http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=znVqyfxfbRQ

Look at the address from the Rose Garden. The President called it an act of terror. You can argue about the placement of it all you want. The fact is clear. To suggest anything different is a flat out lie.

Intellengence changes with further investigation. Considering there was an unfunded war in Iraq based on "bad intellegence," I am amazed the gaul here. The President will figure out what happened. He won't let it drop as we did with bin Laden until Obama came into office.

No, he really did not call it an act of terror. Perhaps you should watch it again or read the transcript. Perhaps you should note that for the next few days, Obama insisted that it was because of the video rather than a terrorist attack.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

The administration has never wavered from its responsibily of the attack. The President even stated it in a debate. As the intellegence became more clear, so the White House updated the rest of us.

These constant accusations stink of cherry picking critisism to an administration very strong on national security.

Yes, he mentions terror, but in a broader sense than in reference to the attacks in Benghazi.

From CBS News:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57534515/due-diligence-did-obama-initially-deem-libya-attacks-a-terrorist-act/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

"It shows that the president did refer to "acts of terror" - but not specifically in reference to the Libya attack. Instead, he made a broader statement about American defiance.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," he said.

You can make the case that the president was referring to the Libya attacks as well as other "acts of terror," since he made the comment in the course of a statement about those attacks. But the stronger case would seem to be that the president did not specifically refer to the attack as an act of terror - as Romney said."

I hate to repeat myself but some people don't get it the first time around. You can read Obama's statement from the Rose Garden. He was clearly talking about terrorism when he covered the twin towers attack, not when he was talking about Bengazi.
The day after the debates where Romney was fact checked by the moderator, NBC aired a clip of the statement and told the Liberal viewership what version of truth they wanted them to believe.
Use your own brain and google machine to read the statement Obama gave. If you have any education in English, you will know that he was not addressing the Benghazi attack. If you are a moran, you will continue to follow the lame stream media.

"Clearly meant... Liberal audience... lame stream media..."
???

When did you start this opionion? The day of the Rose Garden Address or when Fixed - I mean Fox - News began it's distorted critsisms?

FTTroy: Try to keep up.. I addressed this after the debate where Romney pointed out the President's lie that this was a protest grown out of hand.
I even supplied a link to Obama's teleprompted speech so you could judge for yourself.
Clearly, you have not read it.
Ponder this:
Still think Obama was right to send in air support to overthrow the regime in the first place?
Did he know that the Muslim Brotherhood would take controll?
What kind of Foreign Policy is that?

I will tell you what I believe. I believe Ghadaphi was an evil dictator who tortured and killed his own people. I believe troops were sent to destroy the city and if it wasn't for the air support, it would have happened. I also believe if the President did nothing, he would have been criticized for it, too... considering he was criticized over every point in every direction on Fox News anyway, I think I am safe to say that.

So your point is that Ghadaphi is better than the Muslim Brootherhood? Would you prefer another puppet dictator - friendly to America yet terrible to it's people.

I am not a fan of extremism. I believe in secularism totally in every circumstance. This is the very reason we have seperation of church and state in this country and the thought we were founded on Christian Principles is absurd. And if you want to tell me there is no extremism in the Christian faiths, then I am not the one with his head in the sand.

Anyway - the Middle East needs a great deal of focus. Lybia, as a whole, is an ally and a friend. We need to root out the extremism and engage local governments... even the Muslim Brotherhood.

FTT, Why then did the Obama administration say it was not terrorism, rather just a "reaction to a video"?
And to my original point, how could the attack be viewed as anything but terrorism, for whatever the reason of the attack?
This was handled wrong reguardless of who was in charge, and like Obama said "the buck stops with him".

FTT- So then you agreed with the Iraq War, I take it?

I do agree. The buck stops with the President. He has never wavered from this.

My point is to blow the situation - tragedy that it is - to the President is a traitor and Muslim sympathizer and Fox News what not is flat out extreme and out of line.

FTTroy: "So your point is that Ghadaphi is better than the Muslim Brootherhood? Would you prefer another puppet dictator - friendly to America yet terrible to it's people."
Craig: The short answer is: Hell yeah! The President of the US only has to answer to the people of the US. WE are supposed to be his greatest concern. We elect him to work for us...
It is painfully obvious that this President is less concerned with the American people and more concerned with his agenda for the Arab world.
To be crystal clear: I called the POTUS a Muslim sympathizer, not Fox news.
Getting back on point...have you read his Rose Garden speech?

FTTroy: "So your point is that Ghadaphi is better than the Muslim Brootherhood? Would you prefer another puppet dictator - friendly to America yet terrible to it's people."
Craig: The short answer is: Hell yeah! The President of the US only has to answer to the people of the US. WE are supposed to be his greatest concern. We elect him to work for us...
It is painfully obvious that this President is less concerned with the American people and more concerned with his agenda for the Arab world.
To be crystal clear: I called the POTUS a Muslim sympathizer, not Fox news.
Getting back on point...have you read his Rose Garden speech?

I read and saw the entire speech. It was a somber affair and not close to the need of vitrol I have seen the past few months.

I never agreed with the Iraq War once I heard Colin Powel tell the UN it's reasons. Too bad they were lies. My mind changed once the lies were uncovered. But I did not speculate they were lies. I did find it odd we invated Iraq who claimed to have no WMDs compared to North Korea who flat out told the world they were developing them.

I also remember the lead up. I remember UN Inspectors in Iraq and not finding anything. It's too bad the Administration had no problem trashing one of the most respected reputations in the country to get what they wanted.

Gang - that was a typo... SORRY.

I wanted to say I did agree with the action in Iraq when I heard Gen Powell. t

Fat fingers. I think the rest turned out ok, but that first sentence turned out very odd.

FTTroy: In your opinion, what was the president talking about when he said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."?
He had already mentioned the anniversary of 9/11, so it seems that is what he meant by terrorism. Unless his speech writer never studied English Composition, there is no way it was related to Benghazi.

Craig - I find this entire subject a nit pick of semantics only to criticize the President who is so much stronger in foreign policy than his opponent it's laughable.

Nit Pick of symantics is laughable?
Depends on what the definition of is is...
It may seem funny to you, but to me it's no joke.
American people died.
Our President Lied.

So you disagree with the Iraq War, too.
Good we can agree on something at least

Dare I make the predictable claim that Patch/HuffPo is trying to silence conservative voices?

@Cow - Patch only deletes comments that do not adhere to our terms of service. We do not censor comments based on readers being conversative, liberal, independent or anything else.

@Heather -- There was something odd happening today. Blogs that said there were replies, and those replies even could be seen partially on the front page, but no replies showed on the actual blog.

At the time I made the above reply, this blog showed that it had three replies, but none were visible. I had seen that on other stories as well.

Tech glitch I guess. They are on and off showing, press shift + F5 sometimes that helps.

Heather--the statement was made in jest. I didn't mean to accuse you or anyone else of actually censoring anyone. My apologies if I offended.

As Randy mentioned, there was some goofy stuff going on with the posts earlier today, so I thought I'd have a little fun with it...

And now -- viola! -- they're visible.

@J.B. Schmidt...We are not in a war in Libya and neither you nor I know all the facts of the events in Benghazi. I can't believe that you as well as the GOP is politicizing this tragedy. You bring up three other areas that I have commented on and essentially call me a hypocrite for commenting because I am not a person of color, a woman or a Christian. There is a big difference; we are surrounded by women who are fighting against the War on Women everyday, bigotry and prejudice is everywhere and I have been part of the Civil Rights Movement since the 1960s, and I have been discriminated against for my religion by Christianity. Whether its military service, women, race or religion, I have first hand knowledge.

I would seriously doubt that you would be writing such a post if it wasn't right before the Presidential election and you see an opportunity to politicize the situation in a vain attempt to seek more support for your candidate. Your boy Mitt Romney found every means possible to avoid service, but he too was a chicken hawk in his day.

Lyle:

If Obama handled the situation poorly, and failed to take an action to possibly save the lives that were lost, then Benghazi should indeed be part of the election discussion. This is no different than bringing up the war in Iraq during the Bush-Kerry election.

Lyle: "I have been discriminated against for my religion by Christianity."
Does that statement sum everything up for you nice and neatly?
Is this why you have such contempt for Mormons?
I suppose that the Jews have never been wronged by Muslims and Arab nations too?

Romney is not president (yet) Bren and has nothing to do with this issue. Either you are trying to skate around it or have been blinded by the facts of the event.

@Bren....I am equally offended by people like J.B. who write about things they have no absolute idea of what they are writing about. Back in the day he's what we would have called a "chicken hawk". He's real militant as long as others are doing the service and putting themselves in harms way. He can join the ranks of Dick Cheney, et.al. Two unfunded wars and they're bitching about the national debt?

@Lyle I have never seen you criticize Obama on any matter! Total lack of critical thinking if you ask me.

@Michael McClusky...Why should I criticize Obama when there are so many others who are engaged with it full time. My differences with Obama have to do with decisions he made with the focus on healthcare and not on permanently cleaning up the financial sector. He listened to Timothy Geithner and backed away from problem #1. I have also been critical of his continuing the Bush Tax Cuts and reducing FICA. However, when I compare Romney to Obama, I can't, in good faith support a Romney Presidency. Also, there isn't a good third party candidate so I will support Obama for a second term.

@Lyle You would have more credibility if you were consistently even-handed. I don't care for either candidate due to the 'dark money' that both sides so amply enjoy. Both sides have questionable agendas because of it.

I support Gary Johnson because he openly second-guesses the actual role of the federal government in our lives. This is a healthy approach to our problems.

@Lyle -

Could you explain, in detail, your disdain for Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, Stewart Alexander, Roseanne Barr, Kent Mesplay, Peta Lindsay, James Harris, Jerry White, and Stephen Durham or at least contrast as to why you prefer Obama over any of these candidates.

Just admit that you haven't even taken a serious look at any of the third party and independent lefty candidates.

@Bren
Did you believe the Obama Administration when they said it was the fault of a Youtube video? Did you then believe the Administration when they said they didn't have enough info until after the attack? Now do you believe that we need to wait and find out what happened? Is there anything this Administration says that you question?

If the reports are true that the Administration 1) knew Benghazi was dangerous and failed to protect the Ambassador (as emails are proving) 2) the attack was watched almost in entirety from the situation room of the white house (which most on the inside believe was the case based on how the US reacts to events such as this) 3) refused to send help for 7hrs while our Americans died; will you stop supporting Obama? Or do your politics trump American life?

@Lyle
I never called for a war in Libya. We did nothing for those people, for 7hrs. If you are OK with that because it is more important for you to see the end to a tax cut or a stiffer crack down on the financial sector; then you are an embarrassment to the nation you served.

You are correct I never served. I also know you are not a women, yet you write about a war on women. You are also not black, yet you have discussed racism. You are also not Christian, but you challenge my Christianity. The majority of Americans have never served, does that mean that only Vets can have an opinion on military action? My guess is, the majority would find the President's actions disgraceful and a dereliction of duty.

J.B., it's about opportunity. There are strategists in the terrorism movement, and the video presented an opportunity for exploitation. The terrorists have a "base" to manipulate also. While politics here have become increasingly more vituperative, the politics of terrorism crossed the line into physical violence long ago. And mass murder. It's a dark war. I'll also point out that our national security requires that complete and accurate details not be shared with the general public. What people conjecture can also be dangerous. Put country first, partisanship after.

Steve, the alternative to Barack Obama is Mitt Romney; therefore I submit that he has much to do with this topic and the subject at hand.

Mr. Ruble, this entire article is shocking. Two unfunded wars that led to so much debt. The entire international community (except for the ones bought with aid money) begged GWB administration not to do what they did. They create a huge mess then try to blame the one who's actually making some headway in restoring calm in the region. Unbelievable.

@Bren
"try to blame the one who's actually making some headway in restoring calm in the region"

Brainwashed lately????

J.B., it's quite clear that my knowledge of the region and situation exceeds yours. The Bush administration stirred up a hornet nest with the unfunded wars and foul treatment of civilians and P.O.W.s., much of it by paid mercenaries (Blackwater). Until that time, we might not always have agreed with who the U.S. government was warily tendering alliance but it was with the best intentions at the time, that of U.S. national security. The citizens tried very hard to help the Americans who were attacked. That tells us that we mustn't judge the entire country by the acts of politically-opportunistic radical extremists. The situation and region are complex and fluid. Abstract for those who are rigid in their thinking and attitudes.

@Bren
Where did I condemn the entire country Libya? I am anti-terrorist only and have never advocated a war against a country.

According to reports, men on the ground called in the coordinates of the enemy. Do you disagree?

Since we have a technologically advanced military (no longer using horses and bayonets) could we not have sent in C130 gun ship to take out the enemy? OR maybe use a drone? Notice how I only want to protect the men Obama watched die and not level the entire country.

Bren- Once again the hypocrisy neverceases to amaze me. Obama has the blood of four Americans on his hands. He did nothing but worry about the campaign. I'm offended that someone with your superior lack of intelligence would suggest that you can only comment if you have had actual experience. What supreme intelligence and experience qualifies you to to condemn someone else's opinion? They were expendable because it went against his "I got Obama" narrative. They were expendable because of his claims he stopped Al Qaeda. He stopped it because HIS war in Libya was not supposed to have consequences. It is his job to make repsonse decisions. That comes from many top military sources. His job alone. Either way, whether he made a decision or his staff made a decision to stand down three times, the blood is on his hands. Just ask the parents of the fallen.

Qusestion for the pompous one(Bren): So we should not have attacked in Afghanistan? That was one of the unfunded wars. The total cost of the wars, according to the CBO, was $3.7 trillion as of June 2011. To date, there have been 30 continuing resolutions to fund both wars since 2002, passed by bipartisan votes. Recent estimates place the cost as of June 2012 at $4.3 trillion, and $1.9 trillion is estimated to be under the Obama Administration. 7 years can be attributed to Bush, or 2.4 trillion, with Obama nearing 3.5 yrs and a price tag of $1.9 trillion. Both administrations funded the wars through the same measures with existing defense budget expenditures and emergency continuing resolutions. While portions were unfunded, the entire cost of both wars being labelled unfunded simply isn't true. Bush Actually had bipartisan budgets passed that advanced appropriations for the war by raising defnse spending. Obama had no budgets passed the for most of his administration.

Also, there were 49 allies to the U.S. in Iraq and 57 allies in Afghanistan. Also, with the scheduled defense cuts, unemployment is expected to rise by an additional 2%.

You have no more relevant experience or insight than J.B. You are a fraud who is a lacky for the left and have nothing but talking points. The difference between you and morninmist is that you have a little better grasp of vocabulary. That by no means makes you smart.

@JRH...Get serious. Just because I'm on the left doesn't mean I'm stupid. My candidate never made it past the GOP primaries, Jon Huntsman. You are supposedly Mr. Independent, but you're a big Romney supporter, far from being an independent or a free thinker. Go JRH!

Bren - thanks for your pompous, smug and shallow thoughts. It must be nice to feel so supreme to everyone - except Lyle.

Obama called for the Seals and got Bin Laden. When the Seals called Obama, they got denied.

J.B., as I wrote earlier, conjecture can also be dangerous. Obama is the president but there are people in foreign service for many years who need to be trusted. Just as the Plame outing several years ago resulted in several deaths along the communication chain, politicizing can have tragic consequences. I appreciate that you are not anti-Libya, however it's important to remember who suffers most in military or terror actions. Civilians, the human shields.

Brian Dey, GWB should have listened to the counsel proffered and gone into Afghanistan from a place of knowledge and proper preparation for this type of initiative. This would have had a less tragic consequence for Americans and civilians. However, the Bush family's connection to the Saudi royal family made capturing bin Laden unlikely, as turned out to be the case.

Ima, others in this thread are arguing but trying to learn I believe. What do you bring to the table?

@Lyle, Bren, et al:

I am sick about hearing about debt from an "unfunded" war. Are any wars truly funded? It's not like you can budget for them ahead of time.

Also, the money spent on the wars is NOTHING compared to the structural yearly debt caused by government handouts. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that the Obango admin knew of the assault on the embassy, and it is a fact that they denied support.

Bren and Lyle are boneheads. All of a sudden to speak on this issue you have to have first hand experience by being in the military (50 years ago) or living in Africa. Yet they have no problem spouting off about thousands of other left wing talking points where they have zero direct experience and where us the producers have a lot.

This is an attempt to silence the real issue at hand, the cover up by the Obama administration. If they could really defend the issue, they would. Instead you get an attempt to take out the challenger.

Proof Bren, proof. You have no problem with speculation when it comes to Bush.

@Bren
"Conjecture can also be dangerous" then follow with making unfounded claims to deaths surrounding the Plame outing. As recent as 2010, we have news agencies stating they have found no loss of life consequences to the Plame outing.

Bren -" Ima, others in this thread are arguing but trying to learn I believe. What do you bring to the table?"

I certainly do not bring the crap to the table like you do. I am not here to learn from you.

@Lyle: Why the avoidance of direct answers? Has this become the only part of the Liberal playbook now?

Since you want to bring this analogy get this. If this was like the temple it would be like the ones inside being attacked calling the police and Walker telling the police to stand down and not respond, for 7 hours. Walker was also watching it all unfold in real time on video and digital communication.

What we need to be finding out is who told them to stand down and not send in help. Not protect Obama so he can get reellected.

@Steve,
Sorry, but this idea that Obama personally knew of the attack right away and personally forbade the reaction force in Italy from mobilizing is a right-wing fantasy. By the time the President had a clear picture of the situation the ambassador was dead. A local reaction force comprised of Americans and Libyans did respond immediately, but were driven back.

@St.
Blindly accepting, it must be easier on your brain then thinking.

If the Sikh shooting had lasted 7hrs requiring the involvement of the national guard and Walker had denied the any effort of the national guard to help, then yes he would be to blame. If at the Sikh shooting, the Sikh people called for local help for 7hrs including a description of where the perp was and the local authorities reject their cries for help, then the local authorities would be to blame.

Please notice in both situation, for them to equivalent to the the Benghazi attack the authorities needed to reject help for 7hrs.

Who is perpetrating the attack is not relevant if for 7hrs someone is attacking American's on sovereign soil. The only question should be, how fast can we get a team there to help. Given the info they had during the attack it should have been a no brainer. This wasn't about going to kill, it was about going to save Americans. The Obama administration said we will not save them because it doesn't fit the with their assertion that Al Quaeda was dead.

@St.
Their is no way the President did not know what was happening. They were in communication with people in Libya, they had cameras in the air and on the ground and when an Ambassador is attacked the red phone on the presidents desk rings.

All reports say (and the white house is not denying it) that they knew from the first shot what this was.

St. It was your analogy related to Obama and you continue to ignore the facts the administration knew. Maybe not directly Obama but he and the rest did cover it up for weeks . J.B. has explained and nailed the rest.

@St. Swithin -

Top state department officials testified before Congress that they were watching several real time video feeds of the attack. The attack lasted for over 7 hours. The real time video was available for viewing inside the White House situation room, according to testimony. The White House received emails from the state department regarding the attack almost immediately after it had started.

Did Obama watch the video in real time as the attack was occurring in order to assess the situation to determine if support forces should be sent in and to what extent? If not, why not - was he too busy worrying about his campaign fundraiser in Vegas that he just couldn't delay? Doesn't being the President and doing the job come before campaigning/fundraising?

How long does it take to make such an assessment and issue an order - especially when you have men on the ground begging for help? Over 7 hours???

You guys on the left claim that we have all this great technology that allows Obama to stay instantly up-to-date on affairs, even when he's away from the White House, right?

In REALITY, the President either was or should have been notified of the attack within an hour of it starting. Watching 15 minutes or so of the live video feed and hearing our men on the ground begging for support should have been enough for any real LEADER to immediately send in air support - if not for anything more than to attempt to scare the attackers away.

Obama promised the American people that the facts would be released "as they become available."

So why did Fox News Channel have to FOIA the emails? And, where's the recorded real time audio and video that we know exists? Why won't the President answer direct questions about what he knew, when he knew it, and his responses to such?

What happened to being the most transparent administration in history?

Obama did NOTHING while Americans DIED - and now Obama either LIES to us or is severely INCOMPETENT!!!

These are the FACTS!

@ Steve, J.B., Hoffa
You guys have no facts. Let me repeat that since you seem confused about what facts are - you have no facts. All you have is rampant speculation from people that hate President Obama. You talk about live video feeds, presumably from the drone. Have you ever seen a live drone feed? I have. It does not give a lot of detail. It does not conveniently mark the bad guys. Did it have night-vision? because a lot of the fighting took place at night.
Did the reaction force from Italy have maps of Benghazi? Did they have radios that would work with the reaction force in Benghazi? How were they getting to the fighting? How big was the force? What weapons did they have?
Was Obama monitoring this constantly? There were a dozen other incidents that occurred that day. How did he know which one was critical? There were conflicting reports from the Libyan embassy and other sources throughout the crisis. At one point the message said the fighting was over.
When you get all the answers to these questions you get back to me. Until then you are just pathetic.

St: We know this was of little importance because the President went to Vegas the day after the attack.
But I have a question for you:
We saw the father of the Navy Seal who defied orders and saved thirty lives. Imagine if the President would not have given the "stand down" order. If a few more Seals had become involved, It is likely no American lives would have been lost.
So do you think this was an act of treason by the President, or was he just neglectful or incapable of doing his job?

SFX: Crickets chirping.......

Freddie- There is compelling evidence that at three seperate times during the attack, those on the inside pleaded for help. There is also compelling evidence that the AFRICOM COmmander was ordered to stand down. So did one Navy SEAL in the area who happened to be one of the Americans killed.. We also have compelling evidence that no only was there a drone sending live feeds to the White House, but voice confirmation on the ground. We are now hearing evidence that at leat one target was aquired by laser targeting. It is unclear whether the target was aquired from the drone, which means it would have been armed, or from a C-130 attack aircraft that was known to be in the vicinity. But we know that Rear Admiral Gaouette, commander of an aircrat carrier strike group nearby, was relieved of his command immediately following the attack, and that General Ham, Supreme Commander was relieved from his command of AFRICOM during the attack.

General Ham was known to have disobeyed orders and the C-130 was attached to the carrier strike force, commanded by Gauoette. The only one that could have issued the stand down order, was the POTUS. Meanwhile we have been fed repeadetly with "no comments" and a lame excuse of some obscure video.

They are running out the clock before the election. Didn't work out too well for Nixon. Until we get answers, we can only go by what others familiar with the situation tell us. The POTUS is silent.

Freddo: You forgot to mention 'this was only a protest that grew out of hand, and sending military action would be seen as an act of war by the US.'
Obama is a rare quality?
Try Obama is an inept, incapable, insufficient Muslim Brotherhood sympatheizer. This is treason.
The only reason he is hiding the truth is 98% of REAL Americans would want him removed from office- if they knew the truth.
The fact is you will not accept the truth, when it is finally revealed you will dismiss it as lies and racism. ( that pretty much sums up Liberalism 101 )

I have to differ with you on the treason thing, Craig. As much as I disapprove of the way Obama handled the situation, I can't go so far as to say it is treason.

Cow: Maybe it is a reach to call it that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Or maybe it is not.

@J.B. Unlike you, most people "blindly accept" none of this. We are just waiting for the facts to come out before we make a judgement. You, on the other hand, continue to lap up unsubstantiated right-wing propaganda and leap to judgement. I have given you a long list of questions that need to be answered. Leave the Fox News sheep pen and go find answers to them.

Baaaa, baaaaaaaaa!

@St Swithin The Administration will be sure to have the facts come out after the election. Then it won't give a damn what people think.

I'm not willing to "blindly accept" what Fox News says however there is written evidence to people in the administration explaining what had happened and painting at the very least a picture that this did not all stem from a youtube video. I can accept that the decision was made that despite requests for increased security to the embassy there was none given. I would imagine that these requests and threat assessments are made regularly and the people who made the decision did so with the best information at their hands. I can accept that the initial attack was a surprise and the ambassador likely would have been lost before help could arrive. I can not accept that after this had happened for hours, the decision was not made to at least scramble a force to react within minutes if needed and I can not accept that with our overwhelming air superiority we were not able to have an aircraft or two dedicated to providing air support if needed. Mostly however if we accept that we did not want to put more people in harms way, instead of charging in with horse and bayonet we could have used some of these things we have now called UAV's or drones. They are there to observe and if needed provide guided ordinance into needed areas. What is odd is that it is widely mentioned of the President okaying the use of them to make strikes in Pakistan as well as okaying a strike which thankfully resulted in the killing of Bin Laden but would not do so when a U.S. ambassador had been taken.

We invaded Libya on less, didn't we? We did so with Bin Laden, didn't we? There is a sacred code in the military; "No man left behind." Does that not apply to our diplomats as well? There is no conspiracy if the President just stops stone-walling. He and he alone has the ability to end this, and he has thus far chosen not to.

It may have given them a chance, and that is all they were asking for. And just as he did in the IL Senate and the US Senate, he voted present.

@Brian Dey....You are making all kinds of assumptions without access to the facts, which are probably not going to released because of national security issues. BTW, did I miss the invasion of Libya? Until we have some verifiable information, I will withhold my judgement. You and the other political right wing nuts are attempting to politicize a tragedy to push your own political agenda.

There is a reason why they call it the fog of war. You are assuming that we had knowledge that we or may not have had. In addition, to call in an AC-130 "Spooky" would be a recipe for disaster. The way it works is that it devastates a wide area and would cause too much collateral damage. If there were observation drones, why would you or anyone else expect them to be armed? Even with precision weapons how would targets be selected? Who precisely were the bad guys and their locations? You call on a rapid strike group to mount a rescue, but by the time they get there it's over. Seven hours is not a whole lot of time for combat planning unless you already have a plan in place and it doesn't appear that they did. Therefore, it would be wise to reel back the outrage and demands for accountability until we have more verifiable evidence. We entered a war in 1898 with Spain over faulty information on the sinking of the USS Maine. George W. did it again in 2003 with faulty information leading to the invasion of Iraq. BTW, I'm still waiting to see the WMD that Iraq had.

Combat plan - Defend Embassy.....that took less than 2 seconds to formulate, 6h 59m 58s remaining.

Lyle- Apparently you did miss something. You know where Obama led from behind? Those are not assumptions, my friend. Most has been obtained through email. There may be conjecture to the termination of the Admiral and General, but don't you find it odd that the two, who again we have email communications, were terminated at the same time? Like I said. Obama is stone walling. Four Americans died, and we are nearly two months out, and no press conference by the President. Not exactly past Presidential protocol. Instead, Obama takes such hard driven interviews by the likes of Jon Stewart, Jay Leno, the View, etc... What's next, Dr. Oz? You leftwing-nuts have all the answers. So if something like this were to happen under Romney's watch, you would just sit and wait for answers?

The fogof war? What about a quick fly over with machine guns fired in the air? If it would have scared a few of them off, at least some effort would have been made. Like I said, there are communications that specifically stated that targets were acquired. They had intel from phone calls and the drone. In other words, they had "eyes" on the ground. The outrage is that the President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense and the U.N. Ambassador all tried to pass this off as riots created by some obscure You Tube video for 18 days. Why? Your President won't answer.

Fred - First, let me grab the Kleenex. I am laughing so hard here it hurts. I wish it was the purple cush but it is your insipid drivel. Maybe we should have given the Libyans juice boxes and animal crackers and ask that since this is such a sensitive political situation to take it easy on us? We do not want those angry Libyans mad at us.

REAL Americans: Those who are American citizens. The 98% who would see a cover up in the White House as a disgrace.
Not so real Americans: The 2% who would claim racism AND deny the truth.
As much as you try to deny it, the truth is already coming out. Obama claimed he would give us the facts as they became available, that like 'hope and change' has been thrown out the window.

Freddo: We are not talking about "Military Might" here. A few Seals is all that was needed. If one disobeyed orders and saved 30 lives, surely a handfull of them could have stopped this tragedy from happening....

True Fred, but the military violence was already undertaken by this administration in the "lead from behind" ouster of Ghadaffi. What was the President and Secretary of State thinking, not granting additional security to its embassy and consulate after it was requested three times. You would figure that some people in the region might not be happy with the U.S. after we invaded it. You have to know that some people might have not appreciated you killin their leader. Or you would figure that Al Qaeda would take advantage of the region which the U.S. recently attacked on the anniversary of their greatest triumph. I think a 12 year old could have figured that out. All those that criticized Bush on the poor intelligence that led to the Iraq, now want to give Obama a pass with the same excuse. It is pathetic. Not accusing you, just venting.

Fred - crawl back.

Fred: Has the President released anything yet?
Are you content to wait until after the election for this information?
How do you feel about Biden if Obama wins, and then is impeached?
The bump under the carpet is a trip hazzard, time to clean up the mess and let it all out.

He's hiding behind a hurricane now.

Fred: The President could come forward with the information he promised to "release as it becomes available."
If he stood up ;like a man and told the truth (regardless of how ugly it may be), I would respect him for that. Nothing he does will change my mind to vote for him, but if he grew a pair and stopped the stonewalling I would at least not despize him, and even show him a little respect.
If he continues to lie, and by some chance wins the election- I will be looking for him to be impeached. Again this is presuming he continues his lies.
An easier fix it to elect someone else and avoid the hearings and impeachment process that will be inevitable. Thus avoiding Biden as being commander in cheif. I just had a mini throw up...