Republican Desperation Grows as Benghazi Backfires and Scandal Talk Fizzles

[tpeichel]

Because the media demands instant gratification.

The administration has admitted that there was never any protest. They just made that part up. General Petraeus said that he almost immediately knew this was terrorist related and provided that information to all agencies.

The administration ignored this information, made up the story about a protest that became violent, and had surrogates go out and emphatically say that the attack was absolutely not related to terrorism.

To say that they didn't have any initial information that this was a terrorist is just a lie and with all the lies that have been exposed with this incident, it's hard to take anything they say at face value.

[tpeichel]

Several pionts to this whole situations

First- The Republicans wait to pin this on the President...The President IN MY OPINION has no wrong doing- The time tables i have read show they acted after the attacks-which are too late

Second- NO ONE in any Federal Agency thought there would be no actions on Sept 11th? Really? There is no finger pointing in this...Every single person who have input to this failed to do something before hand...

Third- This is John McCain last run to have his name cemented to something. He has become so irrelevant it is almost funny to hear his press comments as of late.


This is all politics! On both sides and it needs to end. Just know someone will be fired over this issue. Just as someone should have been fired after 9/11 attacks.

McCain, the Republicans, and the Petraeus sex scandal are all sideshows. Four Americans are dead and the administration owes the American people honest answers, not a cover up.

[drtom2005]

I agree. If the account was so confusing though, why would the administration be so emphatic that the video caused the attack and that it was absolutely not terrorism?

I have no idea on that one. Do I think it is a level of a Watergate conspiracy? Not so much. This is the issue with the Republicans. Making the story bigger then it should be. They need more information before I will change my mind on it.

[Wickabee]

The administration has admitted that there was never any protest. They just made that part up. General Petraeus said that he almost immediately knew this was terrorist related and provided that information to all agencies.

The administration ignored this information, made up the story about a protest that became violent, and had surrogates go out and emphatically say that the attack was absolutely not related to terrorism.

To say that they didn't have any initial information that this was a terrorist is just a lie and with all the lies that have been exposed with this incident, it's hard to take anything they say at face value.

Just humour me and say the media demands instant gratification. Taking that as a given if the President knows it's a terrorist attack, is the proper course to tell everyone and send the nation into a panic? Or would you delay that until you were certain the attacks are over and could trust people to not go bat crap crazy with panic and fear. I'm not saying that's what happened, I don't know. Just saying it's possible.
Also are you more angry about the people dying or the storytelling afterwards?

[tpeichel]

Just humour me and say the media demands instant gratification. Taking that as a given if the President knows it's a terrorist attack, is the proper course to tell everyone and send the nation into a panic? Or would you delay that until you were certain the attacks are over and could trust people to not go bat crap crazy with panic and fear. I'm not saying that's what happened, I don't know. Just saying it's possible.
Also are you more angry about the people dying or the storytelling afterwards?

1) I want to know who made the decision not to provide additional security when multiple requests were made by the people on the ground who felt they were in extreme danger and surrounded by terrorist training camps.

2) I want to know why the President claimed that one of his first orders was to do what ever it takes to help the people on the ground, but then no assistance was provided as the Americans begged for help. You'd think that if his orders were directly ignored and Americans died, the President would want someone's head on a platter. Instead, all we've heard about is that two high level commanders were relieved of command when they attempted to assist the Americans that were under attack. It doesn't make sense.

3) I think there may be more to the story which is why the administration has been so desperate to deceive the American public about what happened. Maybe there's nothing to it, but once a few lies are exposed, suddenly you have to take a very critical look at all the information that the administration is providing.

Eventually it will all come out, it always does.

[MadMan1978]

Petraeus testimony bursts Republican 'scandal bubble

I do realize this is a Liberal Media but they cant fake the comments of the REPUBLICAN SENATORS



I do hope you had the same outrage when US Embassies were attacked while GW Bush was in office. There were 12 attacks during his 2 terms and I hope you had this same outrage. This is only news because it happened in an election cycle. The Twit took advantage of this and tired to use it as political gain. Republicans have NOTHING. Even McCain knows it now! case closed!

NEXT!