There were far more attacks on US embassies under Bush but nobody cared or try to make political hay out of it:

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/14/krauthammer-whitewashes-bushs-history-to-bash-o/189890

 

http://www.bartcop.com/hillary-embassy-funding_n.jpg

 

And who cut the funding for embassy security?  It was Republicans:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

 

 

 

But, as always,  BLAME OBAMA!

In response to tvoter's comment:

 

Stock response.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/07/obama-was-absent-during-benghazi-attack-shocking-truths-emerge-at-second-senate-libya-hearing/

“Did you have any further communications with him that night?” Ayotte asked Panetta.

“No,” said Panetta.

“Did you have any other further communications? Did he ever call you that night to say how are things going, what’s going on, where’s the consulate?” asked Ayotte.

“No,” said Panetta. “But we were aware as we were getting information about what was taking place there, particularly when we got information that the ambassador, his life had been lost, we were aware that that information went to the White House.”

“Did you communicate with anyone else at the White House that night?” asked Ayotte.

“No,” said Panetta.

“No one else called you to say: How are things going?” asked Ayotte.

“No,” said Panetta.

Barely twenty minutes later, under questioning from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, General Dempsey and Defense Secretary Panetta admitted that military assets had not been used at all in the attack. Why?

“Was any DoD asset–aircraft or individual soldier–ever sent or put in motion to help these people before the attack was over?” asked Republican senator Lindsey Graham. “My question is did anybody leave any base anywhere to go to the aid of the people under attack in Benghazi, Libya, before the attack ended?”

“No,” Panetta responded. “Because the attack ended before they could get off the ground.”

“Okay, and we didn’t know how long it would last,” Graham added.

Ten minutes later, Dempsey admitted to being shocked that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hadn’t known about the diplomatic cable from Ambassador Chris Stevens pleading for help prior to the attacks, once more under questioning from Graham:

And speaking of Clinton, after another 30 minutes, another bombshell emerged: Secretary of Clinton hadn’t corresponded with the military or Department of Defense at all about the Benghazi attacks. In fact, neither Dempsey nor Panetta had any conversations with Clinton.

Republican Ted Cruz asked both Leon Panetta and Martin Dempsey, “In between 9:42 p.m., Benghazi time, when the first attacks started, and 5:15 am, when Mr. Doherty and Mr. Woods lost their lives, what converations did either of you have with Secretary Clinton?”

“We did not have any conversations with Secretary Clinton,” Panetta responded.

“And General Dempsey, the same is true for you?” Cruz asked. Dempsey confirmed this.

Given these revelations, one wonders in what possible context the previously photographed meeting between President Obama and his advisers on national security could have taken place. Or, if that meeting did concern Benghazi, why the President showed such little interest in responding to the crisis in real time.

In response to tvoter's comment:

I could care less, but I don't.

I never said 'reps did worse'.  You did.

'Coward', eh...?   A little much for such a third-rate "scandal".  It would be an insult...if anyone took you at all seriously.

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

How deflating.

Spoken like the true little apparatchik that you are.

In response to StalkingButler's comment:

 

 

Might as well just say

 

 

h-he-he-h-h-heh-h-h-heh

This post has been removed.

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

And, the right response.

 

this, again, is why the left cannot be trusted with our security. They simply don't care.

 

"what difference does it make?"

 

 

 

Because it's his job. It's what we're paying him to do. You do know what a job is, don't you?

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

So, Obama is told at the beginning "the American Consulate in Beghazi is under attack" he says "ok", and gives no direction nor does he appear to care enough to even ask for updates. the attack continues for 12 hours and 4 Americans are murdered.

The left say's "there's nothing wrong with that" and "you conservatives are just trying to make something out of nothing"!

geez, this is the low of lows for protecting the brand!!

In response to tvoter's comment:

Your characterization doe not match up with the facts. 

The attack commenced at 9:42 P.M.. At 10:32 Panetta was notifed. Obama was notified at 11:00 P.M.. 11:30 P.M. personnel were evacuated, Stevens was already dead.  A security team was dispatched at 1:30 A.M. and a second attack killed two of them at 5:15 A.M.  European based assets get there after the fighting and evacuation.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/09/world/africa/libya-benghazi-timeline

So Obama learned of the event after the ambasador was killed and defensive actions were initiated thereafter.  So how is he to blame for the event?  What more could have been done?

Sure seems like right wingers are just looking to score political points over an unfortunate tragedy...

 

 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

So, you have no problem with the POTUS being told our consulate is under attack but, he doest engage or even ask for updates?

When he was notified at 11 they didnt know Stevens was dead. There is a second wave attack; but, he doesnt even get informed of it.

There is reason for alarm in the POTUS's response and characterists of what happened the next day because he wasnt engaged.

That is a problem. Every leader knows those that follow you will only exhibit the amount of urgency and intitiative shown by the leader!!

If my leader is unconcerned and apathetic why should I be any dfferent?

 

In response to tvoter's comment:

What could have been done differently? That's the problem with your line of attack: complaints for no real purpose.  You hate Obama, but you should have some fact to hate him for.  The situation was addressed as best as possible with the assets available.  And yet you still complain.  It's just the politics of hate...  You are quite trasparent. 

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

That's where you are wrong. I like Obama, I just disagree with his politics and I set a high bar for leadership that IMHO he has not met.

When Americans diplomats are attacked by armed groups overseas; I expect him to be engaged and aware of every aspect of it during the event and until it is completed!

Why is that asking too much of the Commander in Chief??

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/07/Dereliction-of-Duty-Obama-Did-Nothing-to-Save-American-Lives-in-Benghazi--and-Lied-About-It

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.

Panetta’s testimony directly contradicts President Obama’s own claim to have issued “three directives” as soon as he learned “what was going on” in Benghazi. As he told a Denver reporter in October:

I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure we are securing our personnel and that we are doing whatever we need to. Number two, we are going to investigate exactly what happened and make sure it doesn't happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice.

That same claim was subsequently repeated by other Democrats, including Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, who came to the president’s defense. But if those directives were indeed given--and proof has never been produced--they were given long after the attack, not while the attack was going on, during which time the president did nothing.

Panetta and Dempsey also admitted, under questioning by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), that they were not in touch with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the attacks, and did not receive a request for help from the State Department. Dempsey also testified that he had been “surprised” at Clinton’s testimony last month that she did not know of an urgent cable from Ambassador Stevens last August about the dire security situation.

To borrow a metaphor from the 2008 Democratic primary campaign: when the 3 a.m. call came (at 5 p.m. in the afternoon), neither Clinton nor Obama were there to respond.

Panetta was also forced to admit, in the face of vigorous questioning by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), that no military action at all had been taken to intervene in Benghazi after the attack had begun, promising only that a similar lapse would not happen again.

Later, on Thursday afternoon, during Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan’s confirmation hearing to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) demanded to know why the administration failed to interview a suspect in the attack.

Brennan’s response was merely that the Tunisian authorities who had arrested him “did not have a basis in their law” for allowing the U.S. to question him about the attack.

In sum: President Obama did nothing to save Americans under attack from terrorists. His Secretary of Defense did nothing. His Secretary of State did nothing. The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did nothing. His Deputy National Security Adviser defended doing “nothing” to help bring the perpetrators to justice. And the entire administration participated in an effort to cover up the truth. Because there was an election to be won.

 

Oh for the love of...

It's his JOB to make the BIG DECISIONS. This was a BIG DECISION and, like the Clinton ad suggested would happen during the Democrat primaries, Obama was MISSING. He FAILED. He is an ABSENT PRESIDENT. We would be better off with HONEY BOO BOO as president (as long as it wasn't past her bedtime.) Nevermind! We would be JUST AS WELL OFF with HONEY BOO BOO as president because apparently he has the SAME BEDTIME as HONEY BOO BOO!

 

 

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

Yu are SOOO right.  Why interupt Obama's singing and dancing on the stage with Jay-Z WHEN HIS VERY OWN APPOINTED AMBASSADOR IS BEING KILLED AND DRAGGED THROUGH THE STREETS OF BENGAZI?????

 

Jeepers airhead, give it a rest.

In response to tvoter's comment:

Goalpost shifting. How lame.

Originally, you folks were handwringing about the fact that Obama was not personally planning operational details.

Now that you were forced to admit that Presidents do not plan the specifics of combat missions, but make the big decisions like firing General MacArthur for disobeying the general plan....

....you're reduced to claiming Obama didn't "care" about Benghazi?

 

You seem glad those men died. Their deaths let you smear Obama. You are truly scum.

In response to Reubenhop's comment:

Well of course he isn't. Sadly, Fox trained the bottom feeders here all too well: They think that simply by saying it is Obama's fault makes it Obama's fault.

 

 

This post has been removed.

In response to airborne-rgr's comment:

Right. An ambassador is surrounded by hostile troops in a house, and Obama DELEGATES what, exactly?  What did he delegate?

Obama was MIA on the issue, irregardless of outcome.  We cannot afford leadership that is that weak.

Maybe Obama needed to immediately consult with Jay-Z and Beyonce to see if they had any contacts in Libya.

In response to StalkingButler's comment:

<<...laughing AT you, not WITH you...>>

Some on the right need their rags changed....