What are you talking about? You don't even know what you're mad about anymore. Just flailing around like an idiot.
“Republicans are showing yet again that they have nothing to offer the middle class. Republicans care more about defending billionaires like the Koch brothers and trying to rekindle debunked right-wing conspiracy theories than raising the minimum wage or ensuring women receive equal pay for equal work. “There have already been multiple investigations into this issue and an independent Accountability Review Board is mandated under current law. For Republicans to waste the American people’s time and money staging a partisan political circus instead of focusing on the middle class is simply a bad decision. While Republicans try to gin up yet another political food fight, Senate Democrats will remain focused on fostering economic growth for all hard-working Americans.” -- Harry Reid
A far worse outcome? Who's military were they risking provoking? The Libyans? They essentially HAD no military at the time, so much so, they couldn't respond to the terrorist attack within their own country. How could they respond to any U.S. military incursion? If it never got to the President, someone kept that information from him and should be outed. I think its safe to say if an ambassador comes under attack, is in grave peril, and the President isn't notified that would be a BIG problem. However, recent information has come to light that seems to strongly indicate the President WAS very up to date on the attack while it was taking place. I saw an interview yesterday with Tommy Vietor who was at the time the spokesman for the National Security Council and who was in the Situation Room of the White House during the time these attacks were taking place. He stated Obama wasn't in the situation room with him while he was there but stated “It is well known that when the attack was first briefed to him (Obama) it was in the Oval Office and he was updated constantly.” He also indicated that nobody knew in the first hours where the Ambassador was and that this was of great concern to the White House. This seems to indicate that President Obama was kept well aware of the severity of the attack from the beginning (since there were drones giving real time video) yet no help was sent. Was it because someone lied to the President? If so, who? Was it because of incompetence? Again, if so...who? If it was believed the attack was over, SO WHAT? Send help to make sure? Or did the President simply drop the ball here? If so, how can that be acceptable?
Oh good lord. There is no helping some of you. But let's be honest here, this has nothing to do with the facts of Benghazi and everything to do with people hating the President.
There were hundreds of people involved in the attack in Benghazi, so many that the military didn't believe it could get a sufficient security force to the location in time. If we had sent in troops, many more people would have gotten killed, both Americans and Libyans, which could have provoked retaliation against Americans. One of the things that I liked about what Obama did in Libya is that he didn't put boots on the ground there, which saved American lives. I'm certain that Obama knew it was happening at the time. I'm equally certain that when he asked "what can we do" that the military said "nothing." I know this because the House report was pretty clear on the subject. It was because the military leaders on the ground at the time said they would not be able to get a sufficient force to Benghazi in time to save any lives. All of this is documented in the House report.
I wonder. How did the decision makers know AT THAT TIME exactly how long the attack would continue? Because there were 2 separate attacks that occured....how did they know there wasn't going to be a 3rd? A 4th? 10 attacks? Are they Nostradamus?
So was it not a "big deal" or was it a "big deal?" Too few to bother with then too many to bother with. Seems like playing both sides of the fence.
BREAKING: FOX News pouts cause no one asks about BENGHAZI!!! Fox News Ditches Obama Presser Because Reporters Not Asking About Benghazi Fox News stopped airing President Barack Obama's joint press conference Friday with German Chancellor Angela Merkel because, the network said, reporters weren't asking him about Benghazi.
Did ex-White House Official Contradict ex-CIA Official's Sworn Testimony on Benghazi? by Sharyl Attkisson, May 3, 2014 Did the former spokesman for President Obama’s National Security Staff (NSS) contradict accounts of other Obama officials, including sworn testimony before Congress, regarding the administration’s talking points on the Sept. 11, 2012 Benghazi terrorist attacks? The question arose Thursday when Fox News anchor Brett Baier questioned former NSS spokesman Tommy Vietor. During the interview, Vietor acknowledged making at least one substantive change to the talking points. Baier asked Vietor, “According to the e-mails and the time line the C.I.A. circulates new talking points after they’ve removed the mention of al-Qaeda, and then at 6:21 the White House, you, add a line about the administration warning of September 10th of social media reports calling for demonstrations. True?” “Uh, I believe so,” answered Vietor. The documentation and Vietor’s admission that he helped steer the talking points toward the incorrect demonstration narrative are at odds with other Obama officials, including White House spokesman Jay Carney who insisted that White House officials only made a single edit, changing the word “consulate” to “diplomatic post.” "[T]he only edit made by the White House or the State Department to those talking points generated by the C.I.A. was a change from -- referring to the facility that was attacked in Benghazi, from “consulate,” because it was not a consulate, to “diplomatic post”…But the point being, it was a matter of non-substantive/ factual correction,” said Carney at a White House press briefing on May 10, 2013. Later, Carney reiterated, “The White House made one minor change to the talking points drafted by the C.I.A.” Last month, former C.I.A. Deputy Director Mike Morell repeated the claim that the White House had no involvement in any substantive changes. “To be very clear,” Morell told members of the House Intelligence Committee on April 2, 2014, “the White House did not make any substantive changes to the talking points.” Morell’s written testimony submitted to the committee also specifically denied that Vietor’s agency, the NSS, which is chaired by the President, made the change that Vietor suggests he made. Morell’s written testimony reads, “No one at the NSS suggested or requested a single substantive change. That is a simple fact, and calling it a myth doesn’t change the reality. For example, one change suggested by the NSS was to change the reference in the talking points to the U.S. Consulate to a more precise term for the facility because it was not technically a consulate. Another requested change was a simple reordering of a couple of sentences for the sake of clarity. Editorial? Yes. Substantive? No.” In Thursday's interview with Baier, Vietor left open the possibility that he made other changes to the talking points. But, when pressed, he seemed to revise his answer and point back to C.I.A. Deputy Director Morell’s testimony. “Did you also change 'attacks' to 'demonstrations' in the talking points?” asked Baier in Thursday’s interview. “Uh Maybe. I don’t really remember,” answered Vietor. “You don’t remember?” “Dude, this was like two years ago.” Baier continued, “The key part is ‘attacks’ to ‘demonstrations…’ “Yeah,” said Vietor. “Did you do that?” “No…what did we—what was the question?” said Vietor. “The C.I.A. talking points,” Baier repeated. “It was edited from ‘attacks’ to ‘demonstrations.’” “No, Michael Morell testified to what he changed and what was changed in those, in those emails, the whole process of that, Michael Morell testified that he took them back, didn’t like them and changed them,” Vietor said. A spokesman for Morell provided no immediate comment for this report. An email to Vietor went unanswered. The Obama administration has firmly denied there was a political attempt to hide the fact that Benghazi was a terrorist attack eight weeks before the Presidential election. Obama officials say that when they blamed a spontaneously-inspired demonstration, they were relying on the best intelligence at the time and updated their account as more information became available. "This is an effort to accuse the administration of hiding something that we did not hide," Carney told reporters on May 10, 2013. http://www.sharylattkisson.com/obama-officials-contradicted-on-talking-points--may-2--2014.html
you know, other than a campaign issue this is dead right? If there were any charges to be made, they would have already been made. If it weren't top secret we would know how and why the Ambassador was so exposed. It wasn't this long before the details of Iran-Contra were known.
Surely you don't think there is going to be any effect from it but Fauxrage. Good Point, wouldn't be the DOJ
the complete Benghazi timeline: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2013/05/damning-benghazi-timeline-spreadsheet.html
