An armed group attacked the US Consulate that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans.  In my opinion, who cares what they are called. 

In my opinion, the only thing that is unknown or hasn't been explained, is whether the attack was planned before the Video or whether the Video was the spark for the attack.

And finally, what difference does any of it make?  At the end of the day, 4 Americans were killed.

Odd that the righties don't seem to care about the Americans killed in Afghanistan as a result of reaction to the video.  Makes one wonder if the righties really care about the 4 Americans killed in Libya or are they just trying to use this issue to embarass the President, especially after they were so badly embarassed in the election.

The Benghazi attack is a legitimate issue of concern as its ramifications can be applied to American embassies and consulates in other regions of the world that are hot spots insurrection, chaos, and terrorism.  These facilities despite the best laid plans to mitigate attacks remain softer targets simply because their represent on in country option for terrorists in countries where there are active jihadists organizations. 

I think what the GOP has been on about regarding Benghazi is largely irrelevant, but there are questions concerning secuirty preparations, warnings, funding for security, and the response that need to be answered.  The apparent confusion and conflictng statements to me, are not the issue because the correct assessment did emerge albeit not for several days.  But the important thing is that the final assessment is correct and that we exercise a capability to do something about the attack, namely, destroying those responsible. 

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

In response to DamainAllen's comment:

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Petreaus' testimony isn't indicative of anything other than what he said today conflicted with he told congress on 9/14, something Rep King pointed out to him earlier today. 

Again, what you guys have been on about and the more substantive matters concerning embassy security etc going forward are different issues, and I don't hink anyone has said that getting to the bottom of this isn't important.  I certainly haven't, so its not about me taking a position that is the last standing to take, I feel the way I feel based on the facts, not political innuendo that was clearly viewed as an issue that could swing the election based on when the act in question was called terrorism. 

[/QUOTE]

Drop the video excuse.  that was a lie from the beginning.

[/QUOTE]

Prove it.  But you can't.  And you know it.  So who is lying about lying?  You and people like you.

In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

I care about how our country is percieved after foreign countries were telling us what happened and we chastized them and maintained an inaccurate story for some reason.

I care about the USA and all of our citizens!

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This is the definition of a non-controversy.

The only people trying to spin gold out of this dirty straw are those looking to score political points - either before the election or now after they've lost.

What's worse is that the aftermath has nothing whatsoever to do with the main question: how risky of a job is that of a foreign service officer?  According to ex-envoy to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, the risk of violence is part of the gig, same as with the military services.

dupe 

This post has been removed.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

I keep proving it time and again ...

The source says there were some 20 different intelligence reports indicating the Cairo film might be responsible. The CIA eventually disapproved all those reports, but not until after Petraeus’ initial briefings to Congress in which he discussed all possibilities, the source said. “All those other reports got disproved over time,” the source says Petraeus told him.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/15/source-petraeus-wants-to-clear-up-misrepresentations-of-what-he-told-congress/

20 different intelligence reports!  That's a heck of a lot better than a facebook posting and three emails.  How are you avoiding this reality?  Do you think this story is false, or do you discount 20 different intelligence reports blaming the video?

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to jmel's comment:

And why do you think Romney dropped Benghazi as a theme in his campaign?  Maybe because he was briefed better than you?

In response to jmel's comment:

1) This meets my definition of a terrorist act, but I wouldn't call Ansar al Sharia a terrorist organization.  I think it is (was) more of a group of Libyan militants with easy access to RPGs who are always looking for an excuse to attack something.  I wouldn't be surprised if they had no idea the Ambassador was even at the consulate.

2) I think this attack was planned in a matter of hours - probably as a result of the violent protests in Cairo.

3) It was not Al Qaeda - some of the attackers may have had ties to Al Qaeda, or Hamas, or Hezbollah.   But it had more to do with Cairo (yes, and the video) than it did bin Laden or the original 9/11.

4) If the narrative had been that we were attacked on 9/11 as revenge for bin Laden, or something to that affect - I don't think it would have made any difference in the election.  It might have even helped Obama - if this had been a calculated, co-ordinated attack, planned for weeks or months, and the best they could do is kill 4 Americans in the most violent place on earth, 5,000 miles from US soil;  that might have actually illustrated how weak they had become.  No modern president has escaped without some sort of terrorist attack on their watch - Benghazi is nothing compared to 9/11, the '98 embassy bombings, Beirut, Iran hostage crisis, etc, etc. 

Now my question for you is what would you accept as evidence that there was no coverup? You won't take 20 intelligence reports implicating the video - is there anything that would make you stop and re-think your position?

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.