U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (2 Viewers)

[jamny]

Remember how everyone criticised the government for ignoring the warning signs leading up to 9/11? Never forget!

 

[pantherclub]

Remember how everyone criticised the government for ignoring the warning signs leading up to 9/11? Never forget!

Yes this event is exactly the same thing, exactly

 

[jamny]

Remember how everyone criticised the government for ignoring the warning signs leading up to 9/11? Never forget!

Yes this event is exactly the same thing, exactly

I compared this event to the warning signs, not 9/11.

 

[NCCommish]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

Yeah this was acknowledged as a terrorist attack as well. I know that's inconvenient for the witch hunt but it was. So what you are saying is you can't link me to anyone calling the 4 deaths in Karachi, including a diplomat that was specifically targeted, the greatest tragedy since 911 and calling for the Secy of State to be fired?

 

[pantherclub]

Remember how everyone criticised the government for ignoring the warning signs leading up to 9/11? Never forget!

Yes this event is exactly the same thing, exactly

I compared this event to the warning signs, not 9/11.

Even then its a stretch no?

 

[jamny]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

Yeah this was acknowledged as a terrorist attack as well. I know that's inconvenient for the witch hunt but it was. So what you are saying is you can't link me to anyone calling the 4 deaths in Karachi, including a diplomat that was specifically targeted, the greatest tragedy since 911 and calling for the Secy of State to be fired?

Look, I'm not in here jumping all over this because I agree it is overblown. I'm more concerned with the lack of response and reaction from the President after this and the recent tragedy in Algeria. Outside of some drone strikes, what's the plan here? Things seem to be escalating and Obama seems to still feel that Al Qaeda is on the ropes. I don't have much confidence that he's fully invested in what's going on. I hope to get some clarity on his thinking during the State of the Union.

 

[jamny]

Remember how everyone criticised the government for ignoring the warning signs leading up to 9/11? Never forget!

Yes this event is exactly the same thing, exactly

I compared this event to the warning signs, not 9/11.

Even then its a stretch no?

no, imo.

 

[pantherclub]

Remember how everyone criticised the government for ignoring the warning signs leading up to 9/11? Never forget!

Yes this event is exactly the same thing, exactly

I compared this event to the warning signs, not 9/11.

Even then its a stretch no?

no, imo.

well, good luck then

 

[pantherclub]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

Yeah this was acknowledged as a terrorist attack as well. I know that's inconvenient for the witch hunt but it was. So what you are saying is you can't link me to anyone calling the 4 deaths in Karachi, including a diplomat that was specifically targeted, the greatest tragedy since 911 and calling for the Secy of State to be fired?

Look, I'm not in here jumping all over this because I agree it is overblown. I'm more concerned with the lack of response and reaction from the President after this and the recent tragedy in Algeria. Outside of some drone strikes, what's the plan here? Things seem to be escalating and Obama seems to still feel that Al Qaeda is on the ropes. I don't have much confidence that he's fully invested in what's going on. I hope to get some clarity on his thinking during the State of the Union.

In your opinion what should Obama be doing?

 

[Sand]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Where do you stand on the thousands of Americans and 100,000+ Iraqi civilians that would still be alive today "if different actions were taken?" Are you cool with Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Tenet, et al being brought up to Congress and hammered over their "actions?"

Saddam Hussein was exterminating his own people at something like 50k/year. Whether you agree with the military actions or not the US in Iraq has saved countless lives in the balance. A nice, convenient shortness of memory there. Sorry to interject here with facts. Please carry on.

 

[jamny]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

Yeah this was acknowledged as a terrorist attack as well. I know that's inconvenient for the witch hunt but it was. So what you are saying is you can't link me to anyone calling the 4 deaths in Karachi, including a diplomat that was specifically targeted, the greatest tragedy since 911 and calling for the Secy of State to be fired?

Look, I'm not in here jumping all over this because I agree it is overblown. I'm more concerned with the lack of response and reaction from the President after this and the recent tragedy in Algeria. Outside of some drone strikes, what's the plan here? Things seem to be escalating and Obama seems to still feel that Al Qaeda is on the ropes. I don't have much confidence that he's fully invested in what's going on. I hope to get some clarity on his thinking during the State of the Union.

In your opinion what should Obama be doing?

Clarify a strategy to the American people? I have no clear sense of his policy in the region. How about an update to what is being done to "bring those to justice" after the Benghazi attack. How about a comment about the Algeria tragedy. Reassure me that he isn't just ignoring things. Yes, I'm a simple man who likes clarity from my President.

 

[Sand]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

honestly whats the difference and why does it matter?

The fact that you would even ask this indicates that no answer will suffice.

 

[Boston]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

Yeah this was acknowledged as a terrorist attack as well. I know that's inconvenient for the witch hunt but it was. So what you are saying is you can't link me to anyone calling the 4 deaths in Karachi, including a diplomat that was specifically targeted, the greatest tragedy since 911 and calling for the Secy of State to be fired?

Events like this will happen regardless of who is in office...it's how the world works especially in that area...the difference here is the whole video nonsense (as well as a few other murky things)...on the surface it appears the Administration was in a big rush to use the video as the cause for this event which lead to the death of one of our Ambassadors (which I count as a big thing)...not only has that proven not to be the case but we have still yet to learn why this excuse was used and who is responsible for it... as usual in DC it's not so much about the event itself but the nonsense that goes on afterwards that turns into the issue...while their will be political idiocy on both sides I find it hard to believe anyone would not be interested in finding out the truth here...in the end that's all this is about...finding out the truth as to how our and why four Americans are dead and what can be done to prevent this from happening again...

 

[Stinger Ray]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

 

[timschochet]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

 

[timschochet]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Same mistake over and over but they didn't lie, they merely screwed up?Holy Christ on cracker

 

[Sand]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Usually I'd chalk up such things to general stupidity, and if this were my local yokel reps I'd definitely go there. The Valerie Jarrets and Clintons of this world are anything but. I attribute the chances of this being a monumental screwup at about 0. Way, way too much overthinking that goes on during crisis PR situations like this. This was simple obfuscation and delay during the political rush season. It has largely worked thanks to a compliant media.

 

[Fennis]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

W lied and said they took place because they hate our freedom.

 

[FlapJacks]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

Yeah this was acknowledged as a terrorist attack as well. I know that's inconvenient for the witch hunt but it was. So what you are saying is you can't link me to anyone calling the 4 deaths in Karachi, including a diplomat that was specifically targeted, the greatest tragedy since 911 and calling for the Secy of State to be fired?

Hillary did accept full responsibility....

 

[FlapJacks]

Look, I'm not in here jumping all over this because I agree it is overblown. I'm more concerned with the lack of response and reaction from the President after this and the recent tragedy in Algeria. Outside of some drone strikes, what's the plan here? Things seem to be escalating and Obama seems to still feel that Al Qaeda is on the ropes. I don't have much confidence that he's fully invested in what's going on. I hope to get some clarity on his thinking during the State of the Union.

Hillary's testimony seemed to indicate that the reality is the opposite of the campaign rhetoric...

 

[jamny]

Look, I'm not in here jumping all over this because I agree it is overblown. I'm more concerned with the lack of response and reaction from the President after this and the recent tragedy in Algeria. Outside of some drone strikes, what's the plan here? Things seem to be escalating and Obama seems to still feel that Al Qaeda is on the ropes. I don't have much confidence that he's fully invested in what's going on. I hope to get some clarity on his thinking during the State of the Union.

Hillary's testimony seemed to indicate that the reality is the opposite of the campaign rhetoric...

That's Hillary. Not the President. As I said earlier, I'm looking forward to hearing the State of the Union address.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

OH NOES! Obama said "Act of Terror" instead of "terrorism"! Fire up the impeachment mobile!

 

[Stinger Ray]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Usually I'd chalk up such things to general stupidity, and if this were my local yokel reps I'd definitely go there. The Valerie Jarrets and Clintons of this world are anything but. I attribute the chances of this being a monumental screwup at about 0. Way, way too much overthinking that goes on during crisis PR situations like this. This was simple obfuscation and delay during the political rush season. It has largely worked thanks to a compliant media.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Usually I'd chalk up such things to general stupidity, and if this were my local yokel reps I'd definitely go there. The Valerie Jarrets and Clintons of this world are anything but. I attribute the chances of this being a monumental screwup at about 0. Way, way too much overthinking that goes on during crisis PR situations like this. This was simple obfuscation and delay during the political rush season. It has largely worked thanks to a compliant media.

Simply illogical. From a political standpoint, no one would suggest this type of coverup.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Usually I'd chalk up such things to general stupidity, and if this were my local yokel reps I'd definitely go there. The Valerie Jarrets and Clintons of this world are anything but. I attribute the chances of this being a monumental screwup at about 0. Way, way too much overthinking that goes on during crisis PR situations like this. This was simple obfuscation and delay during the political rush season. It has largely worked thanks to a compliant media.

Simply illogical. From a political standpoint, no one would suggest this type of coverup.

Yet..that is exactly what they did.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Usually I'd chalk up such things to general stupidity, and if this were my local yokel reps I'd definitely go there. The Valerie Jarrets and Clintons of this world are anything but. I attribute the chances of this being a monumental screwup at about 0. Way, way too much overthinking that goes on during crisis PR situations like this. This was simple obfuscation and delay during the political rush season. It has largely worked thanks to a compliant media.

Simply illogical. From a political standpoint, no one would suggest this type of coverup.

Yet..that is exactly what they did.

The only ones believing this is a cover-up are the mouth-breathers of the GOP.

 

[jamny]

In your opinion what should Obama be doing?

Clarify a strategy to the American people? I have no clear sense of his policy in the region. How about an update to what is being done to "bring those to justice" after the Benghazi attack. How about a comment about the Algeria tragedy. Reassure me that he isn't just ignoring things. Yes, I'm a simple man who likes clarity from my President.

So, is this too much to ask for?

 

[Sand]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Usually I'd chalk up such things to general stupidity, and if this were my local yokel reps I'd definitely go there. The Valerie Jarrets and Clintons of this world are anything but. I attribute the chances of this being a monumental screwup at about 0. Way, way too much overthinking that goes on during crisis PR situations like this. This was simple obfuscation and delay during the political rush season. It has largely worked thanks to a compliant media.

Simply illogical. From a political standpoint, no one would suggest this type of coverup.

Illogical? More like SOP - on both sides.This one just blew up on them.

 

[sporthenry]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Usually I'd chalk up such things to general stupidity, and if this were my local yokel reps I'd definitely go there. The Valerie Jarrets and Clintons of this world are anything but. I attribute the chances of this being a monumental screwup at about 0. Way, way too much overthinking that goes on during crisis PR situations like this. This was simple obfuscation and delay during the political rush season. It has largely worked thanks to a compliant media.

Simply illogical. From a political standpoint, no one would suggest this type of coverup.

This. What is the gain here? Did they really think in today's society that the truth wouldn't eventually get out? If people think our President and the rest of our government is dumb enough to try this cover up on this, then we have bigger problems than this cover up. The only reason for the cover up is that it goes against Obama's claim that al-Qaeda is on the ropes. But I could have told you they weren't and they are going to Africa. And if this is really the only gripe, that Obama tried to mask al-Qaeda to keep up his narrative, then that isn't really much.

 

[Sand]

The only ones believing this is a cover-up are the mouth-breathers of the GOP.

Nice ad hominem attack. You must be a hoot at parties.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

Usually I'd chalk up such things to general stupidity, and if this were my local yokel reps I'd definitely go there. The Valerie Jarrets and Clintons of this world are anything but. I attribute the chances of this being a monumental screwup at about 0. Way, way too much overthinking that goes on during crisis PR situations like this. This was simple obfuscation and delay during the political rush season. It has largely worked thanks to a compliant media.

Simply illogical. From a political standpoint, no one would suggest this type of coverup.

This. What is the gain here? Did they really think in today's society that the truth wouldn't eventually get out? If people think our President and the rest of our government is dumb enough to try this cover up on this, then we have bigger problems than this cover up. The only reason for the cover up is that it goes against Obama's claim that al-Qaeda is on the ropes. But I could have told you they weren't and they are going to Africa. And if this is really the only gripe, that Obama tried to mask al-Qaeda to keep up his narrative, then that isn't really much.

Yeah, it really doesn't make sense from any angle politically. By far the most logical explanation is that the information was all over the place initially. Funny thing is, if you look at Susan Rice's MTP appearance, she heavily caveated all of her claims for that exact reason. Best thing to come out of this manufactured controversy is that Rand Paul has exposed himself as a complete phony.

 

[Lutherman2112]

please don't let Benghazi go away. I'm enjoying the dead horse humpfest.

 

[Insomniac]

Best thing to come out of this manufactured controversy is that Rand Paul has exposed himself as a complete phony.

Rand Paul exposed himself as a complete phony long before this.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

Did W lie after these attacks and say they took place because of a You Tube Video?

The word "lie" represents the disconnect between extremist conservatives and nearly everyone else who has taken a serious look at these events. On the same day that the deaths in Benghazi occurred, there were riots all over the Muslim world as a result of that video. It was therefore natural for the news media and our government to assume that the deaths were the result of that video. Obviously we know now that this was incorrect. But it was a mistake, not a lie. The "lie" part is wishful thinking by people who hate the Obama administration and WANT to find deliberate wrongdoing.

Huh?SEVERAL days after the attack Obama made statements on TV and to the UN and referenced the video. I suggest you read this to understand that he wasn't truthful about this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Yes I get it. For several days they made the same mistake i over and over. They screwed up. No evidence they lied.

 

[jamny]

Benghazi Senate hearing is on cspan.

 

[Fennis]

Benghazi Senate hearing is on cspan.

Im willing to be the Benghazi Senate is more effective than the US Senate.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/441/wddim.jpg

 

[FlapJacks]

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/150875_492416817468101_1165493521_n.jpg

 

[FlapJacks]

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r320/smoothsailing_02/hhhw.gif

 

[jamny]

The most damning part I've heard so far is when they admitted that there were no troops/support deployed to help the situation during the 7 hours of the seige. Not knowing how long it would last, why did they not send out troops as soon as possible? Maybe they couldn't have gotten there in time but how did they know how long it would last?

 

[tom22406]

The most damning part I've heard so far is when they admitted that there were no troops/support deployed to help the situation during the 7 hours of the seige. Not knowing how long it would last, why did they not send out troops as soon as possible? Maybe they couldn't have gotten there in time but how did they know how long it would last?

Great question that nobody seems to have an answer for or maybe this as well from the hearing

Under direct questioning by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Panetta admitted that he had no communication with President Obama after their “pre-scheduled” meeting at 5:00 p.m. EDT. The attack on the consulate had already been under way for 90 minutes at that time. Neither the president nor anyone else from the White House called afterwards to check what was happening; the Commander-in-Chief had left it “up to us,” said Panetta.

How does someone not call back to check on the situation?

 

[the moops]

the Commander-in-Chief had left it “up to us,” said Panetta.

Isn't that why the guy has the job as Secretary of Defense, to make those kind of decisions for the president?

 

[jamny]

the Commander-in-Chief had left it “up to us,” said Panetta.

Isn't that why the guy has the job as Secretary of Defense, to make those kind of decisions for the president?

yeah, but I would think the President would talk to his Secretary of Defense sometime over the next 5-6 hours to see how things were going. No time to just pick up the phone for a few minutes? Kind of an important situation.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Hillary approval at 66%.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Hillary approval at 66%.

 

[FlapJacks]

Hillary approval at 66%.

peepel r dum

 

[pantherclub]

God bless you guys