U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[Doctor Detroit]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

What do you want him to do? He hasn't been overseas in awhile. You guys just pick up right where you leave off. You lose the election, start #####ing again. This all will fall on Hillary in the end, it's not a president's job to tactically secure a consulate. I think people said that on page 1, yet here we are. If you are looking for a fall guy, it won't be the president.

I want him to lead, to be forthright with the American people; the hunker down mentality here (and with F&F) is wrong and should not be tolerated by the people. Congress is asking question, the people are asking questions, even the media are asking questions; still hearing that we are going to investigate is a joke. I get that you work in the government but you work for the American people, and so does the President, we are entitled to answers. The games the Administration is playing makes them look guilty of something and I don't know what that would even be except for trying to spin a story, incompetence, or to hide the truth. I am also laughing at the concept of him not being overseas in awhile; no time like during a Congressional investigation to get out of the country. I think they deported Hillary Clinton to wherever Eric Holder is holed up.

It's like talking to a pet rock at this point.

 

[Politician Spock]

What do you want him to do?

Provide a level of transparency that does not impede an investigation getting to the truth. The victims of the deceased should be entitled to as much.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What do you want him to do?

Provide a level of transparency that does not impede an investigation getting to the truth. The victims of the deceased should be entitled to as much.

I was talking about his overseas travel. Also the word "transparency" is overused when talking about Presidential-level information. Should the White House be "transparent" with critical intelligence data and sensitive negotiations with countries like Lebanon about Syria? Sorry but you don't need that information and it seems the government has made certain information available to the families to put them at ease. Funny thing is the right-wingers have made a HUGE deal about this but deflected the Bush Administration's flawed data for going into Iraq. What heads rolled for that debacle? 4500 Americans lost their lives there, what level of transparency were their families entitled to? I'll tell you: none.

 

[Politician Spock]

What do you want him to do?

Provide a level of transparency that does not impede an investigation getting to the truth. The victims of the deceased should be entitled to as much.

I was talking about his overseas travel. Also the word "transparency" is overused when talking about Presidential-level information. Should the White House be "transparent" with critical intelligence data and sensitive negotiations with countries like Lebanon about Syria? Sorry but you don't need that information and it seems the government has made certain information available to the families to put them at ease. Funny thing is the right-wingers have made a HUGE deal about this but deflected the Bush Administration's flawed data for going into Iraq. What heads rolled for that debacle? 4500 Americans lost their lives there, what level of transparency were their families entitled to? I'll tell you: none.

No. I think a lot of defense information should not be transparent.A situation where an ambassador is killed is a unique situation. The jumping to a false conclusion for the cause is also a unique situation. In no way am I suggesting that this should set a precedent that all defense matters should be transparent. There is more than enough reason for this situation to be an exception.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What do you want him to do?

Provide a level of transparency that does not impede an investigation getting to the truth. The victims of the deceased should be entitled to as much.

I was talking about his overseas travel. Also the word "transparency" is overused when talking about Presidential-level information. Should the White House be "transparent" with critical intelligence data and sensitive negotiations with countries like Lebanon about Syria? Sorry but you don't need that information and it seems the government has made certain information available to the families to put them at ease. Funny thing is the right-wingers have made a HUGE deal about this but deflected the Bush Administration's flawed data for going into Iraq. What heads rolled for that debacle? 4500 Americans lost their lives there, what level of transparency were their families entitled to? I'll tell you: none.

No. I think a lot of defense information should not be transparent.A situation where an ambassador is killed is a unique situation. The jumping to a false conclusion for the cause is also a unique situation. In no way am I suggesting that this should set a precedent that all defense matters should be transparent. There is more than enough reason for this situation to be an exception.

I'm not sure we disagree then.

With this Libya mess they obviously made mistakes prior to the attack but I think it would have happened to about anyone, controlling all acts of terrorism on foreign soil is a monster task. Where they have failed as a whole is the response to query, the suppression of information to some degree and what seems to some as ignoring the problem. What they've done is create a barrier with the public when that barrier probably doesn't need to exist.Admit where the administration made mistakes, tell us how they will be corrected going forward and answer the tough questions

 

[Politician Spock]

What do you want him to do?

Provide a level of transparency that does not impede an investigation getting to the truth. The victims of the deceased should be entitled to as much.

I was talking about his overseas travel. Also the word "transparency" is overused when talking about Presidential-level information. Should the White House be "transparent" with critical intelligence data and sensitive negotiations with countries like Lebanon about Syria? Sorry but you don't need that information and it seems the government has made certain information available to the families to put them at ease. Funny thing is the right-wingers have made a HUGE deal about this but deflected the Bush Administration's flawed data for going into Iraq. What heads rolled for that debacle? 4500 Americans lost their lives there, what level of transparency were their families entitled to? I'll tell you: none.

No. I think a lot of defense information should not be transparent.A situation where an ambassador is killed is a unique situation. The jumping to a false conclusion for the cause is also a unique situation. In no way am I suggesting that this should set a precedent that all defense matters should be transparent. There is more than enough reason for this situation to be an exception.

I'm not sure we disagree then.

With this Libya mess they obviously made mistakes prior to the attack but I think it would have happened to about anyone, controlling all acts of terrorism on foreign soil is a monster task. Where they have failed as a whole is the response to query, the suppression of information to some degree and what seems to some as ignoring the problem. What they've done is create a barrier with the public when that barrier probably doesn't need to exist.Admit where the administration made mistakes, tell us how they will be corrected going forward and answer the tough questions

We probably don't disagree. There are a lot of people on the right going way too far with this, even to the point of blaming the deaths on Obama. I don't think there is anything Obama could have done to prevent the deaths, but I think there are 1 or more people somewhere in the system that could have.

 

[glock]

What do you want him to do?

Provide a level of transparency that does not impede an investigation getting to the truth. The victims of the deceased should be entitled to as much.

I was talking about his overseas travel. Also the word "transparency" is overused when talking about Presidential-level information. Should the White House be "transparent" with critical intelligence data and sensitive negotiations with countries like Lebanon about Syria? Sorry but you don't need that information and it seems the government has made certain information available to the families to put them at ease. Funny thing is the right-wingers have made a HUGE deal about this but deflected the Bush Administration's flawed data for going into Iraq. What heads rolled for that debacle? 4500 Americans lost their lives there, what level of transparency were their families entitled to? I'll tell you: none.

No. I think a lot of defense information should not be transparent.A situation where an ambassador is killed is a unique situation. The jumping to a false conclusion for the cause is also a unique situation. In no way am I suggesting that this should set a precedent that all defense matters should be transparent. There is more than enough reason for this situation to be an exception.

I'm not sure we disagree then.

With this Libya mess they obviously made mistakes prior to the attack but I think it would have happened to about anyone, controlling all acts of terrorism on foreign soil is a monster task. Where they have failed as a whole is the response to query, the suppression of information to some degree and what seems to some as ignoring the problem. What they've done is create a barrier with the public when that barrier probably doesn't need to exist.Admit where the administration made mistakes, tell us how they will be corrected going forward and answer the tough questions

We probably don't disagree. There are a lot of people on the right going way too far with this, even to the point of blaming the deaths on Obama. I don't think there is anything Obama could have done to prevent the deaths, but I think there are 1 or more people somewhere in the system that could have.

right here. Enough is enough with this "scandal" for chrissakes.

 

[moleculo]

I don't believe that there is any scandal WRT the fact that there was an attack on a minimally fortified location. I'll buy that sometimes things go wrong.

I'm not convinced that we had an appropriate response to the attack, including immediately after the first shots were fired and leading up to a few weeks afterwards. I'm afraid that the administration allowed domestic politics as well as a fear of using strength to hinder our response. I think they didn't want to call the event a terror attack so they could play the "I kept Americans safe" card, and I think they want so badly to appease the ME populace that they did not allow even a measured military response, including a rescue operation.

Is this Monday morning QBing? Absolutely it is. No president is immune to having his actions second guessed by the opposition. You say there's no scandal? How the hell do you know that until everything is out in the open?

 

[Fennis]

Can we update the title to benghanzi-gate so we can all agree its a scandal?

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Stevens' sister was on CNN tonight with Erin Burnett. She didn't seem to share in the verve for heads to roll over this. Just something to consider.

Saw that, she sounded off with Obama's words...we must move forward. Basically we don't need to ask questions, no one really needs to know, not sure I agree with this line of thought but you're right she clearly backs Obama and his administration.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Like I said before, I've worked under five presidents now and the last three I've had an opportunity to interact with the administrations by proxy. They make policy, they give direction and they establish certain protocol that is particular to the administration. Clinton's people were fairly open, seemed to think things out and provided answers to queries where there were murky instructions. The Bush Administration was disorganized, decentralized and aggressive. In the DoD we just did whatever we liked, we got the money and we did what we do best. Some of it was great because he allowed programs to grow and prosper but there was also a lot of waste.The current administration is guarded, very detailed and aware of any and all political implications to the level of minutia. They do have good rapport with military leaders because they are really into family programs that impact the uniformed folks, which is cool. Same with the VA, had Obama lost I would have said one of his greatest accomplishments was his work with the VA and veteran's causes. But operationally, day-to-day this is not an easy administration to work with. They hold things way to close to the vest and are completely opposite of the Bush administration in that Bush was completely reactive, Obama is way too deliberate. With this Libya mess they obviously made mistakes prior to the attack but I think it would have happened to about anyone, controlling all acts of terrorism on foreign soil is a monster task. Where they have failed as a whole is the response to query, the suppression of information to some degree and what seems to some as ignoring the problem. What they've done is create a barrier with the public when that barrier probably doesn't need to exist. Admit where the administration made mistakes, tell us how they will be corrected going forward and answer the tough questions. But the deaths do not fall on Obama, this is something that is State Department centric. Of all the government agencies I can assure you, the State Department is the most autonomous (outside clandestine service and maybe in many cases even more than them), the most guarded and the most self-absorbed. It is something that has gone on for as long as I've been around, and probably a lot longer. State Dept folk are a different breed, they live in some fairytale lands where they think they run the world. That leads to mistakes, and they sure have had a lot of them over the decades. I know Hillary was trying to fix some of the inherent problems with the agency, but from what I hear it hasn't changed much. It is the one government agency that I would not work for domestically.

I don't believe that there is any scandal WRT the fact that there was an attack on a minimally fortified location. I'll buy that sometimes things go wrong.I'm not convinced that we had an appropriate response to the attack, including immediately after the first shots were fired and leading up to a few weeks afterwards. I'm afraid that the administration allowed domestic politics as well as a fear of using strength to hinder our response. I think they didn't want to call the event a terror attack so they could play the "I kept Americans safe" card, and I think they want so badly to appease the ME populace that they did not allow even a measured military response, including a rescue operation.Is this Monday morning QBing? Absolutely it is. No president is immune to having his actions second guessed by the opposition. You say there's no scandal? How the hell do you know that until everything is out in the open?

Both fantastic posts. Anyone saying folks that lean left blindly stick up for Obama...I present exhibits "A" and "B"

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Stevens' sister was on CNN tonight with Erin Burnett. She didn't seem to share in the verve for heads to roll over this. Just something to consider.

Saw that, she sounded off with Obama's words...we must move forward. Basically we don't need to ask questions, no one really needs to know, not sure I agree with this line of thought but you're right she clearly backs Obama and his administration.

Do you think that the sibling of a fallen ambassador would happily sweep something like this under the rug for the sake of politics? This is a pretty dumb response.

 

[moleculo]

Like I said before, I've worked under five presidents now and the last three I've had an opportunity to interact with the administrations by proxy. They make policy, they give direction and they establish certain protocol that is particular to the administration. Clinton's people were fairly open, seemed to think things out and provided answers to queries where there were murky instructions. The Bush Administration was disorganized, decentralized and aggressive. In the DoD we just did whatever we liked, we got the money and we did what we do best. Some of it was great because he allowed programs to grow and prosper but there was also a lot of waste.The current administration is guarded, very detailed and aware of any and all political implications to the level of minutia. They do have good rapport with military leaders because they are really into family programs that impact the uniformed folks, which is cool. Same with the VA, had Obama lost I would have said one of his greatest accomplishments was his work with the VA and veteran's causes. But operationally, day-to-day this is not an easy administration to work with. They hold things way to close to the vest and are completely opposite of the Bush administration in that Bush was completely reactive, Obama is way too deliberate. With this Libya mess they obviously made mistakes prior to the attack but I think it would have happened to about anyone, controlling all acts of terrorism on foreign soil is a monster task. Where they have failed as a whole is the response to query, the suppression of information to some degree and what seems to some as ignoring the problem. What they've done is create a barrier with the public when that barrier probably doesn't need to exist. Admit where the administration made mistakes, tell us how they will be corrected going forward and answer the tough questions. But the deaths do not fall on Obama, this is something that is State Department centric. Of all the government agencies I can assure you, the State Department is the most autonomous (outside clandestine service and maybe in many cases even more than them), the most guarded and the most self-absorbed. It is something that has gone on for as long as I've been around, and probably a lot longer. State Dept folk are a different breed, they live in some fairytale lands where they think they run the world. That leads to mistakes, and they sure have had a lot of them over the decades. I know Hillary was trying to fix some of the inherent problems with the agency, but from what I hear it hasn't changed much. It is the one government agency that I would not work for domestically.

I don't believe that there is any scandal WRT the fact that there was an attack on a minimally fortified location. I'll buy that sometimes things go wrong.I'm not convinced that we had an appropriate response to the attack, including immediately after the first shots were fired and leading up to a few weeks afterwards. I'm afraid that the administration allowed domestic politics as well as a fear of using strength to hinder our response. I think they didn't want to call the event a terror attack so they could play the "I kept Americans safe" card, and I think they want so badly to appease the ME populace that they did not allow even a measured military response, including a rescue operation.Is this Monday morning QBing? Absolutely it is. No president is immune to having his actions second guessed by the opposition. You say there's no scandal? How the hell do you know that until everything is out in the open?

Both fantastic posts. Anyone saying folks that lean left blindly stick up for Obama...I present exhibits "A" and "B"

I do not lean left.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Petraeus had an affair and is gone. Wow.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Petraeus had an affair and is gone. Wow.

BENGHAZI!!I!!1

 

[FlapJacks]

Top miltary men sacked, a dead ambassador, a convoluted lie to the public and to the UN and the world, the backdrop of a Presidential election, and an administration that refuses to clear up the mud.

this thing has more intrique than ABC's Last Resort.

.

what?

Gen Carter Ham is OUT as head of the Africa National Command

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette OUT as the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-because-of-ongoing-investigation/

Patraeus OUT.

Who's next? Rice? Clinton?

 

[Politician Spock]

Top miltary men sacked, a dead ambassador, a convoluted lie to the public and to the UN and the world, the backdrop of a Presidential election, and an administration that refuses to clear up the mud.

this thing has more intrique than ABC's Last Resort.

.

what?

Gen Carter Ham is OUT as head of the Africa National Command

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette OUT as the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-because-of-ongoing-investigation/

Patraeus OUT.

Who's next? Rice? Clinton?

I thought Clinton was already out.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Top miltary men sacked, a dead ambassador, a convoluted lie to the public and to the UN and the world, the backdrop of a Presidential election, and an administration that refuses to clear up the mud.

this thing has more intrique than ABC's Last Resort.

.

what?

Gen Carter Ham is OUT as head of the Africa National Command

Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette OUT as the commander of the USS John C. Stennis strike group

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/navy-replaces-admiral-leading-mideast-strike-group-because-of-ongoing-investigation/

Patraeus OUT.

Who's next? Rice? Clinton?

I thought Clinton was already out.

I heard that rumor too; with Weiner's wife, right?

 

[pittstownkiller]

A few Democrats, including Dianne Feinstein, are starting to request the administration start answering questions. I don't think this is going away soon.

John Kerry too. Nice to see Obama booked himself a trip to Burma.

What do you want him to do? He hasn't been overseas in awhile. You guys just pick up right where you leave off. You lose the election, start #####ing again. This all will fall on Hillary in the end, it's not a president's job to tactically secure a consulate. I think people said that on page 1, yet here we are. If you are looking for a fall guy, it won't be the president.

I want him to lead, to be forthright with the American people; the hunker down mentality here (and with F&F) is wrong and should not be tolerated by the people. Congress is asking question, the people are asking questions, even the media are asking questions; still hearing that we are going to investigate is a joke. I get that you work in the government but you work for the American people, and so does the President, we are entitled to answers. The games the Administration is playing makes them look guilty of something and I don't know what that would even be except for trying to spin a story, incompetence, or to hide the truth. I am also laughing at the concept of him not being overseas in awhile; no time like during a Congressional investigation to get out of the country. I think they deported Hillary Clinton to wherever Eric Holder is holed up.

It's like talking to a pet rock at this point.

What national security issue would be compromised if Obama would just answer if he was watching the feed of the attack, or any of the other questions on the periphery, that he keeps answering with that "we're investigating."

 

[pittstownkiller]

I am interested in how this "non-story" has now had the the former head of the CIA, the recently disgraced retired 4-star General Petreaus, basically recanting his previous testimony to congress saying that the CIA internal documentation stated it was an Al Qaeda attack and not a "spontaneous protest"; this testimony is in direct conflict with the White House's version. Yeah Tim, I know, "there is nothing to see here".

 

[FootballDummy]

I am interested in how this "non-story" has now had the the former head of the CIA, the recently disgraced retired 4-star General Petreaus, basically recanting his previous testimony to congress saying that the CIA internal documentation stated it was an Al Qaeda attack and not a "spontaneous protest"; this testimony is in direct conflict with the White House's version. Yeah Tim, I know, "there is nothing to see here".

Keep fighting the good fight.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I am interested in how this "non-story" has now had the the former head of the CIA, the recently disgraced retired 4-star General Petreaus, basically recanting his previous testimony to congress saying that the CIA internal documentation stated it was an Al Qaeda attack and not a "spontaneous protest"; this testimony is in direct conflict with the White House's version. Yeah Tim, I know, "there is nothing to see here".

Keep fighting the good fight.

Congress and I.

 

[FootballDummy]

I am interested in how this "non-story" has now had the the former head of the CIA, the recently disgraced retired 4-star General Petreaus, basically recanting his previous testimony to congress saying that the CIA internal documentation stated it was an Al Qaeda attack and not a "spontaneous protest"; this testimony is in direct conflict with the White House's version. Yeah Tim, I know, "there is nothing to see here".

Keep fighting the good fight.

Congress and I.

No, I think it's all you. Congress must follow this thread.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I am interested in how this "non-story" has now had the the former head of the CIA, the recently disgraced retired 4-star General Petreaus, basically recanting his previous testimony to congress saying that the CIA internal documentation stated it was an Al Qaeda attack and not a "spontaneous protest"; this testimony is in direct conflict with the White House's version. Yeah Tim, I know, "there is nothing to see here".

Keep fighting the good fight.

Congress and I.

And 47 KooKs.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

McCain is looking like a serious loon over this.

 

[Sam Quentin]

It's almost cult-like the way peopel seem to think the administration's actions in thye matter are in any way defensible.

The consulate had been attacked sevral times in the past and the UK and red cross evacuate and our response is to reduce security. The consulate is attacked, and the WH xoes nothing to defend it or our people. After the news breaks they come up with a BS story trying to blame it on some guy who posted a YouTube video -- after which they go out of their way to get that guy sent to prison.

You may support tye guy for other reasons, but this whole episode is outrageous.

 

[FootballDummy]

It's almost cult-like the way peopel seem to think the administration's actions in thye matter are in any way defensible. The consulate had been attacked sevral times in the past and the UK and red cross evacuate and our response is to reduce security. The consulate is attacked, and the WH xoes nothing to defend it or our people. After the news breaks they come up with a BS story trying to blame it on some guy who posted a YouTube video -- after which they go out of their way to get that guy sent to prison. You may support tye guy for other reasons, but this whole episode is outrageous.

 

[cstu]

It's almost cult-like the way peopel seem to think the administration's actions in thye matter are in any way defensible. The consulate had been attacked sevral times in the past and the UK and red cross evacuate and our response is to reduce security. The consulate is attacked, and the WH xoes nothing to defend it or our people. After the news breaks they come up with a BS story trying to blame it on some guy who posted a YouTube video -- after which they go out of their way to get that guy sent to prison. You may support tye guy for other reasons, but this whole episode is outrageous.

What I don't get is the Republican obsession over Obama blaming the Youtube video. I don't see anyone claiming that there was advance notice for the Benghazi attack so why does it matter if he blamed the video or if it was 9/11-related?If Obama screwed up the response to the attacks that's where the questions should be, not on moronic debates on about what he attributed the attacks to.

 

[timschochet]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

 

[SmoovySmoov]

FAUX OUTRAGE!!!!!!!!

 

[Politician Spock]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

 

[timschochet]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

 

[Politician Spock]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

He testified to congress on Sept 14th.

 

[CrossEyed]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

Yeah, you're all over this story, tim.

 

[timschochet]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

Yeah, you're all over this story, tim.

Sorry. I'm trying to pay attention because it' seems so important to some of you. But it's such a yawner. So how did he change his story? Did he commit perjury? THAT would be interesting.

 

[FootballDummy]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

Yeah, you're all over this story, tim.

Sorry. I'm trying to pay attention because it' seems so important to some of you. But it's such a yawner. So how did he change his story? Did he commit perjury? THAT would be interesting.

IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!!!11!111! That's all anyone on the right really cares about here. Not the lives that were lost, not the people who did it. None of that matters. They're mad because they lost the election.

 

[timschochet]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

Yeah, you're all over this story, tim.

Sorry. I'm trying to pay attention because it' seems so important to some of you. But it's such a yawner. So how did he change his story? Did he commit perjury? THAT would be interesting.

IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!!!11!111! That's all anyone on the right really cares about here. Not the lives that were lost, not the people who did it. None of that matters. They're mad because they lost the election.

It's the #1 story on every right wing talk show. The budget battle, which will have real consequences for every American, is barely mentioned. Any serious discussion of the Middle East and our role there is non-existent. The only issue worth talking about, to conservatives, is what Obama knew and when he knew it. According to Hannity and Rush and Levin and all the rest, there are only two possibilities: either Obama was incompetent and then deliberately covered it up by ordering his people, especially Susan Rice, to lie, or Obama knew all along and wanted the embassy people to die (because he hates America.) There are no other options, and impeachment seems to be the only answer.

 

[FootballDummy]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

Yeah, you're all over this story, tim.

Sorry. I'm trying to pay attention because it' seems so important to some of you. But it's such a yawner. So how did he change his story? Did he commit perjury? THAT would be interesting.

IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!!!11!111! That's all anyone on the right really cares about here. Not the lives that were lost, not the people who did it. None of that matters. They're mad because they lost the election.

It's the #1 story on every right wing talk show. The budget battle, which will have real consequences for every American, is barely mentioned. Any serious discussion of the Middle East and our role there is non-existent. The only issue worth talking about, to conservatives, is what Obama knew and when he knew it. According to Hannity and Rush and Levin and all the rest, there are only two possibilities: either Obama was incompetent and then deliberately covered it up by ordering his people, especially Susan Rice, to lie, or Obama knew all along and wanted the embassy people to die (because he hates America.) There are no other options, and impeachment seems to be the only answer.

Like I said... Grasping at straws.

 

[sporthenry]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

Yeah, you're all over this story, tim.

Sorry. I'm trying to pay attention because it' seems so important to some of you. But it's such a yawner. So how did he change his story? Did he commit perjury? THAT would be interesting.

IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT!!!11!111! That's all anyone on the right really cares about here. Not the lives that were lost, not the people who did it. None of that matters. They're mad because they lost the election.

I guess they think if they keep babbling eventually someone will listen. The problem is they have tired almost everyone of this story that even if they are proven correct or partially correct, the general public has already grown bored of this story. The same goes for McCain and Graham trying to make this into something on the level of Watergate.

Why not just let the investigation run its course and then we can point fingers. I think this shooting from the hip finger pointing just discredits them more and allows Obama to look Presidential. I don't know what happened and for anyone else to say they know is disingenuous. And as someone else mentioned, the sister of one of the fallen didn't hold the government liable and said she was pleased with the answers they got from the administration.

 

[fatness]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

He testified to congress on Sept 14th.

Awaiting your details on how he perjured himself. Quotes and links would be nice, thanks. Assuming of course that you're not too busy seceding or dealing with the imminent societal breakdown and chaos of course.

 

[Politician Spock]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

He testified to congress on Sept 14th.

Awaiting your details on how he perjured himself. Quotes and links would be nice, thanks. Assuming of course that you're not too busy seceding or dealing with the imminent societal breakdown and chaos of course.

I never said he perjured himself. It was a private testimony, so all we know is what those in congress said about it. My link

 

[sporthenry]

Any new evidence? Has a smoking gun appeared yet? Or is this still a complete waste of time?

Petraeus testified to congress again today, and apparently he has changed his story.

If this is his first testimony, how can that be?

He testified to congress on Sept 14th.

Awaiting your details on how he perjured himself. Quotes and links would be nice, thanks. Assuming of course that you're not too busy seceding or dealing with the imminent societal breakdown and chaos of course.

I never said he perjured himself. It was a private testimony, so all we know is what those in congress said about it. My link

The other thing which I think irritates most Americans is how much money we are using on this investigation along with the fact Congress has more pressing issues. We are essentially arguing over talking points about who said what and when. Let me know when the info comes out that Obama and all the other high ranking officials were watching in the Situation Room as Americans were killed. That was the original contention of some, now we are just upset that the talking points were "altered."

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Obama, does it again... lying to the American people.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I think this was concocted to distract from Fast and Furious.

 

[FootballDummy]

Obama, Every politician elected does it again... lying to the American people.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

McCain is looking like a serious loon over this.

Did you hear his comments to CNN yesterday when they asked him why he wasn't at the testimonies he was so loudly calling for? I've probably said this before and will say it again, but within government he is known as absolutely the biggest ####### of them all. Difficult, moody, nasty and demanding. He's done some great things for his country but he really has to go, he's the best example of what is wrong with the Senate. Actually I think almost all of them are terrible, but McCain has definitely run his course.

 

[FootballDummy]

McCain is looking like a serious loon over this.

Did you hear his comments to CNN yesterday when they asked him why he wasn't at the testimonies he was so loudly calling for? I've probably said this before and will say it again, but within government he is known as absolutely the biggest ####### of them all. Difficult, moody, nasty and demanding. He's done some great things for his country but he really has to go, he's the best example of what is wrong with the Senate. Actually I think almost all of them are terrible, but McCain has definitely run his course.

Yeah, he's channeling the crazy old angry nutjob pretty well.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

McCain is looking like a serious loon over this.

Did you hear his comments to CNN yesterday when they asked him why he wasn't at the testimonies he was so loudly calling for? I've probably said this before and will say it again, but within government he is known as absolutely the biggest ####### of them all. Difficult, moody, nasty and demanding. He's done some great things for his country but he really has to go, he's the best example of what is wrong with the Senate. Actually I think almost all of them are terrible, but McCain has definitely run his course.

Yep, I heard it. Whatever vestige of the McCain of 2000 is long gone. This husk of a Senator that remains is an embarrassment to the office. I honestly question the guy's mental stability at this point. Going after Susan Rice in such a personal way is just strange to me, and what's even more curious is that Lindsey Graham seems to want to follow this guy over the cliff.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

McCain is looking like a serious loon over this.

Did you hear his comments to CNN yesterday when they asked him why he wasn't at the testimonies he was so loudly calling for? I've probably said this before and will say it again, but within government he is known as absolutely the biggest ####### of them all. Difficult, moody, nasty and demanding. He's done some great things for his country but he really has to go, he's the best example of what is wrong with the Senate. Actually I think almost all of them are terrible, but McCain has definitely run his course.

Yep, I heard it. Whatever vestige of the McCain of 2000 is long gone. This husk of a Senator that remains is an embarrassment to the office. I honestly question the guy's mental stability at this point. Going after Susan Rice in such a personal way is just strange to me, and what's even more curious is that Lindsey Graham seems to want to follow this guy over the cliff.

I know he's pretty anti-gay marriage and all that but for the most part I've always thought of Graham as pretty level-headed. I don't follow politics all that closely but he's always seemed like the kind of guy to bend for the good of the country putting aside party politics to get things done. At some point McCain is going to completely meltdown and then maybe Graham will step back and reevaluate his loyalties. This Susan Rice stuff is crazy though and I liked Obama telling McCain to kiss his black ###.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

McCain is looking like a serious loon over this.

Did you hear his comments to CNN yesterday when they asked him why he wasn't at the testimonies he was so loudly calling for? I've probably said this before and will say it again, but within government he is known as absolutely the biggest ####### of them all. Difficult, moody, nasty and demanding. He's done some great things for his country but he really has to go, he's the best example of what is wrong with the Senate. Actually I think almost all of them are terrible, but McCain has definitely run his course.

Yep, I heard it. Whatever vestige of the McCain of 2000 is long gone. This husk of a Senator that remains is an embarrassment to the office. I honestly question the guy's mental stability at this point. Going after Susan Rice in such a personal way is just strange to me, and what's even more curious is that Lindsey Graham seems to want to follow this guy over the cliff.

I know he's pretty anti-gay marriage and all that but for the most part I've always thought of Graham as pretty level-headed. I don't follow politics all that closely but he's always seemed like the kind of guy to bend for the good of the country putting aside party politics to get things done. At some point McCain is going to completely meltdown and then maybe Graham will step back and reevaluate his loyalties. This Susan Rice stuff is crazy though and I liked Obama telling McCain to kiss his black ###.

Graham is one of the most sensible guys in the Senate. He can sound stunningly reasonable, and then he gets his panties in a twist over crap like this as if he has shut off the logic center of his brain.I sort of get that McCain has knee-jerk reactions to any foreign policy issue that makes him sound like he knows what he's talking about, but with Graham I can't quite figure him out. I know it's oft-repeated how he's a former JAG and all that, but he wasn't a POW and presumably he hasn't gone senile just yet. To round out the Rice criticism, I find it particularly hilarious that McCain is teeing off on Rice's lack of intelligence (a Rhodes Scholar, no less) when it's painfully obvious through decades of material that McCain isn't exactly the most erudite man to ever hold political office.