Benghazi Mom Kept Out of Ceremony Honoring Her Son, Told She’s “Not Immediate Family”

If this had happened in 2007, Pat Smith would be sitting across the table from every news anchor in the business. But it’s 2013. It’s Obama Time. And the media gears up its weapons of mass distraction and covers up obscenities like this.

Pat Smith, the mother of Sean Smith, who was murdered in Benghazi, has been the most vocal member of the Benghazi families in demanding answers. And for that she has been punished, not with an IRS audit yet, but by trying to keep her away.

“When I went to the casket ceremony they told me that there was going to be an award and that they would send for me, that they would get me over there so I could witness the award. They didn’t do it. And not only did they not do it… He lies. He lies and so do everyone who’s surrounding him. They’re not telling the truth. And I don’t know why… They told me I was not immediate family. I have that in writing. They were not going to send for me.”

I would love an explanation from Obama Inc why the mother of a son is no longer considered immediate family. I realize she’s not gay or transgender, which are the favorite kind of Obama families, and we’re shortly going to be switching to “Partner 1″ and “Partner 2″, European style, but I had not been informed that mothers and sons were no longer considered family.

But many are the achievements of Obama. After leaving her son to die, the great folks over at Obama Inc. told his mother that she isn’t family.

  • rocksblues

    This just gets more and more ridiculous everyday that this administration is in power.

    • Bert

      It is not really “ridiculous” but rather ominous. We have now reached the point where Obama is openly and blatantly evil in implementing his police state. This process has been steadily creeping up on us from the start of his first term.
      Too many Americans still remain puzzled and confused in the face of a clear Obama agenda to take down America and turn over control to a combination of radical leftists and radical Jihadists. This prospect is too awful to contemplate and I fear that too many of us are still in denial.
      We may need to resist with civil disobedience and perhaps more.

      • Geoffrey Britain

        I was with you until I got to, “turn over control to a combination of radical leftists and radical Jihadists”. Radical leftists (not pacifistic liberals, the left’s useful idiots) and jihadists are both totalitarian but TOTAL enemies. Multicultural atheists and fundamentalist, monotheist theologists will not tolerate each other, once their current reason for doing so no longer applies.

        Currently, they are each using the other in a semi-covert, cultural war of aggression against traditional Western elements.
        The goal is the cultural, economic and military destabilization of the
        West. Both view the Western conservative right as a far greater obstacle to the
        implementation of their agenda and ideology than the other. And they
        are both right in that assessment.

        But Islam lacks the logistical resources to defeat the committed leftists of the Far Left, who are NOT afraid of Islam, real
        leftists have no reluctance to use violence and are simply biding their
        time; when the West is theirs, they will turn and deal with Islam.

        • Drakken

          The leftist fear the muslims and will appease them at every turn, the leftist and ,muslims are scared to death of the nationalist who once they awake from the slumber they are in, will bring a long overdue reckoning. Think Balkans on steroids.

          • Geoffrey Britain

            Not so. You are failing to distinguish between a leftist and his dupes, liberals. Liberals certainly fear Muslims. Dedicated leftists do not. Their silence and apparent non-confrontational stance is intentional. The Balkans are an excellent example as is Chechnya. But not just an example of nationalist reprisal. Those conflicts and prior ones, also demonstrate that real leftists have no reluctance to use violence. Given that reality, the only explanation that fits is that they are simply biding their time; when the West is theirs, they will turn and deal with Islam.

          • Drakken

            Very good points Geof, but as history has proved time and time again, nationalism is on the rise and the more the left/libs/progressives/Marxist/muslim coexist and support each other, the more our wrath will be that much more vengeful and ruthless. Make no mistake, armed conflict is coming and it won’t be 20-30 years down the road, it is upon us now, and an incident away, and there won’t be anything govts will be able to do to stop it once that pandoras box is opened and no amount of dead bodies to close it again until islam and communism is completely and utterly driven from our lands. I hope to God I am wrong, but history bears me out on this. Our problem is that leftist/libs,progs/marxist/muslims think that we are too civilized and weak in the west to wreak total and utter destruction upon them, they could not be more wrong.

          • Geoffrey Britain

            While I agree that armed conflict may well be coming sooner rather than later, my perception is that you are exaggerating both the rise of nationalism and the ability of what you term ‘nationalists’ “to wreak total and utter destruction” upon the leftist/libs,progs/marxist/muslims.

            Currently, if civil war broke out in the US, the US military would back the ‘lawfully elected’ federal government. Congressional Republicans are not, at this point, going to support armed rebellion, so there would be no ‘legal’ basis for rebellion.

            Note; I understand the political rationale for rebellion and even mostly agree but as a practical matter, until political prisoner internment camps are being built and filled, the US military is going to back the feds. And no amount of privately held rifles and pistols is going to stop tanks, helicopters, planes and trained infantry.

            What we both pray won’t happen, may well happen but won’t IMO happen for some time. There are two scenarios that could precipitate civil war; the fiscal collapse and sovereign bankruptcy of the US and West…or a successful nuclear terrorist attack upon a major US city. In either case, nationwide, near permanent martial law would be declared.

            In such a case, key parts of the Constitution could be declared ‘null and void’ for the ‘duration of the emergency’. If Obama or his democrat successor start dismantling the Constitution, nationalizing industries, seizing American private assets for ‘redistribution’ in the name of social justice, disbanding Congress and the Supreme Court to ‘rule by executive decree’… then the second American revolution will begin.

          • Drakken

            Geof, what I am talking about is what is going to happen in Europe, and if the economy crashes here in the US, the exact same thing could very well happen here. As for the US military, you do know they take an oath, as I have, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic right? The US military will not openly engage US citizens or the military would have an open revolt in the ranks because the average Soldier, Sailor or Marine isn’t going to open fire on his own kin, so the tanks and aircraft point would be moot. There is the other fact that that over 150 million Citizens own and bear arms and won’t go quietly into the night, especially if LEO’s goes into their backyards.

          • Geoffrey Britain

            Europe is another matter, though if Europe falls it will be because it submits, which is an entirely different thing from being conquered.

            The US military has indeed taken an oath to the Constitution and the ‘lawfully elected’ federal government will insist that it is following our ‘living’ Constitution. Absent undeniably illegal and completely beyond the pale orders, the majority of the US military will obey orders from the ‘lawfully elected’ government.

            I would remind you of Kent State before insisting that US soldiers will not fire upon US citizens. I would also remind you of the 1932 Bonus Army incident when US Army troops under the command of Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur fired upon and killed peacefully protesting WWI veterans.

            That 150 million may not go quietly into the night but neither are they wishful of “death by cop” for which facing tanks, Apache helicopters and fighter jets is a sure prescription…

          • Drakken

            The Constitution is a dead document, period, not a living one, it means what it says and it does not change with time. You also forget there are over 20 million veterans, so who do you think has the upper hand in a war of attrition? You folks in the big cities might have a problem with a govt takeover, but rural America is whole different story.

          • Geoffrey Britain

            The relevance of the Constitution being inaccurately considered a living document is the flexibility it gives the left to advance its agenda while claiming it does so legally and legitimately. That is important because it allows the military to stay out of the political fight, which its subservience to the civilian sector of our society demands.

            I’m one of those 20 million veterans and the great majority of us are well past our fighting years. At 64, Vietnam vet, I could fight in a battle but could not physically handle the stresses of a campaign.

            Rural America does NOT possess the natural protection of Vietnam’s jungles, nor of Afghanistan’s rugged mountains. An armed rebellion would last longer in the big cities than in America’s countryside. Were you thinking rationally, you’d realize that.

        • putthehammerdown

          Leftists are poseurs who talk a good game , but in the end are total wusses. When faced with an enemy that cuts peoples’ heads off, [and then brags about it] sanctions the public raping of women seen as HARAM ,and uses the Force of Crowds to achieve their aims, what do you imagine Progs. in this country are going to do when faced with The Real Thing ?
          Mass-Pants peeing, involuntary feces emissions, and projectile vomiting will be followed by Wholesale rearword scrambling.
          …and Barry won’t be ‘leading from the rear’, when it happens.

      • catherineinpvb

        No question as to ‘ominous’ – and worse. The sheer, unbounded arrogance and day-to-day petty smugness (NOT the stuff of ‘Authentic’ Leadership) that accompanies this Administration’s daily debasements; illegal actions and treasonous activities; all which defy our Constitution at every turn; seems almost to speak to something else. . .

        We know these people are their own ‘checks/balances'; and that they are entrenched/embedded in our Government’s power structure. Defiant in their authority; assigned and/or assumed; and irrespective of Elections; these ‘so dismissive'; do appear to believe they have settled into ‘power’ for the long term.

        Imperial and impervious; their exude a sense of ‘entitlement’ to all that they claim. Which given the disaster of the past five years; might leave one wondering. . .from ‘where’ does their confidence come from – and might they ‘know’ something that we do not?

    • bungopony

      “Ridiculous”?!!?Every day these scum plumb new depths of evil.

  • DONAL58

    I can’t believe they treated her so shabbily; I shouldn’t be surprised at anything they’d do.

  • disqus_Npi3ZYRHkO

    A ship of liars captained by Judas in Chief.

  • BLJ

    Par for the course from the Liar-In-Chief.

  • Daniel Worley

    Why havnt we heard anything from our congress on impeaching this failure.

    • Geoffrey Britain

      Because more than half of Congress are his ideological allies.

  • JosephHouseman

    Oh but it’s all OK because they did “get the guy who made that video”.

    • SandyLester

      He is still in jail, and isolated from other prisoners and lawyers.
      Nobody knows where his family is either.

  • Geoffrey Britain

    What place simple decency next to the urgent demands of political necessity?

  • SandyLester

    obama et al are demonic………..everyday their true colors are shown

  • truebearing

    Obama is evil, and so are the people he has surrounded himself with. They appear to be trying to force people into violent demonstrations so they can declare martial law. This abominable treatment of a grieving mother is just another way of showing arrogant disdain for Americans.
    Obama can go to hell….which, in his case would be the same thing as a homecoming.

  • Sara B

    What a disgrace! This poor woman has been jacked around and because she doesn’t accept the lies being told by this regime about the murder of her son they deem her no longer a close family member. Calling George Orwell….

  • Jim Ward

    After months of investigations, hearings, and reports there is no evidence of any Administration lies or political coverup to be found. Republican partisans are reduced to chattering about the President calling the Benghazi assault an “act of terror” instead of an “act of terrorism” the day after the attacks. Really, that is all they have left. Oh, that and mischaracterizing former Secretary of State Clinton’s comment that it made “no difference” what the attackers motives were when she declared that there is no excuse for violence against our people and our democratic values.

    It is now indisputable that the Benghazi attacks took place within a context of Mid East turmoil, conclusively linked to the anti-Muslim movie that had just been widely broadcast on TV, and led to protests, riots and attacks on U.S. facilities in more than 20 nations. In regard to Benghazi, Rice’s comments specifically had, based on the weapons involved, “extremists” engaged in the attacks and exploiting any other co-occurring activity or motive. She specifically deferred to the FBI investigation to determine if these extremists were connected to al Qaeda and/or one of the multiple militias in Libya. CBS/AP reported on that September 12 that U.S. officials were investigating the Benghazi attacks as terrorist attacks in conjunction with the 9/11 anniversary.

    The Benghazi outpost was not a embassy or a consulate. It was a CIA operation recovering arms in post-war Libya and assisting allies arming Western-backed insurgencies in the Mid East, including the Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the Assad regime. As a clandestine operation, the CIA supplemented the DSS security team that traveled with Ambassador Stevens (who had just met with Turkish agents in this regard) from Tripoli; CIA soldiers comprised the responding rescue teams; and the CIA provided the initial intelligence. The infamous “talking points” were created at the request of a senior member of a Congressional Intelligence Committee specifically to help newer members avoid releasing classified information.

    When word of the initial attack reached command, a CIA Predator drone was immediately launched and mapped out an escape route for surviving personnel. Supplementing Steven’s Diplomatic Security Services (DSS) force, two CIA/military quick reaction forces responded and were comprised of former SEALs and Commandos armed with MK46 machine gun and individual H&K 416s complimented with GLMs — H&K 40mm grenade launchers. The second force arrived from Tripoli in the C-130 aircraft that would be utilized in the evacuation. These forces were further reinforced with Libyan military forces with more than 50 vehicles.

    The compound was set ablaze within 15 minutes of the initial attack. Following protocol, the DSS team exited first to secure a safe evacuation route. When they returned, Stevens and Smith were lost in the intense heat and fire. They died from smoke inhalation. Two of the responding soldiers were killed in an 11-minute mortar attack 1 1/2 miles away while bravely manning a machine gun atop the CIA base.

    In the end, more than 60 of the attacking militants/terrorists were killed in battle, the bodies of our 4 dead were secured, and 32 Americans were safely evacuated and on a plane home in hours.

    The real scandal here — in addition to it being discovered that Congressional Republicans doctored White House email transcripts to try to damage their likely 2016 presidential opponent Hillary Clinton — were the lies and more lies told by Romney operatives as they tried to exploit this tragedy for political gain during the presidential elections. They would have had you believe that this was an actual Embassy and that there were only unprotected diplomatic staff involved; that all the responding forces were told to “stand down;” that Stevens was targeted because he was gay; that the Ambassador was raped, sodomized and dragged through the streets; that this was just a YouTube video that received 9 hits; that there was none of the protests, riots and attacks on U.S. facilities throughout the Mid East at the time of the Benghazi attacks; that this was a Clinton hit; that they watched them die and on and on. Despicable lies all intended to exploit this tragedy for political gain.

    The American people did not buy the early “October Surprise” conspiracies fomented by the right and the President soundly defeated Romney. Not content to accept the voice of the American people, Republicans have tried for many months since to find — or fabricate — some damning evidence to impeach President Obama and damage their likely future presidential opponent Hillary Clinton.

    The core of the Republican conspiracy theory is that President Obama — who was meeting with his Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when word of the attacks reached the White House — had previously declared an end to the “War on Terror” and needed to hide any act of terror on his watch or face losing the election. The truth is that the Obama Administration — and the intelligence and military agencies deeply responsible — deserve credit for getting bin Laden and decimating the core leadership of al Qaeda via drone strikes. But this President never hung out a “Mission Accomplished” banner in regard to the war on terror. In fact, he did just the opposite.

    When announcing to the American people that bin Laden was dead, he specifically said:

    “The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda. Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us.”

    The Administration did not need to, nor did they, coverup anything for political gain because they never claimed to have won the war on terror. The very foundation of the partisan conspiracy theories, like all the other claims, is fabricated from lies and deceptions from the right.

    Republicans should cut there losses and listen to the words of their own: Bush’s Secretary of State, Republican Robert Gates has forcefully declared that they would not have done anything differently in responding to Benghazi. And specifically in regard to the Republican scandal mongering, Republican Bob Dole has publicly advised the Republican Party to hang out a “Closed for Business” until they can devise a positive agenda for this great Nation.

    • Drakken

      The fact that your are screwing around with the facts and defending the conduct of this administration is stunning ! So, please explain to the rest of us how many stinger and SA-7 manpads were recovered in this goatf**k of an operation? Please explain how your hero Obummer and his Psycophant Clinton shipped tons of arms to Syria via the turks? Defending the indefensible is not noble nor Patriotic, it just shows the rest of us that political expediency and defending this administration at all cost are all that matter. Bloody Pathetic!

    • BLJ

      Nice try. We ain’t buying.

      • Teddi

        If he believes that krap and isn’t a paid Obama hack – medication is in order…

    • truebearing

      See more of what? Your delusional, dishonest blather? You must be a paid Obama hack to lie that profusely.
      There is NO evidence that the video had anything to do with the attack on Benghazi, but there is a lot of evidence that Obama was derelict of duty, and so was Hillary. Furthermore, both were responsible for removing security forces that protected Stevens, then callouslyrefusing to increase security when Islamists, already known to be a branch of Al Queda, increased their violent activity enough for the Red Cross and the Brits to pull stakes and leave. When Stevens was attacked in Benghazi — a trip he took at the behest of Hillary — Hillary and Obama watched the attack without lifting a finger to help him. They hung him out to dry.
      Hillary decided to give shoulder fired missiles to the Libyan rebels, who turned out to be Al Queda affiliated, and apparently Obama agreed, since he ultimately has to sign off on decisions of that magnitude. Maybe Stevens was hung out to dry so that a Congressional investigation wouldn’t uncover our president and SOS arming Al Queda.
      General Ham was ordered to stand down or be removed from command, despite the minor risk of strafing Al Queda with F-16s, which would have ended the attacked immediately.
      I’m not surprised a liar would defend his superior liars. It’s the closest thing to ethics the Left has.

      • Jim Ward

        I know you really, really want to believe the fiction that surrounds this tragedy on the right. But show me anything that supports what you are claiming. The facts I have shared come from the many months of investigations, hearings and reports on Benghazi. These include a FBI investigation; a bipartisan State Department Accountability Review Board investigation and report; a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs investigation and report; and five Congressional investigations including these House Committees: Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform.

        Your allegations do not line up with the facts:

        – Multiple eyewitness reports had the attackers organizing youth to chant against the video during the attack. Multiple eyewitness reports had the attackers themselves invoking the video during the attack. Protests, riots and attacks on U.S. facilities in more than 20 nations at the time of the Benghazi attacks were conclusively linked to the video which had just been broadcast on TV throughout the Mid East.

        – Stevens was at the Benghazi outpost, accompanied by his DSS force, to meet with Turkish agents arming the Western-backed Syrian rebels trying to overthrow the Assad regime.

        – Ham himself reported that Stevens himself, likely due to the secrecy involved in the CIA operation in Benghazi, turned down multiple requests for an increased military presence in Benghazi.

        – When word of the attack reached the White House, President Obama was meeting with his Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Secretary of State Clinton coordinated the evacuation with CIA Director David Petraeus.

        – Stevens and Smith died from smoke inhalation from the fire that was started 15 minutes into the attack. A CIA Predator drone was immediately launched to map out the escape route for the surviving personnel. The first CIA/military force — Global Response Staff (GRS) — was on the way in 25 minutes to reinforce the DSS force. The second CIA/JSOC force came from Tripoli. They were further reinforced with Libyan military with more than 50 vehicles.

        – A U.S. Army commando unit was readied and sent to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, Italy but the CIA base was evacuation prior to their estimate arrival time in Benghazi. A 50-member Marine FAST team was sent to Libya to bolster security. By the President’s order, the United States Navy dispatched two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, the USS McFaul and the USS Laboon to the the Libyan coast. Additional U.S. Predator drones were sent to fly over Libya to search for the perpetrators of the attack.

        – Former Secretary of Defense, Republican Robert Gates said that he would have responded no differently to the crisis and that those calling for F-16s — besides the fact that they would not have reached the site prior to losing the ambassador and putting aside the issue of the easy access to surface-to-air missiles in post-war Libya — have a “cartoonish” view of how the military works.

        – In the end, nearly 100 of the attacking militants were killed, the bodies of our 4 dead were secured, and 32 Americans were safely evacuated and on a plane home in hours.

        • Gary Dickson

          I take everything you’ve said as fact. Everything.

          I will listen to Mr. Obama, Mr. Carney, and Ms. Rice and take what they say as true from now on.

          I will never again question the veracity of their statements.

          Thank you.

          • Jim Ward

            Please don’t take my word for it. For more than 8 months and with millions of tax dollars spent, there have been multiple investigations including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, five House Committee investigations (Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Judiciary, and Oversight and Government Reform), Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, State Department Accountability Review Board and the House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. You don’t think that if any of these investigations, hearings or reports found anything that the Congressional Intelligence Committees overseeing the CIA operation in Benghazi that they did not already know, that they wouldn’t be trying to arrest Obama, Clinton and Rice as we speak? There is no there there. I would be glad to have a foreign policy discussion about the U.S. history of clandestine operations and “secret” wars. but this is the reality of our security state and has been going on across Democratic and Republican administrations for decades. I certainly would like to see the diminishing of the power of this military/industrial/intelligence complex, but to pretend that it is the product of the Obama Administration or that there is some impeachable offense is simply disingenuous.

          • Gary Dickson

            You write with such authority, Mr. Ward, I can’t do anything but take your word for it.

            I certainly do not want to be disingenuous. Consequently, I will never again question the truthfulness, honesty, and integrity of the Obama Administration.

            You’ve opened my eyes to the truth. Again, thank you.

          • catherineinpvb

            To deny that Benghazi was the product of Obama,Inc.; to deny the testimony of those actually involved in this travesty; to insist that this was a result of a ‘movie’ – other than this being a convenient diversion of truth by a ‘fact’ borrowed from another ME scene; to deny that the most damning assault’ on those who serve our Country including and American Ambassador was NOT the result of ignorance and self-servance in light of an ‘Election'; is to place yourself in the room with not just with an elephant; but with it’s dung as well; and tell the world; you are on a beach in the Bahamas; or some such fantasy.

            Leftist all march to the same beat. When Kathleen Sebelius offered by her most ‘Utilitarian’ decision
            (per options or dying child this week) that ‘some live’ and ‘some die'; she spoke the rationale for all of the Left; including an Administration who not only believe the same; but were all too ready; to act on it when it came to their decision making the night Benghazi ‘went down’..

            Offer here ‘their’ decision-making; because despite ALL the reams of testimony you claim to have read/heard. . .am sure that even you cannot tell us; ‘where was Obama’ – as his ‘Staff’ was receiving ‘real-time’ info/and watching. . .the terror unfold; as our unprotected American ‘Mission’ – with Ambassador, Et Al inside; were under attack.

            If this; in itself; is NOT a problem; NOT an issue; that speaks to authentic Leadership and responsibility (and a cover-up for lack thereof); then WHY will not ANYONE; just answer the question as to ‘WHERE’ was the President? Did he sneak out for a burger; and so need protecting? What? (My guess; is that he was eventually; in same condition as when he showed up for first debate with Mitt Romney. . .or something/some ‘issue’ damn close. Or perhaps; Obama just takes sleeping pills?)

            Whatever; because ‘what difference does it make’? And no doubt; despite whatever testimony comes next; it will not make any more difference to you and your ‘like-minded'; who so determinedly ‘Believe'; because your collective ‘fool within’ rules. (Am sure you know that Marx, does give you name; because without you all; the revisions of truth; so necessary to the Left; could not stand.)

          • DrJay1980

            Don’t forget the $4 million spent by the IRS at a Disneyland conference! You’re implying that “millions of tax dollars spent” means serious work is getting done, wow! lol

          • 4Bravo1

            Jim ward, three strikes and you are out.

            Every shred of testimony and evidence has indicated that
            there was no protest at the consulate in Benghazi. Do you have a source. Every one I have read has said zero protest. Please, lets see the eye witness account of the protest and mentioning of the video in Banghazi. I believe this is a total fabrication.

            Just for starters:
            ( “But Rice’s claim about a spontaneous demonstration in Benghazi proved to be false. ”
            ( “State Department security personnel who survived the Benghazi attacks told FBI interviewers on Sept. 15 and Sept. 16 that they, too, had seen no evidence of any protest before the attacks.”

            Obama did not coordinate the initial rescue. At most he might have allowed the force from the annex to withdraw to tripoli. How can you give him credit for this. All of these pieces were moving without him because the men on the ground made it happen, not Obama. The JSOC force was hand full or men strap hanging with GRS.

            WTF is a destroyer going to do. You call that help when you are in the middle of a city?

            Additionally those killed other than the Ambassador and one DHS agent, were killed hours after the initial attack and in fact they had been reinforced by the group from Tripoli by the time the motor rounds landed several hours later. The force from Tripoli was stranded at the airport in Benghazi for hours. The Ambassadors body was simply brought to them from the hospital. This was not simply a couple of hours. Do the math almost 6.5 hours.

            “The initial attack started at 9:40 pm local time (3:40 pm EDT, Washington DC). The second assault took place at a CIA annex 1.2 miles away at about 4 am the following morning.”

            F-16s were obviously close enough to help save lives and they are more than capable of flying in an environment with MANPADS while assisting units on the ground, especially at night. Just ask a pilot. Of course they couldn’t have stopped the Ambassador from being killed, but you purposely neglect the other lives they could have saved. Not to mention several seriously injured.

            Steven’s turned down a request for greater security or military presence? They are often two different things depending on the context. Do you have a source for this as well? You are confusing the two subjects entirely on purpose. Additionally he was an ambassador. Security decisions are made by security subject matter experts, several of which were clearly on the record asking for more security.

            It is obvious your talking points are in direct contradiction to the facts.

          • Jim Ward

            “CIA Documents Supported Susan Rice’s Description of Benghazi Attacks” by David Ignatius, October 19, 2012

            “Talking points” prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, “The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

            “The CIA document went on: “This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.”
            The senior intelligence official said the analysts’ judgment was based in part on monitoring of some of the Benghazi attackers, which showed they had been watching the Cairo protests live on television and talking about them before they assaulted the consulate.”

            “We believe the timing of the attack was influenced by events in Cairo,” the senior official said, reaffirming the Cairo-Benghazi link. He said that judgment is repeated in a new report prepared this week for the House intelligence committee.”

            “A memo prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center on Sept. 14 illustrates the fragmentary nature of the evidence: “As time progresses, we are learning more, but we still don’t have a complete picture of what happened,” noted the analysts. “At this point, we are not aware of any actionable intelligence that this attack was planned or imminent. . . . We are very cautious about drawing any firm conclusions at this point with regard to identification and motivation of the attackers.”

            “Ironically, the Sept. 15 talking points that were the basis for Rice’s televised comments were requested by the House intelligence committee. Ideally, the congressional oversight committees would provide bipartisan support for intelligence officials who are probing the attack. But in the heat of the final pre-election weeks, the murky details of what happened in Libya have instead become political assault weapons.”

            (This article incorrectly refers to the Benghazi outpost as a U.S. consulate. We now know that it was, of course, not a consulate or an embassy, and was largely a CIA operation recovering arms in post-war Libya and supporting allies arming the Western-backed rebels in Syria trying to overthrow the Assad regime.)

          • 4Bravo1

            So the totally discredited talking points is your proof, but the eye witness accounts are not? Additionally the protests were on 9-11 which just might have something to do with it, since all foreign U.S. outposts receive the same warnings every year on 9-11. Sure watching other people attack embassies could embolden you, but the cause-effect for the attack in Benghazi was not the video. Zero proof and zero mention. The administration is factually on the record as saying it was a protest in Banghazi caused by the video which turned into the attack. Extra meaningless paragraphs do not provide any weight to your argument. The fact that you even begin to offer the talking points shows how weak your argument is.

          • Jim Ward

            The CIA’s reference to the Benghazi attack being “inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” proves that the intelligence community itself believed that a link existed between the attacks and the film. The “protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” were part of a series of global riots and protests in Muslim countries that were partly in response to increased awareness of the anti-Islam video.

            On Oct. 16, David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported from Cairo:
            “To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence. … The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film. … Other Benghazi militia leaders who know the group say its leaders and ideology are all homegrown. … [T]hey openly proselytize for their brand of puritanical Islam and political vision. They profess no interest in global fights against the West or distant battles aimed at removing American troops from the Arabian Peninsula.”

          • Alice Sharpen

            But the 32 Survivors who were in Benghazi and injured have not been interviewed on American soil by the Congressional Panel yet Jimmy. Ramstein just doesn’t cut it since this Administration is just not trustworthy, nor are the reasons worth explaining to you again.

        • truebearing

          Your reply is laughable. You cite an FBI investigation….they couldn’t begin the investigation until long after the attack because of continued hostility in the area, supposedly. I will also point out that the FBI under Obama has been neutered when it comes to Muslim terrorism by Obama’s favorite corruption enabler, Eric Witholder.

          The State Department Accountability Review Board was another joke. Hillary appointed political comrades who would protect her, and protect they did. They never interviewed her! They also somehow failed to discover the repeated revisions of the talking points and redaction of the CIA’s early assessment of the incident as linked to Al Queda. The video was a clear and obvious fraud. The Libyan head of state basically said so immediately after the attack.

          You failed to include the testimony of the #2 diplomat in libya. You know…Gregory Hicks…the one who testified before Congress. his testimony seems to contradict your BS in a number of places, but especially when it comes to the idiotic lie that a video precipitated the attack….on the anniversary of 9/11. Yeah, we believe you.

          Numerous military experts have disputed the ridiculous claims by Panetta and other Whitehouse liars regarding military intervention. There were a number of assets capable of rendering aid, at least in time to save Doherty and Woods, and General Ham was in the process of sending help but was told to stand down or be removed from his command.

          Do you call the opinion of a highly decorated fighter pilot on the feasibility of sending in F-16s from Italy “cartoonish?” What is cartoonish is the bizarre lies Obama and Hillary have pushed to cover their rear ends. And now you’re goose stepping right along, trolling the party lie.

          The reason so many Muslim countries knew about the idiotic video is because Obama spent money advertising it’s existence in those countries. I believe he spent $75,000 “apologizing” for the video in Pakistan alone.

          Who killed all of those Al Queda terrorists you mentioned? Most were killed by Doherty and Woods before they were finally killed… while waiting for the help that all American soldiers have always known were coming….until Obama’s regime began its policy of betrayal.

          What you are calling facts are actually assertions, unsupported by facts, but heavily buttressed by lies. Nice try. You must work for Obama to be that good at lying.

        • Alice Sharpen

          If your words actually had any merit Jimmy, and Obama was fully aware of all that occurred just as you claim, the man boarded AF1 less than 12 hours after learning of Stevens death for a Jay-Z fundraiser in Las Vegas. The body of an American Diplomat wasn’t even yet cold and Obama insisted on partying down with the Felon Jay-Z as scheduled Jimmy. Jimmy, you are flawed, your responses are made by your cookie cutter provided by this Admin. The Low-Information mentality of Obama’s voters fall for your bullshit Jimmy, but not everybody.

          • Jim Ward

            No, the President did not “party” the day after the Benghazi attacks. He, in fact, turned his speech at a brief campaign stop into a tribute to the four Americans lost in Benghazi. His schedule for September 11 and 12, 2012 is posted below.

            And where did President Ronald Reagan go the day after the Beirut terrorist attacks? He launched a three-day campaign swing in Iowa.

            The reality is that five of the seven deadliest terrorist attacks on Americans overseas, claiming from five to 283 lives between 1983 and 2004, occurred in the lead-up to or during presidential campaigns. Clearly, efforts have been made to influence or disrupt our democratic process.

            The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that President Obama, as soon as word of the Benghazi attack reached Washington, gave orders to immediately deploy all necessary forces in response. The Chairman further testified that the White House maintained constant contact with the military command center during the attacks.

            In 1983, President Reagan — despite the objections of his own staff — sent American military personnel into harms way in Beirut with a presidential order not to load their weapons. From the outset, the American embassy in Beirut had sent numerous cables warning Washington that this military presence would provoke terrorism and undermine America’s standing in the Mideast. But there was no response.

            Two weeks before the second embassy attack, the CIA obtained photographs of a Lebanon terrorist training facility that revealed oil drums arrayed to mimic the street layout and concrete barriers in front of the embassy, with fresh tire tracks visible that revealed the path the suicide bombers subsequently took. Despite this, no effort was made to beef up security at the embassy. The Reagan Administration later tried to hide these warnings and attempted to blame former President Carter. Reagan himself insensitively declared that “anyone who’s ever had their kitchen done knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.”

            — On April 18, 1983: Terrorist Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Sixty-three people were killed, including 17 Americans.

            — On Oct. 23, 1983: Terrorist Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut. A suicide bomber blew detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks; Two hundred and forty-one U.S. Marines were killed. It was the largest one-day death toll for Marines since the Battle for Iwo Jima in 1945. News reports described how, “Realistically, they had become “sitting ducks” from the moment they entered Beirut. And as a result of their absurd orders, when the explosives-laden truck sped toward their doomed barracks, the two unarmed guards had no way of stopping it.”

            — On Sept. 20, 1984: Terrorist Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex. In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel.

            Despite the fact that Reagan had dispatched the Marines into an impossible situation and then had issued orders that led to their inability to defend themselves, he suffered relatively little criticism from the press or partisan opponents.

            And what did Ronald Reagan do on September 21, 1984, the day after the attack? He made three campaign appearances in Iowa.

            I can get all snarky about this like you, but the reality is that we should not let terrorists impact our democratic campaign process. And it is nothing but partisan nonsense to think that strategic orders from the commander-in-chief are only issued from the White House situation room.

            President Reagan (who by the way, initially called it a “despicable act” — not a terrorist attack or even an “act of terror”), went to great lengths defending his campaign activities after the terrorist attacks and explained that the official communications technology bubble (even at that time) and national security members who travel with the President made the location of the Commander-in-Chief largely irrelevant to the ability to respond to crisis.

            In 2012, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney saw his poll numbers plunge sharply as he tried to politicize the Benghazi attacks even before the full facts were known. The Nation reported, “As forcefully as Romney is attempting to depict the attack as a consequence of Obama’s perceived Middle East “weakness,” over 90 percent of the 538 Americans who died in these seven earlier incidents did so while a Republican was in the White House, and Obama’s tally of four fatalities in overseas incidents is the lowest death toll of any modern American president.”

            On September 11, 2012, the President started the morning at a White House ceremony dedicated to the 9/11 attacks. He then proceeded to additional 9/11 ceremonies at the Pentagon and Arlington National Cemetery, where he acknowledged our troops lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the initial Benghazi assault commenced, President Obama was at Walter Reed Medical Center in Bethesda, meeting with wounded servicemen. When word of the Benghazi attack reached Washington, President Obama was briefed by his National Security Advisor and proceeded to meet with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at approximately 5 pm EST. He gave them full authority to immediately deploy all necessary forces. Photos from later that evening show the President continuing to confer with the Vice President and members of the National Security Team.

            On September 13, 2013 at 4 am EST, the President was notified that Ambassador Stevens had died from smoke inhalation from the intense fire started within the first 15 minutes of the initial attack. The President spent the morning conferring with staff including National Security advisors and from the State Department. At 10:35 am, the President addressed the American people and the press from the Rose Garden. He condemned the Benghazi attack as an act of terror and, despite initial intelligence and news reports linking the attacks to the anti-Muslim propaganda video, declared that there was no excuse for the violence against our people. At 10:50 am, the President traveled to the State Department and met with the colleagues grieving the loss of Ambassador Stevens and the other three Americans. The President later returned to the White House and continued to confer with National Security advisors and other staff. Later, the President proceeded to Andrews Air Force Base en route to Las Vegas, Nevada. At 9:10 pm, the President turned a scheduled campaign speech at the Cashman Center into a tribute to those lost in Benghazi. (See remarks below.) At 10:25 pm, the President departs McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas en route for Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, Colorado where he arrived at 11:55 am.

            The Cashman Center
            Las Vegas, Nevada
            6:03 P.M. PDT

            THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. So I wanted to begin tonight by just saying a few words about a tough day that we had today. We lost four Americans last night, who were killed when they were attacked at a diplomatic post in Libya. And they were serving overseas on our behalf, despite the dangers, despite the risks, to help one of the world’s youngest democracies get on its feet. They were working to advance the interests and the values that we hold dear as Americans. And as Americans, we stand united -– all of us -– in gratitude for their service, and we are mindful of their sacrifice, and we want to send out heartfelt prayers to their loved ones who grieve today.

            It’s a reminder that the freedoms we enjoy -– sometimes even the freedoms we take for granted -– they’re only sustained because there are people like those who were killed, who are willing to stand up for those freedoms; who are willing to fight for those freedoms; in some cases, to lay down their lives for those freedoms. So tonight, let’s think of them and thank them.

            As for the ones we lost last night: I want to assure you, we will bring their killers to justice. And we want to send a message all around the world — anybody who would do us harm: No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America.

            We will not be deterred. We will keep going. We will keep going because the world needs us. We are the one indispensable power in the world. And if we are going to see peace and security for our children and our grandchildren, then that means that this generation of Americans has to lead. We’re going to have to keep doing the work — no matter how hard it seems sometimes.

            And that’s what I want to talk to you about here today. We’ve got work to do overseas; we’ve also got to do some work here at home.

      • Jim Ward

        There not even any internal consistency to your argument above. You talk about Libya being flush with shoulder fired missiles and then complain that the military did not send in F-16s to be shot down. Not that they would have made it there in time. Stevens and Smith died from smoke inhalation from the fire that was started within 15 minutes of the initial attack. There was no “stand down.” This was a CIA operation. A CIA Predator drone was launched immediately and mapped out escape routes. Two CIA/military forces comprised of SEALs and Commandos responded. The first was on the way in 25 minutes. Two responding soldiers were killed bravely manning a rooftop machine gun atop the CIA base 1 1/2 miles away. In the end, nearly 100 of the attacking militants/terrorists were killed in battle, the bodies of our 4 dead were secured, and 32 Americans were safely evacuated and on a plane home in hours.

        • truebearing

          The biggest threat the shoulder-fired missiles pose is to slow moving aircraft, like commercial jets or helicopters, but even if there was a risk of losing an F-16, that is the risk ALL military engagements assume in order to protect SOVEREIGN US territory, including embassies, and the diplomats or security people who serve there. Your cowardly cut-an- run-when-there-is-trouble solution flies in the face of American military tradition. We don’t abandon our tropps or citizens just because there is a risk of losing something. We make the enemy risk losing a lot more. That is what made this country great, and safe, for all these years….until the evil regime of Obama and the Islamist Enablers took over.

          • Jim Ward

            You guys cannot even have a discussion about the facts of Benghazi without personal attacks and questioning loyalty to our great Nation. Regardless, Democratic and Republican military experts alike said that they would not have been there in time to save Stevens or Smith who died from smoke inhalation from the fire that started within 15 minutes of the initial assault. The two soldiers that died manning a machine gun atop the CIA base were part of two responding forces comprised of SEALS and Commandos. The second force arrived from Tripoli and brought the C-130 aircraft that was used in the rescue. The DSS force and the two CIA/military forces were further reinforced by Libyan military with more than 50 vehicles. Two CIA Predator drones were launched and mapped out escape routes. Nearly 100 of the attacking terrorists were killed by our forces, the bodies of our 4 dead were secured, and 32 Americans were safely evacuated and on a plane home within hours.

          • Alice Sharpen

            “and 32 Americans were safely evacuated and on a plane home within hours.”
            Wrong Jimmy, they were enroute to Ramstein AFB and haven’t been heard from since. Until now.

          • Jim Ward

            I’m glad to hear you know better than Democratic and Republican military experts alike in this regard. As Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Republican Robert Gates explained, such criticism is based on a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces.”

            “Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to “scare them with the noise or something,” Gates said, ignored the “number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi’s arsenals.”

            “I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances,” he said.

            And, believe me, you don’t want to compare the number of terrorists killed on Obama’s watch with the Bush Administration. As Jake Tapper reported in 2011 (the list has since grown substantially)…

            The list of senior terrorists killed during the Obama presidency is fairly extensive.

            There’s Osama bin Laden, of course, killed in May.

            Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) leader Anwar al-Awlaki as of today.

            Earlier this month officials confirmed that al Qaeda’s chief of Pakistan operations, Abu Hafs al-Shahri, was killed in Waziristan, Pakistan.

            In August, ‘Atiyah ‘Abd al-Rahman, the deputy leader of al Qaeda was killed.

            In June, one of the group’s most dangerous commanders, Ilyas Kashmiri, was killed in Pakistan. In Yemen that same month, AQAP senior operatives Ammar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh Farhan were killed. In Somalia, Al-Qa’ida in East Africa (AQEA) senior leader Harun Fazul was killed.

            Administration officials also herald the recent U.S./Pakistani joint arrest of Younis al-Mauritani in Quetta.

            Going back to August 2009, Tehrik e-Taliban Pakistan leader Baitullah Mahsud was killed in Pakistan.

            In September of that month, Jemayah Islamiya operational planner Noordin Muhammad Top was killed in Indonesia, and AQEA planner Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan was killed in Somalia.

            Then in December 2009 in Pakistan, al Qaeda operational commanders Saleh al-Somali and ‘Abdallah Sa’id were killed.

            In February 2010, in Pakistan, Taliban deputy and military commander Abdul Ghani Beradar was captured; Haqqani network commander Muhammad Haqqani was killed; and Lashkar-e Jhangvi leader Qari Zafar was killed.

            In March 2010, al Qaeda operative Hussein al-Yemeni was killed in Pakistan, while senior Jemayah Islamiya operative Dulmatin – accused of being the mastermind behind the 2002 Bali bombings – was killed during a raid in Indonesia.

            In April 2010, al Qaeda in Iraq leaders Abu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi were killed.

            In May, al Qaeda’s number three commander, Sheik Saeed al-Masri was killed.

            In June 2010 in Pakistan, al Qaeda commander Hamza al-Jawfi was killed.

            Remember when Rudy Giuliani warned that electing Barack Obama would mean that the U.S. played defense, not offense, against the terrorists?

            If this is defense, what does offense look like?

            -Jake Tapper

        • Alice Sharpen

          According to Hicks testimony who was in Tripoli & in contact with Stevens & Benghazi, there was indeed a stand down order given Jimmy. This is public knowledge and is public record from his testimony before Congress.

          • Jim Ward

            Try to keep up. Even the conservative Washington Times reported in June that there was no stand down.

            Hicks, who acknowledged he was in Tripoli watching TV and missed several calls from Ambassador Stevens during the initial attack, erroneously described the site security team leader, Army Lt. Col. S.E. Gibson as being told to “stand down.”

            “But Col. Gibson said Wednesday [June 26, 2013] that no stand-down order was given, according to the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. The subcommittee held a classified briefing with Col. Gibson; retired Army Gen. Carter F. Ham, former commander of U.S. Africa Command; and Navy Rear Adm. Brian L. Losey, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command Africa.”

            “Contrary to news reports, Gibson was not ordered to ‘stand down’ by higher command authorities in response to his understandable desire to lead a group of three other Special Forces soldiers to Benghazi,” the subcommittee said in a rare statement about a closed-door briefing.
            Instead, the site security team was ordered to remain in Tripoli to defend the embassy and its staff in case terrorists also struck in the capital while the Benghazi post was under attack, and to assist the wounded who were being evacuated to Tripoli after the first phase of the fighting had ended, the statement said.”

            “Col. Gibson “acknowledged that, had he deployed to Benghazi, he would have left Americans in Tripoli undefended. He also stated that, in hindsight, he would not have been able to get to Benghazi in time to make a difference, and as it turned out, his medic was needed to provide urgent assistance to survivors once they arrived in Tripoli,” the statement said.

            The medic “saved the leg and probably the life” of one of the evacuated personnel, according to Mr. Hicks‘ congressional testimony.”

            Read more:

    • wildjew

      “The New York Times editorial board, which twice endorsed President Obama and has championed many planks of his agenda, on Thursday turned on the president over the government’s mass collection of phone data — saying the administration has “lost all credibility.”

      …An editorial published late Thursday said the administration was using the “same platitude” it uses in every case of overreach — that “terrorists are a real menace and you should just trust us.”

      The editorial continued: “Those reassurances have never been persuasive — whether on secret warrants to scoop up a news agency’s phone records or secret orders to kill an American suspected of terrorism — especially coming from a president who once promised transparency and accountability. The administration has now lost all credibility.”

      The editorial board claimed Obama “is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it.”

      • Jim Ward

        And this proves that the facts I have laid out on Benghazi are wrong, huh?

        • wildjew

          Your “facts” prove nothing. Barack Obama has no credibility. That is the essential point.

        • Drakken

          Your credibility carries as much water as your messiah Obummer. The bottom line which you so conveniently forget to mention from those so called experts, is we do not leave personnel in the field and hang them out to dry for political expediency, period. Your so called facts are nothing more than political sycophants covering up their cowardly behavior. Oh yes before you call my creds into question, I have been in this line of work for over 25 years now. So before you think you can come out and bark with the big dogs, you had better get off of the porch first.

          • Jim Ward

            OK, dawg. But this isn’t about you or me, is it? And your accusations — initially concocted by partisans trying to win political points by exploiting these deaths — are all bark and no bite. Multiple investigations, hearings and reports and the facts remain the same: no stand down, no delayed response from superiors, and no cover-up. Stevens and Smith died from smoke inhalation from the outpost being set ablaze within 15 minutes. 2 Global Response forces were launched, the first in 25 minutes from 1.5 miles away and the second from Tripoli. The forces were comprised of active military and former SEALS and Commandos. Partisans dishonor the two soldiers — one from each force — who were killed manning a machine gun atop the CIA base — when they claim there was no rescue team launched. In the end, these brave forces killed nearly 100 of the attacking militants/terrorists, the bodies of our 4 dead were secured, and 32 Americans were safely evacuated and on a plane home in hours.

          • Alice Sharpen

            Jim according to you the survivors were taken to Ramstein and made available for questioning by the FBI and Technicians for several days, thousands of miles away from their homes and the USA, dog. How transparent. Very cookie cutter of you Jimmy.

    • Drakken

      You forgot one very important talking point, in your propaganda piece, who gave the order for military assets to stand down in Africa, The Med, Sicily and Germany? Kinda forgot that didn’t you? The FBI couldn’t get into Benghazi for weeks after the fact and oh darn why are the jihadists still running around doing interviews on tv without sanction? You said a lot without getting to the crux of the problem.

      • Jim Ward

        The point was missing because it is fiction. There were no “stand down” orders. There were attacks on embassies and U.S. facilities throughout the Mid East and in more than 20 nations. Being told to stay at your post guarding other facilities is hardly a “stand down” order. Not scrambling planes because they would not arrive in time to make a difference is hardly a “stand down” order.

        As Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Republican Robert Gates explained, such criticism is based on a “cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces.”

        “Suggestions that we could have flown a fighter jet over the attackers to “scare them with the noise or something,” Gates said, ignored the “number of surface to air missiles that have disappeared from [former Libyan leader] Qaddafi’s arsenals.”

        “I would not have approved sending an aircraft, a single aircraft, over Benghazi under those circumstances,” he said.

    • OfficialPro

      where did you get these talking points, and why should anyone believe them?

      • Jim Ward

        Talking points? Funny. Everything is public information. No inside information here. There have been numerous investigations, hearings and reports over more than 8 months. Check the record.

  • James Crooke

    I am sorry but most of you voted for this effing idiot. I certainly did not. I even voted for John McCain whom I despise. Love sarah but cant stand John

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “I would love an explanation from Obama Inc why the mother of a son is no longer considered immediate family. ”

    Ask Chris Rock. Her daddy is rightfully angry and must punish her, just as he punishes all of those who disrupt the harmony of the choir.

  • Beth

    It takes real trash to behave the way they have towards this mother.

    I do believe (always have) …and it may take a while…but what goes around – comes around – eventually. And I will have absolutely no compassion for any of them when it does. None whatsoever (and I am not that kind of person – normally).

  • Kate47

    HMMM, HOW much more immediate family can you get than MOTHER OF??? PAT, I am so sorry they treated you like that, and said YOU are NOT Seans Mother, in essence…

    • OfficialPro

      Bureaucratese. Someone stops being “immediate family” in regulatory terms the minute they get married. It’s stupid, but this is not the first I’ve heard of such a ridiculous distinction.

    • OfficialPro

      (stops being immediate family to their own parents, anyway. It’s a legal fiction with no roots in common sense)

  • Nola_Navy_Vet

    Impeach Obama and Biden.

  • USARetired

    Ridiculous is an understatement, It is CRIMINAL! And the O’Bozo Administration must be brought up on charges to that effect! However the entire Senate and Congress are aware he is in office illegally, is not a citizen of this country, and have done nothing, so what does that say?

  • USARetired

    My email to Senator McCain regarding this article;


    This has to be the most vile situation this administration has ever been
    involved in and warrants an investigation! There is no excuse for
    treating veteran’s and family as this mother has been treated.
    I will not cease pursuing this issue until it is resolved!

    I await your reply!

  • Jim Ward

    If you want to have a foreign policy discussion about the long history of U.S. “secret” wars that have continued through decades of Republican and Democratic administrations, fine, but there is no impeachable offense here. Not even close. So the CIA was arming Western-backed rebels in Syria fighting to overthrow the Assad regime. This further flies in the face of all who wish to paint this President out to be some kind of leftist. John Bolton and all the Neocons have been calling for the overthrow of the Assad regime. At least President Obama is not giving them the outright war against Syria and Iran that they are thirsting for. Then, of course, we have the hypocrite McCain who knew full well what we were doing in Benghazi, attacks the Obama Administration for the operation, and then gets a photo op with the Syrian rebels and calls on the Administration to arm them. Yes, bloody pathetic!

  • anthony barrett

    oh it just makes your blood boil, who do these people think they are, do they work for the population of the usa, or do they work for someone else, i would say the latter,these people have no control on what they are doing we need change everywhere,a concerned citizen of the united kingdom

  • bruce101

    jim ward you are a good commie liar for bongo boy.