I've known from open source information that the CIA was operating out of the safe house for weeks . I also know that they were there recruiting anti-Assad jihadists .Even Milbanks admits that both his Compost and the Slimes had reported about a CIA presence there.

But ,it appears that the State Dept was the one who disclosed it during the testimony by showing the sat. photo of the compound.

Of course there is a CIA rpesence there, good God there is even an ASIO presence there, but it means nothing, these agencies spend their time intelligence gathering and may even send the occasional misdirected drone. Without boots on the ground they may as well be whistling dixie

Indeed . Last night Biden outright lied about not getting requests for additional security .

Politicians lie, I don't know why you think otherwise, it is all about spin, telling the truth or some version of it whilst telling no one anything. How you can think a capitalist in control is a good thing is beyond me, the last one absolutely screwed things up

politicians lie, I don't know why you think otherwise, it is all about spin, telling the truth or some version of it whilst telling no one anything. How you can think a capitalist in control is a good thing is beyond me, the last one absolutely screwed things up

As opposed to a generation of lawyer /politicians ? I'll take my chance on the capitalist.

Hello wingers:

Here's a little MORE from the hearing... In their right wing zeal to tarnish the president, they blew the CIA’s cover.

Silly Republicans..

Excon

YOu libs really ought to check out a fact or two before running with your silly taunts. The NY Times reported this on September 23rd (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0).


WASHINGTON — The attack in Benghazi, Libya, that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans has dealt the Central Intelligence Agency a major setback in its intelligence-gathering efforts at a time of increasing instability in the North African nation.

Among the more than two dozen American personnel evacuated from the city after the assault on the American mission and a nearby annex were about a dozen C.I.A. operatives and contractors, who played a crucial role in conducting surveillance and collecting information on an array of armed militant groups in and around the city.

Then last night the old fart threw the CIA under the bus... I doubt they'll take kindly to that.

The lies within lies multiply. Now the White House is saying in perfectly Clinton-esque style that when Biden said “we” didn't know about the security request from Benghazi he just meant himself and the president. This is pathetic. Does the State Department not report to the president? Was the national security adviser unaware of what was going on in Libya? An administration that must resort so frequently to pleas of incompetence is not one to be entrsuted with national security.



Obama’s Libya debacle: Willful blindness - Right Turn - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-libya-debacle-willful-blindness/2012/10/12/14d69f04-146f-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_blog.html?socialreader_check=0&denied=1)


A spokesman tells Foreign Policy magazine that Biden was telling the truth — he just wasn't speaking for the whole administration. The president and vice president, Deputy National Security Adviser for Communications Ben Rhodes said, were unaware of the concerns.

The State Department security officials who testified before House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa's panel Wednesday never said they had made their requests to the president, Rhodes pointed out. That would be natural because the State Department is responsible for diplomatic security, not the White House, he said. Rhodes also pointed out that the officials were requesting more security in Tripoli, not Benghazi.

White House spokesman Jay Carney made the same point in Friday's White House Briefing. The vice president “was speaking directly for himself and for the president,” he said. “He meant the White House.”



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/12/white-house-biden-was-speaking-for-himself-obama-on-libya/

Ridiculous, the suggestion here is that the President should micromanage everything, that he should be informed that an ambassador had made routine requests for improvements in security. If this is so he doesn't need his various Secretaries and advisors all he needs is memos and he can wing it

There was no protest in Benghazi, there was no spillover from protest elsewhere as this administration continues to argue.


Video footage from the United States consulate in Benghazi, Libya, taken the night of the Sept. 11 anniversary attacks, shows an organized group of armed men attacking the compound (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/12/video-from-benghazi-consulate-shows-organized-attack.html), according to two U.S. intelligence officials who have seen the footage and are involved in the ongoing investigation. The footage, which was recovered from the site last week by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, offers some of the most tangible evidence yet that a military-style assault took place, according to these officials…

The videos could also play into an expanding investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that is looking at whether security steps could have been taken that would have saved the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans killed that day. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, who is one of the Republicans leading the House investigation, says he hasn’t been given the footage.

In addition to the footage from the consulate cameras, the U.S. government is also poring over video taken from an overhead U.S. surveillance drone that arrived for the final hour of the night battle at the consulate compound and nearby annex.

Video from the compound’s cameras debunk the initial line from the Obama administration that there was a protest in front of the consulate on the night of the attacks, according to one of the U.S. intelligence officials who has seen the footage, and a senior Obama administration official familiar with what they show.

Lies and more lies from Obama and co. but go ahead, keep excusing them even as their entire web of lies is being untangled.

Who is excusing them? It is clear that some sort of arse protecting went on here, that the spin machine was fully wound up, sadly it is what we have come to expect of the White House no matter who sits in the chair

The problem is not that there was a CIA operation ongoing . That was the worst kept secret ever . It is the operation they were doing that the Obots are trying to sweep under the rug. During the Bush years we fought wars against Sunni jihadists in places like Iraq and Afghanistan ;and covertly throughout the ummah . However ,since the Obama adm . We have been schizophrenic ;waging a drone war against them while at the same time supporting their efforts in Egypt ,the greater Maghreb ,and in the Syrian revolution. The CIA mission in Benghazi was recruiting, training ,and supporting the efforts in Syria . It is quite possible that CIA trained jihadists took part in the attack on Ambassador Stevens .

Anything is possible, but given so many moving parts, and the complexity of the entire region. I sure don't depend on campaign spin to make a judgement no matter which side is spinning.

Hello again,

The fact that we were attacked SHOULDN'T be a surprise to the right wing.. Apparently, they thought Obama SOLVED the Mid East Crisis.. When they find out he didn't, they're saying that his entire foreign policy is unraveling... Boy, oh boy, is THAT stupid, if only because what Obama is doing, is the BUSH doctrine on steroids?

Now, I agree, that with the BILLIONS and BILLIONS they spent on counter terror, we SHOULD be way ahead. Unfortunately, LOTS and LOTS of those BILLIONS were spent right HERE, SPYING on US. Maybe, if we spent those BILLIONS on defeating the enemy, we might actually have defeated them by now...

The problem with OUR government is, it thinks that WE'RE the terrorists. Boy, oh boy, oh boy, is THAT backwards.. They don't think Al Quaida will attack, but they think WE will.

excon

Apparently, they thought Obama SOLVED the Mid East Crisis..
No ;in fact quite the opposite ;The President turned a winning hand into a wholesale chaotic retreat .

If only because what Obama is doing, is the BUSH doctrine on steroids.

That would be true if Bush pursued a policy of supporting extremist Sunni terrorist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood. But of course we know that isn't true . I had hoped he would continue the Bush Doctrine ;but alas ,he created his own in supporting Sunni extremism and his growing doctrine of R2P .

Maybe, if we spent those BILLIONS on defeating the enemy, we might actually have defeated them by now...

or perhaps if State Dept funding had been allocated properly like... ummm... beefing up security for our embassies in the days before 9-11-12 so that our Ambassador wasn't attacked ;and AQ flags flown from 4 different embassies. Perhaps maybe buying Prius and chargers for our embassies was money foolishly spent .

The problem with OUR government is, it thinks that WE'RE the terrorists. Boy, oh boy, oh boy, is THAT backwards.. They don't think Al Quaida will attack, but they think WE will.

This is true . DHS has a list of all these conservatives they have on their watch list . This adm has been extremely lucky .Twice the difference between a major jihadist attack at home was faulty trigger devices (the Christmas Detroit airline attack ;and the Time Square NYC attack) . The Adm also ignores the Fort Hood Massacre when they take credit for keeping us safe at home. They are obsessed with political correctness and that is how Major Hasan was able to commit his murders .
Meanwhile ,during my recent vacation ;I twice went through the x-ray zapping ,showing my naked body to a rent a voyer TSA agent . After both screenings I was subject to additional pat-downs . Why ? Because I was wearing hiker pants that had extra zippers.
So I agree our resources need to be directed against probable threats home and abroad . But also we need competent leadership at the State Dept who are more concerned about the security of their assets overseas ,instead of consciously putting them at risk to maintain a 'light footprint ' .

or perhaps if State Dept funding had been allocated properly like... ummm... beefing up security for our embassies in the days before 9-11-12 so that our Ambassador wasn't attacked Hello again, tom:

I thought we talked about YOUR party CUTTING the security budget from the State Department. If you were so concerned with their safety, you would have RAISED it, not cut it. Now, you want to pretend that they didn't do that, when they absolutely DID...

Wingers CUT, CUT, CUT, and when those cuts KILL, it's Obama's fault... Give me a break.

Excon

Umm none of the cuts are in effect yet . The State Dept testified that the cuts were not a factor in their decision. Finally ,the cuts are part of overall cuts to the State Dept budget that passed on a bipartisan vote. It is your side that is singalling out security . But the State Dept can easily allocate it's funding accordingly .

Our guy ain't perfect, but the shame is you think your guy is better. Heck he may NOT be as good as the guy YOU guys had before and he was a disaster. You guys said so!

I think the whole country needs more time to get over your last conservative before they get another one.

Amen to that

Hello again,

Republicans have no shame... (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121015) The right wing thinks that budget line items are simply MONEY. They DON'T realize that cutting them makes a real difference in people's lives.. When it's pointed out to them that it DOES, they deny it.

Case in point... They CUT the budget for the State Department, and think they did GOOD.. But, it resulted in LESS security for our people overseas, and SOME of them got killed.. Now, they'll look you straight in the eye, and tell you it's Obama's fault - that SLASHING the security budget didn't make ANY difference in these killings.. But, of course, that's ludicrous.
Republican Darrel Issa joined in cutting nearly a half-billion dollars from the State Department's two main security accounts. One covers things like security staffing, including local guards, armored vehicles and security technology; the other, embassy construction and upgrades. In 2011 and 2012, President Obama sought a total of $5 billion, and the House approved $4.5 billion.

In 2009, Mr. Issa voted for an amendment that would have cut nearly 300 diplomatic security positions. And the draconian budgets proposed by Mitt Romney's running mate, Representative Paul Ryan, would cut foreign affairs spending by 10 percent in 2013 and even more in 2016.

Excon

Cutting the budget had nothing to do with the security failures.The Benghazi consulate was never on the docket to be brought up to security standards;and as I already pointed out ;there was PC political reasons for the security decisions the Adm made in the ummah ;and particularly in Libya.

Edit.. this is Issa's response on 'Face the Nation' yesterday :
"In the case of our committee, we're– we're recognizing that there was 2.2 billion dollars in a discretionary fund that could have been used for security, still could be used for security enhancements throughout the region. Plus, the DOD, the military, if we need these things to keep our diplomats safe in these countries, we need to start spending that money and not claim that we don't have enough money.”

Hello again, tom:

I don't know how you guy's miss stuff.. You'll complain about how STUPID we are, but you don't connect it to FIRING teachers...

I maintain, that SLASHING a security budget DOES put people in jeopardy. Deny it again, if you wish..

excon

Yes I do deny it, and so did Charlene Lamb ,a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya

State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LRKGOrRkT4&feature=youtu.be)

yes I do deny it, and so did Charlene Lamb ,a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, in testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.Lamb is the person who denied requests from the top diplomatic security officer in Libya

State Department: Budget Had Nothing To Do With Security Decisions At Benghazi - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LRKGOrRkT4&feature=youtu.be)

No wonder there is a war on women

Yesterday Evita fell on her sword for the President. However ,her' take the responsibility ' statement will not end this.

Its not supposed to end it, only a thorough investigation can do that and not the Issa witch hunt in the house, muddying the waters for political gain. Now you may say the house has a right to get answers, and I agree but does their also have to be a camera to expose very sensitive information?

I thought you guys had learned from the Plame affair about mixing politics with objective facts.

Lol they were real time photos that the State Dept provided .

I am sure they weren't supposed to be broadcasted were they?

They were presented in open testimony . Republic members of the committee ;recognizing that there may be national security implications ,tried to move the meeting to closed session.

What are they afraid of they, might tell Al Qaeda something they already know?

That's the problem with these witch hunts to exploit tragedies in public in the name of investigations.

I guess discreet never crossed any ones minds?

I see a great difficulty in a system that has two court systems, and uses ordinary politicians in a judicial capacity

That's the problem with these witch hunts to exploit tragedies in public in the name of investigations.

I guess discreet never crossed any ones minds?

What's to be discreet about already public information? Try to focus your outrage on Team O leaking classified info for political gain and not what anyone can read in the NY Times weeks before the hearing.

LOL, no outrage on my part since everyone has a right to opinions, outrageous or NOT!

So this is how we support our guys in the field, denying their requests for help and telling the guys on the ground to "stand down" while under terrorist attack?


Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later was denied by U.S. officials (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2AQM1XqN4) -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

At that point, they called again for military support and help because they were taking fire at the CIA safe house, or annex. The request was denied. There were no communications problems at the annex, according those present at the compound. The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights. The fighting at the CIA annex went on for more than four hours -- enough time for any planes based in Sigonella Air base, just 480 miles away, to arrive. Fox News has also learned that two separate Tier One Special operations forces were told to wait, among them Delta Force operators.

That Tyrone Woods that ignored orders and to rescue his comrades? His father told Glenn Beck (http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/10/25/updating-glenn-talks-to-father-of-navy-seal-killed-during-assault-on-libyan-embassy/) that Hillary Clinton vowed to him to get the guy responsible for the infamous film we now know was not at the heart of the attack on Benghazi. “We will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted,” said Clinton.

Not "we will get those who killed your son," we'll get the filmmaker. And by golly they did, a few weeks after she ran ads apologizing for the film in Pakistan, the feds arrested the guy.

I can only imagine if this had happened on Bush's watch...

Hello again, Steve:

Yawnnnn...

Wake me up when Glenn Beck or the crack FOX News team reveals the coverup that Obama committed. If you're just now reporting that we were attacked by terrorists, Duhh.. Obama said so the next day. If you're reporting that mistakes were made, double duhh.

What ARE you trying to say?

excon

Ah, are you saying when you served you would have been OK with your calls for help going unanswered and doing nothing while your buddies died? Are you saying it's more important to get the film maker, guilty of exercising his rights, than the terrorists?

What are YOU Saying?

Ah, are you saying when you served you would have been OK with your calls for help going unanswered and doing nothing while your buddies died? Are you saying it's more important to get the film maker, guilty of exercising his rights, than the terrorists?
Textbook case of setting up strawman arguments - those that you said you hate so much.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position

Hello again, Steve:


What are YOU Saying?I'm saying that in the heat of battle, mistakes are made. I'm reminded of Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/15/memorials-set-as-ex-marine-gets-medal-honor/). He wrote a book so people would know the story of his brothers in arms who didn't survive the ambush in Kunar Province, Afghanistan.

He called for backup. It was ignored. Lots of his brothers died. It was bad. It happened under Bush. LOTS of those things happened under Bush. That's WHY we lost the war.

The KEY word above is LOST. That means we're STILL at war and mistakes are STILL going to happen.. No, I don't like it..

But, this started as some big coverup that Obama was perpetrating on the American public. He was LYING about something.. But, you (and FOX) found NO coverup. You found NO lies. You just found some people who died in battle and you want to make it the presidents fault. Well, it DIDN'T work.

Excon

Textbook case of setting up strawman arguments - those that you said you hate so much.

Actually I asked questions. This (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-662145-75.html#post3307828) is a strawman. This (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/war-women-662145-72.html#post3306275) is a strawman. Learn the difference.

Ex, you're about the only one who can't see the coverup.

Actually I asked questions. This is a strawman. This is a strawman. Learn the difference.Nope, neither of those contain what you do: put words in people's mouths then tell them how stupid they are to think that. It's an intellectually dishonest approach to debating and usually used by someone who has no other material. Why do you do that when you hate those types os positions so much?

Hello again, Steve:

What did he cover up, and what benefit would it have given him if he didn't get caught by your crack news team?

The only benefit I could possibly see, is that Obama wanted to maintain the fiction that he SOLVED the Middle East, like you guys think he did. That would be true, of course, if he had said anything like that, or intimated anything like that. Maybe he did and I missed it. I don't know. But, I'm happy to hear what you think it was.

excon

The right is famous for seeing cover ups and conspiracies in anything. That's why they have to investigate everything, but they hate lawyers. The flaw is always they do it themselves, cheap, ain't they? Loud, and cheap.

Nope, neither of those contain what you do: put words in people's mouths then tell them how stupid they are to think that. It's an intellectually dishonest approach to debating and usually used by someone who has no other material. Why do you do that when you hate those types os positions so much?

Dude, familiarize yourself with this (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite) word before throwing stones.

What did he cover up, and what benefit would it have given him if he didn't get caught by your crack news team?

Newsweek? CBS? Daily Beast? CNN? Jon Stewart? WaPo? You do know this goes deeper than Fox News don't you? To answer your questions, review the thread. Been there, done that.

Dude, familiarize yourself with this word before throwing stones.Yep, that's why I was calling you out on your hypocrisy.

All I have to say to the way this debate is going is are you guys dillusional or What?

OK I'll go out on a limb and say what is being covered up. The Benghazi mission (the adm. Never calls it a consulate ) was there to recruit and arm anti-Assad jihadists who then infiltrate into Syria through Turkey. That is the reason why the Adm. Stuck with the phoney video story for so long ,even as the coverup was unravelling before their eyes. The world press has already reported on this .Just waiting for the US press to catch up .

Hello again, tom:

That's what you call a coverup?? Really?? Sounds like they were just keeping state secrets. You DO think we should do that, don't you? I guess not if it's Obama...

You guys are so transparent..

excon

I tend to agree Tom, there was more than just ambassador stuff going on, and under those circumstances I wouldn't admit to any covert stuff either. What the CIA is supposed to give daily briefings of operations to the press?

I didn't want to raise that possibility but whenever the CIA is in the area something secret IS going on. I wouldn't tell a big mouth like Issa a darn thing either.

Yeah and I guess Fast and Furious was a state secret too. Arming AQ jihadist is not a policy that an administration that has a campaign slogan that claims AQ is on the ropes would want revealed right before an election... right ? Ex ,why is a video maker still in jail ? Is he collateral damage for the coverup ?

Hello again, tom:


The Benghazi mission (the adm. Never calls it a consulate ) was there to recruit and arm anti-Assad jihadists who then infiltrate into Syria through Turkey. Oh, now they're Al Qaida jihadists... Obama was arming the ENEMY? Really? Dude!

Yawnnn... Let me know when you get the coverup story right.

Excon

Yeah and I guess Fast and Furious was a state secret too. Arming AQ jihadist is not a policy that an administration that has a campaign slogan that claims AQ is on the ropes would want revealed right before an election .....right ? Ex ,why is a video maker still in jail ? Is he collateral damage for the coverup ?

We don't know what the state secret is, but we do know the one of the guys who made the video violated his parole by using the Internet.

Never seen such a high profile 'parole violation ' before . How convenient ! So he is tossed into jail for 6 weeks ; and his hearing is conveniently after the election .

Hello again, tom:

Oh, now they're Al Qaida jihadists... Obama was arming the ENEMY? Really?? Dude!

Yawnnn... Lemme know when you get the coverup story right.

excon

Oh I've got that part of the story right . There is only one more part of it to tie together .

http://www.investors.com/image/RAMclr-103012-standdown-IBD.jpg.cms

I know newspaper endorsements may not matter, but this one from a Las Vegas paper doesn't mince words...


Benghazi blunder: Obama unworthy commander-in-chief (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html)

U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in a well-planned military assault on their diplomatic mission in Benghazi seven weeks ago, the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. So why are details surfacing, piecemeal, only now?

The Obama administration sat by doing nothing for seven hours that night, ignoring calls to dispatch help from our bases in Italy, less than two hours away. It has spent the past seven weeks stretching the story out, engaging in misdirection and deception involving supposed indigenous outrage over an obscure anti-Muslim video, confident that with the aid of a docile press corps this infamous climax to four years of misguided foreign policy can be swept under the rug, at least until after Tuesday's election.

Charles Woods, father of former Navy SEAL and Henderson resident Tyrone Woods, 41, says his son died slumped over his machine gun after he and fellow ex-SEAL Glen Doherty - not the two locals who were the only bodyguards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration would authorize - held off the enemy for seven hours.

The Obama administration was warned. They received an embassy cable June 25 expressing concern over rising Islamic extremism in Benghazi, noting the black flag of al-Qaida "has been spotted several times flying over government buildings and training facilities." The Obama administration removed a well-armed, 16-member security detail from Libya in August, The Wall Street Journal reported last month, replacing it with a couple of locals. Mr. Stevens sent a cable Aug. 2 requesting 11 additional body guards, noting "Host nation security support is lacking and cannot be depended on," reports Peter Ferrara at Forbes.com. But these requests were denied, officials testified before the House Oversight Committee earlier this month.

Based on documents released by the committee, on the day of the attack the Pentagon dispatched a drone with a video camera so everyone in Washington could see what was happening in real time. The drone documented no crowds protesting any video. But around 4 p.m. Washington received an email from the Benghazi mission saying it was under a military-style attack. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA were able to watch the live video feed. An email sent later that day reported "Ansar al-Sharia claims responsibility for Benghazi attack."

Not only did the White House do nothing, there are now reports that a counterterrorism team ready to launch a rescue mission was ordered to stand down.

The official explanation for the inadequate security? This administration didn't want to "offend the sensibilities" of the new radical Islamic regime which American and British arms had so recently helped install in Libya.

The official explanation for why Obama administration officials watched the attack unfold for seven hours, refusing repeated requests to send the air support and relief forces that sat less than two hours away in Italy? Silence.

An open discussion of these issues, of course, would lead to difficult questions about the wisdom of underwriting and celebrating the so-called Arab Spring revolts in the first place. While the removal of tyrants can be laudable, the results show a disturbing pattern of merely installing new tyrannies - theocracies of medieval mullahs who immediately start savaging the rights of women (including the basic right to education) and who are openly hostile to American interests.

When Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney promptly criticized the security failures in Benghazi, the White House and its lapdog media jumped all over him for another "gaffe," for speaking out too promptly and too strongly. Prompt and strong action from the White House on Sept. 11 might have saved American lives, as well as America's reputation as a nation not to be messed with. Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better?

This administration is an embarrassment on foreign policy and incompetent at best on the economy - though a more careful analysis shows what can only be a perverse and willful attempt to destroy our prosperity. Back in January 2008, Barack Obama told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle that under his cap-and-trade plan, "If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them." He added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." It was also in 2008 that Mr. Obama's future Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, famously said it would be necessary to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - $9 a gallon.

Yet the president now claims he's in favor of oil development and pipelines, taking credit for increased oil production on private lands where he's powerless to block it, after he halted the Keystone XL Pipeline and oversaw a 50 percent reduction in oil leases on public lands.

These behaviors go far beyond "spin." They amount to a pack of lies. To return to office a narcissistic amateur who seeks to ride this nation's economy and international esteem to oblivion, like Slim Pickens riding the nuclear bomb to its target at the end of the movie "Dr. Strangelove," would be disastrous.

Candidate Obama said if he couldn't fix the economy in four years, his would be a one-term presidency.

Mitt Romney is moral, capable and responsible man. Just this once, it's time to hold Barack Obama to his word. Maybe we can all do something about that, come Tuesday.

Ouch.

Yet: Obama widens lead in Nevada - News - ReviewJournal.com (http://www.lvrj.com/news/obama-widens-lead-in-nevada-176737281.html)

Well, those Nevadans are probably stupid using your logic.

If you say so.

Obama will win Nevada . He will lose reelection. Nevada isn't in play really despite it's swing state status . What is surprising is that Romney is confident enough in PA. that he is still campaigning there forcing the President to expend resources in a state he should win slam dunk.
The President's campaign stops planned for this weekend is revealing in that he is campaigning in states he should've locked up already .

That being said ;the Benghazi growing controversy is the big hush by the compliant press and won't factor in this election in a big way. But there is still plenty of 'spainin ' to do .

Curious minds want to know:

Who were the attackers? Who led them?
Where did they go after the assault on the residence at approximately 9:30 pm Local Time. Where did they go after the assault on the CIA annex at approximately 2-4 AM local time?
What connection to the attackers is Ansar al Shariah?
What connection, if any, is the "Libyan Brigade" now serving in Syria for the Turkish Military Intelligence.
Who handled security for the residence; who handled security for the annex?
What does the video from the surveillance cameras at the residence compound and at the annex show ?
What of the report that there was a CIA drone overhead that retired and was then replaced by a second CIA drone(possibly armed ,possibly not )?
What of the report of an advance reaction team that was available from outside of Libya from EUROCOM?
What of the report that the President and SecDef Panetta were together in the White House Situation Room around 5 pm (11 pm Benghazi team) and were able to watch the assault or its aftermath in real time?
What of the report that AFRICOM General Ham was at the Pentagon that day?
What of the report that General Dempsey told General Ham to stand down the CIF team? What of the report that Ham was determined to defy orders and was in some way restrained by his 2nd in command ?
What of the report that SecDef Panetta ordered a special operations unit to prepare to deploy from the US? What decisions did the President make before he left on his Vegas junket ?
What of the report that the Benghazi CIA station was directed out of the White House by Counterterror Czar John Brennan ;simular to when Admiral John Poindexter and Ollie North ran the IranContra operation out of the White House?
Was Ambassador Chris Stevens part of the operation?
Why was the Turkish ambassador meeting with Ambassador Stevens just prior to the attack?
What is the relationship between the President and President Erdogan of Turkey that the two countries share knowledge and connection with Libyan mercenaries associated with Jihadist/Islamist elements in Cyrenaica?
What does Libya get for contributing mercenaries to the "Free Syrian Army".
Why did SecState Evita Clinton make comments about the FSA composition which makes it appear that the US has more than a casual interest in the outcome ?

Clinton calls for overhaul of Syrian opposition - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/clinton-calls-overhaul-syria-opposition-group-174913714.html)

Doesn't it look like the type of regime change tactics that used to get the Dems panties in a knot in the 1980s ?

A lot of questions there Tom but are you entitled to know any of it, leave it to a judicial process

Yes a lot of questions that need answering with facts and NOT conspiracy theories, or assumptions based on ideology. Funny how you have questioned so hard what's been done and spent the last year not questioning what the new guy WILL do.

So far he has said he will screw the lazy 47%, get a bigger stick and holler louder, and take MO 'MONEY from the economy. No questions from you guys.

The press would've been on Bush like white on rice over this . The only thing missing from this was a 'Mission Accomplished' banner during the Dem Convention . My questions for the most part are rhetorical since most of them have been answered by anyone willing to pay attention and not live in the Obama echo chamber .

Tom I think the difference between Obama and Bush was Obama knows when to hang out the sign, Romney is claiming victory already

Hello again,

There was a burglary. The president was involved. He didn't want anybody to know, so he covered it up. We EVENTUALLY discovered his CONNECTION to the burglary, and the coverup became obvious.

The POINT is that you CAN'T declare a coverup unless you KNOW WHAT was covered up. I've asked innumerable times on this thread exactly WHAT Obama is accused of covering up. My requests were met with silence.. Oh, tom made some outrageous accusation that we were arming Al Quaida, and they wanted THAT covered up.. But, to suggest that the DRONE president, the kill Ben Laden president, would arm our enemies is OFFENSIVE, and bears NO resemblance to reality...

WITHOUT an answer, of course, the charge that he covered up something is specious. In other words, the Republicans are trying to make hay, where there's NONE to make... But, Romney is LOSING, so they got to DO something..

This post was prompted by a FOX News headline this morning, stating, "The COVERUP continues". So, I watched. I was HOPING that the crack news team at FOX would reveal exactly WHAT it was, that was being covered up. Alas, and alack, they did not.

So, IF I were a low information voter, I'd KNOW Obama covered up something, even IF I had NO clue what it was. And, that's because the public relations arm of the Republican party, FOX, told me. The fact that a coverup simply cannot be alluded to, WITHOUT knowing what was covered up, is LOST on FOX. They just like the WORDS. And the low information voters suck them up.

excon

My only question is why would jihadists we were arming turn on us .Best guess is that there was a betrayal ;or less likely ,it was jihadists loyal to Syria and Iran . The rest of what I posted is fact .

This would be Iran /Contra all over if it wasn't a fact that there is no law against the policy the President adopted . It is actually more familiar with us arming Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s . Except the difference of course is that the Reagan Adm was very open about it's policy towards the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and that we were going to send arms to the opposition .

So why would the President rush to cover it up ? Oh I think tomorrow's election was a big enough reason.

Tom have you never heard of opportunism, of being used. Surely you are no so niaive as to believe tha Muslims in general, and jihadists in particular, actually share your political aspirations. You keep harking back to the past as if looking for some empiric victory to prove a point. This is now, circumstances are different in the middle east. There is no glory there, just death lurking. In Syria the rebels will take what ever help you give them, because if you don't help no one will, the same goes for Iran, but you backed the wrong horse when you deposed Saddam, you could have brought him in from the cold in the same way you did Gaddafi. Both are dead now and you don't have democracy in either place. You don't learn, but Obama has so far kept you out of it and this has to be a good thing

The President should give a hat tip to CBS 60 Minutes ,who withheld from the public his waffling comments about Benghazi to Steve Kroft which they had edited from the original broadcast. Had they been doing their journalistic job they would've released them immediately after the 2nd debate when the Romney challenge to the President was fresh instead of waiting until everyone was preoccupied with the hurricane in the final weekend before the election.

I'm sure Romney had nothing at all to do with this election eh Tom? :D You're so bitter we can feel it from here.

Not likely we will learn the truth for a while unless the Senate Dems grow a pair and put their country before Obama's marching orders.

Hello again, tom:

Accusing the president of LYING, and COVERING up, and ARMING our enemies ISN'T putting the country first. MOST of the country GOT it last night.. You wingers didn't. Bummer.

excon

The Tea Party effect did it's damage. GOP needs to retool and get away from the neo-cons.

Hello again, tom:

Accusing the president of LYING, and COVERING up, and ARMING our enemies ISN'T putting the country first. MOST of the country GOT it last night.. You wingers didn't. Bummer.

excon

Most of the country is a slim majority ,and Libya did not come up in the exit polls as a big topic . The press did their job... they ran cover well.

Like I've said repeatedly, if the media had done their job and held Obama accountable he would have lost in a landslide.

Hello again, Steve:


Like I've said repeatedly, if the media had done their job If I lived in a world where the ONLY news source that told the truth was FOX, I'd kill myself...

Better yet, I'd just take off my tin foil hat.

Excon

Come on ex, you know if even a quarter of the stuff this administration has gotten away with was done by Bush the media would have hounded him relentlessly, 24/7. I don't need a tin foil hat to see they've done this nation a disservice by not doing their job and holding them accountable. Instead, they were more interested in Seamus the dog. We've been bamboozled.

Yeah, I'm bitter about it. I can promise that in two years I won't have a full time job or I won't have health insurance without going through Obama's managed care and I'm not happy about it.

Hello again, Steve:

Nahhh. I don't think the media, except for FOX, are traitors. You make the assumption that the mainstream media LOOKED at the Benghazi story, but because they're in the tank for Obama, and even though they saw TERRIBLE stuff, they looked the other way...

You DO realize that you're indicting an ENTIRE profession.. But, since you indict the ENTIRE scientific profession, I shouldn't be surprised... In MY world, you'd HAVE to wear a tin foil hat to believe that.

excon

Explain CBS holding on to the segment of 60 Minutes they edited out that clearly showed Obama not calling it a terrorist attack;after it became a major campaign issue.

Hello again, tom:


explain CBSCBS is NOT the media. It's CBS. There are MORE media than CBS.

Excon

Posted on wrong question

CBS is NOT the media. It's CBS. There are MORE media than CBS.

Explain MSNBC. Explain a journalist 'moderator' going to bat for Obama in a debate. Explain Media Matters coordinating with the White House. Explain no one BUT Fox reporting on Fast & Furious and with few exceptions, Benghazi - two incidents where Americans DIED in service due to their own government's incompetence - while the rest shrug their shoulders.

Hello again, Steve:

Instead of ME explaining to you, why don't you tell ME why every media outlet in the WORLD is in the tank for Obama?

Isn't it possible that the media DID look, and saw NOTHING? Frankly, since FOX is the ONLY one in the WHOLE WIDE WORLD talking about it, I just have a very hard time giving it any credence...

Now, maybe if FOX had PROVEN itself to BE a real news organization, I might listen to them... But, all they are is the public relations wing of the GOP. Why the HELL should I care what THEY think?

excon

Chris Matthews was too busy being thankful that a hurricane hit the East.

Now, maybe if FOX had PROVEN itself to BE a real news organization,

Dude, I'd put Brett Baier, Brit Hume, Shepard Stewart and Megyn Kelly up against ANY journalist out there. Show us how they aren't "real news" people. And then do some actual comparisons of which media outlet gives a voice to BOTH sides the most and get back to me.

Truth is, most people bash Fox on hearsay like sheep, and you think leaning conservative is a bigger sin than a media outlet that actually coordinates with the White House. Dude!

Well now, the State Department is allowing access to documents on Benghazi... today and tomorrow when no one is in Washington (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/11/08/benghazi_documents_available_to_senators_only_when _they_are_out_of_town).


Benghazi documents available to senators only when they are out of town

Under pressure from senators, the State Department is allowing some lawmakers to look at cables and other documents related to the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, but only today and tomorrow, when most senators are not in Washington. …

“To facilitate your committee’s work, we want to offer you and other members of the committee the opportunity to review these cables and memoranda. This set of material contains classified and other sensitive information… Mindful of these concerns, the Department is prepared to make copies of these documents available for the committee’s in camera review.”

One senior GOP Senate staffer told The Cable that State is only making the documents available for senators and committee staff to view today and tomorrow, which won’t actually allow the members to prepare for the hearing. Staffers for committee members are also not allowed to see the material.

“Funny since no member is in town,” the aide said. “The timing and limited access clearly demonstrates the administration cares more about playing politics with the tragedy than accepting responsibility.”

This it the most un-serious administration ever. Will the media give them cover when the administration starts spinning the "well we gave them the access they requested" line? Of course they will.

OK ,up until this week there were 2 possibilities why the adm failed to immediately call the attack a terrorist attack . 1 incompetence 2. a deliberate misinformation campaign run out of the White House to Congress and the American people .
Now ,with the Petraeus testimony Thursday only number 2 is possible. What we learned is that CIA reports on the incident were deliberately edited to remove the name al Qaeda from the reports ;and that the claim that it was about a Youtube video was a monsterous lie that they not only told the nation and the world repeatedly ,including a major address to the UN... but the President and Evita also told to the families of the dead while they stood next to the caskets of the deceased .
When the President bristle that Ambassador Rice is being targeted he should remember that it was he who personally made her a target in this charade .
The cover-up is unravelling despite the adm. Best efforts to muzzle Petraeus.

I see Tom you have never heard of spin, putting the best or worst interpretation on a outcome, in this case an obvious deflection to minimised debate during an election campaign. The fact is when you don't have all the facts, it is better to run with what you do have than what you don't. In this case the obvious, a protest same as other protests. As investigations unfold other less obvious facts become known, and in any case they don't want to jeopardise investigation or assets by premature release of information, something that the public or the press have no interest in.

So now Tom you are spinning this for all you are worth, trying to drain the last drop of chagrin because you lost the election

It is clear from the testimony that they knew immediately that it wasn't a protest ;that it was a terrorist attack. The only spin was when Obama danced on OBL's grave the week before the attack. What we will learn is that not only is AQ NOT on the run as the President says ;instead we have become one of their patrons.

But Tom you always were their patrons, admittedly the relationship soured somewhat but OBL was a favoured son while the Russians were in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda was a monster of your own making and it bit you because you just could not understand what an affront your presence in Saudi Arabia was to Muslims. You still don't recognise what an affront you represent too much of the civilised world, you think you share our values but you do not.

I would not be surprised to learn that the CIA or some other clandestine offshoot of the US government has been arming or funding Al Qaeda in the megreb any more than I was surprised to learn the US was arming drug cartels in Mexico. It seems that every time something goes wrong we hear that the US had a hand it it

But Tom you always were their patrons, admittedly the relationship soured somewhat but OBL was a favoured son while the Russians were in Afghanistan.Al Qaeda was a monster of your own making...

That is a myth . We did not supply anyone in the OBL group . He self funded or raised funding for his operation on his own . It's possible that charge could be made if you were speaking of the Taliban... but not al Qaeda .

You still don't recognise what an affront you represent too much of the civilised world, you think you share our values but you do not.

No ,we may be an affront to you . But you don't represent the 'civilized world' .

It seems that every time something goes wrong we hear that the US had a hand it it Hope you are enjoying Leon Panetta's visit .

That is a myth . We did not supply anyone in the OBL group . He self funded or raised funding for his operation on his own . It's possible that charge could be made if you were speaking of the Taliban... but not al Qaeda .

And how did you separate out the mujihadeen, I would say you were not concerned about who you dealt with as long as they killed Russians so making that distinction is a joke


No ,we may be an affront to you . But you don't represent the 'civilized world' .
Hope you are enjoying Leon Panetta's visit .

So if I don't represent the civilised world, what do you represent?
http://www.smh.com.au/world/philippines-divided-over-us-return-to-subic-bay-20121119-29m4m.html
This is what we don't want here, your uncivilised behaviour.

I don't enjoy evita and leon swanning around here building up the idea that the US should have more influence in my country and this region. You forgot us for fifty years and suddenly we are important. We are not interested in fortress Australia. There is a myth promulgated by the americans that we need you to stem the yellow tide. Have you noticed what is going on in south east asia, the locals have bought into this nonsense and are arming themselves

They are rightly concerned... something about the Chinese sending troops to plant Chinese flags on their islands. Maybe that's it No ?

No they are more concerned about the moral degregation of their people which comes from associating with your military, having gotten rid of you, they don't want you back

Hello again,

GOP Rep. Peter King, today said that Susan Rice had an obligation to not just read whatever was handed to her on Benghazi, but to investigate further.

If EVERYBODY, INCLUDING Peter King, had QUESTIONED what they were being told back in 2001, we WOULDN'T have WRONGLY invaded Iraq, and 4,000 Americans WOULD be alive instead of DEAD..

Now, they're running around with their hair on fire about FOUR dead Americans in Benghazi?? That's NOT to diminish these losses, but where were the DOUBTERS when we needed them??

Oh, that's right. They can't remember past 4 years.. Well, that's why I'M here.

excon

There are some practicalities here, it's apparent Rice was on a tryout for Secretary of State, being given a chance to show a public face, she would have had no reason to question what was placed in front of her and little opportunity to investigate, in the same way a TV anchor reads what is in front of them.

It is convenient to attack her, as Obama said attack him, or is it they can't get to him

Hello again,

GOP Rep. Peter King, today said that Susan Rice had an obligation to not just read whatever was handed to her on Benghazi, but to investigate further.

If EVERYBODY, INCLUDING Peter King, had QUESTIONED what they were being told back in 2001, we WOULDN'T have WRONGLY invaded Iraq, and 4,000 Americans WOULD be alive instead of DEAD..

Now, they're running around with their hair on fire about FOUR dead Americans in Benghazi??? That's NOT to diminish these losses, but where were the DOUBTERS when we needed them???

Oh, that's right. They can't remember past 4 years.. Well, that's why I'M here.

excon

Aren't you about done with the Bush years? Whatever happened in 2001 is relevant only as a lesson learned. Susan Rice missed that lesson.

Iraqs possession of wmd was consensus opionion of the world's intelligence community ;including a special UN agency's . I thought the left likes consensus opinions.

Iraqs possession of wmd was consensus opionion of the world's intelligence community ;including a special UN agency's . I thought the left likes consensus opinions.I'm told we no longer should speak of this.

Iraqs posession of wmd was concensus opionion of the world's intelligence community ;including a special UN agency's . I thought the left likes concensus opinions.

A consensus of fools led by the chief fool, what happened to the mobile factories, did they just drive off into the sunset? What happened to that uranium purchased in Africa? Your position of leadership led to others following you, a leadership you know they are reluctant to follow again.

And it wasn't cheap: $6.6 billion in lost Iraq cash now accounted for, inspector says | The Envoy - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/once-feared-lost-now-accounted-iraq-inspector-says-153935856.html)
Add to that the exorbitant consulate costs.

And it wasn't cheap: $6.6 billion in lost Iraq cash now accounted for, inspector says | The Envoy - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/once-feared-lost-now-accounted-iraq-inspector-says-153935856.html)
add to that the exorbitant consulate costs.

Yes I imagine they have accounted for the missing explosives too.

Hello again, tom:


Iraqs possession of wmd was consensus opionion of the world's intelligence community So, it's the SIZE of the consensus that matters, huh? Susan Rice had a consensus opinion, too. It just wasn't as big. The principal is the SAME. She/you were told XXX by the intelligence community... She/you BELIEVED it. She/you said as much.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

So, it's the SIZE of the consensus that matters, huh? Susan Rice had a consensus opinion, too. It just wasn't as big. The principal is the SAME. She/you were told XXX by the intelligence community... She/you BELIEVED it. She/you said as much.

excon

Intelligence said it was al-Qaida.

Intelligence said it was al-Qaida.

After they said it was a protest, and what intelligence organization tells the public what they are really thinking? Not the CIA.

Probably still hasn't.

After they said it was a protest, and what intelligence organization tells the public what they are really thinking? Not the CIA.

Probably still hasn't.

Not so, Petraeus said they knew "almost immediately" it was terrorism. You're just changing the story like the administration did.

They knew, but that's not what they wrote as a public statement.

It's on a need to know basis, what part of that do you not get, telling the press and public everything just jeopardises the investigation and gives comfort to the enemy, how much comfort have they gained by seeing you in disarray, and bickerring among yourselves, it has done more damage than the actual attack.

You should be used to cover stories by now

I don't blame Rice ;she was the stooge they sent out there . I have to assume that she was an ignorent stooge who had no idea that she was a patsy .We already know the DCI report was altered by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,to remove the words "terrorism" and "al Qaeda" from the talking points... or at least he's the latest being thrown under the bus in this cover-up.

One problem is that Clapper in testimony ALSO spewed the company line about the video and a flash mob protest.

The question about Rice remain.Did she know she was lying before Congress ? Why was she chosen to make what was obviously a totally false explanation on the Sunday morning talking shows ?Why was proper security not present, despite repeated terrorist attacks in Benghazi on foreign diplomats? Why did Ambassador Stevens travel to Benghazi when his previous calls for more security had gone unanswered? Why was Gen. Carter Ham summarily sacked as head of AFRICOM almost immediately after the attack when talk that forces under his command could have gone to the rescue ? Why were two former SEALs on loan to CIA in Libya in the first place? They were not there the ambassador's security, and in fact disobeyed orders to stand down when they tried to rescue him. The adm knew in real time it was a terrorist attack .Why did they send out Rice with their lie ?

All good questions, Tom, no doubt they have been answered behind closed doors. Tom, don't hold your breath until the answers come forth. As I said IT is on a need to know basis, and you don't need to know. I don't remember that Constitution of yours conferring upon you the right to know, even the President only has to report once a year

Hello again,
all good questions, Tom, no doubt they have been answered behind closed doors. No, they're NOT good questions... Nobody has YET to tell me WHAT they're covering up... Without THAT, you got NOTHING!

Excon

No they got nothing?

Hello again,

Let me ask my right wing friends a question. How many contractors were killed in Iraq? How many in Afghanistan? Why don't you know? Don't you care? Where are the posts about them? Why are THEIR deaths any less important than the 4 in Benghazi? Could it be because FOX didn't TELL you to be pissed??

Frankly, I believe FOX and the Limp one are RUNNING the Republican party.

excon

So it's all a Murdoch plot, which came first Elliot Carver in the Bond Movie, or Rupert Murdoch? Art imitating life for a change

Hello again,No, they're NOT good questions... Nobody has YET to tell me WHAT they're covering up... Without THAT, you got NOTHING!

excon

I already told you what they are covering up.

Here's a refresher..
How US Ambassador Chris Stevens May Have Been Linked To Jihadist Rebels In Syria - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/us-syria-heavy-weapons-jihadists-2012-10)

Hello again, tom:

Couple things.

First off, there's NO direct connection, and the link is tenuous at best.. But even if it's true, what has the attack got to do with it? And why would saying the attack WASN'T an attack, cover up what was already revealed by your link?

I STILL don't see WHAT was covered up, or (if I buy your reasoning) WHY they'd even bother to cover it up.

You DID want us to intervene in Iran, didn't you? How DO you support a rebel cause? You give them WEAPONS, right? How do you KNOW the people you're supporting are on your side? Does it even matter if the guy they're fighting is YOUR enemy? Shouldn't WE intervene in Syria? Isn't the rebel movement in Syria as important as the rebels in Iran were?

I STILL see no coverup or a NEED for a coverup. I just see Murdock/O'Reilly directing the show, and shills like McCain and Graham mouthing the words.

You haven't answered MY questions above. Why don't you care about the contractors that were killed in Afghanistan?

excon

Consider Iran/ Contra as the closest parallel . A mission being financed by other nations so the WH doesn't have to be accountable to Congress.Now back then I had no problem with the concept of aiding the Contras . But that operation was illegal ;and many in the WH paid the legal costs for that action;including John Poindexter, the national security adviser under Reagan
Now I'm, surprised however that you would be comfortable with an op that funnels heavy weapons into the hands of radical political Islamists .

I am well aware of contractors being killed . It is NOT news that they were openly hired for the job they do in Afghanistan . There were many reports of contractors getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan .No one thought in necessary to conceal that info from the American public .To compare this to a secret op that is probably illegal is a stretch .

Hello again, tom:

Like I said, the link is TENUOUS at best. I'll wait till there's PROOF.

In any case, you're looking for scandal where, at MOST, there's incompetence and some bureaucratic bungling... And, to be focusing on it a month later seems to be missing the larger picture.

excon

Focusing on it a month later because the WH lied and played prevent defense until the election. The links are incomplete for 2 reasons . The first is that the WH is stonewalling . The Congressional investigations are not unified under a single committee so it is much tougher to connect the dots . The 2nd reason is one that you won't buy ,but nonetheless true . The American media is concentrating on the attack,whether it was terrorism or a reaction to a Youtube video ,and the sexcapades of Petraeus . I called all those side-shows to the real issue and they are . Remember ;Nixon was able to stonewall and coverup Watergate until way past the 1972 election . You can bide your time if you choose . I say there is a cancer in the White House .
By the way ;there are reporters in the foreign press who were telling this story in September .

So WH coverups and adventures in destabilisation are nothing new, when has the US not conveniently armed a dissident regime and every time it bites them on the bum. Libya is no different, the weapons will go to Al Qaeda and its affiliates, how much of it has already gone to Gaza

Ex, if there was nothing to cover up why did they lie to us? Why did Obama stand in front of the UN and lie? After all those years of "Bush lied" I'd think you would also want to know why this administration lied to us. Obama has been lying to us from the beginning, and you somehow think the American public is best served by dishonesty, coverups and incompetence. Dude!

Hello again,

Thomas E. Ricks, a Pulitzer Prize winning former reporter for the Wall Street Journal and Washington Post, was cut off of FOX News yesterday (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/26/fox-news-interview-guest-network-wing-republican-party_n_2192506.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=112712&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief). "I think the emphasis on Benghazi has been extremely political, partly because Fox is operating as the wing of the Republican Party."

Wall Street Journal, huh? Pulitzer Prize, huh? Yeah, he's a lefty all right. This is like the election... You guys THINK you're winning on this issue, but the reality is MUCH different.

excon

Yeah I've read Ricks ;have even incorporated some of his points in my critique of the leadership from the Generals rank . Everything has a political component to it . Basically Ricks used the same deflection about the Iraqi contractors that you tried to use. As I already pointed out ,the difference is that it was no secret that the military and State used private contractors. When the adm comes forward and honestly tells us what those contractors were doing then perhaps all the "hype" will die down. The reason it is still an issue is not because of FOX ;that's absurd. The reason it is still an issue is because of the way the adm is handling a cover-up of the event and the situation and policies that led to it.

Without facts and proof this whole thing amounts to more right wing chest thumping, and sabre rattling, and political posturing. We all know that facts won't come out for a long time on this and many other matters so why muddy the waters with speculation and assumptions that distracts us all from a bigger picture or can't you guys read a map?

Yeah that's what they said during Watergate... what was it?. oh yeah... a 'two-bit burglary' .

When the FACTS came out, people went to jail so it's a bit early on Benghazi to sentence people. All the FACTS aren't out and so far you are sentencing the messenger, and speculating.

When the FACTS came out, people went to jail so its a bit early on Benghazi to sentence people. All the FACTS aren't out and so far you are sentencing the messenger, and speculating.

Ah, so you don't mind the administration lying to you either.

Ambassador Rice told you that things could change as more facts come to light on ALL those Sunday programs you guys are hollering about.

Seems you guys ignored the truth and only heard what you wanted too. She never said these where facts, just a preliminary report. 4 or 5 times if I heard right. Why do you ignore THAT simple fact?

Hello Steve:


Ah, so you don't mind the administration lying to you either.

I don't think we have the same understanding about what a LIE is... YOU say because Obama didn't/couldn't close Gitmo, he LIED. I don't say that at all.

Obama DIDN'T lie. Rice DIDN'T lie. Them's is the facts. Live with it.

Excon

It's at least entertaining to watch you guys dance around the FACT that the government you elected is lying to you.

Hell the governments you have elected have lied to us too. We lived through them, and so will you.

Well at least we know there is clarity in the position of the left ;it's OK to get lied to by the most transparent administration in history.
Btw Ambassador Rice is a side-show too... the Adm is secretly thrilled every time they can deflect the issue. Susan Rice again proved herself to be the loyal foot soldier today ;and the President will be more than happy to let her be the focus ;just like the distraction of a couple weeks over Petraueus . I'm not particularly concerned with Rice's lies. I'm more concerned with what information the President had about the attack ;and the policies being pursued in Benghazi.

Hell the governments you have elected have lied to us too. We lived thru them, and so will you.

I love how you eventually find a way to justify lies and corruption.

I love the way a prolife congressman from Tennesee rides the tea party wagon to congress and wants one of his 5 mistresses to have an abortion.

People are flawed... some more than others.

I love the way a prolife congressman from Tennesee rides the tea party wagon to congress and wants one of his 5 mistresses to have an abortion.

People are flawed.......................................some more than others.

Now that Jesse Jackson Jr. has stepped aside, his predecessor wants the seat back. Mel Reynolds, convicted of campaign fraud and having sex with an underaged campaign volunteer (http://www.suntimes.com/16676857-761/mel-reynolds-announces-congressional-run-admits-mistakes.html), announced his bid to get his old seat back.

I bet he wins. Dems love their perverts.

Hello again, Steve:


I bet he wins. Dems love their perverts.You're still pissed off that you lost, huh? How can I help?

Excon

Hello again, Steve:

You're still pissed off that you lost, huh? How can I help?

excon

Trade me a running back.

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/beeler-obsession.jpg

Good one

By destroying Rice and having Kerry at State the repubs hope to get Brown back in the senate. No wonder those former Brown supporters of his losing campaign are raising hell about a potential Secretary of State nominee.

Post election politics since they want Kerry to be the Secretary of State.

G.O.P. Unites Around John Kerry for Secretary of State - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/us/politics/gop-unites-around-john-kerry-for-secretary-of-state.html?smid=tw-nytimes)


The Kerry boomlet adds another level of intrigue to the uproar surrounding Ms. Rice and has real implications for the balance of power on Capitol Hill. If Mr. Kerry were nominated and confirmed, it could open the door to a return via special election of Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who was defeated this month by Elizabeth Warren. A Brown victory — which is far from certain — could cut the Democratic margin by one and restore to office a man who was popular with his Republican colleagues.

False outrage fits you guys like a glove.

? Doesn't make any sense. If Kerry becomes SEc State then Duvall Patrick gets to pick his replacement until a special election... some 150 days after Kerry resigns from the Senate .

I no longer want stone face Kerry there than Rice. Rice was Kerry's foreign policy advisor during the 2004 campaign .Both their take on foreign policy sucks .

YOU may feel that way, but obviously repubs have a different idea about Kerry, and Rice, and Scott Brown.

Maybe the beltway Repubics are part of the mutual admiration society.

Or political self interest. The prospect of winning an election turns you guys on like nothing else except extracting a few more bucks from those you hate like those lazy 47%.

Hmmm Romey got 47% of the popular vote.

By the way, as I've already noted her status as Benghazi patsy Isn't the only concern (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/lets-talk-racism-697931-18.html#post3329407) about Rice. Environmentalists aren't too happy about her financial ties to the Keystone Pipeline and now this:

Rice holds stakes in firms that have done business in Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rice-holds-stakes-in-firms-that-have-done-business-in-iran/2012/11/29/c0a8ffe2-3a77-11e2-8a97-363b0f9a0ab3_print.html)

Surely her current holdings are a little more of a concern than Romney's stakes that had been in a blind trust for a decade that the media raised hell about (http://www.bing.com/search?q=romney+iran+investment&go=&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=romney+iran+investment&sc=2-22&sp=-1&sk=).


“This news adds to the list of questions about Susan Rice — not only her public statements, but now there are broader concerns about her past record.” Democratic staffers also said on condition of anonymity for the same reason that the investments would prompt questions of her if she is nominated.

Face it, Rice is a problem. She should not be the face of our foreign policy.

Hello again, Steve:


Rice is a problem. She should not be the face of our foreign policy. So, a vet who LIED about his medals in Vietnam would be a better face??

You DID believe the Swiftboaters, didn't you? Of course, you did.

Excon

So, a vet who LIED about his medals in Vietnam would be a better face??
That is certainly why he's be a terrible choice for Sec Defense.

Hello again, Steve:

So, a vet who LIED about his medals in Vietnam would be a better face???

You DID believe the Swiftboaters, didn't you?? Of course, you did.

excon

You're making the mistake tom corrected Tal about. I never said I wanted him, though he would sail through confirmation. Probably departing from his yacht in Rhode Island.

Never mind the fact the Tour in Vietnam was 1 full year... how did Kerry get out of there in only 4 months...

When I say YOU guys I mean the right as a collective, not you as individuals, which is hard to separate sometimes. YOU guys take things so personally.

Just to clarify.

You're talking to us, we're responding.

Consider Iran/ Contra as the closest parallel . A mission being financed by other nations so the WH doesn't have to be accountable to Congress.Now back then I had no problem with the concept of aiding the Contras . But that operation was illegal ;and many in the WH paid the legal costs for that action;including John Poindexter, the national security adviser under Reagan
Now I'm, surprised however that you would be comfortable with an op that funnels heavy weapons into the hands of radical political Islamists .

The NY Times reports that Obama secretly approved weapons shipments (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/06/world/africa/weapons-sent-to-libyan-rebels-with-us-approval-fell-into-islamist-hands.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&pagewanted=print) to Libyan rebels in Qatar, some of which ended up in the wrong hands.


The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.

The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration officials. But they said the United States has growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants.

The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar’s plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.

So the admin armed the Jihadists...

Might have been nice to know BEFORE the election.

Some of us did . Of course it wasn't in the Slimes ;and they are still sugar coating it by making it sound like it was a botched policy that the adm became alarmed about.
The truth is still far from the pages of the Slimes .
But at least they are now linking the attack to gun running . That's a start .

Canadafreepress has a 3 part interview on Benghazi that hits it .
Benghazi explained: Interview with an “Intelligence Insider” (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51346)

Canadafreepress has a 3 part interview on Benghazi that hits it . Most of what's in that rag isn't factual. It has absolutely no relation to Canada at all. Beware.

Of course they're sugar coating it, but it's a start. Maybe.

NK what they are reporting I was saying here weeks ago . So they obviously have not been my only source.

Most of what's in that rag isn't factual. It has absolutely no relation to Canada at all. Beware.

Always quick to attack the source but no worries, most of us can read and understand their motto displayed prominently on every page, "...Because without America there is no Free World"

NK what they are reporting I was saying here weeks ago . So they obviously have not been my only source.

And that darn right-wing rag the NY Times pretty much corroborated the interview.

Update... Evita faints ,suffers "concussion" but did not check into a hospital . Now it is doubtful that she will testify to Congress about Benghazi as Sec State... a fortuitous fall if you ask me.
Susan Rice took her name out of consideration for Sec State . John scary Kerry is in. He will be confirmed easily .

Looks like your foreign policy is blowin in the wind

update ... Evita faints ,suffers "concussion" but did not check into a hospital . Now it is doubtful that she will testify to Congress about Benghazi as Sec State ... a fortuitous fall if you ask me.
Susan Rice took her name out of consideration for Sec State . John scary Kerry is in. He will be confirmed easily .


A fortuitous fall indeed. I wonder how Lurch feels about Bashar (http://freebeacon.com/an-affair-to-remember/) now?

Kerry is regarded as weak and a meddler.But that could just be his 'nuianced' ways . His repeated visits to Assad are certain to be a debate in nomination hearings ;although I've never seen a photo of him bowing .

Also, there are reports that Kerry has acted as the middle man to pass letters from Obama to the 12ers in Tehran. That should come up in discussion too.

The positive is that eventually the Senate seat becomes an open seat. Scott Brown is waiting in the wings.

Also heard the Prez is considering RINO Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary. He will also face a tough confirmation hearing because of his membership (along with former senator George Mitchell and former Treasury Secretary John Snow), on the Deutshce Bank America's Advisory board. There are allegations that Deutsche bank helped launder money for Iran. Also Hagel tends to be on the anti-Israel side of the fence.

The rumor this morning is ex-Gov. Dukakis might get Kerry's seat. From bunny man to to tank dude.

http://www.verumserum.com/media/2011/07/Kerry-Bunny-Suit.jpg

http://mediakat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/dukakistank66.jpg

Dukakis ? What ? Another Kennedy wasn't available ?
Yeah Duvall would never appoint a Republic. But eventually a special election has to be held for the seat under a law Massachusetts passed in 2004 .That's why Scott Brown became a Senator after Ted Kennedy took his final swim.

Doesn't seem to be a lot of depth does there? Aren't there any old generals or bright young senators laying around or are they all republicans? I find it interesting Hillary might be a candidate for presidency and she doesn't have the good sense to look after her own health and what happened to multi-tasking? still State might take a different direction with someoneelse at the helm