Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where is CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus? He seems to be the missing man in the unfolding Benghazi debacle. It is his agency, among others, which is being fingered by the White House for getting the Libya attack wrong. However, we know that within a very short time after the murder of our ambassador (an extraordinary occurrence) and others, our intelligence community did have the story straight: This was an organized al-Qaeda attack. Is he to preside over a witchhunt? Or is he, who to date has been one of the most respected national security officials, going to be instrumental in shining light on the Libya fiasco and thereby truly serving the national interest and the memory of those killed?
Thats one of the many pending questions bubbling over in the Libya scandal. But we finally be getting some answers. On Friday Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold hearings on the Benghazi debacle. Those hearings cant come a moment too soon. The questions are multiplying:
TWENTY-FOUR hours after the American compound in Benghazi was attacked and our ambassador murdered, the tragedy seemed more likely to help President Obama’s re-election campaign than to damage it.
The White House already enjoyed more public credibility on foreign policy than on almost any other issue. When Mitt Romney reacted to the attack with a partisan broadside, portraying a news release sent out by the Cairo embassy before any violence began as a White House apology to the attackers, the president’s path forward seemed clear. He would be disciplined and careful, show anger and steel but also coolness under pressure, and let the rally-round-the-flag effect do its natural work.
What happened instead was very strange. Having first repudiated the embassy’s apology to Muslims offended by a movie impugning their prophet, the Obama administration decided to embrace that apology’s premise, and insist that the movie was the crucial ingredient in the Sept. 11 anniversary violence.
For days after the attack, as it became clearer that the Benghazi violence was a Qaeda operation rather than a protest, White House officials continued to stress the importance of the “hateful” and “disgusting” video, and its supposed role as a catalyst for what Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, insisted was a spontaneous attack.
It is starting to crash around Obama's ears.
Where is CIA Director Gen. David...
no one cares. stop politicizing a terrorist attack
Perhaps, then, the real explanation for the White House’s anxiety about calling the embassy attack an act of terror has less to do with the “who” than with the “where.” This wasn’t Al Qaeda striking just anywhere: it was Al Qaeda striking in Libya, a country where the Obama White House launched a not-precisely-constitutional military intervention with a not-precisely-clear connection to the national interest.
In a long profile of President Obama published last month by Vanity Fair, Michael Lewis suggested that the president feared the consequences of even a single casualty during the Libyan incursion, lest it create a narrative about how “a president elected to extract us from a war in one Arab country got Americans killed in another.”
How much more, then, might the president fear a narrative about how our Libyan intervention helped create a power vacuum in which terrorists groups can operate with impunity? That’s clearly happened in nearby Mali, where the ripple effects from Muammar el-Qaddafi’s overthrow have helped empower a Qaeda affiliate. In this context, it’s easy to see why the administration would hope that the Benghazi attack were just spontaneous mob violence rather than a sign of Al Qaeda’s growing presence in postintervention Libya as well.
no one cares. stop politicizing a terrorist attack
no one cares. stop politicizing a terrorist attack
Obama did that, not me.
Watergate this is not.
It is starting to crash around Obama's ears.
Where is CIA Director Gen. David...
no one cares. stop politicizing a terrorist attack
Obama needs to be held to account for his lack of leadership, call it politicizing if you want
It is starting to crash around Obama's ears.
no one cares. stop politicizing a terrorist attack
Obama needs to be held to account for his lack of leadership, call it politicizing if you want
It is starting to crash around Obama's ears.
Where is CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus? He seems to be the missing man in the unfolding Benghazi debacle. It is his agency, among others, which is being fingered by the White House for getting the Libya attack wrong. However, we know that within a very short time after the murder of our ambassador (an extraordinary occurrence) and others, our intelligence community did have the story straight: This was an organized al-Qaeda attack. Is he to preside over a witchhunt? Or is he, who to date has been one of the most respected national security officials, going to be instrumental in shining light on the Libya fiasco and thereby truly serving the national interest and the memory of those killed?
That’s one of the many pending questions bubbling over in the Libya scandal. But we finally be getting some answers. On Friday Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced that the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee will hold hearings on the Benghazi debacle. Those hearings can’t come a moment too soon. The questions are multiplying:
Questions on Benghazi - Right Turn - The Washington Post
Obama needs to be held to account for his lack of leadership, call it politicizing if you want
A terrorist attack on the US Consulate is somehow evidence of a lack of leadership? People won't buy that shit. Only the Con-Base eats that shit
Like every Obamabootlicker, you fail to understand this is about their hope of deflecting the results of poor judgement.
They were warned..they did nothing.
And when it all went down, some schmuck in CA is made to look like the fall guy.
The American People will have no problem understanding that Affirmative Action Boy does not take any responsibility when it might make his suit look dirty.
No one is politicizing a terrorist attack. More and more people are demanding to know why the president and others in the administration outright lied to the American people. The lie kept going even after they should have had all the intel and it had been determined it was a planned attack.
It's the lying that is the issue now and, as usual, there are no answers forthcoming from the Obama administration. What is he hiding?
Obama's response to it was indeed a show of his lack of leadership, his campaign was more important.
no one cares. stop politicizing a terrorist attack
Obama did that, not me.
Consulate in Libya makes a statement. Romney jumps on it. America finds out Ambassador and others murdered.
FOX News and GOP feed narrative that initial reports were some kind of cover up.
problem, the Obama Administration did not attack the US Consulate.
NYT sells ink. You people usually say they are in the tank for Obama.
now take a breath and realize, most normal people don't care.
What They Said, Before and After the Attack in Libya - Graphic - NYTimes.com
Tuesday, about 6 a.m., before the attack in Benghazi (all times Eastern)
----
Tuesday, 10:24 p.m.
Romney Criticizes Administration's Response
----
Wednesday, 12:09 a.m.
Obama Spokesman Responds to Romney's Statement
Statement from Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an email to reporters.
We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America isconfronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya,Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.
no one cares. stop politicizing a terrorist attack
Obama needs to be held to account for his lack of leadership, call it politicizing if you want
A terrorist attack on the US Consulate is somehow evidence of a lack of leadership? People won't buy that shit. Only the Con-Base eats that shit
Obama did that, not me.
Consulate in Libya makes a statement. Romney jumps on it. America finds out Ambassador and others murdered.
FOX News and GOP feed narrative that initial reports were some kind of cover up.
problem, the Obama Administration did not attack the US Consulate.
NYT sells ink. You people usually say they are in the tank for Obama.
now take a breath and realize, most normal people don't care.
Not surprising that once again you have your facts confused. The embassy in Egypt made a statement that Romney correctly denounced as the wrong position for our government to take.
Our consulate in Libya was attacked by Al Qaeda on the anniversary of 9/11 because it was left with inadequate security. The Obama administration tried to cover up the fact that we took a deadly hit was Al Qaeda by blaming a bad YOUTUBE video.
Normal people do care. Normal people understand that the Middle East is even more unstable than it was 4 years ago before Obama took over.
What They Said, Before and After the Attack in Libya - Graphic - NYTimes.com
Tuesday, about 6 a.m., before the attack in Benghazi (all times Eastern)
----
Tuesday, 10:24 p.m.
Romney Criticizes Administration's Response
----
Wednesday, 12:09 a.m.
Obama Spokesman Responds to Romney's Statement
Statement from Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, in an email to reporters.
We are shocked that, at a time when the United States of America isconfronting the tragic death of one of our diplomatic officers in Libya,Governor Romney would choose to launch a political attack.
Read for context. There was NO statement put out by the consulate in Libya that provoked a response from Romney.
