U.S. Ambassador Killed Over Anti-Islam Movie

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Here's what I'm hearing:

"It's no big deal being lied to as long as it's My Team doing the lying."

But back in Truthyland here's what we take notice of:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347912/bad-faith-and-benghaz

‘Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?”

That was how then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton famously brushed off the question of when she knew that the attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were, in fact, a terrorist assault and not a “protest” of an anti-Islam video that got out of hand.

Clinton’s fans, in and out of the press, loved her defiant response, and they should be ashamed of themselves for it.

What Clinton was really doing there was deflecting attention away from the fact that she had lied. We now know, thanks to Wednesday’s congressional hearings and reporting by The Weekly Standard’s Steve Hayes, that administration officials knew from the outset the video had nothing to do with it. Intelligence sources on the ground in Libya and officials in Washington knew it was a terrorist attack from the beginning. The video was a “non-event in Libya,” according to Gregory Hicks, the man who inherited Stevens’s duties after the ambassador was killed by al-Qaeda-linked militants. The false video story was simply imposed from above by Clinton, President Obama, and their subalterns.
Let’s return to that lie in a moment.

The hearings exposed another lie. Obama and Clinton have insisted that they did everything they could to help the Americans besieged in Libya; they just couldn’t get help to them in time.

That’s simply untrue.

But even if that were true, it would still be a self-serving falsehood.

If you see a child struggling in the ocean, you have no idea how long she will flail and paddle before she goes under for the last time. The moral response is to swim for her in the hope that you get there in time. If you fail and she dies, you can console yourself that you did your best to rescue her.

But if you just stand on the beach and do nothing as the child struggles for life, saying, “Well, there’s just no way I can get to her in time,” it doesn’t really matter whether you guessed right or not. You didn’t try.

The White House and State Department insist they guessed right, as if that somehow absolves them of responsibility. They would have sent help if they could have, they claim, but they simply weren’t ready to deploy forces on September 11, the one day of the year you’d expect our military and intelligence agencies to be ready for trouble in the Middle East, particularly given that before his murder, Stevens warned of security problems in Benghazi.

But we know the administration ordered others who were willing, able, and obliged to come to the consulate’s rescue to “stand down.” They in effect told the lifeguards, “Don’t get out of your chairs.”

Though an unmanned drone was there to capture the whole thing on video, which must have been reassuring as the mortar rounds rained down.

Leon Panetta, who was the secretary of defense during the attack, mocked critics who wanted to know why the Pentagon didn’t scramble any jets from Italy to the scene. “You can’t willy-nilly send F-16s there and blow the hell out of place. . . . You have to have good intelligence.”

Never mind that real-time video of the attack is pretty good intelligence. An F-16 doesn’t need to blow anyone to hell to have an impact. As military expert and former assistant defense secretary Bing West notes, “99 percent of air sorties over Afghanistan never drop a single bomb.” Just showing up is often intimidating enough.

What motivated the White House and the State Department to deceive the public about what they did is unknown. Maybe it was incompetence or politics or simply understandable bureaucratic confusion.

But we do know they deceived the public. Which brings us back to the lies over the video. In the wake of Benghazi, the country endured an intense debate over how much free speech we could afford because of the savage intolerance of rioters half a world away. Obama and Clinton fueled this debate by incessantly blaming the video — as if the First Amendment were the problem.

Clinton and Obama both swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. But after failing to support and defend Americans left to die, they blamed the Constitution for their failure. That’s what difference it makes.

We also notice:
1) the producer of "the video" still sits in jail.
2) zero terrorists have been "tracked down and brought to justice" as the president promised.
 
INDY500; said:
Here's what I'm hearing:

"It's no big deal being lied to as long as it's My Team doing the lying."

But back in Truthyland here's what we take notice of:

"Truthyland"...on Trek they called it the Mirror Universe.
Anyway, perhaps you guys should stop crying wolf all the time.
Maybe that would help. It all gets lost in the cacophony of nonsense.

A few things:
1) LOVE your new avatar! RIP Harryhausen.

2) Are we allowed to examine the authors of those kind of editorial pieces? Jonah Goldberg is a notorious Clinton hater. He was wrapped up in the Lewinsky bullshit. I am not a great fan of Obama (though he was clearly a better alternative to Mitt) but I absolutely DETEST that Right Wing crew from the 90's. Specifically those linked to the Lewinsky aftermath/scandal.

3) I still think it's a fair question. What difference did it really make?
If it's a terrorist attack or a random attack, what difference does it make?
I ask sincerely. A politician did something for political reasons? Scandalous!

4) If the answer is - 'because it proves they lied'...well, what kind of a lie are we talking about here? Is it severe enough to punish someone for? Or is it more of a WMD-esque "lie" where it's not a lie at all but a non-telling of the truth or knowing omission? I'm still waiting from someone from the non-Right Wing blogosphere to put this in a context where I am outraged.

That "lie" by the Bush admin was inarguably the single most egregious thing they did. (Office of Special Plans, etc.) and nothing happened.

Not only did nothing happen - Bush was re-elected after that WMD "lie" (not a literal lie - a political 'untruth'). So the standard is pretty high for "lies". Clinton himself was impeached for a lie under oath and not even removed from office. So tell me the answer and the proper repercussions outside of the "we know Hillary is inevitable in 2016 and this is all we got". Typical manufactured 2nd term scandal. The public is growing tired of it. The people reading National Review never would vote Democratic anyway.

5) It's only been 6 months and you still haven't learned the lesson of the 2012 election. Which is - not all of America resides inside of your alternate universe.
I am a perfect example of someone that SHOULD care about this story. I am open to being convinced that something egregious took place here. I just don't see it yet. All I keep seeing is the same crap. They "covered up" - what? And why? And if so - what should happen?

Looks like some bureaucratic failures in the State Dept. A political calculation over language...and that's about it. I guess if I thought Obama were Satan and HRC a "fascist" like Jonah Goldberg, maybe I'd be highly upset as well.

Nobody can make the case without resorting to the "blood of four Americans" in some convoluted sort-of Obama-lied/people died tantrum. It's possible the media is dropping the ball here but I'll wait until i see more credible sources before I start becoming outraged. Until then, all I hear is "wolf!"
 
Clinton and Obama both swore oaths to support and defend the Constitution. But after failing to support and defend Americans left to die, they blamed the Constitution for their failure. That’s what difference it makes.

Can someone try and explain what this is even suppose to mean?
 
U2DMfan;7661491 [quote said:
A few things:
1) LOVE your new avatar! RIP Harryhausen.
A true great. :heart:
2) Are we allowed to examine the authors of those kind of editorial pieces? Jonah Goldberg is a notorious Clinton hater. He was wrapped up in the Lewinsky bullshit. I am not a great fan of Obama (though he was clearly a better alternative to Mitt) but I absolutely DETEST that Right Wing crew from the 90's. Specifically those linked to the Lewinsky aftermath/scandal.

Sure, they and others are conservative. But it's also fair to examine who hasn't covered the story. You can check this thread and you will see me posting that Susan Rice was sent out to spread a false story days after it happened. The MSM is just now waking up to this. How did I know sitting at my computer 8 months ago? 1) The Libyan president declared it a terrorist attack. 2) it happened on 9/11 (duh) 3) I don't rely on traditional media for my news.
3) I still think it's a fair question. What difference did it really make?
If it's a terrorist attack or a random attack, what difference does it make?
I ask sincerely. A politician did something for political reasons? Scandalous!
Character still matters doesn't it? That question came up at this weeks hearing and here's how one whistleblower answered:

Examiner Editorial: Obama's Benghazi video tale made a big difference | WashingtonExaminer.com

Shown a video of Clinton's "what difference does it make" question, Hicks countered that such obfuscation had major consequences. "I definitely believe that it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi," said Hicks. And indeed, although Obama promised last September that the attackers would be brought to justice, the FBI investigation has progressed at a snail's pace, with next to nothing to show for the effort.

Five days after the attack, Libyan President Mohamed Magarief publicly stated it was premeditated, so, according to Hicks, Magarief "was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world, his credibility was reduced," when Obama trotted out the video illusion. Magarief then denied the FBI access to the scorched compound for a crucial 17 days. Since the area wasn't secure during that period, vital evidence likely was lost forever. So to answer Clinton's question, one difference made by the false video narrative is that Americans possibly will never know the full truth of about who murdered Ambassador Chris Stevens and three of his brave colleagues in Benghazi.

4) If the answer is - 'because it proves they lied'...well, what kind of a lie are we talking about here? Is it severe enough to punish someone for? Or is it more of a WMD-esque "lie" where it's not a lie at all but a non-telling of the truth or knowing omission? I'm still waiting from someone from the non-Right Wing blogosphere to put this in a context where I am outraged.
The WMD "lie" was spread by HRC as well by the way. That "lie" was not ignored by the MSM.

5)
Nobody can make the case without resorting to the "blood of four Americans" in some convoluted sort-of Obama-lied/people died tantrum. It's possible the media is dropping the ball here but I'll wait until i see more credible sources before I start becoming outraged. Until then, all I hear is "wolf!"

Three things need to be answered.
Who called off any military response, where was the president during all this?
Two, who changed the talking points to remove all mention of terrorism and plug in a completely false narrative about a youtube video that was repeated for weeks?
Three, and what may be the real scandal, what CIA involvement was there in Benghazi at the time of the attack?
 
I don't know, it seems to me like there's a difference between a terror attack and an attack made at random. The terrorist attack suggests planning and future planning.
 
Here's my take on this issue. There are far too many gray areas. This administration's opponents are acting as if they have the absolutes and are just exposing the truths, and this administration's supporters I do believe are glossing over some things. There are a lot of questions, and if you want to admit it or not, in foreign affairs there's going to be things that happen that we as citizens will never know. That's just a truth that I faced a long time ago, fair or not, moral or not, that's just a truth.

INDY will list a few questions, but for every one question he lists, I can think of three to counter. INDY you wonder who made the call to stand down, and I wonder what's the reason? Was there an assessment that was made that the body count could be more if action was taken? No administration, how evil you think they might be, orders a stand down based purely on indifference, or even a campaign(as some have suggested). In fact I don't think action would have had any negative effect whatsoever on his campaign, in fact the opposite.

So, where as I agree there are some issues that don't sit well with me, I don't think this is the scandal that INDY and the hard right make it out to be. It started out as a frothing at the mouth to destroy Obama, and now it's being used to make sure Clinton can't guarantee her spot if she so chooses. It's all pretty transparent, this isn't about truth.
 
So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.
The talking points were originally developed by the CIA at the request of a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Interestingly, all of the versions are consistent on one point — that the attacks were “spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo,” a fact later deemed to be incorrect.
The talking points through Friday begin to become rather detailed, at which point there is sharp push-back from the State Department.

An alternative explanation for the Benghazi talking points: Bureaucratic knife fight - The Washington Post
 
I typed up a long response to Indy and deleted it before posting.
I just don't see the use in going back and forth with so little info.
All I want to say is - I just want the actual truth to come out. Whatever it is.

Let's have the "MSM" cover the story and see what happens. They love a good scandal. We'll see how "liberal" most of them are if there is actual teeth to this. I, for one, didn't sleep through the 90's. President Clinton was torn into pieces by the "MSM" as soon as they had a good salacious scandal to cover. They are all 'biased' towards this kind of stuff. To get more eyeballs and ears...more sensationalism...even more viewers...$$$$$

Others will demand a specific "truth" and if they don't get it, they'll keep demanding that specific "truth" forever. It's usually called conspiracy theory. We'll see where it goes.
 
Benghazi is really about Hillary. And the Clinton's ate the GOP for breakfast in the 1990s, and I expect them to again.

The IRS scandal is actually an issue. This is bullshit.
 
I don't think it's bullshit to the families of the people who were killed. They deserve the absolute truth, and several of them say they've never even gotten a lousy phone call.

I'd like to know the absolute truth, but I'd say odds are that we never will.
 
I get that- but I do think that it's automatically scandalous that an ambassador and others were murdered and there are all kinds of questions as to how that was handled and portrayed. You can't avoid the reality that it happened before a big election. I also think it's scandalous that the families of the murdered people can't get any answers directly from the people involved. The President, the Secretary of State, etc. Of course it's a tragedy and of course it is also being exploited politically. But I don't think it can't just be called political exploitation and leave it at that.
 
I was wondering what took Dick so long to have his say

Huffington Post

Former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that President Barack Obama is part of a "cover-up" over the nature of the terrorist attack on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.

Obama administration officials "lied," Cheney told Sean Hannity on Fox News. "They claimed it was because of a demonstration video, so that they wouldn’t have to admit it was really all about their incompetence,” he said. "They ignored repeated warnings from the CIA about the threat. They ignored messages from their own people on the ground that they needed more security."

He added, "The cover-up included several officials up to and including President Obama, and the cover-up is still ongoing."

Republicans have also accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of a "cover-up," but coming from a former vice president, Cheney's allegation was an unusually strong charge.

Obama rejected the notion that he was involved in a "cover-up" at a press conference Monday. "If this was some effort on our part to try to downplay what had happened ... that would be a pretty odd thing that three days later we ended up putting out all the information that now serves as the basis for everybody recognizing this was a terrorist attack," he said. "Who executes some sort of cover-up or effort to tamp things down for three days? The whole thing defies logic."

The State Department's talking points on Sept. 14, released by ABC News, initially said that the attacks were "spontaneously inspired" by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo over an anti-Muslim video and "evolved" into an attack. They also mentioned a "crowd" with a "mix of individuals across many sectors of Libyan society." Talking points the next day, however, mention "demonstrations" in Benghazi -- something the State Department later said did not happen. Initial press reports also said the attacks stemmed from a mob protesting the video.

Cheney also said that the United States is prepared for such attacks, particularly since 9/11 and on the anniversaries of that day. "In my past experience when we got into these situations — especially after 9/11 — we were always on the step, locked and loaded, ready to go on 9/11," he said. "We have specially-trained units that practice this sort of thing all the time. They are very good at it and they are chomping at the bit to go.”

Cheney then asked why there were no forces available to counterattack the Benghazi attacks. Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya and the top witness at a hearing on the Benghazi attacks held Wednesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said that he asked the same thing. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who served with Cheney under President Bush and also for President Obama, said Sunday that the idea that a fighter jet could have been scrambled in response to the attacks shows a "cartoonish impression of military capabilities and military forces."
 
Two, who changed the talking points to remove all mention of terrorism and plug in a completely false narrative about a youtube video that was repeated for weeks?




this must be so disappointing. but then, is The Weekly Standard right about anything, ever?


CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks
CNN's Jake Tapper reports:

CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.

The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department's desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.

Rhodes, White House communications director Jennifer Palmieri, and White House press secretary Jay Carney, could not be reached for comment.

In the e-mail sent on Friday, September 14, 2012, at 9:34 p.m., obtained by CNN from a U.S. government source, Rhodes wrote:

“All –

“Sorry to be late to this discussion. We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation.

There is a ton of wrong information getting out into the public domain from Congress and people who are not particularly informed. Insofar as we have firmed up assessments that don’t compromise intel or the investigation, we need to have the capability to correct the record, as there are significant policy and messaging ramifications that would flow from a hardened mis-impression.

“We can take this up tomorrow morning at deputies.”

You can read the e-mail HERE.

ABC News reported that Rhodes wrote: “We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.” The Weekly Standard reported that Rhodes "responded to the group, explaining that Nuland had raised valid concerns and advising that the issues would be resolved at a meeting of the National Security Council’s Deputies Committee the following morning."

ABC News notes in its report that it was provided summaries of White House and State Department emails.

Whoever provided those accounts seemingly invented the notion that Rhodes wanted the concerns of the State Department specifically addressed. While Nuland, particularly, had expressed a desire to remove mentions of specific terrorist groups and CIA warnings about the increasingly dangerous assignment, Rhodes put no emphasis at all in his e-mail on the State Department's concerns.

The context of the e-mail chain is important. Different officials from different agencies were going through iterations of talking points for Congress. But Nuland, sources who have seen the e-mails say, was not the only one expressing concerns. There were internal disagreements within the CIA about a number of issues, including whether the attack was a pre-planned act of terrorism, or the result of spontaneous demonstrations in Benghazi because of demonstrations in Cairo against an anti-Muslim video (a demonstration that, it turns out, never happened in Benghazi). FBI officials were also expressing concerns about how much to say about the investigation, and how much information should be shared at that time.

Previous reporting also misquoted Rhodes as saying the group would work through the talking points at the deputies meeting on Saturday, September 15, when the talking points to Congress were finalized. While the previously written subject line of the e-mail mentions talking points, Rhodes only addresses misinformation in a general sense.

Context here, too, is important. The e-mail chain was generally about the talking points for members of Congress, and a government source says Rhodes in his e-mail was talking principally about the talking points for members of Congress, but he was also discussing other items more broadly including the investigation into the attacks, related intelligence, and what administration officials would say to reporters and the public. The deputies’ meeting the next day was to focus on more than just the talking points, sources tell CNN, looking primarily at security at U.S. diplomatic posts around the world. The "wrong information" being disseminated that Rhodes was addressing would need to be addressed with more than just talking points for members of Congress, but also by trying to forge a general understanding of what the Obama administration was saying about the attack at Benghazi. In this, it’s hard to conclude that the administration succeeded, given the various and conflicting explanations and continued references to demonstrations in Benghazi against an anti-Muslim video, a demonstration that the intelligence community now concludes did not happen.

So whoever leaked the inaccurate information earlier this month did so in a way that made it appear that the White House – specifically Rhodes – was more interested in the State Department’s concerns, and more focused on the talking points, than the e-mail actually stated.

The e-mail was sent to former National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, CIA spokeswoman Cynthia Rapp, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, State Department official Jake Sullivan, spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Shawn Turner and others whose names have been redacted from the copy of the e-mail obtained by CNN. The subject line of the e-mail is “Re: Revised HPSCI Talking Points for Review.”

CNN exclusive: White House email contradicts Benghazi leaks – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
 
Indy was only ever interested in the semantics here. All this other stuff is being tacked on after the fact to make it look like he actually had a point.
I also love how the idea that this originally might've been connected with the movie keeps getting brushed off as a completely absurd idea. As if there weren't riots in the streets elsewhere over that very thing. "How could they have thought something so outlandish??!?"
 
this must be so disappointing. but then, is The Weekly Standard right about anything, ever?

There is nothing in what you posted as to why specifics concerning prior warnings and a responsible party were removed or to who pushed the notion of a spontaneous protest over a video. A notion that was pushed for weeks in the face of all the evidence from Libya.

Cover-up.
 
Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack – The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs

July 31, 2013
CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack. Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.

Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret. CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.

Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.

The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.

It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.

In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."

Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."

"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.

In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.

"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.

CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress.

"The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi," the statement said.

"CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want," the statement continued. "The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident."

Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.

A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.


While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.

The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

"I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," said the Republican.

"We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn't any national security issue involved with regards to that," he said.

Wolf has repeatedly gone to the House floor, asking for a select committee to be set-up, a Watergate-style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in Benghazi, and find out just what the State Department and CIA were doing there.

More than 150 fellow Republican members of Congress have signed his request, and just this week eight Republicans sent a letter to the new head of the FBI, James Comey, asking that he brief Congress within 30 days.

In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk.

Then suddenly, there was silence.

"Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before Congress. Now that's all changed," said Wolf.

Lawmakers also want to know about the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.

Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.

It is clear that two U.S. agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA.

The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe retain," and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.

But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they "can't speak for any other agencies."

The CIA would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of any weapons.

Funny how this story slipped by without getting posted here (not really). But now we know the answer to several questions I've raised here in this thread:

1) Why a stand-down order was sent to our military forces in the area and no help ever arrived.

2) Why, as this story points out, GOP leadership in the House has resisted the type of investigation that would really expose what happened.

3) Why the ruse over the internet video was created when no one on the ground ever reported a protest.

4) Why no survivors have been interviewed in the press.

5) Why no arrested have been made in the case a year later.

A CIA operation, most likely illegal, was operating out of Benghazi and it all went wrong.

Another "phony scandal" says our president.
 
Back
Top Bottom