horse$hit, feed a shovel full to yourself first. YOU are a complete blithering idiot who would lie to their only child to suit yourself.

You wouldnt believe a gun was real until you were shot with it either. WTFU.

Jim: STFU. So what if you saw the attacks while they happened so did millions of Americans including myself. You rant like some brainless fool too stupid to argue any point. I post the truth and you babble and rant. Keep drinking the kool aid fool.

Kra

I know facts are tough, but I would love to hear your facts that the President (Obama) is "the one truly Responsible" from 10 miles away

Was Reagan "Only.." when he sent troop to Lebannon and over 200 were blown up?

Was Bush Sr "Only..." in Panama when over half the US troop injuries were by other US troops?

JUST CHECKING YOUR FAIRNESS METER

krau, the only stain I see is you. Go back in your burrow and play with the worms. They're the only ones around that match your intelligence.

Adminitstration defenders want to talk about ANYTHING except what really happened in Benghazi.

Adam44,

I don't watch Fox, so I haven't been brainwashed into thinking Benghazi is a conspiracy.

Once the real truth starts coming out about this chump, he will not enjoy his retirement in America. It will be nice to see news broadcasts of angry crowds chasing him down the street because they can't get free electric to charge their free cell phones. Only a matter of time that his corrupt administration is exposed.

Heath-

I recognize that from Heartbreak Ridge....good man.

DSmith,

And you'll be there handing out torches and bloodhounds to the mob, right?

Sharr

DID you say the same thing when Bush was in Cal. playing air guitar on stage at a fundraiser and

Condi Rice was shoe shopping in NYC while Katrina was wiping out the coast and it took 4-5 days before any Fed support entered N.O.?

The righties only have one thing to say - on every topic they encounter: LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE

geque, are you talking about the katrina support barack hussein voted against when he was a senator? You are portraying yourself as a moronic liberal.

qeque: Bush who?? Try to stay in the present time.

Where should a president be when his men are attacked...flying to Vegas for a fundraiser or in D.C. meeting with his intel committee.

You're right, that was a disgrace!

Condi Rice was shoe shopping in NYC while Katrina was wiping out the coast and it took 4-5 days before any Fed support entered N.O.?

Even if true, she was Secretary of State, a portfolio which has absolutely nothing to do with domestic events. Do you see Secretary Clinton making any appearances about Hurricane Sandy? No, it's not her purview.

Anyway, back on topic: Benghazi and Libya.

Should Bush have been in a classroom in Florida when 9-11 happened? Shouldn't he have been in the war room?

geque, are you talking about the katrina support barack hussein voted against when he was a senator? You are portraying yourself as a moronic liberal.

Drkangel: Yep you're a true republican. You either twist the truth or simply lie to make a point. Obama voted for a previous bill for Katrina support but against one that included continued funding for Iraq without a withdrawel timeline.

Fox's Eric Bolling suggested that President Obama was hypocritical in his criticism of the government's response to Katrina by claiming Obama voted against waiving a bill that restricted emergency funding while accusing former President Bush of refusing to waive those same funds. But Obama, who strongly supported the measure, voted for a previous version of the bill which would have provided the same relief funds, but also included a timetable for withdrawal from the Iraq war.

You're up early, Sherrie. If you keep this up, you're going to fail high school for falling asleep in class.

Provide proof of what you say. I've heard the right wing conspiracy theories but never seen any proof. If it's been documented link it. Why do you believe anything without proof about Obama but won't accept any proof it's untrue? Most people would accept a timeline written by people on site as proof but accusations by Limbaugh and right wing shows as mere allegations. Proof please.

"Someone" heard "stand down" three times? Who? Got a link?

If you heard that on the FOX channel, I have some disappointing news for you.

In order to get a license to broadcast, a TV channel has to declare its type of content to the FCC. Even though "Journalism" is among the list of classifications, FOX News describes its content as "Entertainment."

Limbaugh also gets away with the lies and misrepresentations he tells on the air because is also classifies himself as an "Entertainer" and not a journalist.

That means they are under no legal obligation to tell the truth, even though they represent themselves as legitimate sources of journalism.

Isn't it funny that the liberal media propagandists are so excited about spiting out a "quick response" puff piece that they don't even realize they only highlighting how bad the lies to the American public were.

Two U.S. "security teams" involved in the attack.

Drone coverage during the attack.

A follow up attack at the "Annex" where mortars were quickly used to kill two of the security members and then disappeared.

... And yet despite all of this "quick response" and involvement in the attack the administration came to the conclusion that it was a sporadic event based on a 6 month old YouTube video that just happened to occur on 9/11?????

If you can't face the reality of the Obama Administration lying to your face in a self-righteous attempt to prevent the tarnish of presiding over a terrorist attack... then you should at least acknowledge that they would have to have the most incompetent intelligence team ever in order to come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

Uh huh. I suppose the draft dodger Mitt Romney - your hero - told you to say that after he stood on the bodies of murdered Americans trying to make cheap political points. Kind of like the righties are all doing now. Hmmmm

I have no idea, what you said, lefty parasite, please provide an interpreter, when you post in mush mouth lefty.

@lakerman2, I have read many of your posts and it is clear that you are not well informed or, very bright. You would be better off keeping your mouth shut and no one would know. You are proof that Obama supports are like a string of Christmas lights: half don't work and the other half are not very bright.

You are spot on with that assessment DSmith-1497218. Ha Ha Ha Merry Early Christmas to you. May all your light be bright like you.

Is that the same bunch that said we would have a mini ice age and global famine by 2000 that would kill millions, you real;ly stupid lefty handouter?

Spoken like a true wingnut. Good going, dawdrum!

Yeah you especially would know about wing nut behaviour, handouter.

Geez Jerry learn to spell and what's a handouter? Glad you're a Repukelican you're too stupid to be anything else.

You can sugar coat the attack on Benghazi and the deaths of four Americans. The real story should be why did Obama, Biden,Clinton,Rice.Carney lie for two weeks afterwards. They knew it wasn't a spontaneous attack based on a you tube video. That's the bigger picture Libtards.

jjdcc, when faced with the facts they don't have anything else to say other than to refute them as lies. These bozos fear reality and don't have a clue as to how to confront it. Meely mouthed chicken sh*ts are one way to describe them.

Like what your are doing, parasite?

jjdcc: Do you believe in the concept, innocent until proven guilty? You state facts don't matter to those who don't accept unproven accusations yet offer no proof that any are true. You buy the conspiracy theories completely without 1 shred of proof and then bash as idiots those who believe documented evidence provided by those with the ability to know. Hypocrite much? You need to try just for a few seconds to think how absurd your post is. You bash those who demand proof of the many conspiracy theories that have been spread about what happened in Benghazi yet accept every absurd conspiracy theory spread by the right. If those spreading these accusations have any proof let them show it. Any thought that Obama's race might be a factor is because no white president has ever been judged on every wild accusation without a shred of proof. You'd never accept such attacks without proof against a white republican. If you're an American you should demand proof when your president whatever his color is accused without proof.

Once again Jerry shows his ignorance. Some people are even tough to laugh at.

1

Racism only exist in the liberal mind. That's a cheap excuse. The President lied about Benghazi so anybody that questions why he lied and 4 Americans died they are racist. You are a sick puppy.

Republicans claim that hating Obama has nothing to do with race.

It would be a lot more credible if they had and credible, factual reasons for hating Obama

brian-869346

Racism only exist in the liberal mind. That's a cheap excuse. The President lied about Benghazi so anybody that questions why he lied and 4 Americans died they are racist. You are a sick puppy.

GW Bush lied about WMD and 4,000 Americans died. He ignored the intelligence and 3,000 Americans died. Where was your outrage then Neocon?

But then Bush was a white, male conservative wasn't he? No racism there, right?

Who's a sick puppy?

Ol_Doc - if you would do some research, you would know that Russian intel, British intel and our own head of the CIA, appointed by Clinton, all told GW Bush there were WMD. All the politicians stood white-faced and scared on the steps of the capital after 9/11, saying we would be hit again. Thanks to GWB, we were not and we should be hugely thankful to him. Just look at how Obama handled his mini-9/11 -- completely inept, and outright lies to the American people about it happening due to a video. How many times did they condemn the video?? Plus H.Clinton - was obvious she was covering it up as she is responsible up to her eyes for this. Hopefully America will wake up and vote them out, as they have no idea how to evaluate what they're seeing. They let our people be murdered in Benghazi, and every military person knows it.

OL DOC as I recall the Iraq war was supported by both Democrats and Republicans voted on in Congress. Clinton, Edwards,Kerry and many of the other liberal retards voted for and passed the resolution to invade Iraq, You must have been sleeping or been in a coma

Brian...Hey, don't confuse the issue with facts.

In any event, this still doesn't address the question of why the Obama team jumped right in there with the "demonstration spiraled out of control" if they didn't know the facts, and then maintain the story for days after it became apparent that it was not the case? Either way they lied. A. they didn't know and made up the story about the demonstration. B. they knew there wasn't a demonstration and kept repeating the lie.