In response to NO MO O's comment:

Since when does the CIA makes its intelligence public contemperanously with its investigations?

 

 

 

 

 

" It does make people understandably suspicious."

Well, no, not really. Though a few people pretend to be suspicious for their political games.

In response to NO MO O's comment:

How do you manage a tragedy?

insurgents armed to the teeth with RPGs and mortars attacked a consulat that is supposed to be protected by the host Government.  The insurgents attacked with an overwhelming force.  2 Americans were killed before the host country was able to muster sufficient troops and counter attack.  The US sent additional resources to the Consulate from the embassy when they were told that the consulate was under attack.  Hours later, the insurgents attacked again and 2 more Americans were killed by a mortar round before the attack could be suppressed. 

All things considered, the attacks could have resulted in more many more deaths had it not been for the actions of the host nation and the embassy.

Any other questions?

I want to know why Obama didn't put on his magic cape, fly out there, raise those people from the dead, then kill all the bad people in the world! That's what McCain would have done!

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

That's a good question.  Why didn't Obama do that?  He is God, after all.

 

McCain?  you are really lost.  Check your medications.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Maybe he's not the messiah the right hopes him to be...

In response to BilltheKat's comment:

Or, maybe we just want him to tell us the truth about Bengazi, instead of rolling out a new person to blame every couple of weeks.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Yup, hang on to that.

This is hardly in the news lately anymore, and that includes FOX.

This post has been removed.

In response to NO MO O's comment:

I think you do.  Politicizing this tragedy is wrong.  You are just trying to score ideological points. You don't have facts, you don't have alternatives, you just have the need to smear the liberals.  These tragedies happen all the time, but they only count for you if a liberal is in charge.

This post has been removed.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

I think it's a disservice to Ambassador Stevens.  The right acts like he was some delicate flower that should have been surrounded by swat teams at all times.  He would not abide by that - he was trying to build relationships with the Libyan people.  He could have easily holed up in Tripoli until this shiit-storm had passed, but instead he traveled to the most dangerous city in the world on the anniversary of 9/11 because his job was more important to him than his safety.  I think the guy is a hero. 

If you want to honor Ambassador Stevens, the story you should run day and night is the one about how the Libyan people found him and brought him to a local hospital.  How they held up his picture and prayed for him the next day.  How they stormed the Ansal al Sharia headquarters the day after the attack.  The Libyan police arrested 50 militants, and forced them to disarm and disband.  

A handful religious fanatics were able to storm a small consulate and kill the man.  That's terrible, but you're never going to be able to stop that - you can't stop that in Colorado, let alone 7,000 miles from home.  But the overwhelming support by the Libyan people - that's enormously telling about the battle to win the hearts and minds of the people throughout the region.  And it's a tremendous tribute to the Ambassador, himself.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to NO MO O's comment:

I think your ideology is the only reason you continue to beat the drum.  If you were of the opinion that the attacks were directly related to the protests, would you still be looking for answers?  What would the questions be?

 

This post has been removed.

In response to NO MO O's comment:

See - that's ideology.  Fox news reported there were requests for help that were denied.  The CIA says that's simply not true.  You believe Fox news is telling you the truth and the CIA is lying to you.  That's ideology.

I can prove you're wrong about Benghazi security - answer these questions and back them up with sources.

How much security was requested at the consulate (Benghazi specifically - not Tripoli)?

When was the security requested?

How much security was actually at the consulate the night of the attack?

 

The questions you think you're looking for have already been answered.

 

This post has been removed.

In response to NO MO O's comment:

What

would

more

security

have

accomplished?

In response to nhsteven's comment:

I didn't know that lying had an expiration date.

In response to slomag's comment:

Nice to see the liberals circling the wagons around their messiah.

the question is: who promoted the video as the reason for the attack?

it is a simple question that the Obama administration can't seem to answer.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

McClatchy & I answered your question.  Then I gave you a bunch of questions of my own, all of which you ignored ...

So what exactly do you believe?  That there were no protests?  Or that Al Qaeda orchestrated the protests?

You don't believe that the youtube video was covered on TV and in newspapers in the region?  Does that mean that Mcclatchy was part of the conspiracy to get Obama re-elected?

It has not been PROVEN the video was not involved - it is still the opinion of the intelligence community that Benghazi occured as a reaction to the protests in Cairo and throughout the region.

Why can't you source any news reports that back up your point of view?

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Not that this makes it right, or should I have to explain this, but everybody lies (especially politicians, and often). Dwelling on it, especially without all the facts out to make a particular episode clearcut, is usually a lame, partisan, and opinionated excuse.

Regardless, if you want to obsess on this partisan fueled overblown event indefinitely, that's your prerogative.

And then there was this little gem written by the Globe's editorial staff this week:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/12/05/president-obama-must-decide-whether-appoint-susan-rice-secretary-state/u72flbdEx8V7LjkTqSq8cN/story.html

I especially enjoyed this part:

While these remarks echoed talking points provided by intelligence sources, they undoubtedly served a political purpose: in the final weeks of the presidential campaign, Obama’s team had reason to dispel any suggestion that it had failed to protect US diplomats or that Al Qaeda-like groups were on the offensive. Rice’s remarks also seemed to contradict, for no good reason, what a number of Libyan and US sources surmised from the outset: that some militant organization planned the attack in advance.

One has to wonder why the Globe wasn't commenting on this whole mess prior to the election. This paper is such a liberal rag.

And what I want to know more than anything - who gave the order to stand down and why?

 

 

In response to zinsncabs' comment:

What stand down order?   Fox had a report from a source saying one was given and ignored by C.I.A. operatives who went anyways.  They went to the the attack site but only after the deaths of the Americans there.  Even in the Fox report there was a denial by the C.I.A. that this event actually took place.  CNN has other Pentagon sources that also deny that any such stand down order was given.  So there is very much contested information that there was such an order and in any event it was too late to do anything to save the people.  You are all caught up in a maybe story that would not have changed any of the history of the matter.  Don't you see a problem with that?

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

The CIA later denied that a "stand down" order was given, but Fox also reported that the CIA operatives in the safehouse were ordered to stand down - twice as I recall.  They then disobeyed orders and went to the Embassy anyway.  Moreover, Delta Force operatives were stationed 3 to 4 hours out, but never ordered in.  At a minimum, the whole situation is disgraceful.