Hillary Stacks the Benghazi Select Committee

130122091535-hillary-clinton-presser-horizontal-galleryOn Wednesday, Democrats deigned to join Republicans on the House Select Committee investigating Benghazi, primarily to protect Hillary Clinton’s reputation in particular, and the Obama administration’s in general. Toward that end they will likely do what they always do whenever their party is threatened: denigrate the investigation as it unfolds and obstruct it as much as possible.

Thus, it was completely unsurprising that even as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appointed five colleagues to the panel she dismissed the need for it. “The Republican obsession with Benghazi has not been about the victims, the families or the country,” she insisted, adding that it is “not necessary” to participate in a “partisan exercise once again.”

So why participate at all? A Politico story reveals the reason for the Democrats’ sudden change of heart. According to “sources familiar with the conversations,” Hillary Clinton informed several House Democrats and aides that she preferred that they participate rather than leave her open to unanswered “enemy fire” from House Republicans. “Republicans are making it clear they plan to use the power of the Benghazi Select Committee to continue to politicize the tragedy that occurred in Benghazi, which is exactly why Democratic participation in the committee is vital,” a Democrat close to Clinton contended. “Inevitably, witnesses ranging from Secretary Clinton to Secretary Kerry will be subpoenaed to testify, and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.”

Leading Democrats endeavored to stay “on message.” “The creation of this committee is solely for propaganda, for politics,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). “It’s rather cheap, in my opinion, because after all the other committees held hearings and looked at the issue, and there was nothing there. But Republicans are trying to make a scandal where there is none.” Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) noted that “even a kangaroo court would be better off with a defense attorney,” and panel member Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) believes “Republicans will attack Hillary Clinton by any means necessary.”

Cummings is the top Democrat on the Committee that also includes Reps. Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee; Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff (D-CA); Ways and Means Committee member Linda Sanchez (D-CA); and Armed Services Committee member Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). Cummings insisted he decided to participate because we’ve “seen firsthand how abusive the Republicans have been during this investigation” and because Congress owes it to the families of the victims “to bring some minimal level of balance to this process and check false claims wherever they may arise.”

Perhaps they could start with Nancy Pelosi. Even as John Boehner (R-OH) announced the formation of a select committee, Pelosi claimed that family members of the slain Americans asked her not to launch another investigation. “Two of their families have called us and said, ‘Please don’t take us down this path again,'” Pelosi said during a weekly press conference. “It’s really hard for them. It’s very sad.” Rep. Louise Slaughter’s (D-NY) office also insisted that a family member from the maternal side of Tyrone Woods’ family ostensibly agreed with Pelosi. Tellingly, none of the family members were named.

On the other side of the equation, Pat Smith, and Charles Woods, parents of slain diplomat Sean Smith and Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, respectively, expressed a clear and unambiguous desire to move forward and get to the truth behind the slaughter of their children.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who will be chairing the Committee, appears to be a man determined to ferret out that truth. Ten days ago in a devastatingly effective putdown of the mainstream media, the man who spent six years as a federal prosecutor handling cases that included drug trafficking rings, bank robberies, and child pornography cases, indicated he will bring that experience to the investigation. After quoting Obama’s promise to bring the perpetrators of the Benghazi murders to justice (though no one has even been arrested to this point), he laid out a series of unanswered questions that should embarrass any members of the media who consider themselves investigative journalists. They included the following:

–Do you know why requests for additional security were denied? Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded? 

–Do you know why no assets were deployed during the siege? And I’ve heard the explanation, which defies logic, frankly, that we could not have gotten there in time. But you know they didn’t know when it was going to end, so how can you possibly cite that as an excuse?

–Do you know whether the president called any of our allies and said, can you help, we have men under attack? Can you answer that?

–Do any of you know why Susan Rice was picked [to go on five Sunday talk shows after the attacks]? The Secretary of State [Hillary Clinton] did not go. She says she doesn’t like Sunday talk shows. That’s the only media venue she does not like, if that’s true.

–Do you know the origin of this mythology, that it was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Do you know where that started?

These and other equally probing questions severely undercut the contention by Pelosi and her fellow Democrats that everything about what happened in Benghazi is already known. This was the position still taken on Tuesday by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). “The pertinent questions have been asked and answered again,” he insisted.

Joining Gowdy on the Republican side of the Committee are Reps. Martha Roby (R-AL), House Armed Services Committee member; House Intelligence Committee member Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA); House Oversight and Government Reform Committee member Jim Jordan (R-OH); Mike Pompeo (R-KS); Boehner confidante Peter Roskam (R-IL); and Susan Brooks (R-IN).

In contrast to Democratic hysteria, Gowdy maintained that the Committee members selected by Pelosi were “great picks.” “The ones that I know well are very thoughtful and very smart, and I have a great working relationship with them,” Gowdy added. He declined to offer any specifics on the nature of the hearings, noting that closed depositions tend to elicit more information from witnesses, while open hearings allow the public to decide who is more truthful. When asked which method (or both) would apply to Hillary Clinton, Gowdy refused to answer. “I’m not foreclosing any avenue of information,” he said.

Hillary Clinton’s reputation remains in the forefront. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) further illuminated that sentiment, insisting his fellow Democrats must prevent the hearings from being “made about one person.” “I think the American public feels that Hillary Clinton did an outstanding job as secretary of state and if Republicans are using Benghazi to blemish her record, I don’t think it will stick,” he contended.

If the public feels that way about Clinton, it stands in stark contrast State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki. During an interview, Psaki couldn’t  cite a single specific accomplishment attributable to that outstanding job. Nor could Clinton herself when she spoke at the Women of the World Summit in New York City on April 3. “I think we really restored American leadership in the best sense,” she generalized.

Perhaps Gowdy and his fellow Republicans will focus on the details of that leadership—or lack thereof—but Democrats are counting on Cummings to blunt any such efforts. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Cummings outlines a three-fold strategy aimed at minimizing damage for Clinton and other members of the Obama administration. The first aspect will be to “figure out exactly what (Republicans) are looking for … to focus on not who I am up against, but what I am searching for.” The second aspect is to “constantly raise the issues,” followed by an effort to “not allow any untruth to go unchallenged.” Yet even the Huff Post admits that Cummings’ real value to Democrats is his “combativeness.” 

Cummings proved that during the IRS hearings when he attempted to turn a hearing where Lois Lerner asserted her right not to testify for the second time into a sideshow after hearing Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) adjourned the meeting and cut off Cummings’ mic. Issa did so when it became apparent Lerner would have nothing to say and Cummings refused to voice the question he claimed he wanted to ask. Cummings subsequently accused Issa for “efforts to re-create the Oversight Committee in Joe McCarthy’s image.” 

Yet just as damning emails revealed greater Obama administration involvement in the IRS’s efforts to target conservative tax-exempt groups, so too did damning emails reveal the extent to which the administration was willing to go to “tailor” the facts on Benghazi. It was those emails that forced Boehner’s hand on forming a select committee, especially since it took a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch to obtain them. 

Nonetheless, Cummings remained reliably obstructionist. “I do not believe a select committee is called for after eight reports, dozens of witness interviews and a review of more than 25,000 pages of documents,” he declared. Whether those documents include the series of 41 documents obtained by Judicial Watch as a result of forcing the administration’s hand in court remains unclear.

Thus the so-called battle lines are drawn. Democrats and their media allies have made sure that their participation will be characterized as an effort to blunt Republican hyper-partisanship, even as they willfully ignore the reality that while the Obama administration’s disinformation campaign has been thoroughly shredded, not a single individual has been held accountable. Their other tactic consists of focusing, not on what happened in Benghazi, but how to prevent a reprise of that atrocity. “We hope that we can shine a light on where our focus should be, preventing tragedy like Benghazi from ever happening again.”

Sorry, no sale. The focus should be on what happened, and why it was necessary to cover it up. And if this is the so-called witch hunt Democrats say it is, no doubt they will be more than willing to hear from the 20-30 Benghazi survivors. It’s been almost a year since CNN reported that frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations were being employed to keep them from from talking to the public or Congress. Moreover, it’s utterly absurd that anyone could insist all Benghazi questions have been asked and answered when the Commander-in-Chief has yet to account for his whereabouts that night. Former Secretary of State Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified that they spoke to Obama only once during the attack, and Clinton testified she spoke with him at 10 p.m. EST. 

Shortly after that phone call the State Department issued the following statement: 

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation.

It is the commitment to the truth, toxic as it likely is for both Clinton and the Obama administration, that should drive the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • VHG1

    I believe she deserves a fair trial and then 25-life at a minimum for the 4 deaths. Unless I change my mind and make it 100 years plus life!

    • Chiron_Venizelos

      For 0bama and a good many of his regime who are guilty of treason, murder, conspiracy to commit same, sabotage, embezzlement, and sundry other crimes, I would not be satisfied with anything less than the maximum prescribed punishments.
      Conservatives should establish their guilt now but hold off on trying them until there is a Congress, President, and an Attorney General who is more concerned with justice than excuses and cover ups are in power.
      We the People must NEVER allow their crimes to be forgotten!

      • Americana

        Listen, if the Republican party had grounds for ANY of those charges against the entire Obama Cabinet, they’d be speaking to judges about procedural matters and how to execute warrants!!!

        Don’t be so freakin’ ridiculous. We the People really mustn’t fall for such partisan bull puckey as this ever again! Why? Because if this partisan bull had any legs to stand on, there’d be people in Congress willing to carry it forward. All it is is cheap talk that’s meant to keep the troops riled up.

        • Chiron_Venizelos

          The Repubikans can’t impeach 0bama or try any of his regime because they don’t hold a majority in the Senate.
          If they did hold both Houses, there would never be an adequate investigation because the Attorney General is a tool appointed by 0bama, and he will not betray his boss or anyone in the regime.
          It really IS that simple.
          Still, we DO know that 0bama provided known and sworn enemies of the United States in both Libya and Syria with weapons and materiel. This is called TREASON, but Mr. 0bama will not be prosecuted because to do so would require the Gang of Eight also be prosecuted, which would include Boehner, McCain, and several other high-ranking Repubikans, but the Constitution is VERY clear (see Article III – Section 3) that they have committed acts of TREASON! No matter how much you deny it, the facts are on my side.
          Now, as for the military action in Libya that led to the overthrow of Gadaffi: 0bama violated the war powers act when he bypassed Congress to order troops into the conflict.
          No cheap talk here–just FACTS that won’t go away.

          • Americana

            Chiron, if the Republicans or the Tea Party had ANYTHING actionable, it would be seeing Big Action in terms of legal steps. There isn’t, so the Tea Party and the Republican party are just using Big Talk.

          • Chiron_Venizelos

            Your statement simply is NOT true!
            The key to 0bama’s not being held accountable for Benghazi lies with the Gang of Eight–four of them are Repubikans, and the rest of the Repubikans aren’t about to implicate them in the treasonous acts of Benghazi.
            Step back for a moment to recall McCain’s words about the Syrian rebels (who, by the way are also majorly comprised of al Qaida, Hezbollah, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, and other sworn enemies of the United States).
            When McCain returned from his photo-op in Syria, a reporter asked him whether he was concerned about whom he had voted to support by giving them arms and other help. McCain referred to them as “his heroes!”
            So, the bottom line remains:
            0bama and his regime are guilty of TREASON. The reason why the Repubikans will not prosecute 0bama and his regime is because they are twofold; 1. the Repubikans don’t hold a majority in BOTH houses and they know Holder won’t prosecute his boss, and; 2. there are not a sufficient number of Repubikans who would turn on members of their own party if they did hold the majority.
            There is PLENTY of actionable evidence but that evidence is just as damning to the Repubikans as it is the Democraps.

          • Americana

            The political situation is far more complex in these Middle Eastern countries than you are capable of understanding based on your life here in the United States. Politics and general social tranquility are non-existent in the Middle East at the moment and may not be restored for a long while. This is not anything that can be laid at the door of any particular American Presidents even though we did hit the tripwire during the First Gulf War that lit the social fuses in several countries and we followed that up w/our invasion of Iraq. American politicians are doing their level best trying to pick the correct frontrunners but it’s not something that comes w/any guarantee.

          • Chiron_Venizelos

            Your presumtuousness is only exceeded by your own lack of knowledge. You know nothing of my credentials in this matter yet you assume you know more than I on this matter. May I assure you sir or madam that you do NOT!
            That said, you have tried to evade the initial argument–that Mr. 0bama is guilty of TREASON, inasmuch as he provided aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States!–and try to shift the discussion to some nebulous and irrelevant issues. The complexities of Middle Eastern politics, along with the twisted values system are mutually exclusive from the fact that we have a TRAITOR in the White House.
            I care not to discuss the matter with anyone such as yourself because you are either incapable or unwilling to understand that you are backinng a traitor or are simply unwilling to accept the facts for what they are.
            Good day!

          • Americana

            Listen, Senor Chiron, I’m not PRESUMPTUOUS simply because I choose to post about a HUGE, PUBLIC CONCESSION OF GUILT for Benghazi by the Joint Chiefs to bring it to the attention of the Front Page Mag crowd. If you guys READ as much as you claim to read on foreign policy sites, or have as MANY PROFESSIONAL CONNECTIONS as you claim, there should have been SOMEONE ELSE besides little ole me who mentioned the Rapid Response Forces realignment by the Joint Chiefs. ***No one did and no one is yet acknowledging what that admission and realignment mean, ergo, you’re denialists.***

            You’re willing to RATIONALIZE AWAY the actions and statements of the Joint Chiefs to keep such stupidities as you’re peddling afloat. Well, good luck. Try to do a better job of mustering the facts! Your own professionalism in this matter is under review because no one in the Middle Eastern Bureau of the CIA or the Diplomatic Corps supports your opinions. Just whom do you think selected the Libyan militia(s) that deserved to be given arms? Pres. Obama himself? Lordy, but there is ignorance in abundance among some here.

            Pres. Obama a traitor because he’s arming a Libyan militia that he hopes will remain semi-loyal to the United States through Libya’s renaissance? We’ve done this arming of rebels FOREVER and it’s been done by many Presidents. We ARMED THE SAUDIS along w/the British as far back as WW II and they’ve remained staunch allies. These Libyan and other rebel groups don’t have the cash on their own to continue fighting against the U.S. nor are they being given huge amounts of heavy weaponry that will outlast their present fighting capability. Ergo, their fighting capability will fade if we withdraw support.

    • Kree13

      And I believe you are a f**** delusional dumba** who swallowed the faux news lies

  • UCSPanther

    They are circling the wagons, because they know Hillary the Hag is their last best chance to keep power.

    With any luck, Hillary will be the Dems’ version of Kim Campbell. (Canada’s first, and only woman Prime Minister, and a complete washout whose electorial loss saw the utter annihilation of the now extinct Progressive Conservative party in ’89).

    • kikorikid

      So, Are you saying that, “With a little luck”
      Hillary will our “first” female President?
      That’s not “luck”, that is horror!

  • chetnapier

    Clintons record was already tarnished think white water think cattle futures think ethics charges in 74

  • quillerm

    The whole Video and Mythical Mob Cover Up was hatched at the White House to provide cover for Hillary Clinton as Head of the Department of State. They wanted us to believe that the attack at Benghazi was totally unexpected and could NOT have been prevented. Over the last year we have found that the video and mythical mob evaporated under scrutiny. We discovered that written requests for Security and Warnings from Ambassador Stevens were denied and ignored by the State Department. We also found out NO Rapid Response Forces were dispatched to rescue those in need. It’s a total disgrace and failure of leadership. No wonder the democrats want to bury this investigation. It proves just how incompetent Hillary was as Head of the State Department.

    • Americana

      Let’s not forget our Congress also refused to allocate another $300 million to provide additional ex-SEAL military contractors to the Diplomatic Security Corps.

      • truebearing

        BS ALERT!!!!

        That had nothing to do with Hillary’s failure to upgrade the facility at Benghazi to embassy security requirements. She was spending plenty of money on upgrades eleswhere that were not in danger zones. She hired islamists as security guardes. She ignored requests for more security, which the Marines could easily have dispatched quite quickly. Etc etc etc

        • Americana

          So you’re implying that Sec. State Clinton misspent the funds that COULD have gone toward diplomatic facilities security in Libya? If that’s the case then why is it the Senate voted a year ago to allow funds from Iraq to be used in other locations? Everything that went wrong in Benghazi is what still remains wrong w/our Rapid Response Defense Doctrine and what still remains wrong in Libya. Some of the reasons for Benghazi hinge on money.

          1) We’re still not allowed to have sufficient American troops numbers on the ground in Libya in enough locations to provide sufficient support in a timely manner.

          2) We rely on non-purpose built diplomatic facilities and upgrade them to suit our needs w/a minimal increase in defensive capabilities that don’t make them into fortresses.

          3) We’re still reliant on the Muslim militias in Libya because Libya doesn’t allow us to have sufficient U.S. troops on the ground.
          _____________________________________________________

          Slightly old story but it still holds value…

          http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/05/senate-approves-plan-to-beef-up-embassy-security/

          US lawmakers have moved toward freeing up $1.1 billion to boost America’s diplomatic security, just as new Secretary of State John Kerry vowed to work to improve safety at missions around the world.

          The US Senate late Monday approved a State Department request to dip into unused funds that had been allocated for Iraq to upgrade US embassies in hotspots and provide more security staff.

          The move comes in the wake of an internal review into the September 11 attack on the US mission in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi that saw the ambassador and three other Americans killed.

          Critics lashed out at the State Department for “woefully inadequate” security at the outpost.

          The measure, put forward by Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, still has to pass the Republican-dominated House of Representatives. But State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the diplomatic service was “gratified” by the Senate move.

          Kerry pledged Monday as he took up his new post at the helm of US diplomacy that he would be “focused on the security and safety of our people.”

          On his first day on the job, he also took time to tour the agency’s diplomatic security service based in the Rosslyn area of Arlington, Virginia, where he toured the command center and was given a security briefing.

          Nuland said the funds would be partly spent on financing 35 more Marine security guard detachments to help guard US embassies and missions, as well as building new facilities and improving places seen as vulnerable.

          The State Department will also ask for a further $300 million for the current fiscal year to hire more diplomatic security agents, she said.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Rawstory!!! ROFLMAO. You’ve just completely discredited yourself.
            Is Obama a bold Faced Liar?

          • Americana

            What you’re only willing to look up sources acceptable to you? Fine, I’ll look up the same material from other web sites. Sorry, but you’re in check mate.

          • truebearing

            You are nuts. Completely deluded. And you just stomped on your own tiny little crank.

          • Americana

            You’re certifiable. And not in a good way…

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            All your sites end up blocking me or removing my posts.. Tyranny allows for no debate.
            Check mate? You’re assuming I care what your opinion is on anything in the first place. I don’t. See ya.

          • Americana

            If you feel your comments have been removed WITHOUT CAUSE, let’s see a mess of ‘em and then I’ll tell you whether I agree or disagree. (I’d like to see SPECIFIC COMMENTS from SPECIFIC WEB SITES that were taken down as well any web sites that have banned you.) It depends a great deal on what the terms of use are for each web site.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Screw! Who the ^%$ are you? If it weren’t so scary the attitude and logic of you progressive fascist libs would be comically side splitting.

          • Americana

            NO SITE ever blocks someone reading their site (or, I should say, HARDLY ANY do). Many do remove comments they deem unacceptable for whatever reason. Newspapers especially remove egregious, ugly, pointless comments because it’s very easy for the ugliness to get out of control if the vast majority of comments are disgusting and have no real merit. Like provokes the posting of like. If you cannot join a community and remain a member of its posting cadre for a long time, then generally it means that you’re not meeting community standards. It doesn’t mean what it means on PARTISAN, ADVOCACY sites like Jihad Watch and Atlas Shrugs where the attempt to ban DISSENTING VIEWPOINTS is the very deliberate aim and it’s opening discussed and encouraged by the community (as if that gives the community an out!!! Lordy, but that is FUNNY TO WATCH!).

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            I fear there are too many stupid people such as you in this country for us to remain free.
            The democrats are banking on it.

          • nickeldoor5

            All other ambassadors had been pulled out why on earth would they leave him out in the open with no protection except they wanted him gone. He was a liability to Clinton and Obama.

          • Americana

            Would you folks cut the BS to a minimum? “They wanted him gone….” LORDY! But the BS gets so incredibly thick on some of these sites. It’s like the BS never gets pumped out fully!

            Other countries make their own diplomatic decisions; they’ve got nothing to do w/us making decisions based on what we’re facing. The British left because they were attacked as did the Red Cross. Other embassies or diplomatic facilities DID REMAIN there after we left. Ambassador Stevens wasn’t “left in the open with no protection.” He brought 2 ADDITIONAL SEALs w/him on this trip in addition to the 3 who were already there in Benghazi. His ultimate backstop was the Rapid Response Force but the attack was so ferocious and so quickly overrun the embassy there wasn’t anything to be done by attempting to send RRF troops.

          • truebearing

            B*llsh*t. Not a word of that was true. Hillary had many months, the authority, and the money to provide proper security. She had ample warning of impending trouble, but she was also deeply invested in running weapons to radical Islamists, and Stevens got caught in the crossfire of her and Obama’s machinations.

          • Americana

            (DELETED w/EXTREME PREJUDICE, because I simply can’t allow myself to comment on this bulloney.)

    • GOPvsUSA

      You’re still lying? After predictably running away from my last post that tore you up?

      At the time of the Behghazi attack it could not be ruled out as a possibility that the video was involved. And it still can’t. This was not the only protest that day – there were protests in Cairo, Tunisia and other embassies that were a result of the video. It is WAY more probable that at least some of the people there were protesting the video and those who orchestrated the attack blended in with the protesters and used that as a front to help carry it out.

      Even Fox “news” own Megyn Kelly admitted that Susan Rice was simply saying what the intelligence community (the CIA under the direction of Betrayus) told her to be their best assessment after the attack. During a discussion with Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) on the February 11, 2014 edition of her Fox News show, Kelly referenced a House committee report released that day, and admitted that Rice’s talking points reflected CIA intelligence that “the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the embassy in Cairo”:

      Yes, yet another conservative talking point revealed as total BS – just like the “stand down” order supposedly given to prevent military support from reaching Benghazi that the House committee’s report already destroyed previously.
      http://armedservices.houseDOTgov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=C4E16543-8F99-430C-BEBA-0045A6433426

      FACT: There was a video that people were protesting.

      FACT: The protests in Benghazi were inspired by protests at the embassy in Cairo.

      FACT: The attackers in Benghazi were encouraging passers-by to join in the protest.

      FACT: The attackers then used that protest as cover for the attack.

      FACT: The above info comes from someone that was there “on the ground” and was interviewed afterwards by the AP.

      FACT: The talking points were done by the intelligence people … and that would be the CIA. And your disgraced, adulterous “hero” Betrayus was head of the CIA.

      FACT: The Benghazi outpost was under the control of the CIA. So why didn’t Petraeus protect the ambassador? Was he too busy sending
      his mistress THOUSANDS OF EMAILS? Or too busy banging her on the side?

      FACT: ALL roads lead right back to the CIA with Betrayus at the helm.

      FACT: The House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released a comprehensive report titled “Majority
      Interim Report: Benghazi Investigation Update” that evaluated the response of the Department of Defense to the Benghazi attack which stated that the intelligence community (i.e. the CIA under the watch of married Betrayus who was probably busy banging his mistress on the side and sending her THOUSANDS of emails) believed that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the embassy in Cairo.

      FACT: Even Fox “news” own Megyn Kelly admitted that Susan Rice was simply saying what the intelligence community (the CIA under the direction of Betrayus) told her to be their best assessment after the attack. During a discussion with Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) on the February 11, 2014 edition of her Fox News show, Kelly referenced a House committee report released that day, and admitted that Rice’s talking points reflected CIA intelligence that “the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the embassy in Cairo”.
      http://mediamattersDOTorg/blog/2014/02/12/fox-host-finally-accepts-the-truth-about-bengha/198030

      FACT: No, there was no “stand down” order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi. That’s just another blatant lie spread by the conservative media like GOP TV/Fox “news”.

      FACT: The National Counterterrorism Center had identified some 281 threats to U.S. diplomats, diplomatic facilities, embassies, ambassadors and consulates during the six months before the attack in Benghazi.
      http://www.cnnDOTcom/2013/02/07/us/panetta-benghazi-hearing

      FACT: Ambassador Stevens knew about the 281 threats (and supposedly even sent a cable sent in August that said security in Benghazi was not adequate) yet declined to take General Ham up on his additional security offer – TWICE – and even insisted on staying in the building overnight rather than return to the embassy from Benghazi like he was urged to do.

      FACT: The GOP knew about their repeated right-wing political strategy to use Muslim-baiting hate films (yes, plural) JUST WEEKS PRIOR TO U.S. GENERAL ELECTIONS to incite violence in the Middle East during the Presidential election season. It was something they did in 2008 with “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.” – an Islamophobic film that was broadly circulated in 2008 by McCain supporters to 28 million Americans by mainstream newspapers with financial backing from a nonprofit group with ties to the Koch brothers. And it was again a strategy the GOP used in the weeks before Benghazi with the anti-Islam film, “Innocence of Muslims”.

      “In Two President Elections, an Anti-Muslim Film Has Emerged Exactly 7 Weeks Before the Polls Open”
      http://wallstreetonparadeDOTcom/2012/09/in-the-past-two-presidential-elections-an-anti-muslim-film-has-emerged-exactly-7-weeks-before-the-polls-open/

      “Group Swamps Swing States With Movie on Radical Islam”
      http://www.washingtonpostDOTcom/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/25/AR2008102502092.html

      FACT: In spite of all this being well known by elected Republicans – that proved the compound was a target and that Stevens was in danger – convicted car thief and accused arsonist Darrell Issa STILL voted to cut embassy security funding anyway along with GOP Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah who said flat-out: “I absolutely Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security”.
      http://thinkprogressDOTorg/security/2012/10/10/985191/chaffetz-absolutely-funding-embassy-security/?mobile=nc

      FACT: It just gets easier and easier to smack you around.

      Now make sure you run away from these incriminating facts and again show us what a typical, conservative coward you are.

      • reader

        “GOP knew about their repeated right-wing political strategy to use Muslim-baiting hate films (yes, plural) JUST WEEKS PRIOR TO U.S. GENERAL ELECTIONS to incite violence in the Middle East during the Presidential election season.”

        That’s a fact? I thought you’re the only Schultz’s listener. Now I suspect that you are Schultz himself. Have a pill or something – but not here. Troll elsewhere.

      • truebearing

        You lying, deranged, POS, everything you wrote is false. The CIA analysts on the ground in Libya immediately reported the attack and said it wasn’t a protest.

        The State Department called “U-Tube” DURING the well planned terrorist attack to warn them about posting anti-Muslim videos, instead of taking action to save the Americans being attacked. How did they know the attack was caused by this video during the attack? DUH.

        • Americana

          The State Department KNEW the video had already provoked WEEKS worth of bloody protests around the world. If you’re concerned about the American deaths at the Benghazi facility, then why not be concerned about possible American/other nationalities’ deaths elsewhere around the Muslim world because of the same video that had already caused deaths in other places?

          You make it sound as if there’s no point in the State Department not doing everything it can to stop violence over such a video once it takes off. You know there are enough people to have State Dept. folks calling YouTube and telling them to take the freakin’ video down AS WELL AS TRY TO SAVE the Americans in Benghazi. It’s not like there’s ONLY ONE PERSON handling all aspects of the situation. DOH, DOH, DOH.

          • GOPvsUSA

            Conservatives have nothing on “BENGHAZI!!!!” except inconvenient truths: their golden boy Betrayus releasing talking points that they don’t like but refuse to blame him for; a dead diplomat who denied a special protection envoy from General Ham not once but TWICE; and a bunch of Republicans who admitted they (“absolutely”) voted to cut embassy security funding – despite the National Counterterrorism Center having identified some 281 threats to U.S. diplomats, diplomatic facilities, embassies, ambassadors and consulates during the six months before the attack in Benghazi.

            I love watching them collectively CRY about it though.

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part III

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, that didn’t work either – Part III.

          • Jade1

            You however will be crying later when it is too late you fool!

          • GOPvsUSA

            Be sure to let me know when that threat has officially come true, wont you?

            You, however, are already crying about me right here and now.

          • nickeldoor5

            If they had not pointed at that video it would still be on the shelf. You could not call that acting. It was a joke. Obama and Hillary probably had it made. They should never have focused on it. When they mentioned it there had not been a dozen hits on it. It was laughable it was that bad.

          • Americana

            That stupid film got people killed all around the Muslim world in the weeks prior to the Benghazi attacks. The fact the film was not the grounds for the Benghazi attack is neither here nor there, because the fact is, on the Muslim street, those weeks of violent protest over that stupid video being FOLLOWED BY A SUCCESSFUL ATTACK on American facilities in Benghazi TOGETHER served jihadist propaganda purposes. Who gives a rip if Pres. Obama and Sec/State Clinton momentarily focused on it? I could see beyond that film to the bigger picture. That film DID cause deaths and problems for Americans as well as other nationalities and other religions in the Middle East. The fact there are STILL Conservatives and Republicans who are going to ask those questions again this time around is indicative of a PARTISAN and BANKRUPT INTELLECTUAL GRASP of the situation in the Middle East.

          • truebearing

            Then why didn’t they try to save the Americans at Benghazi? You said they have enough people to do it, but they did nothing, got it? NOTHING!!!!!

            You make the case that there are plenty of people at the State Department, but suggest the had no money for security. Then I guess Hillary is to blame for blowing all of her budget on short-haired girls working at the State Department in DC instead of putting some real, AMERICAN security in Benghazi.

            Who gave the State Department the authority to decide what videos are on YouTube?

            If the State Department was trying to prevent violence caused by the video, why did they spend $70,000 in Pakistan apologizing for a video no one knew about, until the ads started playing? They incited Muslims by telling them something they didn’t even know about. They probably did the same thing in Egypt, only clandestinely through their Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

          • Americana

            true bearing, that stupid movie had been causing problems (including major RIOTS and DEATHS) for WEEKS throughout the Muslim world before the Administration did anything to address the problems the film was causing. Either you don’t read enough GENUINE NEWS SITES — as opposed to OPINUENDO SITES — to absorb the facts in the correct timeline sequence or you don’t keep the details clear in your mind. Nothing in your post is substantive, so I can only assume, it’s simply you trying to avoid answering my post about the JOINT CHIEFS REEVALUATING the RAPID RESPONSE FORCES and totally revising their stations around the Middle East.

        • GOPvsUSA

          Everything I wrote is false?

          Then why didn’t you refute “everything” I said, you gutless, lying punk?

          You only have 16 facts above to refute, right?

          Better get busy inbred trailer-dweller!

          I’ll now count off how many posts it takes for you to PROVE that “everything I said is false.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Obama is a Liar. Refute that.

          • GOPvsUSA

            Of course he’s a liar – he’s trying to catch up to the liar you voted for … twice.

            The same LAIR who lied about HUNDREDS OF TIMES just about those “stockpiles of WMDs” alone. And got 4,489 of our servicemen killed based on that lie and many times more than that wounded based on that lie.

            If you Obama is the only president that has lied then you’re the poster child for oxygen deprivation.

            Refute that.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            The question only requires a yes or no answer, Libs always half to pint out others bad behavior in order to justify their own. Can you point me to any good behavior to justify the Domestic enemies actions? Just one?

          • GOPvsUSA

            Same question over and over?

            OK … I’ll give you the same question over and over until you answer.

            Is your Uncle Daddy a liar?

            Yes or no?

            One word is all we need here!

            Again, I already answered yours now why aren’t you answering mine?

            If you’re an uneducated, POS conservative who’s too much of a coward to answer the question then just SAY so.

            Trust me … we’ll all believe you!

            You’re 0-3 on answering so far, coward.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            I don’t have an Uncle daddy. Tricky that’s like answering when did you stop beating your wife with a yes or no. You didn’t answer it. That was a simple yes or no but you tried to follow it up with liberal moral relativism.
            Just like a psychopath. “I wouldn’t have killed him if he didn’t make me do it!” It’s never their fault.
            You’re the P.O.S pal not me.

          • GOPvsUSA

            That’s not an answer.

            We all know you DO have an uncle daddy – it’s just a matter of whether or not he’s a liar.

            So I’ll ask again: Is your Uncle Daddy a liar?

            Yes or no?

            Again, this is NOT an essay question – a simple one word “yes” or “no” answer is all we need here!

            Again, I already answered yours now why aren’t you answering mine?

            If you’re an uneducated, POS conservative who’s too much of a coward to answer the question then just SAY so.

            Trust me … we’ll all believe you!

            You’re 0-4 on answering so far, coward.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            General Powell must have also lied about the WMDs. You must be a racist …

            Refute that …

          • GOPvsUSA

            Yes, Powell did lie about the WMDs, doofus.

            And he was quite pissed at your “Decider’s” administration for feeding him those lies to spew in front of the U.N.

            That’s historical fact at this point.

            Refute that …

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part V

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, that didn’t work either – Part V.

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part IV

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, that didn’t work either – Part IV.

        • GOPvsUSA

          Now Americana is throwing you a beating too.

          Oh, and I almost forgot …

          “DUH.”

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part VI

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, that didn’t work either — Part VI.

      • NonPCconservative

        What an amazing fantasy world you live in.

        • GOPvsUSA

          Way to not refute anything I’ve said on here, doofus.

          Now jot this down …

          Arguing unrelated points to try and “counter” inconvenient facts that you don’t like doesn’t work. It just makes you look like a typical, uneducated conservative who’s trying as hard as he can to change the subject over to something less painful.

          Because, well … you clearly are!

          That WAS what you were going for, right?

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part VII

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, that didn’t work either — Part VII.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            It won’t leave. You’ll have to kill it.

          • 95Theses

            Personally, I think that the administrator should halt the
            disruption since absolutely nothing they have to say contributes in any meaningful way — which, of course, the whole point of their existence. I refuse to engage them. But mock them? Now that I’m all too happy to do. And easy to do because they take themselves so seriously … when in fact they argue like untutored children.

            But once the troll alarm has been rung, their life-spans ought to be quickly truncated to make room for meaningful discussion. (I am speaking metaphorically, of course, in reference to life-spans.)

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            My response to Mrs. Pinsky got me blocked here.https://disqus.com/home/discussion/wbpubco/teen_shot_cabbie_for_taking_the_long_way_police_say#comment-1402995326 After her bleeding heart kept defending a cold blooded killer I said this.

            Ms. Pinky Stanseski loosercounty • 19 hours ago

            No matter what, I am against him being sentenced to death or life in prison without parole!

            Me.
            So it’s fine with you if he kills more innocence? if you let him out you know he will. How about this. You voucher for the little angel and if he kills again we’ll give you the death penalty for it. If that’s not O.K. with you then why is it O.K. for his next victim?
            Love you bleeding hearts.

            That got me blocked. Yes 95theses…..we ARE in subversive war. Their leader is Occupying our White House and his subversive army are the Progressive Liberal Democrats, Higher and lower education Main stream press and media. Tough battle and half the country is still oblivious.
            Soldier on 95. They’re MURDERING our Vets and soon to be us through the Weapon of Mass destruction they launched on us falsely named Obamaocare. I call it Mengele care.
            Don’t speak any truth on Media matters or CNN. So far not blocked but seriously censored.
            SCREW EM ALL 95!! My Brother or Sister in arms. Keep up the cyber war we must root them from every hole they’ve crawled into. They’ve been operating in the dark for 100yrs. How quickly shining light on them is making their efforts to overthrow our country come apart. That’s why they are desperately trying to enslave us with feverish pitch.

          • 95Theses

            Well, in conversations with my Conservative friends, talk of war is hardly ever discussed. However, when the subject does come up it is always in regard to something on an internet blog about another civil war within the United States. And — as far-fetched as it may sound — it simply cannot be dismissed out of hand. However … if, if the day comes when there is another civil war, it will not be a war between the states, but between state governments and the federal government. That is why rumblings of nullification are becoming more pervasive.

            My prediction (and as predictions go, I am often wrong) is that the states would prevail in such a contest. My reason for thinking so is because soldiers in the state national guards are not ward-of-the-state orphans. I.e., they both have families and come from families … family members who are civilians. And, because members of the military usually vote in disproportionately higher numbers for Conservatives candidates over liberal candidates, it seems to me very unlikely that when their back is absolutely up against the wall in choosing to fire on civilians or disobeying orders from their commanding officers to do so, they will choose the former over the latter. But as I say, my predictions are often wrong.

            And here’s why it may not happen that way: when the government was last shutdown and your average American was prevented (among other things) from
            enjoying our national parks, the park employees — rather than ignore their orders — blithely followed along … like the Nazis at the Nuremburg trials who defended their crimes by saying that they were only following orders. That’s the part that worries me. On the other hand, I would not characterize the Obama shutdown as a back-against-the-wall scenario. So who knows. And yet, the Nullification Movement is picking up steam and gathering in both numbers and strength daily … so perhaps there may be a happy ending after all.

            Just my 2-cents worth.

          • Americana

            The Nullification Movement is the toll road to an idiotic policy choice.

          • 95Theses

            And how are you this fine day?
            God’s blessings upon you.

      • 95Theses

        Scroll past the troll.

    • Americana

      Sorry, but you obviously haven’t read a Benghazi timeline. There were NO Rapid Response Forces within reach of Benghazi within time to prevent the overrunning of the embassy. Bury the investigation? I’m writing up a huge long thing to ship off to some of the Benghazi committee about bringing in the Joint Chiefs to the hearing so they can lay out the REAL STORY for people like yourself who refuse to see the obvious.

  • ron44

    Cummings will most likely use racism to try and embarrass the questioners to draw support of the radical communities they support.

    • Americana

      There were surveillance drones in the area but I don’t believe they were ARMED. There is a reference to surveillance drones arriving on scene in some of the accepted timelines for the Benghazi attacks. These are the drones that provided a live video feed. I’ll find one and repost it here.

  • obamaisaliarperiod

    Damn. I was hoping they boycotted it. It would’ve been nice to have the committee without any communist Interruptus.

    • Americana

      I believe I’d like to see certain generals called to address the impossibility of getting Rapid Response forces to Benghazi in time during this battle. Especially since the Joint Chiefs have inaugurated a new Marine Rapid Response special operations force in order to prevent Benghazi from ever being able to happen again. There’s a lot of information in this post, please read it in its entirety.

      I’ve been told by people here and on Jihad Watch that I didn’t know enough to make my claims about the previous Rumsfeld Doctrine Deployments being insufficient but, as you can see, the Joint Chiefs agree w/my belief that the previous Rapid Response forces were not in good locations to prevent Benghazi and they’re creating a NEW MARINE RAPID RESPONSE FORCE and putting them on BOARD NAVY SHIPS.

      The Newsmax site keeps its material under copyright so you’ll have to go to that site to read the story but below are some of the highlights. Please note that Gen. James Omos agrees w/me that our Rapid Response strategic posture just wasn’t strategic enough to get the job done.

      ***U.S. Marine Corps has been tasked w/putting Rapid Response Forces on Navy ships to respond to diplomatic, military, and piracy issues.

      ***Gen James Omos described the inherent lack of timeliness in loading men on C-17s from distant bases and flying them into a battle.

      ***These Marine Rapid Response special operations teams will be added to ships carrying larger Marine Expeditionary Units.

      ***There will be a war games by the Marines and Special Operations Command to test the new Rapid Response deployment set-up.

      http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-disaster-marines-response/2013/03/27/id/496529#ixzz32aIyyF77

      _____________________________________________________

      Here’s the timeline since some seem to find their Timex watches to be challenging pieces of technology. Be aware that you must add 6 hours to each time for the timeline to read in Benghazi time. Ambassador Stevens was dead within an hour and a half of the attack starting along w/Information Officer Sean Smith. The nearest American Rapid Response force wouldn’t have arrived for XX hours:

      _____________________________________________________

      http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

      Analysis

      Sept. 11: The Attack

      2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)

      3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)

      Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

      About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)

      About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”

      Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

      About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”

      About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”

      Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”

      6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

      About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”

      About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

      • GOPvsUSA

        Here … let me give you every conservative response that you’ll ever get to that fantastic post there. Ready?

        “But … but … uhhh … derrrrr … ummm … BENGHAZI!!!!”

        • Americana

          I’m trying to figure you out, GOPvsUSA. Can you explain yourself a bit to me? No pressure, I’m just curious…

          • GOPvsUSA

            I HATE conservatives.

            That’s pretty much it really.

          • Americana

            In that case, maybe you need a GROUP shot for your sig!

          • GOPvsUSA

            I thought the combo of the name and the picture of the most paranoid, crybaby conservative of all was sufficient.

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part X

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, that didn’t work either — Part X.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            And we hate you, too!

          • GOPvsUSA

            And I wear that hate like a badge of honor!

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Well, you certainly wear it as a badge …

          • GOPvsUSA

            Still cutting and running away from the question, Wolfthatknowsabsolutelynothing?

            I’ll post it again …

            “Yes, Powell did lie about the WMDs, doofus.”

            And he was quite pissed at your “Decider’s” administration for feeding him those lies to spew in front of the U.N. and making a fool out of him.

            That’s historical fact at this point.

            Refute that!”

            Again, you can either refute that or just admit you lied.

            Pick one!

            You’re 0-5 so far.

          • truebearing

            If you had any honor…

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part ΙX

          • GOPvsUSA

            I’ll stop trolling over here when you guys stop trolling over on the CNN boards where you don’t belong.

            Until then, I’m gonna come over here to rip this place up every chance I get – just like you conservatives do over there.

          • truebearing

            Oh! It’s a CNN idiot. No wonder. You would like a pseudo-news network that theorizes a black hole swallowing the missing plane from Malaysia.

          • mel

            We’ll pray that you find peace in your life.

          • GOPvsUSA

            I’ll pray that you lose enough weight that you can someday see your feet again.

            When was the last time you seen them? Any idea?

            C’mon, Jenny Craig dropout … be honest here: Aren’t there some places you can’t QUITE reach with a washcloth?

            Oh wait … I forgot. You don’t answer incriminating questions – like how many of those FACTS your conservative media told you about Treasonous McTurtleface?

            You’re now 0-3 on answering that.

            I’ll keep counting off how many times you try to talk about anything else in an attempt to change the subject and avoid answering.

          • mel

            I have to hand it to you. In a weird, disturbing way, you’re actually kind of entertaining. Your insults make me laugh. So … thank you for that. God loves you.

          • truebearing

            Come on now. Admit the rest. You’re insane but because you take all of your medicine, the orderlies let you play on the internet.

          • hiernonymous

            Playing doctor again?

        • 95Theses

          Scroll past the troll. — Part VIII

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, that didn’t work either — Part VIII.

          • Americana

            It must be the way we argue/discuss things in my family, but I’m never inclined to label someone a troll. I’m also never inclined to not read someone simply because their perspective is very, very different from mine. I read each post and I see if I’ve got a rational comment to make about each post, or NOT.

            I’ve never, ever bothered to pay any attention to whether my posts are voted up or down until quite recently. I’ve decided, after being banned, to pay more attention and try to figure out why I do and don’t strike a chord w/people. I’m surprised to see who’s been voting my posts up. There are some conservatives who are doing so. That tells me that it IS POSSIBLE for us to read each other’s thoughts and think beyond the labels. I vote all over the board but the people for whom I vote must convince me of their smarts, their hutzpah, their grasp of the issues w/which they’ll primarily be dealing and show me they have an innate sense for spotting the final compromise that works for all.

          • 95Theses

            The point, THE POINT of troll-craft is to create disruption on websites — like FrontPageMag or National Review Online — where for the most part the troll in question disagrees with the ideology or content of that site. Girly-man above, says he hates Conservatives. Well then? Is there any question of his her/her trollness?

            I’ve seen that you’ve complained of being banned. Well why do you think that is? Are you pro-life, pro-marriage, or pro-2nd Amendment? Do you support Zionism, free trade, a reduction in income tax rates, and smaller government? Do you oppose illegal immigration, ObamaCare, and the IRS persecution of Tea Party non-profit groups?

            Well, if you’re the liberal side of most of those issues,
            then you’re not really at home here. If HuffPo is more to your liking than go there. Whose heart are you trying to win? Your own? So let’s be honest … if you’re not a Conservative at heart you oughtn’t find the troll label so offensive.

            Ordinarily I do not engage with liberals here. But since you seem puzzled I elected to respond. But only just this once.

            Signing off. Ciaø.

          • Lanna

            That’s right….they left wants to create distraction, because the TRUTH is not on their side! All they can do Is lie, create diversion, and spew propaganda, demonize the messenger who presents the facts.

          • Americana

            No one needs to demonize the messenger when the MESSAGE ITSELF IS FLAWED. Look at everyone on Front Page Mag continuing to disavow the IMPORT of what the Joint Chiefs revision of the Rapid Response Forces means in light of Benghazi.

          • Americana

            Oh, I’m hardly PUZZLED. I’ve seen enough that I KNOW why the reception is what it is, I just refuse to accept the intellectual stupidity underlying the banning. Being banned is especially aggravating, not to mention uproariously IRONIC, when there are some pundits who claim they’re for FREE SPEECH and they’re busily selling that concept of FREE SPEECH being abrogated right, left and center by all sorts of nefarious groups. Well, they SHOW THEMSELVES to be less than stellar guardians of free speech when they ban someone like me rather than arguing their point of view until their perspective is vindicated. ISOLATIONISM is just not how political parties should choose to operate. Look at what ISOLATIONISM has wrought on this thread alone!!! TOTAL MISINFORMATION and DISINFORMATION. And. when those falsehoods are corrected and are backed up by FACTUAL EVIDENCE, there’s a total failure of the other side to address those points being brought up.

            Hey, I’m not a troll. I answer questions respectfully and I post respectfully and I interact respectfully up until I’m not granted the same respect you folks demand. when that happens, I’m willing to come out slugging a bit harder but, even then, I generally remain within the framework of an intellectual couching of the arguments and the points I wish to make. I don’t stoop to the low-hanging fruit of the sexual innuendo and the other assorted crap that’s been dished out by Jihad Watch and Pamela Geller. Either they’ve got enough INTELLECTUAL WEIGHT OF FACTS to sink my points OR THEY DON’T. When they’re challenged and proven WRONG, as in the halal/kosher argument and the Muslim sexual slavery issue and several other arguments, they ban someone they find embarrassing. Well, you know what? I’m NOT EMBARRASSED by their banning. They’re the ones who should be embarrassed. Not only for enacting the ban but for ENCOURAGING and ALLOWING THEIR DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN on the fact I’m a regular old American girl w/some unusual family members. To try to claim that I didn’t have an older sister who was the dean of a women’s university in the Middle East by making the ludicrous claim that HADITHS DIDN’T PERMIT HER TO HOLD THAT POSITION was not only the height of intellectual arrogance, it was also the height of intellectual DECEIT. You don’t WIN these arguments by DECEIT. You win by UNDERSTANDING THE SITUATION BETTER THAN THE NEXT GUY and PRESENTING IT IN A COMPREHENSIBLE FASHION. Lying and embellishing that same lie when it’s been disproven, simply makes you out to be a fool.

            Ciao, bambina.

          • 95Theses

            Hmmmm. Well, I thank you for your reply. I mean that. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that it was you who initiated a dialogue with me and not the other way around. That being said, I did misspeak by inferring that you were practicing troll-craft. That being said, I still believe that the thrust of what I said above holds. Viz., that it is a waste of energy to spend your efforts on FPM (as a for instance) if you cannot honestly say that the issues I cited above are one’s that you embrace. Not all … but most.

            Knowing that, I myself take the view that it is pointless to butt heads with a poster who is at odds with most — if not all — things conservative. EVERY political issue ultimately is grounded in a Weltanschauung that is fundamental to the core of what one believes. And worldviews reflect what one trusts about bedrock ideas concerning the Law of Non-Contradiction, the basic reliability of Logic and Sense Perception, moral absolutes — just to name a few of these fundamentals. And it is in these very arenas that Conservatives disagree with Liberals (contemporary Liberals, just to be clear).

            I am more than a little vocal in my opinions and have had more than the average share of personal (as opposed to virtual) discussions with most individuals who are self-described liberals to learn that I can sum up within 5 minutes or less whether I/we are actually going to dialogue or forever be at an impasse.

            So. Here in digital space I adamantly refuse to argue with say, the knucklehead who goes by GOPvsUSA or others like him since it is so obvious what they are up to. And I never bothered to engage with you because we probably disagree at that fundamental bedrock level that pulses through the virtues and values that separate us. I respect that you have a different point of view. Were we sitting across the table from each other I would consider dialoguing … at least for 5 minutes (smile). Besides, we can always talk of music or art. But again, as a matter of policy, I will not waste my energy trying to persuade anyone who simply refuses to see the world from any other perspective but their own. William F. Buckley, Jr. once said that nothing is more irritating than arguing with someone who refuses to concede a point.

            As friendly as I can say it, I do not understand why you feel so missionarial about your views that you risk generating so much needless frustration for yourself by coming here to debate. I am past 60 now, and am
            well-seasoned in what I believe and why I believe it. I read the better part of the day and have over 3000 books in my personal library — all non-fiction, serious adult reading material. My point is not how well-informed I keep myself … I’m trying to say that despite my personal store of knowledge, it is wasted in digital space for the purpose of persuasion. I post and go. If a poser is disrupting the forum by practicing troll-craft, I mock them. They’ve earned it and have it coming.

            I genuinely wish you well. Ciaø.

          • Americana

            Well, as I’ve said, I consider myself neither a liberal nor a conservative despite being given the liberal label by certain web site directors. Politicians don’t isolate themselves from others outside their political caucus though this may not be as true as it once was. I find it rather amazing that not one person on this BB has acknowledged what is inherently true about Benghazi given that the Joint Chiefs entirely REDESIGNED their Rapid Response Forces after a review of Benghazi. I mean, really, you’re all going to continue to make these utterly facetious claims while desperately trying to ignore what the Joint Chiefs have SAID and DONE? I find that strange and very disturbing.

          • hiernonymous

            I think that you, and many others, make a serious mistake in your definition of trolling. Trolling is the art of provoking emotional responses from people for the sole purpose of enjoying their rage. A true troll doesn’t care about the politics of his targets, he just enjoys the social dynamics.

            Challenging the consensus on bubble sites, on the other hand, is a useful activity. We have entirely too many complacent political blowhards on both sides of the spectrum who only hear what they want to hear, and end up with a nasty case of confirmation bias.

            In this case, you’re hearing things about Benghazi that you need to hear if you want to have an informed opinion.

          • truebearing

            You really aren’t anywhere near as clever as you like to think you are. You earn Happy Meals and cheap wine by going to conservative sites and clogging the thread with your inane maunderings. You don’t know what you are babbling about, but you get paid to do it, so you persist.

            Hillary lied and Americans died. How’s that for a catchy little parody of the Left’s mindless chants? At least it’s true.

          • Americana

            TRUEBEARING DENIES AND CONSERVATIVES LIE.

            How’s that for a riposte? Based upon the content of this thread, that’s a more accurate appraisal. The fact I don’t happen to believe that conservatives lie is swallowed by the black hole that is a cheapass, worthless, jingoistic comment like that. You might really enjoy cheapass little ditties but they’re not something on which to hang your political choices. Oh, and since you brought it up, you certainly WOULDN’T BE PAID to write political analysis given what I’ve seen of your writing and you’d be spewing even more vile bile from consuming Happy Meals.

            You think I give a FLYING RIP about what you think about what I write??? I write for people like hieronymous who OBVIOUSLY recognizes I’m NOT a TROLL and that I’m interested in rectifying the situation for the future. hieronymous happened to say you needed to read some of the information I’ve provided and that it’s tough medicine but, to be a qualified citizen, you should digest the information. I’d take that advice to heart. Stop the stupidity! — it’s a good motto to live by and read by.

            I can’t STAND to SEE LIES PERSIST IN CYBERSPACE because of partisan politics. I don’t ever wonder if I’m clever or NOT. COGITO ERGO SUM about sums me up… I think therefore I am an ENGAGED CITIZEN. I don’t give a FLYING RIP whether you think I’m clever or not. (It’s kind of typical though that you’d wheel out the old insult machine and try to put me in my place!) This is how we think and write in my family. You want to stick w/your form of thinking and your form of writing, be my guest. But either stop insulting me about the way I think and write or we’re going to continue to have words. The fact is my questioning of the LOGISTICS SUPPLY CHAIN was the very first though in my head when I heard what had happened in Benghazi.

            My first thought was NOT TO DEMONIZE a President who doesn’t make the TACTICAL DECISIONS in situations like that. The outcry over having Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Clinton taking command and issuing orders about which outfits should go to the rescue in Benghazi reminds me of stories about Hitler during WW II. Hitler would take command at critical junctures and inappropriate times and he’d end up sending German troops into total strategic disaster!!! (SHEESH.)

          • mel

            Nice. I’ll have to remember that one.

          • 95Theses

            Thee is welcome.

        • truebearing

          The topic is Benghazi, idiot, and no matter how matter half-wit trolls the Left sends out to disrupt discussion, it will continue to be the topic. Hillary is going to wear Benghazi forever.

      • nickeldoor5

        They could not get anyone there in six hours but they had plenty of video overhead when it was happening. The ambassador helped Obama be taken over by muslim brother hood. He helped with getting the weapons in. The Ambassadors problem was he was a liability to Obama. He let it slip to the wrong person about the guns that Obama helps start Egypt on Fire. Bill Ayers and other were there when Egypt was burning the reason he had to go. They were the reason the spring started in the first place. He could have taken Obama and Hillary down. That was the reason why they would not give him any protection, They knew what he was up against. There would have been a lot more people dead if it had not been for the seal and one other. They have allowed weapons that can take down planes in the enemies hands. Obama is still playing games. Obama is nothing more than a con man, a hustler. He can lie and make you believe you are king or queen. Hillary is not much better.

        • Americana

          There’s nothing at all insidious about our supplying guns to the folks we think might be “less bad” than other folks in the picture. So there’s no reason whatsoever for gun-running to be the reason to take out an American Ambassador. If they’d wanted him to be vulnerable, they wouldn’t have had Gen. Ham telling Ambassador Stevens NOT TO GO TO BENGHAZI on the record. The fact Gen. Ham told Amb. Stevens TWICE not to go to Benghazi because he didn’t have additional security men to attach to his protection detail is on record. Amb. Stevens insisted on going because he felt comfortable w/his relationship w/the Muslim militia that was protecting his back in Benghazi. So even though Amb. Stevens worried about the terrorism threat level rising, Stevens felt he’d be relatively safe. These facts tell me everything I need to know about the situation. Coupled w/the CORRECTIVE ACTIONS taken by the Joint Chiefs, the CULPRIT in the Benghazi tragedy has been identified — it was the LOGISTICS CHAIN.

          It’s always worthwhile to speculate when facts need connections to be made; it’s never worthwhile to speculate mistakenly about facts from a partisan point of view that no sense given the American means of staying on top in the Middle East. Arming OUR chosen rebel group is one of those political choices we make. Arming the Muslim Brotherhood to a limited extent in Egypt didn’t make them the winners in the election and, once they lost the Egyptian people’s confidence, we watched the Muslim Brotherhood be thrown out of power by the Egyptian army. Our current government is playing the players in each and every situation in the Middle East.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            How do you explain Hitlery’s failure to respond to repeated requests by Ambassador Stephens for increased security? He shouldn’t have been there, in the first place …

          • Americana

            I don’t believe Hillary Clinton is who makes those security decisions except in the BROADEST SENSE. I think she’s in more of an oversight position viz the scope of the security and leaves those more technical military decisions on security issues to the U.S. military in consultation w/the State Department’s Diplomatic Security Corps. (After all, the Joint Chiefs wouldn’t have REVISED their RAPID RESPONSE PLAN if they weren’t aware that Benghazi proved that their previous Rapid Response Plan was a TOTAL FAILURE.)

            The Secretary of State consults on the diplomatic, strategic and intelligence aspects of each country’s situation w/the Ambassador while leaving the technical security details (such as creating secured facilities and safe rooms and size of security detail) to military individuals more intimately acquainted w/the particular situation in-country. Ultimately, the Ambassador makes decisions about his itinerary and, as happened in this case, Stevens requested additional security but STILL DECIDED IN FAVOUR of his Benghazi trip despite not having secured additional men for his security detail and despite warnings from Gen. Ham.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            “Stevens requested additional security but STILL DECIDED IN FAVOUR of his
            Benghazi trip despite not having secured additional men for his
            security detail and despite warnings from Gen. Ham.”

            So, do I take from this that it was Ambassador Stevens fault that he was killed by Islamists, and no attempts were made to either kill the terrorists, or rescue he and his staff? Hillary Clinton had no responsibility? President Obama had no responsibility?

            I am a combat veteran … Vietnam, 1968-69 … and if any of our commanders heard that our men were trapped by the enemy, with no means of escape, we would have been on that enemy like ugly on a toad frog …

            The President and the former Secretary of Defense need to take absolute responsibility for their failures in leadership.

          • Americana

            Yes, you can infer from my remarks that Ambassador Stevens put himself and his security detail at risk under his own recognizance. Of course, Stevens believed that the Rapid Response Force concept that had been designed and implemented under Sec/Def. Donald Rumsfeld’s watch WOULD WORK because up until this debacle in Benghazi, there had been no failure of this RRF Doctrine. Of course, it’s also true that Benghazi was the worst case scenario for testing that RRF Doctrine considering the distance of the relief forces, the state of the planes not being fueled and ready to leave IMMEDIATELY, etc. Don’t kid yourself, the responsibility for this LIES w/the Joint Chiefs who didn’t see it wouldn’t work for Benghazi. Until this failure of the policy, no one could foresee that this policy would fail under the conditions prevailing in Benghazi. If this were not so, the RRF Doctrine wouldn’t have been ENTIRELY REDESIGNED. That indicates who’s (correctly) assuming responsibility for the failure.

            Since you brought up Vietnam, here’s a Vietnam scenario that illustrates the conditions in Benghazi. >>>> If you had been trapped on Hamburger Hill w/25 Americans defenders and there were just as many CIA operatives running around w/the Vietcong just outside the American lines and the choice of the Air Force was to bomb the surrounding Vietcong knowing they would kill 25 Americans or not bombing and seeing if the 25 Americans on the Hill would be able to maintain their positions until the ground forces broke through. You KNOW what the CORRECT strategic choice would be.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Of course, there are remaining questions. Where was President Obama? Where was Secretary of State Clinton? What orders, if any, did they give, during this period?

            Concerning your “Hamburger Hill” scenario, you need to know that the Hill was surrounded by the 101st, my unit. But if we had been trapped on that hill by the NVA, and there were CIA operatives among the assault forces, they would have known … THEY WOULD HAVE KNOWN … and accepted the risks associated with their job, including the possibility of friendly fire. Had they died, they would have been honored by their nation with a star at Langley.

            The correct choice would have been to launch repeated air raids on the enemy, just like THAT was the correct choice in Benghazi.

          • Americana

            Oh, yeah, I can JUST SEE THAT SCENARIO of Americans willingly DYING BY FRIENDLY FIRE being acceptable to the Conservatives on this thread!!!!!! Yeah, right, here’s the entire Conservative caucus trying to blame this entirely on Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Clinton when the REALITY IS/WAS that these strategic decisions were the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JOINT CHIEFS who implemented the Rapid Response Doctrine. Sorry, NO, it ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT a situation that could be blamed on our POTUS and our Sec State. It was decisions by the Joint Chiefs that put those Americans in jeopardy and putting EVEN MORE AMERICANS IN JEOPARDY during the battle wouldn’t have been welcomed by the Conservatives I’ve seen contributing to this thread. Besides, those CIA operatives are even less replaceable than the ex-SEALs who died! Are you just going to ignore WHAT THE LOSS of those operatives would have meant for intelligence? Intelligence gathering in Libya could have been compromised for several months or possibly even YEARS depending on which of those CIA operatives had been killed.

            Not one of you has acknowledged what the Joint Chiefs themselves have acknowledged — that the LOGISTICS CHAIN of the Rapid Response Doctrine wasn’t correct to provide the right coverage and the right timeliness for the situation in Libya. Not ONE of you has acknowledged that. I’ll be finishing up a very long, very specific treatise to go to a couple of the Congressmen on this latest Benghazi hearing committee on BOTH SIDES and we’ll see just which party has the guts to point the fingers at the responsible parties.

            Please concentrate on the specific scenario I outlined RATHER THAN FOCUS on what happened at the REAL Hamburger Hill Battle. There WERE NO AMERICAN CIA AGENTS intermingled w/the attacking Vietcong at the real Hamburger Hill so it **wouldn’t have mattered** if the Air Force had carpet bombed beyond the perimeter of where the American forces were entrenched. But in the case of Benghazi, the Air Force would NOT have been able to come in and bomb buildings being used as cover by the attacking terrorists even with laser-painting specifying the target without RISKING AMERICAN LIVES THAT COULDN’T BE ISOLATED from the melee of forces surrounding the diplomatic compound. ***Also, those CIA operatives aren’t necessarily as DISPOSABLE as you’re suggesting they are and giving them a star at Langley doesn’t make up for lost intelligence gathering!***

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            You obviously haven’t been in the military, or any intelligence service. Risk is part of the game … possibly fatal risk. Until you understand this, you can’t understand what I have said.

            Of course, reading your lengthy dissertation … be glad I wasn’t on the committee … I can see that your true purpose is to protect Obama, and the election prospects of Hitlery … excuse me … Hillary Clinton. This also explains your presence on a conservative board, with your pretense of understanding conservative values, principles, and beliefs.

            I will not concentrate on any scenario presented by you, when you obviously do not understand the real-life risks that soldiers and intelligence officers face, every day. They understand these risks, and the potential for lethal friendly fire, every day of their careers. You don’t …

          • truebearing

            Nice job of getting the nit-wit to melt down and blow his flimsy cover.

          • Americana

            My “true purpose” is to get at the REALITY of what happened in Benghazi so it’s understood for what it is. If you, Wolfknowsnothing, want to pretend that American forces were within REASONABLE DISTANCE of Benghazi to save those Americans lost in the first attack, I KNOW you’re being totally unrealistic. There were reasons why the SEALs at the CIA Safe House were told to stand down because moving out of that location gave away the Safe House location to the enemy in two different ways — when they left it in a convoy and when they returned UNDER FIRE w/rescued Americans from the diplomatic compound.

            Their action, heroic though it was, CAUSED the second half of the battle. That was a tactical risk taken by those ex-SEALs that could have made EVEN MORE INTELLIGENCE AVAILABLE to the terrorists if they’d been able to BREACH THAT CIA FACILITY. If the terrorists had breached the Safe House and gotten away w/tons of intelligence material without the CIA having time to destroy it, the conversation about who did what and just how highly regarded it should be, would be an entirely different conversation. The fact you all fail to mention details like this tells me not only aren’t you as tactical in your thinking as you’d like to believe, but that you’re willing to denigrate others bringing up legitimate details that are fully backed up by the Joint Chiefs. Keep stroking each other’s egos though, it’s pretty amusing.

            I understand full well the risks our intelligence and military folks face every day. The fact you’re stating the obvious as your knockdown punch to me while you’re ignoring such things as the Joint Chiefs REWORKING THE ENTIRE RAPID RESPONSE DEPLOYMENT tells me that not only are you not interested in the REALITY of the factors involved in this incident, you’re going to continue to play by partisan rules that won’t necessarily address those issues in future. Who gives a FLIPPIN’ RIP whether or not you pay any attention to what I write? The value of your partisan and simplistic snide remarks — “They understand the potential for lethal friendly fire every day of their careers, you don’t” — OMG, that’s like, supposed to be a newsworthy comment or have any INTELLIGENCE VALUE?

          • Lanna

            Totally Correct….the military would not have left those men there to die without a rescue attempt and huge battle! Amen!

          • Americana

            Ah, so you’re fine w/the American armed forces KILLING the American CIA operatives OUTSIDE the compound who were in the streets trying to figure out ways to kill or nullify the terrorists as they attacked while sparing the Americans INSIDE the compound? That’s a**real win-win, lives saved** solution for ya’ll!

          • MorganValerioyse321

            just as
            Robert answered I am impressed that a mom can profit $8694 in 4 weeks on the
            internet . Visit Website M­o­n­e­y­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

          • Americana

            (Yes, I’ll just bet that Robert answered this ad! What a farce.)

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            THOSE men would have been part of the huge battle, spoken of by Lanna …

      • Drakken

        The Marine Corps already had a rapid response teams aboard Navy ships, they are called FAST Teams. They were less than 3 hours away from Benghazi, just lik they had various other US special and regular forces within a few hours away and no one was sent. Obummer violated the first rule of warfare, we leave no man behind.

        • Americana

          Listen, Drakken, if the Joint Chiefs said there was no one close enough to send, they’re the CREDIBLE SOURCE in this argument. Don’t go telling me there were FAST Teams that were available when I haven’t found anything that was 3 hours away that was READY TO BE DEPLOYED. No waiting for planes to be FUELED, no waiting for SEALs to get gear together, READY TO GO RIGHT THEN AND THERE. PRODUCE A LINK THAT PROVES THERE WERE TEAMS READY TO GO THAT WERE WITHIN RANGE. First rule of warfare, don’t get into UNTENABLE SITUATIONS. This was a Gen. Armstrong Custer situation if ever there was one and the Major Benteen reinforcements weren’t able to make it to Gen. Custer’s side in this fight either.

          If there were such FAST Teams that WERE ready to be deployed (NO WAITING FOR ANYTHING!!!!), they would have appeared in NEWS STORIES. We’re not talking any stupid blogs from ex-military but news feeds that have the truth right from the Joint Chiefs’ Information Office. I’ll believe that when I see a link. In the meantime, I’m off to check and see if I find FAST Teams that were deployable instantly. By the way, the first leg of the Benghazi battle was OVER within 3 hours so even deploying these FAST Teams that were within 3 hours WOULDN’T HAVE SAVED Ambassador Stevens or Information Officer Sean Smith.

        • hiernonymous

          Source? This is the first I’ve heard of Marines being within 3 hours of Benghazi. That was still 2 hours too far, but I’m interested in knowing what Marine element you’re referring to and where you got the information.

          • Americana

            I notice your request for a SOURCE for that information hasn’t been answered. Nor has Drakken chosen to answer as to why the Joint Chiefs would have TOTALLY REWORKED the Rapid Response Forces in light of the Benghazi attack if the previous configuration and deployment picture should have worked to prevent the situation in Benghazi. Fast Teams or not, the Joint Chiefs reworked the Rapid Response Teams for a reason.

  • http://www.clarespark.com/ Clare Spark

    At the bottom of this dispute lies the concept of cultural relativism: the Dems all go for it as it is easily solved with diversity studies and criticism of “prejudice”. I explained cultural relativism here: http://clarespark.com/2014/03/13/what-is-cultural-relativism/. It explains the deployment of the “biased” video to explain jihadism,, and has been going on for as long as cultural relativism has been in the saddle–say the beginning of the progressive movement.

    • Americana

      Sorry, that just doesn’t jibe w/how I think nor how any of the folks I know think. They’re all quite aware that the Benghazi debacle was indicative of an American diplomatic corps that doesn’t have full control over its life or death because they’re being put in untenable situations. Having a limited number of SEALs as the security force for such an outpost is, and was, insufficient. I don’t care how much firepower the ex-SEAL diplomatic security forces have if the building/compound is basically indefensible. A reliance on Rapid Response SEAL force from DISTANT BASES is not going to work in instances like Benghazi and we should recognize that and RECTIFY that defensive posture right now.

      What I looked at was the timeline and the few U.S. bases within range that had U.S. Rapid Response forces and whether or not their planes/helicopters were deployable IMMEDIATELY the call came in for help. We know how committed and driven these Muslim jihadists are, we know they’ve got sufficient firepower to do whatever fighting they face on the ground if there aren’t sufficient American troops present, we’ve looked at the pictures of the Benghazi compound and we saw a DISASTER WAITING TO HAPPEN. Ambassador Stevens also wanted to go to Benghazi and went against the stated objections of the State Dept.

  • Americana

    Our present strategic deployment in the Middle East and around the world was engineered by Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld under Pres. Bush. U.S. strategic doctrine has not changed significantly since his conversion of American deployment posture in the Middle East became dependent on Rapid Deployment SEAL forces. This was done to consolidate U.S. bases and reduce the size of the standing army. It did achieve both aims but it obviously leaves a little to be desired in terms of ability to respond to any and all threats. There has been a recent tweaking of American deployment under Pres. Obama to a more Pacific-oriented threat from China but basically, we’re facing the threats in the Middle East from a deployment that doesn’t foster the ultimate in security for Americans in the Middle East’s most dangerous countries.

    This is a timeline from CNN. All times are actual Benghazi time. (Many people seem to be looking at this timeline in Eastern standard time and getting a false impression of the reaction timeframe. The first two Americans died within just a couple of hours. The death of Amb. Stevens and information officer Sean Smith doesn’t jibe w/how many hours travel time relief forces would have had. Once the attack commenced, Amb. Stevens and Sean Smith were dead unless our Muslim militia allies had better performed their PROTECTION duties.) The deaths of Ambassador Stevens and Information Officer Sean Smith occurred within the first couple of hours of the attack. There were no planes or helicopters fueled and ready to deploy American SEAL forces for this imaginary knick-of-time relief force. If we continue to believe we must have diplomatic staff in these highly volatile Middle Eastern nations, it obviously won’t work to have INSUFFICIENT AMERICAN TROOPS on the ground to protect them and we CANNOT RELY on MERCENARY Muslim militia to protect our people. We also can’t select basically MINIMALLY-FORTIFIED diplomatic buildings. And finally, the Ambassador should not be allowed to make decisions on his own recognizance to visit such innately INDEFENSIBLE COMPOUNDS as in Benghazi.
    ______________________________________________________________________

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/06/politics/benghazi-attack-timeline/index.html

    9:40 p.m.: Gunfire is heard outside the Benghazi diplomatic mission, then a loud explosion. Dozens of armed militiamen charge the main gate and set fire to a barracks building as they make for the ambassador’s residence.

    CORRECTION
    An earlier version of this story misidentified Gregory Hicks, who was deputy mission chief at the time of the attacks.

    10 p.m.: Attackers breach the mission walls and make for the ambassador’s residence. Stevens and information officer Sean Smith run to a safe room with one security agent.

    An alert is sent to the CIA security team at an annex about a mile away, the State Department and the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli. Stevens calls deputy mission chief Gregory Hicks at the embassy and tells him, “Greg, we’re under attack.”
    refuge behind a fortified door with heavy metal bars that keeps the attackers from breaking in, but they set fire to the villa with diesel fuel. Within minutes, Stevens and Smith are overwhelmed by smoke.

    At about the same time, six U.S. security agents leave the CIA annex for the main building. They and 16 Libyan security guards regain control over the compound and start searching for Stevens and Smith.

    Shortly after 11 p.m.: A U.S. surveillance drone arrives over Benghazi. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey meet with President Barack Obama.

    12:07 a.m., September 12: The State Department sends an e-mail to the White House, the Pentagon and the FBI indicating the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia claimed credit for the attack.

    Issa demands more State Department documents on Benghazi

    1:15 a.m.: A rescue team from Tripoli arrives in Benghazi. About 30 Americans have been rescued from the consulate building and are holed up with the Stevens at the CIA annex.

    2 a.m.: Hicks informs Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that they need to evacuate all Americans from Benghazi. At about the same time, an eyewitness captures on video Stevens being pulled from the smoke-filled building.

    4 a.m.: The attackers launch a full-on assault against the annex, dropping mortars on the roof. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are killed in the attack.

    10 a.m.: The bodies of Stevens, Smith, Doherty and Woods are put on the last plane out of Benghazi.

  • Infovoyeur

    Well everyone says “what does it matter” was her bad phrase, but the one that disqualifies her forever with me is “out for a walk.” As in maybe they were just out for a walk that evening and decided to attack. SURE, such is the mystery of the Middle East that on the way to the hookah parlor or wherever, suddenly from the sky fell AK-47’s loded and ready to use, and whoever said to whichever “Hey lwhaddya say we knock over an Embassy on the way, let’s see, any more left?” This is bad like that Islamist propagandist saying, about Major Hassan at Fort Hood, “well maybe he just snapped.” War, war–via poison-gas phrases, eh…

    Kudos to this article, and to Trey Gowdy in combat within the homeland…

    • kikorikid

      iv,
      A Kudo to you as well for pointing out what
      Hillary said re: “out for a walk”.
      She was obfuscating and deceptive in order
      to maintain a semblance of “shariah Compliance”.
      Hillary has her own Muslim Brotherhood, “Advisor”.
      “out for a walk” shares qualitative aspects with “Worklace Violence”.
      Both “Protect/shield” the name, Islam, from being seen
      in context with the Truth.

  • Harry_the_Horrible

    The ONLY reason there are any Democrats on the Benghazi committee is to obstruct it.

    • GOPvsUSA

      Nah … that would be left to Republicans who have filibustered Harry Reid and the Dems over FOUR HUNDRED AND THIRTY times in about the same amount of time that Lyndon Johnson had the majority leader role in the Senate and was filibustered … only … once.

      See what happens whey you try to fight fact with opinion?

      You lose!

      • Harry_the_Horrible

        I am kind of happy that they filibuster stuff. .
        After all the Democrats didn’t have any problem passing a “healthcare” bill that the majority of Americans were against.

        I love Gridlock.

        • GOPvsUSA

          You mean the health care bill that is a conservative idea? That goes back to the Nixon administration?

          You mean the health care bill that most Americans were against based on lies that Republicans told them like “death panels!”, “illegal immigrants are covered!” and congress is exempt, etc, etc, etc?

          And the health care bill that people like when it’s benefits are explained to them item by item because these conservatives are too remedial to know that it’s the same thing as “Obamacare”?

          Well?

          Yes or no?

          Hint: This is NOT an essay question (one simple word is all we need here) and it’s the same one-word answer to all three questions above.

          I’m “kinda of happy” you decided to respond, loudmouth.

          I love making cowardly conservatives cut and run from my questions.

      • reader

        Wow. You spread completely irrelevant Wa Po talking points – what a genius! You must be the only Schultz’s listener! Talking about winners.

        • GOPvsUSA

          I don’t read posts from hidey-trolls.

          Let me know when you have the guts to un-hide your comments, coward.

          Feel free to keep responding though. It gives me something to delete from my inbox without even reading.

          • reader

            So, this must be your real face. Your mom was very inventive with your REAL name too. Right.

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part XI

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, still not working — Part XI.

      • 95Theses

        Scroll past the troll.
        — Part II

        • GOPvsUSA

          Nope, that didn’t work – Part II.

    • Americana

      I find just as much Republican obstruction over persnickety details that have NOTHING to do w/the fundamental truth that we should not have operated under those rules in place. Relying on DISTANT RELIEF FORCES and MUSLIM MILITIA SUPPORT ON THE GROUND is NOT sufficiently militarily sound strategy.

      • Harry_the_Horrible

        Given what I think was happening in Benghazi (transfer of weapons, including MANPADS to Jihadists and possibly other skulduggery) I don’t think we should have been there at all.
        But that isn’t the point. We ignored warnings and left them hanging out.
        With a little (lot of?) luck the committee might be able to reveal what was going on.

  • Soxtory

    How about more personal recognition for the former seals? I read that Glen Doharty personally killed 60 of the attacking Muslims, all while painting them with laser beams for anticipated air support which of course never came because of our cowardly president.

    • Americana

      So you think that having American planes releasing bombs in the inner city is the ideal defensive back-stop for our diplomatic corps?

      • WhiteHunter

        Apparently Glen Doherty did. And he certainly knew a lot more about it than you do.

        • Americana

          What I know is that there were no American planes within striking distance of Benghazi so it wouldn’t have mattered if Glen Doherty had lit candelabras to illuminate those Islamists attacking the diplomatic compound.

          • WhiteHunter

            Right. He lit up the enemy in the reasonable expectation of forthcoming friendly air support. Which wasn’t even attempted. Because instead of turning to the senior military commanders in the Sit Room as everybody watched the 8-hour-long massacre in real time and asking, “What can we do to try to save our people, General? What assets do we have, and what’s your recommendation? Just tell me and I’ll give the orders right now!” Obama was sound asleep upstairs so he’d be well rested for his highest, most urgent priority: his Vegas fundraiser the next day.

            Two other questions that neither you nor Cummings will like: WHY were the proper forces not already deployed nearby or on ships offshore for rapid response to an emergency in the most dangerous U.S. diplomatic mission in the world?

            and

            Why was our consulate there still even open and staffed at all when the British and the Red Cross had already recognized the danger and closed theirs?

            But I guess just asking those makes me a “partisan” on a “witch hunt,” maybe even a “racist.”

          • Americana

            We make our diplomatic decisions independent of other diplomatic missions. The British left after one of their convoys was attacked. We hadn’t had any significant military actions taken against the U.S. mission in Benghazi until this attack. It was Ambassador Stevens decision to go to Benghazi. He was asked NOT to go by the State Dept. and he said he felt he must go there because of the situation in Libya. He felt comfortable w/his relationship w/his Muslim Libyan militia mercenaries on the basis of his services and relationship during the Libyan uprising.

            Well, as I’m the one who’s pointed out in this thread that our RELIANCE on Rapid Response forces from DISTANT BASES isn’t liable to work in any and all instances, you won’t get any argument from me over that question. But the fact is that attempting to analyze what went wrong in Benghazi (and what could go wrong elsewhere if these same conditions are allowed to exist elsewhere) is dependent upon looking at the Rapid Response Force Doctrine which was put in place under Sec/Def Rumsfeld. ***It’s simply DYSFUNCTIONAL when it comes to its application in the Middle East. It’s too unreliable, it doesn’t call for sufficient numbers of troops to be deployed, etc.*** (The Rapid Response Force considered to be sent to Benghazi was 10+ men. Our SEALS may be Rambos in their skillets, but they’re not miracle workers. And if they arrive in helicopters, they’re extremely vulnerable to being shot down.)

          • WhiteHunter

            I knew you’d get around to blaming Rumsfeld or Bush eventually. That always seems to be the reliable fallback strategy.

            As for your other excuses, well, that’s what this committee’s investigation is all about, isn’t it? Getting COMPLETE, TRUTHFUL answers for a change.

            Have you applied to Elijah “Stonewall” Cummings for a job on his staff? You’ve got all of the qualifications and all of the talking points memorized, so you could hit the ground running with no need to waste time on a learning curve. Hey, I’d be happy to write an enthusiastic endorsement to confirm your perfect suitability for the job, just based on your posts here.

          • Americana

            This isn’t a partisan blaming of Sec/Def Rumsfeld. We followed through on his international Rapid Forces deployment policy doctrine because we needed to save money. The U. S. Central Command agreed to this international deployment stance and believed they could accomplish all their strategic goals given the number of bases that are operating and the surface deployments of ships. You don’t like my talking points?? Haha, then you make a STINK about this doctrine not being tenable going forward in the Middle East because it ISN’T TENABLE. The fact the U.S. Central Command is slow to recognize and adapt necessary changes once they’ve made a decision is a weakness. We need to recognize the weaknesses inherent in this strategic deployment and remedy them for the future.

            But the Middle East presents absolutely off-the-chart types of risk assessment challenges for our diplomatic and intelligence communities. First, unlike w/traditional deployment of enemy forces, we don’t have a CLUE how many insurgents are in any one area unless we somehow are given or we intercept SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE that suggests how many terrorists there are and what their massing of forces means as far as an imminent attack.

            We are also relying on Muslim militias as our first line of emergency defense w/American SEAL Rapid Response forces as the secondary reinforcements. This is not tenable since we have no guarantee of the level of commitment to America each of these individual militiamen has. Our militia ally, the mercenary Muslim militia that was in Benghazi, didn’t show up until after Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith were dead! You’re ridiculous if you think that claiming I’m an apologist for anyone or any party will back me down. I use my brain. I like analyzing what’s happening there. You don’t like what I write, you analyze right back. You don’t simply take the tactic of claiming I’m partisan. You don’t win the argument by insults, you win it by brains.

          • WhiteHunter

            You actually make a couple of points that I agree with this time, including “The fact the U.S. Central Command is slow to recognize and adapt necessary changes once they’ve made a decision is a weakness,” although I’d use words like “disgrace,” “scandal,” and “prima facie proof of utter incompetence” instead of just “weakness.”

            Second, our reliance on the locals to “protect” our facilities from their own cousins, brothers-in-law, and sons is lethally dangerous. It is insane. We should have learned that in 1979, in Tehran. In Benghazi, Sean Smith emailed his own mother earlier that afternoon to tell her his fear that something bad was about to happen–he’d seen unknown, dangerous-looking men wandering through the compound taking photographs, and they weren’t tourists.

            This was a foreseeable and preventable mass murder. Things should never have been allowed to reach the point where an emergency rescue and extraction was the only possible option. A bit of imagination, some worst-case scenario practice preparation in advance, and a teaspoon of common sense on the part of the military commanders, the State Department, and Obama and his staff would have avoided it. Instead, there’s a helpless shrug and, “Don’t blame us!” Not good enough. Not nearly good enough.

          • Americana

            Thank you for recognizing that I’m merely presenting the situation as I’ve analyzed it and that you understand the main points underlying my thinking.

          • Americana

            Again, thank you, WhiteHunter, for understanding that my interest in this lies in HONORING the memories of those killed by NEVER ALLOWING our strategic decisions to ever again be as fallible as this situation was in Benghazi. It is utterly shameful that the friends Ambassador Chris Stevens had in that Muslim militia (and he undoubtedly had sincere friends) didn’t get the lead out quickly enough to help their friend and the other Americans. For them to have rescued him and taken him to hospital says something about the situation that isn’t entirely heinous. But for that militia ally to have allowed those attacks to have gone on without stepping up is unconscionable and indicative of just how tricky it is to rely on Muslim allies.

          • Americana

            Along w/those points in your last paragraph, please include my concern over our choice of facilities in Middle Eastern countries. Choosing an inner city location and merely throwing up a tall metal gate, some crash barriers and installing a safe room, don’t make these diplomatic facilities “secure” by any stretch of the imagination.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            … especially when highly-trained, combat veterans do a recon on a target for a mortar attack.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Rawstory…….Um. That kind of proves your Partisan. Rawstory!!!! ROFLMAO again!!
            Is Obama a liar?

          • Americana

            Have you got any idea how many newspaper and foreign policy sites I read? The fact that one (Rawstory) had the most succinct story addressing the point I wanted to address is just how it happened.

            If I found it on one of the foreign policy sites professionals in the FP field use would you be more impressed? Or would you just be more rude??? Hmmmm, now I’m curious. Must point from some of my foreign policy sites from here on out and see what the reactions are!

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            The idiots are going back as far as Regan now. Seen any of that yet?
            Moon bat Elizabeth Warren is Blaming Regan for the financial crisis. I saw her in an interview.
            Hmmm. Warren, Sunstein (eveil mind) Obamao……………Looks like Harvard is just an overpriced commie indoctrination center. Not the once prestigious institution of higher education it was known to be.

          • GOPvsUSA

            “Regan”?

            Did you mean “Reagan”, idiot?

            Next time try to get out of the first sentence in your post without making yourself look like the inbred, conservative, trailer-dweller that you are.

            Looks like all that home-schooling on Hee Haw reruns was a total waste, eh idiot?

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Now Libs want to hang you for typos, that ones getting old too.
            If you’re so smart why can’t you see what s Man Caused Disaster Obamao is?
            Even a so called moron like me can see it. What’s your excuse?
            P.S. haven; watched T,V, since Murphy Brown. That’s when it started insulting my mentality too much. I know….I answered again. I couldn’t help it.

          • GOPvsUSA

            “Now Libs want to hang you for typos”

            Your whole LIFE is a typo, kid!

            Now answer the question …

            Is your Uncle Daddy a liar?

            Yes or no?

            One word is all we need here!

            I already answered yours now why aren’t you answering mine?

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part XII

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, still not working — Part XII.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Not working. What a surprise. Getting the government cheese that those that do work supply you with.
            Leech.

          • GOPvsUSA

            You want to compare pay stubs and tax brackets you little b*tch?

            I’ll give you the place and you can tell me when you’ll be there. I’ll embarrass you even worse in person than I’m doing on here!

            Yes or no?

            And that’s another non-answer to the original question we’re still waiting on an answer to.

            So I’ll ask again: Is your Uncle Daddy a liar?

            Yes or no?

            Again, this is NOT an essay question – a simple one word “yes” or “no” answer is all we need here!

            Again, I already answered yours now why aren’t you answering mine?

            If you’re an uneducated, POS conservative who’s too much of a coward to answer the question then just SAY so.

            Trust me … we’ll all believe you!

            You’re 0-6 on answering so far, coward.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            So you’re a Drug dealer?

          • GOPvsUSA

            C’mon … come and kill me!

            I’ll save this threat of yours with the dozen or so other ones I get from conservative cowards who love talking about all the things they’d love to do if they had the balls to actually show up.

            Here’s the place you can meet me to kill me: The SE corner of 147th and Central Avenue in Oak Forest, IL.

            I can get there in 15 minutes from where I’m at.

            Let’s see how many moves you got that I can’t counter.

            I’ll just stand there and wait for you to take the first swing. And then I’m legally within my right to go through you like prune juice.

            And if you’re stupid enough to bring any kind of a weapon? I WILL remove it from your hands (like I’ve been trained to do) and I can 100% guarantee you, you’ll never E-V-E-R be that unhappy again. I’ll put your name in the paper in alphabetical order and I won’t need anything other than my hands and feet to do it.

            Sure is a good thing you’re cutting and running away with your “I have no more time to waste on” excuse after I called you out here.

            That’s probably the smartest thing you’ve ever done. It might even be the only smart thing you’ve ever done!

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Yes. Cutting off conversing with an idiot like you is smart. If I were really smart I’d have done it ten posts ago.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Don’t forget the comma after the word “eh”. If you’re going to attack someone’s grammar or spelling, it might be a good idea to have your own correct …

            “…” It’s a literary device …

          • GOPvsUSA

            Can’t refute anything I’ve said so far, you remedial, conservative POS?

            You only need one period at the end of sentences.

            Wouldn’t a “Wolfthatknowsall” know something like that? Or do you need new batteries in your Speak & Spell “literacy device”?

            I’ll wait for an answer on that one.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            There’s no need to “refute” anything that you’ve said because you haven’t said anything. All you do is attack.

            You don’t understand the term “literary device”?

          • GOPvsUSA

            Still cutting and running away from the question, Wolfthatknowsabsolutelynothing?

            You just lied there. And that’s still not refuting my point, remedial dunce.

            I’ll post it again …

            “Yes, Powell did lie about the WMDs, doofus.”

            And he was quite pissed at your “Decider’s” administration for feeding him those lies to spew in front of the U.N. and making a fool out of him.

            That’s historical fact at this point.

            Refute that!”

            How long are you going to need on this one, kid?

            You can either refute that or just admit you lied.

            Pick one!

            You’re 0-4 so far.

          • kikorikid

            So it follows that, you better not send them, right?
            You are brain-dead and clueless what the
            statement,”To go in Harms way” means.
            Read, “the Lions of Kandahar” and then
            tell me 10+ SF Soldiers would not have
            made a difference. Barack and Hillary
            left them to die. In addition, it is looking
            like Hillary conjured up the “Video” excuse
            and Obama just jumped on,what he thought,
            a great excuse for cover. Barack got a
            “beauty nap” while Americans died.

          • Americana

            Sending people into harm’s way is meant to SAVE more people than it’s supposed to LOSE. That’s the game plan in battle tactics. Being SEALs is not a signed, sealed, delivered guarantee of success. If SEALs are always able to guarantee the outcomes of battles, then why was there such an uproar over the loss of the entire SEAL TEAM SIX when their helicopter was shot down because they flew into a firefight without an escort? The SEAL families blamed the military for sending their SEALs into that particular battle. Whether Pres. Obama made any decisions that night or not, they WOULDN’T HAVE CHANGED what happened in Benghazi. End of story. This will all be a moot point if the SEALs develop teleportation but until they do so they’re reliant on airplanes and helicopters, neither of which could get them there in time.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Seal team six was a setup. End of story. just another cover up from this administration of Domestic enemies.
            Before you mouth off answer please.
            Is Obama a Liar?

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nice capitalization and punctuation skills, loudmouth.

            Before you mouth off again you might want to start making friends with the first graders over the next few days because you’ll be sitting next to them (again) next year.

            But I guess that’s expected when you’re conceived at a family reunion. I’m sure the weight of all those extra chromosomes is debilitating!

            It probably weighs down your IQ and keeps it nice and low too.

            Did your Uncle Daddy tell you the truth about him and Mommy?

            Is your Uncle Daddy a liar?

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Without hate speech and childish insults a liberal has no speech. What makes you think I care about your hateful dribble?
            Wipe your chin.
            Is Obama a liar? …….Truth hurts don’t it. Bedsides. I went to Publik Skewels!!
            Can’t wait to see how the generation of chairman Bo’s Common core Zombies turn out.
            It doesn’t matter IF I rite wrong anymore in liberal land. We ALL get trophies. I heard the best part of you ran down your mothers leg. is that true? My new rule is Libs only get one stupid response back to their stupid responses to me. Are you people so void of original thought you can’t even come up with your OWN first grad insults from your collective minds?
            Democrats are Murdering our vets. and soon to be us through Obamaocare. If you’re so smart why are you so stupid?

          • GOPvsUSA

            Same question over and over?

            OK … I’ll give you the same question over and over until you answer.

            Is your Uncle Daddy a liar?

            Yes or no?

            One word is all we need here!

            I already answered yours now why aren’t you answering mine?

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part XIII

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, still not working — Part XIII

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Nope, still not working — Part XIII”

            It is working. A few people keep you busy and everyone else scrolls right by knowing you have nothing but echo chamber-refined talking points.

          • 95Theses

            That is absolutely correct. Think how easy it was to gum up his work by getting him fixated on replying to that little meme! By the way, I flagged his threat. Daring someone to meet them at such and such a place is completely out of line. “Come and kill me?” I wonder how many times in his psychotherapy sessions the word ‘sociopath’ was ever mentioned? Cuckoo.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            “Before you mouth off again you” should be “Before you mouth off, again, you”.

            There should be a comma … in case you don’t know, that looks like this: , … prior to the word “too”.

            Might I also suggest Patrick Hurley’s superb logic textbook named, appropriately, Logic? You will find that most of your comments are rife with logical fallacies, but one of them stands out, the most. It’s called the ad hominem fallacy, which means that someone in a debate is incapable of, or simply doesn’t want to, debate with his opponent in a reasoned way. Accordingly, he attacks his opponent personally.

          • GOPvsUSA

            That’s still not refuting my point, remedial dunce.

            I’ll post it again …

            “Yes, Powell did lie about the WMDs, doofus.

            And he was quite pissed at your “Decider’s” administration for feeding him those lies to spew in front of the U.N.

            That’s historical fact at this point.

            Refute that!”

            How long are you going to need on this one, kid?

            Now go put your food helmet on and go eat your applesauce. Maybe the nutrients will help you formulate a response.

            You’re 0-2 so far.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Powell didn’t lie. Bush didn’t lie. Saddam lied about his capabilities, in order to appear stronger, with the result that his country was invaded and he ended up at the end of a rope.

            People like you have quite a problem with history, don’t you?

          • GOPvsUSA

            PSSST! Wolfthatknowsabsolutelynothing?

            You just lied there. And that’s still not refuting my point, remedial dunce.

            I’ll post it again ….

            “Yes, Powell did lie about the WMDs, doofus.”

            And he was quite pissed at your “Decider’s” administration for feeding him those lies to spew in front of the U.N. and making a fool out of him.

            That’s historical fact at this point.

            Refute that!”

            How long are you going to need on this one, kid?

            You’re 0-3 so far.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ll post it again ….”Yes, Powell did lie about the WMDs, doofus.””

            An assertion without evidence. But “common sense” of the left agrees with you. So what.

            “That’s historical fact at this point.”

            I don’t think you know what a historical fact is. It’s a historical fact that lots of leftist memes are propagated through bumper stickers. Oh yeah, and the Internet too.

            “Common sense.”

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Did you screw your sister in the bum yesterday or today? Yes or no. Simple answer.
            See where your logic is? Can you breath with your head up there?

          • GOPvsUSA

            That’s still not an answer.

            I’ll ask again: Is your Uncle Daddy a liar?

            Yes or no?

            Again, this is NOT an essay question – a simple one word “yes” or “no” answer is all we need here!

            Again, I already answered yours now why aren’t you answering mine?

            If you’re an uneducated, POS conservative who’s too much of a coward to answer the question then just SAY so.

            Trust me … we’ll all believe you!

            You’re 0-5 on answering so far, coward.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            Leave no man behind. It’s creed idiot!! Your A,Hole in the White House let them down.

          • obamaisaliarperiod

            He had a big fund raiser the next day remember.

          • truebearing

            Stevens was sent by hillary. He was the point man on the administrations gun running to the Islamists fighting Khaddafi.

            Apparently you were there and witnessed the whole thing, but simultaneously worked at a high level in the CIA, State Department, and the military.

            You idiot. A Rapid Response Force of 10+ men could mean 300 men. If two former SEALS could fight off all of those Islamists, what would happen if 30 showed up? I’ll tell you since you are too stupid to figure it out: the Muslims would run like water through a Mexican tourist.

            As for your earlier idiotic assertion that dropping bombs in a city is somehow a bad idea in an inner city, I must point out that we have precision bombs that can be dropped with incredible precision, and have been using them now for years. You don’t know what you’re babbling about, which is the hallmark of all of your comments.

            helicopters get shot down but the military is designed to go into hostile situations and take those risks. We don’t want our military listening to a bunch of paintywaists like you, afraid of your own shadow and running from every conflict.

          • Americana

            I’ll take my tactical advice from the generals who said that using F-18s or F-16s was not feasible, that they WEREN’T the RIGHT TOOLS FOR THE JOB. The generals certainly aren’t overlooking that laser-guided munitions are on those planes. If these generals didn’t suggest going in and bombing then obviously they agree w/me and didn’t think it’s a great idea. But keep pretending the entire military backs your tactical tour de force even if they didn’t exercise that capability. They thought about that and DISCARDED THAT MOVE because it’s stupid to go in and bomb where you’ve got quite a large contingent of undercover CIA operatives among the crowd, never mind bombing a city w/that number of civilians milling around witnessing the attack. (You must read Soldier of Fortune every time you hit the head….)

            A Rapid Response Force **could mean 300 men** but NOT if there AREN’T 300 Rapid Response Force soldiers in Tripoli. It’s been a while since Islamists have run from a fight w/U.S. soldiers but keep believing in your Rambo dream teams being able to save the day regardless of their adversaries. Yeah, soldiers are trained to be injected into hot spots but they’re NOT INJECTED AFTER THE BATTLE IS OVER. Yes, some could have been sent for the second battle but they still might not have arrived in time and there were sufficient Americans at the battle at the safe house to hold the jihadists off anyway.

          • GOPvsUSA

            “Obama was sound asleep upstairs so he’d be well rested for his highest, most urgent priority: his Vegas fundraiser the next day.”

            LOL .. you lying piece of conservative zhit!

            As soon as you learn how to read, read the below link …

            http://mediamattersDOTorg/research/2014/05/07/the-already-asked-and-answered-questions-fox-wa/199208

            I’ll even paste the important stuff here since we know damn well you’re too much of a coward to go there and have your talking point shattered like a pane of glass.

            Scroll down to all the exposed BS until you get to the blue subheading “ANSWER: Obama Was In The Oval Office And His Staff Was Fully Engaged Throughout The Attack”

            There you’ll see “A photo that has been available for over a year on the White House Flikr page shows President Obama in the Oval Office during the September 2012 attacks” being briefed alongside the four other people standing next to him.

            Now tell us …

            Why did you LIE and say that “Obama was sound asleep upstairs so he’d be well rested for his highest, most urgent priority: his Vegas fundraiser the next day.”?

            I’m gonna go after you … over and over again … and count off how many times you try to dodge answering that question like the typical, conservative, lying coward we all know you are.

          • 95Theses

            Scroll past the troll. — Part XIV

          • GOPvsUSA

            Nope, still not working — Part XIV

          • Rick MacDonald

            So then the question being begged is: Why were there not any American planes within striking distance given all the requests by the relative actors in Banghazi?

          • Americana

            That would be my first line of questioning — who controls the LOGISTICS of the supply line for getting relief forces into the air. How is it that if our plan depends on having RAPID DEPLOYMENT but we’ve got to wait on planes to be fueled? Although, the speed of the first attack wouldn’t have allowed ANY PLANES from ANY of these Middle Eastern bases to get there in time other than fighter jets and the Joint Chiefs said fighter jets weren’t the right planes for the job.

          • truebearing

            You don’t know your a*s from a hole in the ground. There were fighters that could have reached Benghazi. We aren’t talking about biplanes here, moron.

          • Americana

            Oh, I don’t know my a** from a hole in the ground? God, I get so TIRED of the partisan nitwits who can only insult people and try to run the off before any facts get stated and the truth starts leaking out all over…

            Then, if the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t agree w/my belief that the previous Rapid Response forces were not in good locations to prevent Benghazi, then WHY are they creating a NEW MARINE RAPID RESPONSE FORCE and putting them on BOARD NAVY SHIPS?

            The Newsmax site keeps its material under copyright so you’ll have to go to that site to read the story but below are some of the highlights. Please note that Gen. James Omos agrees w/me that our Rapid Response strategic posture just wasn’t strategic enough to get the job done.

            ***U.S. Marine Corps has been tasked w/putting Rapid Response Forces on Navy ships to respond to diplomatic, military, and piracy issues.

            ***Gen James Omos described the inherent lack of timeliness in loading men on C-17s from distant bases and flying them into a battle.

            ***These Marine Rapid Response special operations teams will be added to ships carrying larger Marine Expeditionary Units.

            ***There will be a war games by the Marines and Special Operations Command to test the new Rapid Response deployment set-up.

            http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-disaster-marines-response/2013/03/27/id/496529#ixzz32aIyyF77
            _____________________________________________________

            http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-disaster-marines-response/2013/03/27/id/496529/

            Here’s the timeline since some seem to find their Timex watches to be challenging pieces of technology. Be aware that you must add 6 hours to each time for the timeline to read in Benghazi time. Ambassador Stevens was dead within an hour and a half of the attack starting along w/Information Officer Sean Smith. The nearest American Rapid Response force wouldn’t have arrived for XX hours:

            _____________________________________________________

            http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

            Analysis

            Sept. 11: The Attack

            2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)

            3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)

            Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

            About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)

            About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”

            Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

            About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”

            About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”

            Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”

            6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

            About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”

            About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I won’t speak for Truebearing, because he is quite capable of speaking for himself. But he is hardly a “nitwit”. I don’t know if he is a partisan, or not. He is most definitely a conservative.

            Your comments definitively make you partisan, but like my friend, you are not a “nitwit”.

            Surely, two intelligent people can debate without devolving to the level of GOPvsUSA?

          • 95Theses

            Under copyright. Do you mean to say that NewsMax makes it impossible for you to copy and paste?

          • WhiteHunter

            What Obama’s loyal-unto-death defenders and stubborn apologists never bring up while they’re mendaciously blaming Republican-driven spending cuts leading (they claim) to inadequate military assets in the right place is the 10-day, $100-million African junket that Obama took with his entire extended family and retinue.

            Somehow money was found to pay for that completely worthless (as far as U.S. national interest went) exotic luxury vacation–including keeping the Nimitz-class USS Harry Truman stationed and ready immediately offshore the whole time so that Obama could be instantly rescued from danger, and brought to the carrier’s state-of-the-art O.R. if he needed emergency medical care.

            A tiny fraction of that money, or those resources, or that precautionary foresight in prepositioning the ship and its crew and aircraft within reach and ready for immediate action, would have saved our people in Benghazi. But of course I’m “partisan,” maybe even “racist,” for pointing that out.

          • Americana

            Didn’t Pres. Bush make two trips to Africa? There are reasons for these political trips. They aren’t simply selfish family vacations no matter how anyone tries to cast them as that. But you’re right that they’re absurdly expensive and that this one came at an unfortunate time of budget cutting. But as for what that might have done to prevent Benghazi, simply redirecting some of that African trip money would have been insufficient to ensure the safety of Ambassador Stevens and those others in Benghazi.

            As you now know from my previous post, what the Joint Chiefs decided to do was mount a massive rejiggering of the concept of the Rapid Response Forces and they selected the Marine Corps as the major thrust of that redesign effort. These new Marine Rapid Response Forces will be based on all ships hosting a Marine Expeditionary Force. I’m sure that this new deployment plan stands a far better chance of success.

          • nickeldoor5

            If Hillary Clinton had been in the same situation do you thing they would have done nothing. I think not. The equipment the military has they could have taken out everything except where the ambassador was. Who do they think they are fooling.

          • 95Theses

            Au contraire! Don’t you recall her claim to being under sniper fire in Bosnia? Ducking bullets and running for cover? That practically rises to the level of abandonment, don’t you think? (Hmmmm. I wonder if a video sparked that incident?)
            http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            Fighters and AC-130 gunships. The latter, especially, would have given the muzzies on the ground something to think about.

        • Erudite Mavin

          and Ty Woods who assisted in getting over 30 Americans out of the danger zone while told to stand down kept shooting.
          He is buried a few miles from where I am sitting at Ft. Rosecrans National Cemetery here in San Diego where
          Doherty and Smith were also from.

    • obamaisaliarperiod

      Of course not. Stop calling him our President. He’s a Domestic enemy and he’s trying to overthrow our country.
      The seals had more integrity in the first digit of their little finger than the whole Democrat party has in…..hold on I’m still thinking.
      I’ll have to get back to you on it. This is a tough one.

  • WhiteHunter

    Just when it seems the Dems couldn’t possibly wallow any lower in filth, they do. Whatever it takes to protect the most dangerously worthless secretary of state and the most corrupt president we’ve ever been cursed with.

    Cummings is as big a disgrace to the House, and as shameless a liar, as Pelosi. Even THEY can’t possibly believe their own delusional hallucinations and slanderous accusations of “witch hunt” and “we’ve already investigated this 8 (or is it a dozen?) times, and asked all the questions and gotten all the answers!”

    Hard to get the truth when subpoenas are ignored, document dumps of everything EXCEPT the crucial incriminating emails and memos are used as a smokescreen to protect the guilty, witnesses are threatened and intimidated–when they’re identified at all–and the Democrats on the committee see their primary job as stonewalling the investigation and running out the clock toggling back and forth between softball “questions” to the hostile, manifestly guilty witnesses and inflammatory speeches about “partisanship” and “racism.”

    Good luck, Trey! Don’t let them get away with it this time!

  • Kree13

    Breaking news that we won’t hear on FAUX today —–>LMAO!! Bibi PM of Israel just gave interview to politico and said Obama and Hillary’s Syria strategy was the right one and the only ray of light in this darkness. Omg get ready for faux to disown him now #HRC45

    • Americana

      Post some links to stories on this here, please! That’s one thing I greatly admire about PM Netanyahu, regardless of his level of animosity to American politicians who don’t do exactly what he wants or who don’t see the world precisely as he does, he doesn’t mince his words. If he says you’re strategically doing the right thing as far as he’s concerned, he’s stating his true belief.

  • Libslayer

    Putting an idiot like Cummings on the committee confirms the fact that democrats have no desire to let the facts be known about Benghazi.

  • Atikva

    What else is the Benghazi scandal if not a highly political issue? So how could it not be politicized? Watergate too was a highly political issue that was politicized to the hilt by the dems, so much so that it resulted in the ousting of the President and a change of government. The only difference is that the Watergate offenders didn’t cause the death of four of their fellow men, while the Benghazi perpetrators did.

    Actually, it doesn’t matter very much whether Mrs. Clinton’s friends succeed in preventing the Benghazi Select Committee to uncover the truth: the Benghazi scandal sticks to her wherever she goes and the more she tries to obstruct the Committee’s findings, the more she looks suspicious in the eyes of the Americans.

    Which she does at her own risks. To be sure, she is not the only suspect in the Benghazi scandal, but the other suspects she is protecting are not planning to run for President.

    • Americana

      What the Benghazi issue comes down to is the LOGISTICS of what the Joint Chiefs felt was achievable. This horrible event in Benghazi has proven that this Rapid Deployment posture can experience failures. We’ve got to find ways to correct the deployment strategy and the operating agreements w/all relevant countries so that we can deploy air support from wherever we need it quickly enough for it to make a difference.

    • Lea

      This is very political. It has the potential of providing enough evidence to impeach Obama for aiding and abetting the enemy of America, Islam and its psychotic muslims.

  • Knucklehead

    “…and the Democrats appointed to the committee will help restore a level of sanity to the hearings, which would otherwise exist solely as a political witch hunt.” Yeah, well, democrats know all about political witch hunts. They’re trying to conduct one against Scott Walker right here in my home state of Wisconsin, with the so-called “John Doe” investigation. Scumbags.

  • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris Shugart

    The Dems attitude is similar to Saddam Hussein’s, when the UN was investigating his country for WMDs. We’re free to investigate as long as we don’t actually find anything.

  • kikorikid

    Ok, I bet the “farm” that “the Video” was Hillarys
    mental machination which she quickly convinced
    Obama to adapt as the “Story”. This was done
    mid-attack.

    • Lea

      It is a convenient way to divert the attention and blame, and is not the first time such a ploy has been used. It is also a way to destroy freedom of expression since the OIC is currently lobbying at the UN to have critique of the false profit of Islam ruled unlawful as well as association of Islam with terrorism.

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    Can’t we move on to more important issues facing our country today?! This is a dog and pony show to attack Hillary before 2016 and continue to stonewall Obama on every relevant issue. At every turn of the corner, the blame is placed solely on the POTUS as if he were an Emperor without a system of checks and balances. Watch the GOP apply the blackface and bamboozle our President at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/10/bamboozling-obama.html

    • Guest

      “What does it matter” eh Brandt Hardin? It matters A GREAT DEAL, is my response to you and your Hillary. Something to do with JUSTICE and DECENCY.

    • Atikva

      Yeah, yeah, yeah, “What difference does it make now”, we know the slogan. Well, most Americans want to know why one of our Consulates in a particularly volatile part of the world was left without proper security, why no rescue efforts were made to save its unarmed and besieged staff of about 20 people, and who gave the order to Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty to stand down and let their fellow Americans die at the hands of a terrorist mob. Yes, we care about our country, our people stationed abroad, our flag, the use being made of our tax money – we are funny that way!

      If Mr. Obama is being stonewalled on every relevant issue that’s because he makes a mess of everything he touches. Health care, economy, foreign policy, security domestic and abroad, everything is in shambles. He and his regime are certainly adept at manipulating people to stay in power, that’s the only thing they know how to do. But they are absolutely clueless when it comes to leading, administering, governing a country, not even “from behind”.

      And if he doesn’t like being criticized as an emperor, let him stop acting like one and refrain from issuing any more executive orders.

    • iluvisrael

      You’ve had at least one too many acid trips brandy.

    • Lea

      The reason why this issue is so important is because it uncovers the manner in which the willing muslims are incited by imams to rage in the face of insults and critique of their pagan death cult. This muslim rage is effectively used to close down any critique of islam and freedom of speech, this is the idea that they are enforcing with the idea that Benghazi is about a video. The second reason why it is important is that it is very likely that the link to the supply of weapons to Syria from Libya. It could even go as far as damning the Obama operation which effectively overthrew the Libyan government and turned Libya into another Afghanistan. There is a very strong muslim alliance going on between the Obama administration and the expansion of Islam.

    • Haymster

      Both Hillary And O-Buttwipe Are Responsible For The Deaths Of Ambassador Stevens And The Three Other Americans At Benghazi No Doubt About It. Hillary Clinton Is Patently Unfit For Let Alone Serve As President Of The United States Her History Bears That Fact Out.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “At every turn of the corner, the blame is placed solely on the POTUS as if he were an Emperor without a system of checks and balances.”

      Lame straw man. Can’t you do any better than that?

  • USARetired

    No matter what this ‘Ugly’ has been does, she will always be the ‘Loser’ she is! The Clinton family will always remain one of America’s worst crime families!

  • Americana

    Sorry, Myrtle, but you’re incorrect on the matter of abuse being visited upon Ambassador Stevens before he died. Ambassador Stevens wasn’t even located by the terrorists. He was rescued when he was near to death by smoke inhalation by Benghazi citizens and the Muslim militia that was supposed to have protected the facility. The pictures you see are of rescuers trying to carry him from the scene to a hospital.

    • truebearing

      Yes, of course. You were there, personally, and can testify to that effect.

      • Americana

        I know the story behind the photos thanks to journalism connections. You don’t like it then produce something more accurate than gossip to prove it. The above from Myrtle is solely GOSSIP and there’s absolutely no proof establishing its merit. It’s also been debunked several times but like several other perennial lies that keep sprouting every time they’re lopped off at ground level, this is one that keeps surfacing.

        • truebearing

          You haven’t proven anything, and you never do. Your “journalism” connections are at Media Matters or some other corrupt leftist smear machine. You are trolling your fool head off, desperately trying to save Hillary’s worthless, fat behind.

          • Americana

            Just in case you choose to “miss” this post of mine about the decision by the Joint Chiefs to put together a new MARINE RAPID RESPONSE FORCE, here it is:

            Then, if the Joint Chiefs of Staff don’t agree w/my belief that the previous Rapid Response forces were not in good locations to prevent Benghazi, then WHY are they creating a NEW MARINE RAPID RESPONSE FORCE and putting them on BOARD NAVY SHIPS? (Ooops, guess she’s got a point! Maybe they were insufficient.)

            The Newsmax site keeps its material under copyright so you’ll have to go to that site to read the story but below are some of the highlights. Please note that Gen. James Omos agrees w/me that our Rapid Response strategic posture just wasn’t strategic enough to get the job done.

            ***U.S. Marine Corps has been tasked w/putting Rapid Response Forces on Navy ships to respond to diplomatic, military, and piracy issues.

            ***Gen James Omos described the inherent lack of timeliness in loading men on C-17s from distant bases and flying them into a battle.

            ***These Marine Rapid Response special operations teams will be added to ships carrying larger Marine Expeditionary Units.

            ***There will be a war games by the Marines and Special Operations Command to test the new Rapid Response deployment set-up.

            http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-disaster-marines-response/2013/03/27/id/496529#ixzz32aIyyF77

            _____________________________________________________

            Here’s the timeline since some seem to find their Timex watches to be challenging pieces of technology. Be aware that you must add 6 hours to each time for the timeline to read in Benghazi time. Ambassador Stevens was dead within an hour and a half of the attack starting along w/Information Officer Sean Smith. The nearest American Rapid Response force wouldn’t have arrived for XX hours:

            _____________________________________________________

            http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

            Analysis

            Sept. 11: The Attack

            2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)

            3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)

            Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”

            About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)

            About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”

            Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.

            About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”

            About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”

            Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”

            6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)

            About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”

            About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.

          • nickeldoor5

            If no one was capable of saving them how did those that disobeyed orders manage to get there and save others. Hoe many more would have died.

          • truebearing

            You idiot. Creating any force means nothing if you don’t intend to use it. We had assets that could have been brought to bear on Benghazi, but Obama and hillary were more interested in their political fortunes and decided to hang Stevens out to dry.

            The “New and Improved” Rapid Response Force is window dressing. It is an attempt to make Obama look like he cares. Pure diversion…kind of like what they pay you to do, and just as unconvincing. Now quick, call the Center for American Progress Troll Hotline and ask them how to respond.

          • hiernonymous

            “We had assets that could have been brought to bear on Benghazi…”

            Name them.

          • Americana

            Sure, there were forces that could have arrived there within 6-8 hours after all the action was over. Fat lot of good that would have done! But when an idiot on internet crack decides to play Gen. Patton this is what you hear— that it was feasible to get there. Shoot off a letter to the Joint Chiefs about the LOGISTICS IMPROVEMENTS to the Rapid Response Forces being window dressing and see if you get a response. In fact, I think I’ll include several paragraphs in the letter I’m sending to the Benghazi committee w/these NONSENSICAL RATIONALES on this web site and see if I can get any of them to comment on the nonsensical timelines and the nonsensical tactics during the committee hearing.

            The idiocy of this continuing fallacy of the “gun-running to the Libyan militia” being the grounds for Ambassador Stevens losing his life is simply laughable! It’s like every conservative who’s ever read anything about the gun-running operation “Fast and Furious” or read about the gun-running/cocaine-running of Col. Oliver North has decided that the three cases are synonymous. But the fact is, they’re NOT SYNONYMOUS.

          • GOPvsUSA

            I think I’ll call you truebeating from now on because you sure love repeatedly taking one!

            Let us know whey you can refute anything that either Americana or I has said so far.

          • truebearing

            I don’t have time to refute every lie spoken buy leftist trolls. Second of all, it is incumbent upon him, or you, to prove what you assert, not for me to disprove it.

            What I find amusing is that you think you are some kind of intellectual force, hammering people with what you think is wit or fact. You’re a loub-mouthed buffoon. Chicago is full of them. That doesn’t mean I have to correct them evey time they say something stupid or untrue. Life is too short to waste on morons like you.

          • Americana

            In that case, then PROVE some of your assertions!

    • WhiteHunter

      You’re skating close to the insane claim by what’s-her-name last week that “Stevens wasn’t murdered! He died of smoke inhalation!”

      • Americana

        Not at all, in Ambassador Stevens case he was **murdered by** smoke inhalation to which he wouldn’t have been exposed if the jihadists hadn’t overrun the diplomatic compound. It’s a very straightforward case of cause of death being exposure to jihadists.

        As for what happened to him once the Muslim militia and the bystanders found him, it looks horrible to see him slung over someone’s back when he’s near death from the smoke or sprawled out on the ground but he wasn’t raped and his body wasn’t otherwise desecrated. His body when they received it at the hospital in Benghazi was merely covered in soot.

        • nickeldoor5

          They did to him until they found out who he was. Muslim brotherhood were part of it. By the time they tried to get him to the hospital was it was too late.

          • Americana

            Sorry, niceledoor, but that opposite would be true If they’d known that they had Amb. Stevens’ body and they were the WRONG MUSLIMS, the MILITANT MUSLIMS, they would have likely burned his body and mutilated it. They DIDN’T DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS, and so that also is proof that the “right” Muslims recovered his body and tried to do the right thing.

          • has a clue

            I probably just missed it but I did not see your explanation for the apparently repeated requests for security from the Ambassador and wonder why you didn’t answer that question.

          • Americana

            I answered that question MULTIPLE TIMES Here’s a précis but you can look up a longer explanation in another post of mine:

            Ambassador Stevens requested additional security. He was turned down a few times. I believe Gen. Ham felt he might be dissuaded from visiting Benghazi until the situation settled down if Stevens wasn’t given the additional security.

        • vnamvet1969

          You seem to be ignorant of the capability of humanity in activities such as Benghazi. The blood lust that is churned by actions such as this one can turn the most conservative human being into an animal. If our military is so inept that they could not even form a response to this action, then we are in serious trouble. My preference is to believe that they were not provided the authority to respond, and in that lies the blame. Being that the Middle East is the most violent area in the world my question is why were there not military assets stationed to cover the entire region? Whatever becomes of this, it was a sad mistake to allow it to happen, and someone is to blame whether you like it or not. And, rapid response teams have been in existence since the Viet Nam war, but we always need to form a political action to correct a mistake, as your headline proves.

          • Wolfthatknowsall

            I’m interested in your screen name. I was in the 101st (2/501) from 1968-69, stationed at Camp Evans (which used to be a Marine base, but was being handed over to the Army).

            As a sniper, I spent many weeks in the Ashau …

            God bless you for your service!

          • Americana

            The new Libyan government DIDN’T ALLOW American troops to be stationed all over the country either in temporary bases or in larger bases. We had a SMALL force in Tripoli and the Tripoli base also hosted a Rapid Response Force. It was the intransigence of the new Libyan government that forced the U.S. to settle for this half-assed protection for its people. If it’s not absolutely clear, I’m FINE w/attaching BLAME TO THE RIGHT PARTIES, but those parties are the JOINT CHIEFS. Like it or not, they assured Pres. Obama and Sec/State Clinton that this Rapid Response Force doctrine would work under the conditions in Libya. It DIDN’T WORK and they REDESIGNED THE RRF Doctrine. End of story.

            The U.S. armed forces were allowed to set up a small base in Tripoli and the U.S. State Dept. was allowed to set up diplomatic compounds that were protected by a combination of a VERY LIMITED NUMBER of State Dept. Diplomatic Corps personnel backed up by mercenary Muslim militias w/whom Amb. Stevens had developed relationships during the Libyan revolution. It was from the small base in Tripoli, Libya that the Rapid Response Force would have deployed if it would have been possible in the time from when the attack first began to when it ended. There WASN’T TIME during the first attack. The relevant people saw that the U.S. compound was overrun by the time the plane was even beginning to be fueled.

          • truebearing

            The Libyan government didn’t allow us? LOL! The Libyan government had less power than you have honesty. When Obama wanted to go into Pakistan without permission, he did it. When he helped take out Khaddafi, without permission, he just did it. When he btrayed a US ally and undermined Mubarak, he didn’t have permission. He just did it.

            Your lame attempts to use the present to change the past are laughable. The Joint chiefs answer to the Commie-In-Chief, Barack Hussein Obama. All of your babble about the Joint Chiefs is irrelevant.

          • Americana

            Listen, truebearing, take your dubious brainpower and try to polish it against other brainiacs such as yourself. You honestly think you can EQUATE a SINGLE INCURSION into Pakistani airspace to take out Osama bin Laden w/SETTING UP PERMANENT BASES in Libya??? I don’t know what you’re smoking, but you might want to consider that it’s likely to be the conservative drug of choice at your next national convention. IT REALLY EMPOWERS YOU!

          • Americana

            I’ve explained this multiple times in various posts. Additional Rapid Response Forces weren’t in a position to respond rapidly enough based on the then-current deployment of American Rapid Response forces and locations of American bases within Libya and elsewhere.

            End of story. The Joint Chiefs have changed the deployment of the Rapid Response Forces in recognition of their previous failure to deploy them in reasonable locations to cover ALL CONTINGENCIES. No, sorry, you don’t make an ABUNDANTLY CLEAR TECHNICAL ERROR into a partisan witch hunt that doesn’t even begin to TARGET THE RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS. Where does anyone else on this Front Page Mag web site mention the PUBLIC ADMISSION of the Joint Chiefs that THEIR LOGISTICS CHAIN was at fault? Where do you see anyone else besides me on FPM mentioning that the Joint Chiefs TOTALLY REWORKED our Rapid Response Forces as a result of Benghazi?

            You guys want to be taken seriously as a foreign policy site then you get THE STRAIGHT FACTS THAT BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS. You don’t just keep trying to override the opposite view if it’s proven to be patently correct through REFERENCING THE JOINT CHIEFS’ STATEMENTS!

        • truebearing

          Stevens was hung out to dry by Obama and Hillary when their scheme to pretend he was kidnapped failed. That’s what happens when you run guns to islamists.

          • Americana

            OMG, your posts are getting more and more BIZARRE! I never thought I’d find someone who follows the conspiracy theories off into Area 51 right in the middle of a thread. But here we’ve got a LIVE ONE and he’s swallowing it all, hook, line and STINKER! O))))

    • Chiron_Venizelos

      Have you not seen the photos of him being dragged out of the Benghazi facility by his captors? Did you not read the autopsy reports (now redadcted) that stated he was raped by his captors?
      The treatment of Ambassador Stevens is one facet of the cover up by the 0bama regime in reaction to their “Operation Zero Footprint” having gone awry.
      We do not know all the TRUTH today but as responsible citizens we must NEVER rest until the TRUTH is revealed and any who were guilty of crimes punished to the fullest extent of the law.

      • Americana

        Ambassador Stevens wasn’t raped. The Drama King Sean Hannity Insanity invented the whole outrage on the basis of what Ambassador Stevens corpse looked like.
        ____________________________________________________

        From GQ: Sean Hannity announced to his many millions of listeners that Stevens had been raped and his body dragged through the streets, a slur that was not only horribly cruel to Stevens’s friends and family but plainly false. Six weeks after the fact, during the second presidential debate, Romney was frantically parsing whether Obama had declared Stevens’s murder an “act of terror” and if he’d done so promptly enough. The Obama administration was criticized for initially suggesting that the attack began with a protest over that idiotic Internet video. But by mid-October, that still seemed a fair conclusion: The New York Times reported that locals said the invaders had indeed been Islamists enraged by the video.

        Even the apparently important operational question—namely, was there enough security—seems irrelevant, because there can never be enough to prepare for every scenario. “The lethality and the number of armed people is unprecedented—there had been no attacks like that anywhere in Libya,” a senior State Department official said. “In fact, it would be very, very hard to find an attack like that in recent diplomatic history.”

        And all of it missed, almost entirely, the point of Chris Stevens’s career. Diplomats do not work effectively from behind fortress walls. The foreign service sends people all over the planet to gather information and represent American interests, yes, but also to make friends.

        Ten days after the attack on Château Christophe, on what was to have been an American Space, 30,000 Benghazi civilians marched in the streets and drove the Islamist militias from their city. Thousands sent condolences to his family. And on a memorial website, scattered among the stories from old friends and colleagues, there are notes from ordinary Libyans who never even met the man. They say things like:

        I feel ashamed that a man like this was killed by a bunch of low life, religious zealot cowards. This is a man that has done so much for Libya.

        And: Amb Chris Stevens, all the Libyan people love you and will never forget your views toward us here in Libya.

        And: We feel very sorry, please forgive us, we love you chris and your family also all american.

        That was the point of Chris Stevens’s work.

        Sean Flynn is a GQ correspondent.

      • Americana

        Uhhh, CAPTORS? Those were his rescuers. Produce an autopsy report that’s LEGITIMATE and produce a link that states Ambassdor Stevens was raped. Until you do so, you’re all hot air and outrage that’s been pumped up by Sean Hannity Insanity.

  • Ralph

    The Gallows are awaiting this sorry Bi#@H in Leavenworth and she will need all of the support that she can muster; but will still “Swing”…

  • Americana

    More like this is all fraudulent information to keep the conspiracy theorists going! But, please, be our guest and try to derail the thread now that we’re talking the real serious issues w/our defense posture in the Middle East.

  • Americana

    My first reply was removed by the moderators. So I’ll write another one and if that’s removed????

  • nimbii

    And so it goes…

    If it weren’t so tragic for our fallen heroes, seeing those accountable twist in the wind…there aren’t words…

  • MrUniteUs1

    Actually those questions were asked by Gowdy last year.

    • WhiteHunter

      If he’d gotten complete, accurate, honest answers then, there’d be no need to empanel this committee now.

      • MrUniteUs1

        The writer mistakenly said ten days ago. But the fact is Gowdy asked those questions during previous Benghazi hearings. A complete accurate honest answer may not be the answer Gowdy wanted. Americans were attacked in several countries after the video came out. Al Qeada called for a Jihad because of the video, We should be thankful more Americans were not killed.

        • WhiteHunter

          Not sure what basis you have for suspecting that a complete, honest, accurate answer wasn’t what Rep. Gowdy wanted, but it’s more than a reasonable inference to believe that it definitely was NOT what Hillary or Obama wanted–and what they succeeded in blocking. Otherwise, there would have been no stonewalling, no gag orders on CIA and other survivors forbidding them to speak even to a Congressional investigating committee in closed session.

          BTW, I watched the “offensive” video “Innocence of Muslims” on YouTube, and found it hilarious, at least in its obviously low-budget, amateurish quality. But its portrayal of Mohammed and his behavior was actually pretty close to what we do know about him–from the Koran and the official, moslem accounts of his life as a sort of Charles Manson/”Rev.” Jim Jones/L. Ron Hubbard plunderer, cult founder and charlatan, and sexual deviate, all rolled-into-one.

          I’ve also watched plenty of highly offensive films slandering and ridiculing Christ, politicians I admire, and my country. Never felt like going out and killing anybody about it, though. Maybe that’s one important difference between a civilized man and a moslem terrorist. We don’t go around blowing people up or chopping off their heads just for “offending” our religion, our beliefs, or our sensibilities. And unlike Clinton and Obama, we don’t arrest and jail the offending filmmakers on trumped-up charges, either.

          • GOPvsUSA

            Hey, conservative coward?

            You have time to run around voting up every one of your remedial BFFs that respond to my posts but you can’t respond to my post that exposed you as the lying POS you are?

            C’mon … man up, “hunter”. Find your sack. It’s that wrinkly thing that looks like what you get teabagged with, only a lot smaller.

            I’ll post it a second time to make damn sure you got it.

            “Obama was sound asleep upstairs so he’d be well rested for his highest, most urgent priority: his Vegas fundraiser the next day.”

            LOL .. you lying piece of conservative zhit!

            As soon as you learn how to read, read the below link …

            http://mediamattersDOTorg/research/2014/05/07/the-already-asked-and-answered-questions-fox-wa/199208

            I’ll even paste the important stuff here since we know damn well you’re too much of a coward to go there and have your talking point shattered like a pane of glass.

            Scroll down through all the exposed Right wing BS until you get to the blue subheading “ANSWER: Obama Was In The Oval Office And His Staff Was Fully Engaged Throughout The Attack”

            There you’ll see “A photo that has been available for over a year on the White House Flikr page shows President Obama in the Oval Office during the September 2012 attacks” being briefed alongside the four other people standing next to him.

            Now tell us …

            Why did you LIE and say that “Obama was sound asleep upstairs so he’d be well rested for his highest, most urgent priority: his Vegas fundraiser the next day.”?

            Hint: Acting like you never seen this response won’t help you.

            I’m gonna go after you … over and over again … and count off how many times you try to dodge answering that question like the typical, conservative, lying coward we all know you are.

          • American1969

            ***Applause!***
            Excellent posting!

        • Americana

          Somehow I doubt getting complete honest and accurate answers ever would have mattered or would have stopped this insanity! Look at the continuing cries of ‘free speech!’ and ‘that video can’t be taken down because of free speech concerns.’ Meanwhile, there are people who are being killed over that idiotic, freaktastic video.

          You can’t have it both ways, folks. You can’t claim you despise your government and that your government is full of traitors because some Americans in highly dangerous places are killed by militants by a failure in a HIGHLY RISKY, TIME-SENSITIVE logistics plan while you don’t give a rip about other, less notable Americans (never mind all those foreigners!) who are killed in any Muslim furor over apostasy like what’s in this film. OTHER AMERICANS are equally as vulnerable as was Ambassador Stevens and all those others in Benghazi.

          If anyone who knows anything about foreign policy listened to those answers to Gowdy’s questions, no matter how abbreviated, they SHOULD HAVE REALIZED that Americans were in danger from that video. As far as honesty being stifled, I believe that was truly in part because of having to put the NEW Marine Corps Rapid Response Forces in place. To admit that many American diplomatic facilities were under protected would have been SUICIDAL. Our best defense and offense in this case was not to publicly acknowledge the risky deployment situation, fix it and then move on and never allow it to happen again.

        • GOPvsUSA

          Whiteblunder is a typical conservative punk who thinks he can run around spewing lies without consequence.

          Americana already ripped him earlier on here.

          Now he’s cutting and running from me over his lie about Obama being “sound asleep upstairs so he’d be well rested for his highest, most urgent priority: his Vegas fundraiser the next day.” on the night of “BENGHAZI!!!”.

          When a conservative posts lies on blogs like this? Just call him out on it.

          And when he refuses to answer the incriminating questions you asked about that lie? Keep going right at him.

          Do what I do and continue pounding him into the ground for it until he admits he lied.

          Just make sure you have a snorkel and fins handy because they tend to cry (in bunches) when you do that.

          And the water from all those tears can get pretty deep!

          • MrUniteUs1

            You’re fighting the good fight.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          Why didn’t we send a flight of F16s to buzz them if nothing else was available?

          There really are no acceptable answers here. The truth is that 0’Bama believes in “soft power” and by not responding he thought he could “contain” it by not escalating (or responding at all). And that’s absolutely the best spin I can put on the situation without lying about it.

          And there are other possible hidden factors. When the quarterback obviously walks off the field, the team expects answers. Complaining about results is one thing, and complaining about effort is another. And thirdly, POTUS lying after the fact is not something most Americans feel good about either. The only real questions are about whether there are even more cover-ups than the obvious ones.

          And this is nonsense too – complaining from the start that any demand for a robust investigation is “racism.”

          No, we do not trust this president that clearly hates the idea that America is the only superpower in the world. We do not trust this president as he advances the interests of the Muslim Brotherhood around the world, including in our own country. And then there’s Iran, Russia, the guy is trying to invite others to take from us.

          That’s literally what it is. We have an neo-Marxist “anti-colonial” president that wants to make amends and do from the inside what Marxists have been trying to do for many decades.

          Anyone who simply dismisses these comments very likely doesn’t even understand them. Which is really too bad because we have a lot of these ignorant people registered to vote these days.

      • Americana

        Well, this following aspect had better be a BIG PART of the whole idiocy this time around or I’m voting for a reduction in their pay.
        ___________________________________________________________

        I’ve been told by people here and on Jihad Watch that I didn’t know enough to make my claims about the previous Rumsfeld Doctrine Deployments being insufficient but, as you can see, the Joint Chiefs agree w/my belief that the previous Rapid Response forces were not in good locations to prevent Benghazi and they’re creating a NEW MARINE RAPID RESPONSE FORCE and putting them on BOARD NAVY SHIPS.

        The Newsmax site keeps its material under copyright so you’ll have to go to that site to read the story but below are some of the highlights. Please note that Gen. James Omos agrees w/me that our Rapid Response strategic posture just wasn’t strategic enough to get the job done.

        ***U.S. Marine Corps has been tasked w/putting Rapid Response Forces on Navy ships to respond to diplomatic, military, and piracy issues.

        ***Gen James Omos described the inherent lack of timeliness in loading men on C-17s from distant bases and flying them into a battle.

        ***These Marine Rapid Response special operations teams will be added to ships carrying larger Marine Expeditionary Units.

        ***There will be a war games by the Marines and Special Operations Command to test the new Rapid Response deployment set-up.

        http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro

  • MrUniteUs1

    Turns out the last bombshell revelation, was actually stated at press conference back in 2012

    “But the fact that the Obama administration reached out to YouTube due
    to the attack is no revelation. In fact, on September 14, 2012, Karl’s
    then-colleague Jake Tapper reported on ABC’s World News, “one
    other development today, the National Security Council here at the White
    House has reached out to YouTube to find out if their posting of that
    anti-Muslim film violates the terms of use.” Update: Here’s the video:

    The same day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was quoted by ABC News saying
    that “We reached out to YouTube to call the video to their attention
    and ask them to review whether it violates their terms of use.”
    From Media Matters.

  • http://oddhammer.com/tutorials/debt_clock/US_debt_clock_dynamic.swf John Barleycorn
    • 95Theses

      Seen this before, but definitely worth reposting!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      …because of the idea of impeaching the first black president…”

      Everyone knows this. And it just sucks.

      • http://oddhammer.com/tutorials/debt_clock/US_debt_clock_dynamic.swf John Barleycorn

        The black man has always reaped benefits from guilt ridden whites

  • Americana

    He’s got a good colour tie but his intellectual content is a little less stellar.

  • Americana

    I’d like to know why the Bill Whittle video was removed along w/my post about the inaccuracies in his rant. Turns out it was posted in early May (May 8th or something) so if he’d been at all interested in researching facts and keeping up w/the realities of Benghazi, Whittle should have been well aware that the Joint Chiefs felt the greatest responsibility lay w/their Rapid Response posture and that their recommendation to prevent future problems involved a complete redesign of this aspect of the American military presence as backup for our diplomatic corps.

  • obamaisaliarperiod

    Woo Hoo. We have a lot of communist Interruptus going on from my first post on down.
    I have one test of credibility whether or not I will converse with someone now.
    One True or false question. If they answer it wrong I don’t bother conversing.
    The answer is obvious to anyone with a brain.
    IS OBAMA A LIAR?

    • CurmudJohn

      Actually, the syntax of your question would require a yes or no answer.

      • obamaisaliarperiod

        You wouldn’t believe how many people answer it with liberal hate speech.
        Well…..without hate speech I guess a liberal has no speech!!

  • Haymster

    The Reason There Was An Need For An Select Committee To Investigate The Benghazi Attack Was Simply Because Of Obama, His Administration And Their Political Cronies In Congress Constant Disruptive Activities That Prevented Any Realistically Productive Result Of All Previous Related Inquiries. And Their Suspicious Decision To Participate In The Select Committee Is Designed To Discredit And Wreck The Efforts At Reaching The Complete Unvarnished Truth About The Circumstances Surrounding The Senseless Murders Of An American Ambassador And Three Other American Citizens At Our Diplomatic Post At Benghazi On September 11,2012 In Contrast To The Democrats’ Claim The Surviving Families Of These Americans,The American People Deserve And Demands The Truth Surrounding This National Tragedy And So Are Obliged To Set Aside Partisan Politics And Act Accordingly To The Interests Of This Country And Of The American People.

    • GOPvsUSA

      Hey, Hamster?

      When you’re done peddling your wheel there … try posting that again without capitalizing every word in your post.

      It makes you look even worse than a hamster with brain damage.

      It makes you look like a conservative!

      • 95Theses

        Scroll past the troll. — Part XV

        • GOPvsUSA

          Nope, still not working — Part XV

      • UCSPanther

        An ant infested with Cordyceps fungus has more free will than the average democract zombie…

        • GOPvsUSA

          And yet I’m over here ripping this place up with my “free will” and out-debating and out-insulting every single one of you conservatives!

          Yeah … you might want to do better with your next post – after you remove that conservative umbilical cord known as Fox “news”.

          • UCSPanther

            A moron that shows how the Left’s intellect has been exponentially decaying since the 1960s.

            I don’t hold out much hope for freaks like you…

          • GOPvsUSA

            Did the government tell you to say that?

            We all know you guys can’t think for yourself! They probably paid you with MY tax money too.

            Let me know when you can stop me from ripping you and this place up.

            See, this “moron” here flushes things smarter than you when he’s done wiping.

            No go make yourself useful and clean the latrines with a toothbrush before you get another blanket party thrown in your honor.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Did the government tell you to say that? We all know you guys can’t think for yourself! They probably paid you with MY tax money too.”

            From the guy that spends hours accessing and propagating DP talking points.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “And yet I’m over here ripping this place up with my “free will” and out-debating and out-insulting every single one of you conservatives!”

            You are so awesome! Keep up the self-affirmations in the mirror too! Those are key for people like you.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Americana Atikva • 10 hours ago: “As I understand it, the order to ‘Stand Down’ was given by the commander of the nearest air base (Tripoli) because relief forces from Tripoli couldn’t possibly have arrived there in time between the readiness status of the plane involved (needed fueling) added to the total flight time. It WAS and it WASN’T a simple logistics problem! The greatest OBSTACLE was that relief forces were at too great a distance because Libya wouldn’t allow enough U.S. troops to remain throughout Libya.”
    Why not send a flight of F16s down there to at least buzz them or strafe them? There’s failing to prepare properly and then there is simply not showing up.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    I got into this late and scanned the comments. I don’t have great hopes for much to come out of the investigation. The GOP has been consistently clubfooted in such matters. From the facts revealed so far it looks as though the Obama Mafia WANTED

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    IT SKIPPED OUT OF MY HAND – It appears that the Obama Mafia WANTED the ambassador dead and out of the way for whatever reason. What I can’t understand, however, is why several rational folks making comments here allow themselves to get into debates with that lunatic GOPvsUSA who needs psychiatric help. Don’t respond to such freaks. Just ignore him.

    • 95Theses

      Absolutely! And why I will continue to post “Scroll past the troll.” following each feckless, futile, fascist, fecal, farceurs’ fomenting. Phew!

      • Wolfthatknowsall

        There seems to be a developing pattern of trolling where one “intelligent, rational” troll gives the official talking points, and another works people up with personal attacks. This probably indicates that both people, in the pair, are paid by an outside party … one to be rational and level-headed, the other to be the flaming commie.

        I think that this is what we have going on, here.

        • 95Theses

          Agreed. Once it becomes transparent (which doesn’t take long) that the poster is a poser – and therefore a troll – it’s time to flag, delete, block, collapse — whatever, anything but engage them.

          • GOPvsUSA

            Awwww .. are you gonna keep crying about me, kid?

            Good! I’m just getting started over here.

            Better drink lots of water so you don’t dehydrate from displacing all that eyewater!

          • CapitalistPig

            Is there anything of substance you would like to contribute?

          • GOPvsUSA

            Read my comment history (have a literate adult in your trailer park help you out if you can find one).

            There’s plenty of substance there for you to cut and run from when you’re done CRYING about me trolling over here like you guys do over at CNN.

          • CapitalistPig

            I did, it’s the same as most any dime a dozen prog-lydyte troll you read who is in over his head— except you’re more obnoxious, boring & repetitive. At least “Steve Fair” & “UpTownSteve” (pretty sure they were the same guy) were original & entertaining. Like a catching a greased liberal.
            Just keep the shake machine clean & we’ll make the big decisions.

          • GOPvsUSA

            Yeah, I’m “in over my head” which is why you can’t out debate me. You can’t even answer simple questions.

            In fact, I’ll even ask you one below just to prove how much of a coward you are!

            Let’s take a look at some conservative policies and you can tell me which ones have worked.

            Ready?

            – Deregulating the banking industry via the Gramm/Leach/Bliley Act.

            – The CFMA 2000 that prevented the govt from exerting ANY oversight on derivatives markets.


            America’s Home Ownership Challenge/American Dream Downpayment Act where
            Dubya aggressively pushed the private lending industry to make over 1.1
            trillion in low income and minority loans and to “create more creative”
            loan products to do it.

            – Dubya’s TARP that extended into Obama’s first fiscal year in office.

            – The UNfunded war in Afghanistan to go after Ronnie’s “Freedom Fighters”.

            – The UNfunded war in Iraq that Obama ended.

            – Drafting 3,000 Natl Guardsmen off to fight in those wars so they couldn’t help during Katrina when they were needed HERE.

            – The underfunded NCLB that 44 states have opted out of (so far).


            Dubya’s medicare Part D fiasco that only narrowly passed because the
            cost of the plan was (admittedly) hidden from those that voted for it by
            Medicare administrator Thomas Scully.

            – The corporate welfare (bribes) for Big Oil to keep gas prices down.


            Repeated tax cuts for the rich to “create jobs” that have ended up in
            China and India with factories paid for by those tax cuts. Republicans
            insisted that corporations: 1) be paid in advance 2) to do something
            they never did, and 3) be allowed to keep the money instead of return
            it, so that 4) now the NOT RICH taxpayers have to account for the money
            by 5) paying it back with cuts to services (thus essentially they get
            shafted TWICE) … because those tax cuts they insisted on 6) screwed up the deficit.

            Can you tell us which of these worked exactly?

            And I only ask because well, WE’RE STILL PAYING FOR THEM!

            Hint: This is not an essay question – a simple number from 0 to 11 is all we need here!

            I’ll bet you cut and run rather than answer like typical Fox “news” conservatives always do when they’re called out.

            I’m now officially waiting for you to prove me right like your kind always does.

          • CapitalistPig

            You seriously believe the private sector effed up the housing sector? Ha ha! You are in over your head!
            Why didn’t the tech sector burn off cause the same catastrophe that finance & housing was about to cause? Seems to me Dubya let Enron, WorldCom, Global Crossing & about a zillion internet companies go broke & we recovered quite nicely. I made a small fortune in both 2000 & the last burn off. If I’m to blame Bush it’s because he “went Democrat”. Capitalism has a wonderful way of dealing with crooks & incompetents–it’s called “failure”. Don’t blame capitalism for socializing the costs of stoopidity—blame Democrats & RINOs. It also has a great way of preventing bubbles from getting so big they cause financial meltdowns–it’s called “don’t create artificial demand”:through stoopid policies like the Democrats wanting deadbeats to qualify for home loans & threatening banks with Justice Dept. harassment for not doing so. I worked in the housing industry–it WAS disgusting….it was also federal policy & it started long before Dubya became POTUS. All a banker can do is ask. Only the government can put a gun to the taxpayers head & tell him to pony up. If it had been up to me (& a good share of the rest of us) I would have let the banks AND the auto companies fail.
            And all your “unfunded” cr@p lines?……the first priority of the federal government is to defend this country–I can make a pretty decent case that Constitutionally it’s just about the ONLY function. The feds took in about 2.7 trillion last year—defense has ranged over the last 10 years from 300 billion to 600 billion. On average DoD gets 20 to 25% of fed outlays. We can afford a MASSIVE tax cut if the feds would get out of the businesses they have no business being in.
            The only things we’re borrowing money for are things we shouldn’t be doing anyway.
            Have the political argument all night long over whether Bush made the right decisions after 9/11—-but “We couldn’t afford them” or “they were unfunded” simply aren’t legitimate. If they are …..then you need the feds to get out of the welfare, education, Medicare, Social Security, housing & green energy business & have them concentrate on what the US Constitution says they’re supposed prioritize—defending the United States. Then they’ll have all the money that’s needed to flatten every liberal/socialist/Muslim/Fascist/tinhorn dictator on planet earth with enough leftover to fund several more carrier groups. You’re not proving your case—you’re making mine with your “examples”. Now go back to Rick Maddow & see what it says in response.
            BTW–didja get the shake machine clean?.

          • GOPvsUSA

            That’s not an answer you gutless, POS, conservative coward.

            Way to prove me right there!

            And you’ll continue to prove me right by cutting and running like a wuss because it’s what you conservatives do best! You’re genetically predisposed to do that after years of cowardly genes being passed down to from your parents, your parent’s parents, etc, etc.

            I guess it’s really not completely your fault!

            I’ll keep asking you this until you answer the question with a post that starts with a number. And I’ll just skip it if it doesn’t and post this to you over and over again.

            Hint: This is not an essay question – a simple NUMBER from 0 to 11 is all we need here!

            Now can you tell us which of these worked exactly?

            I’ll bet you again cut and run rather than answer like typical Fox “news” conservatives always do when they’re called out.

            You’re already 0-1.

            I’m now officially waiting for you to prove me right like your kind always does … every single time!

          • CapitalistPig

            Dismissing an answer because you just don’t happen to agree isn’t a debate point, nor is it some sort of “victory” on your part. If you’re not interested in my answers–I’ve no interest in your questions. Why should I defend some idiotic statement concerning “unfunded wars”?—I don’t accept the premise of the question that they were unfunded. Some of us actually manage both personal & business fortunes & understand that not even the federal kitty is a bottomless pit of cash–you 1st have priorities then goals, parameters & you manage within those boundaries. National defense is the 1st priority of the feds–there was plenty of money to do what both Democrats & Republicans agreed needed to be done & I explained why–you cut a lesser priority because even the feds have limits then move forward. Learning to say “no” is a terrific political & life skill. Anymore than trying to answer to lib-speak terms like “unpaid for tax cuts”—as if all revenue belongs to the government & they dole it back to us like we’re little children. Isn’t it wonderful to be on right wing sites?–where they actually post single celled organisms like you? See, I’m a conservative–no matter how thoughtful, respectful & logically laid out my comment is, they either will not post me or will quickly delete me (or “moderate”–yeah, right) on left wing “open minded” forums like the Washington Post, Politico or maybe the worst of the worst–the Huffington Post (Huffin-Glue Pest). BTW, I generally don’t get my news from Fox. I’ve seen it. Don’t know what the fuss is about. Special Report with Bret Baier, their flagship evening newscast seems to be pretty fair & straightforward reporting. I get most of mine from The Economist, Investors Business Daily, some business periodicals from where I worked & now serve on a directors board & a half dozen or so web sites–right & left.
            So that, my previous post & comment history are your answers. If you don’t like them or would like to take respectful exception–feel free. But being the most obnoxious or angry isn’t a valid argument…….barring that, you can go vigorously ‘eff yourself. Didja clean the shake machine?

          • 95Theses

            You will never EVER get an honest, truthful dialogue with girly-mahn. He reminds me of C.S. Lewis’ first chapter in The Abolition of Man – Men Without Chests (but without the chest).

            http://www.amazon.com/Abolition-Man-C-S-Lewis/dp/1609421469/ref=sr_1_1_title_2_har?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1401024823&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Abolition+of+Man

            Scroll past the girly-mahn.

          • CapitalistPig

            I figured as much, still, I’ll give even the most obnoxious troll a chance or 2 to actually articulate something beyond their usual emotional 3 year old, wet diaper outbursts. If it keeps up I just scroll past. It’s boring & pointless to engage or try to reason with petulant children.
            I never flag to have someone removed though. That’s how the liberal sites shut down conservative comments–no matter how respectful or civil they may be.
            I used to comment on the Huffington Post & just left in disgust. When you get 80% of your comments not posted or pulled in less than 2 minutes you just give up & move on. They’re not interested in an open forum–more like a sobbing, slobbering liberal, hand holding support group.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “When you get 80% of your comments not posted or pulled in less than 2 minutes you just give up & move on. They’re not interested in an open forum–more like a sobbing, slobbering liberal, hand holding support group.”

            I tried the same thing. And I’m pretty nice when I’m on the visiting team in terms of political discussions. All of my comments were deleted. All.

          • CapitalistPig

            Honestly, in most cases I bent over backwards to stay within comment guidelines–all the time getting pelted with the digital version of rotten tomatoes & childish, simplistic, utopian progressive “arguments”. You kinda figure it to be a stacked deck but you slog on trying to at least plant the seed of conversion or get a younger prog-lydyte to consider that there are valid, defensible political positions opposed to unrestrained liberalism. I know I had a few successes.
            I call it The Huffin-Glue Pest at every chance now. I sent several barbed, scathing e-mails to their reader services site outlining the problems I had with their comment policy & defied them to explain why I was consistently deleted–I never got so much as a “form letter” e-mail.
            That’s why I’m somewhat sensitive to constant calls for comments & trolls to be flagged & removed. I don’t want conservative leaning sites to go that route as it implies intellectual weakness & laziness. I know it can be frustrating seeing bacteria like “GOPvsUSA” gum up the site–but I give him a shot & when they persist—I just let em waste their time & keystrokes. At some point I suppose they should be removed–but it should be a high bar.
            I don’t dignify their B$ with an articulate response.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “That’s why I’m somewhat sensitive to constant calls for comments & trolls to be flagged & removed. I don’t want conservative leaning sites to go that route as it implies intellectual weakness & laziness.”

            I agree. I’d rather expose them and hang them out to dry.

          • GOPvsUSA

            That’s not an answer you gutless, POS, conservative coward.

            Way to again prove me right there!

            I’ll keep asking you this until you answer the question with a post that starts with a number. And I’ll just skip it if it doesn’t and post this to you over and over again.

            Hint: This is not an essay question – a simple NUMBER from 0 to 11 is all we need here!

            Now can you tell us which of these worked exactly?

            I’ll bet you again cut and run rather than answer like typical Fox “news” conservatives always do when they’re called out.

            You’re 0-2.

          • CapitalistPig

            That’s not a response either. Your repetitious, content free, vitriolic replies bore me. Bye.

          • GOPvsUSA

            That’s still not an answer you gutless, POS, conservative coward.

            Way to again prove me right there!

            Hint: This is not an essay question – a simple NUMBER from 0 to 11 is all we need here!

            I’ll keep asking you this until you answer the question with a post that starts with a number. And I’ll just skip it if it doesn’t and post this to you over and over again.

            Now can you tell us which of these worked exactly?

            I’ll bet you again cut and run rather than answer like typical Fox “news” conservatives always do when they’re called out.

            You’re 0-3.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ll keep asking you this until you answer the question with a post that starts with a number. And I’ll just skip it if it doesn’t and post this to you over and over again.”

            Please account for the reasons that you’re such an a-hole. Failure to satisfy me will be the ultimate proof that you are an a-hole.

            Plus anyone that can read your comments probably already agrees with my assessment.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Dismissing an answer because you just don’t happen to agree isn’t a debate point, nor is it some sort of “victory” on your part.”

            Marxists rule and conservatives drool! I win!

            Victory dance!
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AIRQZAgtaE&feature=kp

          • CapitalistPig

            “I’m now officially waiting for you to prove me right LIKE YOUR KIND ALWAYS DOES…..EVERY SINGLE TIME” . (emphasis mine)……..do you read what you post? Ha ha!……what a Maroon!

          • GOPvsUSA

            That’s still not an answer you gutless, POS, conservative coward.

            Way to again prove me right there!

            I’ll keep asking you this until you answer the question with a post that starts with a number. And I’ll just skip it if it doesn’t and post this to you over and over again.

            Hint: This is not an essay question – a simple NUMBER from 0 to 11 is all we need here!

            Now can you tell us which of those conservative-championed policies worked exactly?

            I’ll bet you again cut and run rather than answer like typical Fox “news” conservatives always do when they’re called out.

            You’re 0-3.

          • CapitalistPig

            I’m still bored. Think I’ll step out, sip some expensive wine & retire to the bedroom with my beautiful wife of 35 years…………you’re dead to me.

          • GOPvsUSA

            That’s still not an answer you gutless, POS, conservative coward.

            Way to yet again prove me right on this one.

            To be honest, I knew you wouldn’t answer that question. And how did I know?

            Simple! Because NONE of the two dozen or so of you who have been asked that question have ever answered it!

            Hint: This is still not an essay question – a simple NUMBER from 0 to 11 is all we need here!

            I’ll keep asking you this until you answer the question with a post that starts with a number. And I’ll just skip it if it doesn’t and post this to you over and over again.

            Now can you tell us which of these worked exactly?

            I’ll bet you again cut and run rather than answer like typical Fox “news” conservatives always do when they’re called out.

            You’re now 0-4.

            I just love keep exposing how easy it is to make conservative “patriots” and self-described “geniuses” cut and run away from the simplest of questions.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Simple! Because NONE of the two dozen or so of you who have been asked that question have ever answered it!”

            To your satisfaction. And does anyone else care? Very unlikely.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’ll keep asking you this until you answer the question with a post that starts with a number. And I’ll just skip it if it doesn’t and post this to you over and over again. Now can you tell us which of these worked exactly?”

            None of them “worked” because we still don’t have a communist Utopia. That’s the answer you’re looking for because right now, only the Demagogic Party has a realistic shot at turning the USA in to a communist Utopia, while the RP simply compromises with them and slows them down a little.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I just love keep exposing how easy it is to make conservative “patriots” and self-described “geniuses” cut and run away from the simplest of questions.”

            At least you can claim famous ancestors.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_b3oPslctA

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Simple! Because NONE of the two dozen or so of you who have been asked that question have ever answered it!”

            To understand conservative failure, the most you can possibly comprehend is that we’re way too tolerant of morons and their Marxism. So go and blame the Marxists or come up with a better plan for containing them.

            Unless you don’t like the USA as it is. Because what’s great about it is thanks to conservative principals and what sucks about it is thanks to Marxists and dupes like you.

            Like it or not, you’re on the losing team. And our problems come from being too tolerant of the likes of you.

          • CapitalistPig

            Well, I’ve awakened from a great nights rest aided by a glass of expensive imported French wine & my beautiful wife of 35 years. I’ll be observing a memorial to our fallen heroes & then look forward to the beginning of the month when our corpulent bank account is to replenished with a couple of nice pension deposits, bond interest, oil & gas royalty income & corporate dividend payments.
            Isn’t this a great country? What did you do last evening GOPvsUSA?……….oh look! You put up another pointless post that failed to address a single point that I made in my initial response to your childish, fact free screed!
            See, this is how debate works—you don’t get to set every single parameter —-then declare victory when we all fail to line up & kiss your @s$ in response. When you respectfully answer my concerns in something approaching the same civil fashion that I respected yours–you’ll get a response.
            Until then——I have a cruise I need to book for later this summer & another this fall. Get that shake machine clean & then get typing!

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The only examples you have of “failed conservative policies” are when “conservatives” compromise with the socialists. And you’re completely unbalanced in assigning any blame at all to the socialists.

            Are you a complete hack for the DP or a gullible moron? It’s not clear why anyone should care to have that question answered.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “I’m now officially waiting for you to prove me right like your kind always does … every single time!”

            You’re an “official” of a trolling organization. How many members are there?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yeah, I’m “in over my head” which is why you can’t out debate me. You can’t even answer simple questions.”

            You know how to sling accusations but it’s not clear that you actually understand them.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Yeah, I’m “in over my head” which is why you can’t out debate me. You can’t even answer simple questions.”

            How much intelligence does it take to access a talking points database and insult people just before breaking out the victory dance declarations of victory? It’s basic training for trolls.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “There’s plenty of substance there for you to cut and run from when you’re done CRYING about me trolling over here like you guys do over at CNN.”

            You depend substantially on talking points memes.

          • 95Theses

            Trust me, CP, if this troll and I were to meet in person his
            demeanor would change dramatically, scream like a little girl, and go running as fast as his shaved girly-man legs would carry him. As things stand, he can safely type away shielded by the anonymity of his keyboard — typical troll behavior.

          • CapitalistPig

            I’m sure his man-gina moistens with every mash of the “send” button.

    • UCSPanther

      One day, the truth will come out, and Dems will feel some serious pain.

      Scandals like this just simply do not go away.

  • nubwaxer

    7 right wingers and 5 democrats, that’s a right wing belief in a stacked deck. a fair deck to the right would be 12 issas.

    • MrUniteUs1

      Plus no subpoena power for Dems. Imagine a trial where only one side can call witnesses. That’s unAmerican.

      • Atikva

        I thought that as Americans, whatever our political leanings, we would be mourning the death of the victims, work together to find out exactly why and how it happened and who was responsible, then correct the situation so that it can never happen again, punish the guilty parties if any, and comfort the bereaved families. Because right now, none of these tasks has been fulfilled.

        Apparently I was wrong: some of us not only don’t care about any of this, but they don’t want us to care either. They act as if they were on trial and therefore entitled to play any trick in the book to prevent the truth to be known. Seems to me more suspicious every day.

      • CapitalistPig

        It isn’t a trial though. It’s an investigation. The Democrat controlled Senate is free to launch one if it likes. But they’re the ones most likely to be exposed because they were the ones in charge of the consulate & the security. But elections have consequences & the GOP won the House. They can conduct this inquiry any way they choose & leave it the American people to determine if it was done openly & fairly. .

    • pfbonney

      “5 democrats”

      You mean, “5 left wingers”?

      You’re a freak.

      • CapitalistPig

        That’s how these people tick……..They actually believe they’re the open minded moderates. Why does the GOP even try to compromise with fools like this?………..you work to defeat them.

        • pfbonney

          “…you work to defeat them.”

          Better yet, destroy them. That’s what the extreme left is trying to do to us.

          Whether his avatar is actually a picture of him or not (it probably is), he’d gain a LITTLE more respectability if he’d use a less freakish picture.

          He looks like a college professor. Or a member of the ACLU.

          For my part, I use a (computer altered, as I understand it) picture of Obama that the MSM won’t show us – a picture of Obama smoking a cigarette, as my avatar.

          • CapitalistPig

            He used to smoke (may still smoke–supposedly he’s quit) so the pic may be legit.
            But I’m with you—we’ve compromised enough, time to start dialing back the feds, not just “moving the line only half as far to the left as the Democrats want to move it”. That’s been the GOP since Reagan left office.
            Do you see the Democrats throwing an Al Sharpton or Charlie Rangel under the bus or disavowing a pervert like Barney Frank?
            Yet the GOP (establishment mainly) treats a Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz or Michelle Bachman as if they have leprosy & they trip over each other to disavow any association with them. .
            What’s wrong with that picture?

          • pfbonney

            “He used to smoke (may still smoke–supposedly he’s quit) so the pic may be legit.”

            No. I’ve read that this picture (as well as the one with him smoking several cigarettes at once) is doctored. Still serves the purpose, though.

            “…we’ve compromised enough, time to start dialing back the feds, not just “moving the line only half as far to the left as the Democrats want to move it”. That’s been the GOP since Reagan left office.”

            While Bush 41 reflects my attitude most as it comes to international relations, and at that time, my environmental outlook, a Ronald Reagan-approach to the conservative/constitutional agenda is what is needed. Perhaps even more Libertarian, in fact, as the only way I can see us getting rid of the EPA, DHS, the Fed, and numerous other agencies where the left has created voluminous numbers of laws in an effort to reach deeper into our lives, is to abolish them all and be done with it.

            The establishment GOP is jealous of its power and wants to give up none to us. It would rather give up power to the Democrats, it appears, who would never return the favor.

            The pre-1968 establishment Democrats had power wrested from them from their extreme left at the 1968 Democrat presidential primary convention in Chicago. They had the advantage of an unpopular war to capitalize on.

            It looks like we need to find some issue to capitalize on to propel us, who have the backing of the US Constitution, into control of our party.

            I believe the last time a third-party one was when Abraham Lincoln took the Republicans to victory in 1860, or so.

          • CapitalistPig

            I used to vote consistently for Libertarian candidates.
            Years ago I met (& voted for) Ron Paul & Russel Means when they were running for President/VP as the LP choice–also Andre Marrou & Nancy Lord. My GOP friends used to say I was wasting my vote–I feel vindicated when I see what their votes have got them in the modern, RINO dominated GOP. BTW, the Koch Bros were huge contributors to the LP back in the 1980s & 90s……..nothing more I’d like to see than a Rand Paul or a Ted Cruz win. It’s the closest thing the GOP has to libertarians.

          • pfbonney

            “It’s the closest thing the GOP has to libertarians.”

            I would agree. Particularly as a former Ron Paul constituent.

  • Robert Tulloch

    I can’t believe that Waxman is still with us. I thought he was beheaded and the head thrown into a mosque?

    • pfbonney

      He looks like a “Waxed man” as it is.

      When Democrats controlled all of congress, and Republicans had the White House, he was all for investigations of the presidency. He seems to have backed off of that take.

  • Schmitty

    Is any Democrat still that blind as to fall for the old unnamed source trick yet again? I try to respect different opinions but when you are lied to over and over and continue to fall for the same lame moves, well I have a hard time taking your position seriously. Everything the left campaigns on is based on falsehoods and the house of cards remains standing only because the media decided to be blind. The Democrats trying to brush this off as a witch hunt just shows you how naive and gullible they know their followers are. When will the people who follow these buffoons get pissed about being treated like fools for so long?

  • Webb Cook

    Good guys — The trolls who appear here and basically of two types. Either they use scathing personal attacks, or they use reams of mishmash which attempts to sound rational-logical-analytical. They come here intent on engagement — actually, desperate for engagement. It doesn’t make any difference where they come from. They’re not to be engaged, as they’re nothing but time wasters. I believe they’re demon infested, and as such they have demonic energy. If you engage them, they’ll win. If you resist them, they’ll flee.

    • UCSPanther

      I’d just flag them down. If they came into a townhall meeting in the real world, they would be forcibly removed.

      • 95Theses

        I share that view. They are the digital space hecklers who lack the respect for other points of view — ironic when you consider how preachy liberals are about diversity (actually not, given their hypocrisy).

    • 95Theses

      I’m inclined to agree.

      I don’t post that much, really, but when I spot a troll I’ll either hound them with my “Scroll past the troll” meme, or mock them … and liberals so hate to be mocked. Just sayin’.

  • American1969

    If the Democrats didn’t have anything to worry about, they wouldn’t be attacking this Select Committee. Obviously, this worries them a lot.

  • Lanna

    They will be obstructionists, trying to throw out vital information…there is no faith in Democrats ability to do what is honorable, especially if it hurts their party and shows connections to Islamic radicals.

  • Dyer’s Eve

    Nothing new under the sun here. It is called politics. Politics is all about arse-covering, graft, evasion, trickery, bending facts and concealing errors. Maybe Hilary can tie her shoelaces just to prove her brain ain’t wonky.

  • L.S.

    Another unanswered question is — where exactly was President Obama the night of the Benghazi attack?

    • pfbonney

      He wasn’t in the situation room. That much we DO know, and only thanks to FNC.

  • pfbonney

    So, according to the article, the things to watch for as a result of the Benghazi Select Committee are:

    1). Why requests for additional security were denied?

    2). Why did the ambassador feel the need to ask for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered?

    3). Why did these requests, by an ambassador (no less), asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered, go unheeded?

    4). Why were no assets were deployed during the siege, particularly since no one knew how long the siege would last?

    5). Did the president call any of our allies and ask, can you help, we have men under attack?

    6). Why was Susan Rice was picked to go on five Sunday talk shows after the attacks, when the Secretary of State, historically, would normally be the person chosen regarding a death of such a high-ranking individual, and the violation of sovereign territory (which embassies & consulates are)?

    7). What is the origin of this mythology, that the Benghazi attack was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Where was that started?

    8). And as Poster L.S. asks (here in these posts), where exactly was President Obama the night of the Benghazi attack?

    9). And of course, as the Democrats ask, how can we prevent a tragedy like Benghazi from ever happening again?

    As for the latter, I would suggest that step one would be for the president to show an interest in having such tragedies prevented in the first place.

    The Left seems to want to man the government, not to better serve the people, but to have their people pre-positioned at all possible posts only to serve as party apparatchiks in the event the ones above need something done, or to have someone harassed or persecuted (such as Joe the Plumber). (Or else the City of Detroit, the municipality in the US with the highest ratio of the number of employees to the number of citizens, would actually function like a well-oiled machine, instead of drawing its constituents ire, by fellow Democrats, no less.) And all the ones at the top want to do is just DO what they want to do, and not be constrained by doing what needs to be done. Obama, apparently, didn’t feel like being bothered with saving his fellow Democrat’s life when he had a movie to watch, or whatever.

    As long as Democrats have that type of attitude, even obtaining an answer to their own question is pointless, except for use by a Republican Administration. And we ALREADY perform better than our Democrat counterparts, by and large (to use a sailing term), even before we learn any lessons from Benghazi.

    But, let’s see if we get any answers to any of these questions.

    • 95Theses

      Sure wish the Saturday Night Live Bizarro world skit mocking Reagan were available on YouTube. But here is the transcript. Get to the part were Reagan’s aides tell him to go to sleep and see if that doesn’t
      sound more like Barack Obama on the night of September 11, 2012.

      Black House Aide #1: Look! Here am President! [Bizarro President and Wife enter] Goodbye, President. Goodbye, Last Lady.

      Bizarro President: Goodbye, everybody.

      Last-Lady: Oh, you dirties up the office. Thank you.

      Black House Aide #2: Don’t mention it.

      Last-Lady: Well, I’m off to go visit my masculine son. Hello.

      Black House Aide #1: Hello.

      Black House Aide #2: Hello. [Last-Lady exits] Ah-ha! Phone did not ring, so me answer it. [answers phone] Goodbye! Oh, no! Oh, no! There’s a crisis! There’s a crisis! Quick, Bizarro President! Go to sleep!

      [Bizarro President drops his head onto his desk and falls asleep]

      Black House Aide #1: Phew! That was quick Presidential action. What a leader!

      Black House Aide #2: Him always do exact wrong thing. Him perfect!

      http://snltranscripts.jt.org/81/81bbizarro.phtml

      The only difference being that on the night of the Benghazi attack, Barack Obama probably did go to sleep.

    • pfbonney

      “7). What is the origin of this mythology, that the Benghazi attack was spawned as a spontaneous reaction to a video? Where was that started?”

      Here’s a LITTLE insight: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/05/23/new-emails-reveal-obama-white-house-worked-on-concocting-benghazi-lie-during-the-attacks/

      … where it says, in part, “House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa said on Thursday that the Obama White House was contacting YouTube owner Google during the Benghazi terrorist attacks, working on the false narrative even before Americans were out of harm’s way and before the intelligence community examined available evidence.

      “… The subject line of the email, ironically sent at 9:11 p.m. (the attacks took place on 9/11/12) on the night of the attack, was “Update on Response to actions – Libya,” hours before the attack had ended.

      “…According to Issa, one of the items noted in the email stated, “White House is reaching out to U-Tube [sic] to advise ramifications of the posting of the Pastor Jon video.”

      So did the White House actually post the “offending” video?

      • 95Theses

        Now that is an interesting question. And if it somehow proves to be true, would be the most damning evidence of all. Concoct a false narrative by first pulling the strings at YouTube in order to manufacture a false catalyst to rationalize the abandonment and deliberate sacrificing of your own d*mn ambassador! And, AND is it not amazing that the question you are asking doesn’t even faze us, given what we know this POSOTUS has shown himself to be capable of? Wow! Nice work.

        • pfbonney

          Thanks much!

  • pfbonney

    Not to be critical, but should the paragraph, “… Do you know why an ambassador asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered and those requests went unheeded? Do you know the answer to why those requests went unheeded?” read, “Do you know why an ambassador was asking for more security, days and weeks before he was murdered, and why those requests went unheeded?””

  • Mike

    It appears that there are posters who have a whole laundry list of talking points to use as weapons. Obviously paid propaganda-meisters from the Democrats. I am always disturbed at how quick people are to defend politicians. The politicians never learn that the cover up is worse than the crime. Hallmark of pathological liars.

  • SoCalMike

    There is a special place in Dante’s Inferno for with the Dems names on it.

    Notice how every single solitary syllable out of their mouths is precisely what Freud called “projection.” You have to understand you’re dealing with liars and thieves for whom power matters most.

  • Ellman48

    “It is the commitment to the truth,
    toxic as it likely is for both Clinton and the Obama administration,
    that should drive the House Select Committee on Benghazi.”

    Without this absolute commitment there would be no point whatsoever to the Select Committee investigation. Trey Gowdy will be tested like no one since Joe McCarthy. He will either demonstrate his commitment to discovering the truth or his fecklessness and weakness under fire from the enemy.

    Politics has always been an ugly and sordid business, but under Obama is has become grotesque and bloody. The Truth is usually the major victim. Let’s hope Gowdy has the stomach for the brutality and savagery the Democrats are getting ready to display. We need to support him to the same degree that the Left will seek to destroy him, and the Truth with him.

  • USARetired

    “And The Truth Shall Set You,,,,,,,Not when guilty! Heads should roll from this illegal action!

  • James Foard

    You aren’t seriously accusing this wonderful, honest woman of playing politics, are you?! How could you! For shame. Why Hillary’s as pure and upright as any democrat you can find on Capitol Hill.

  • ArmyRadioman

    Riots in 30 countries, 50 killed in Sept 2012 over the video clip posted on Youtube by the “Flush a Koran Down the Toilet for Jesus” pastor. The local police told the rescue team (who DID save the lives of 36 of 40 Americans in the compound) taht the riots were about the video, so that was the best information at the time. The GOP revealed that the compound was actually an undercover CIA spy facility, and informants helpful to America and Israel have already been assassinated , just like after the GOP revealed Valerie Plaime as CIA. Seems the GOP is more interested in setting traps–such as forcing high govt officials to stick to a cover story — which can then be shown to be lies — or else revealing classified information by admitting the actual purpose of the facility.

    • Lea

      The video was made by a muslim, it was a set up. No doubt about it, it was planned and synchronised, this is the militant political movement called islam, and it seems you have Marxists and masons in the American government who are working with them to create a one world government, since they all have the same mission in this respect.

  • USARetired

    And the first time one of these ‘Dumocrats’ attempts to ‘Sand Bag’ this committee they must be ‘Summarily’ FIRED!

  • simplynotred

    Actually it is good that they have joined, because now the American Public will see first hand what the Democrats are trying to protect, and its not the interest of the American people. It will be great to watch the interrupts take place by the Democrats when leading questions come forth regarding Hillary’s involvement. This exchange is really key to turning the American public against the Democrat party. Obstruction of justice will abound with the Democrats whose talking point will be Hillary Clinton’s line “What matter does it make!” [who died in Benghazi?

    All this while American Veterans are been delayed and having died in one state VA hospital. While other VA’s in other states will start coming forth. The Newly Elected Egyptian Government needs to be asked come forth since its trials regarding the overturned government of Mr. Morsi – to join the committee hearings and to show forth the documents found regarding President Obama’s promotion of the Muslim Brotherhood members all over North Africa.

    How Obama changed the direction of American Foreign policy towards helping Al qaeda instead of fighting against the organization that brought down the twin towers in New York. This Administration has covertly deceived the public and threaten hundreds of individuals to keep the Benghazi incident now proven to be in fact a treasonous attempt to give rise to a world wide Islamic uprising. Thanks to the Egyptian people men and women, this uprising is beginning to be circumvented, however, it involves our President and those who are his care takers.

    The British MI6 was involved and needs to be summoned to provide testimony regarding their involvement in the purchasing of arms for Al qaeda. The testimony of hundreds of American Government employees needs to be sequestered and summoned, who have been silenced by the current administration – which will lead to a Watergate Type of Hearing about the overall intentions of the Obama Administration. Issues regarding the firing of the Top military personnel following the Benghazi incident needs to be reviewed and have them testify who and what this New Foreign Policy that is in support of Islamic Governments to bring about the Arab Spring and to infiltrate the US Government on multiple levels.

    Listen to the Citizens Commission on Benghazi videos. just released

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDiISuoy0oo
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92Uvotbdhzc

  • http://www.marktraina.webs.com Mark N Starla Traina

    Hillary Clinton won’t be part of Benghazi “SLUGFEST”!
    This statement sounds BOGUS coming from an Official of the most TRANSPARENT PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION in U.S. HISTORY!

    Hillary Clinton in her upcoming book “Hard Choices” casts doubt on the motivations of Republicans who have continued to investigate the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and says she won’t be part of the “political slugfest.” Politico obtained the Benghazi chapter of the book, in which the potential presidential candidate says to her critics: “Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

    The only WASHINGTON INSIDER who is willing to tell U.S. the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING but the TRUTH about exactly what’s going on inside the OBAMA ADMINSITRATION is

    EDWARD SNOWDEN

    … and the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, the U.S. DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE and the MAINSTREAM MEDIA have all DUBBED him as being a “TRAITOR”, when in FACT the real TRAITORS are PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, the U.S. DEPARTMENT of JUSTICE and the MAINSTREAM MEDIA!

    “EDWARD SNOWDEN will geaux down in HISTORY as the GREATEST AMERICAN PATROIT of all TIME! (TRAINAISM)

    “EDWARD SNOWDEN has already exposed thousands of OBAMALIES, and is on-course to derail HILLARY CLINTON’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN!” (TRAINAISM)

    NATIONAL ASSOCIATION for the ADVANCEMENT of WHITE PEOPLE – 2014

    • Lea

      Edward Snowden is a scam and his pal Greenwald is in the pockets of the Islamic jihadist psychopathic muslims. Greenwald is working for them, and the only thing that snowden’s theft of information has led to, is to help muslims launch more lawfare against the American state, for discriminating against them, and Greenwald is helping them. Nothing much of anything else, has really been of substance. You see, if there were no muslims in America, then your liberties such as privacy would not be violated, in the first place.

  • 95Theses

    I thought it was self-evident that my comment was pure
    sarcasm. Oh well.