How much more do we need to know about that, to know that we are going to get a fresh pile of manure served up?

So one is left to wonder: How do they know the motives for the removal when they don’t know who did it? Whom did they ask to explain why it was done?

And being dead inside and feeling no outrage, at all, over having the man you picked for a situation to be killed in an act of war that is an affront to the President, personally, and the Nation as a whole.

The enemy has chosen war.

The President chose the FBI.

That is not the act of an outraged man, a compassionate man, a man who has been personally degraded by having his own, hand-picked representative slaughtered, nor is it the act of a man who even understands what an act of war actually is.

A cool operator has a cool hand.

What we see is the cold fish of a President who doesn’t care about his personal image, the Nation or even about those he appoints to high positions. Why would ANYONE show this man one shred of loyalty after having his own hand-chosen and hand-picked representative killed in an act of war and the response being: lies and doing nothing.

WH: Benghazi talking-point changes? Don’t look at us…

Okay…should we look at the campaign people in Chicago?

Are there no grown-ups in this administration ?

State, Defense are part of this administration. If Obama can’t control his own administration, then he is useless.

I still have a lot of leftover popcorn to pop.

… This is not going away.

Seven Percent Solution on November 18, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Oh, yes, it will. Heard about Fast & Furious lately?

Boehner is more concerned about his tan. Otherwise, anyone with at least one ball would have already dealt with both F&F and Benghazi by shutting down the government until we get to the bottom of “he said, she said”. And the press would be forced to cover why the government is shut down.

Over 5000 Americans have died in Iraq & Afghanistan. Another four that died at the hands of terrorists in that part of the world is not something new. It took a week or two before an accurate picture of the event surfaced – not a big scandal. The scandal surrounding the death of the great American Pat Tillman was a much bigger scandal. What the Bush administration, military, and John McCain did to that hero was shameful.

ZippyZ on November 18, 2012 at 8:14 PM

First, Libya is in Africa.

Second, Intervention in Libya was pursued by Obama not Bush.

You have to really give up a lot of brain cells to try to tie the Libyan catastrophe to Afghanistan (not located on African continent) and Iraq (not located on African continent).

Basically what you did is just throw up a laundry list that has been dragged through the media endlessly to deftlect away from a dead ambassador who may very well have been abandoned by our President.

Liberal idealogy is one thing, but completely abandoning humanity and independent thinking for the likes of Barack Obama is just sad.

onlineanalyst on November 18, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Feinstein’s talking out of both sides of her mouth.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, said on NBC, “I don’t know who we were protecting” by removing references to terrorism from the talking points.

“I do know that the answer given to us is we didn’t want to name a group until we had some certainty,” Feinstein, a Democrat, continued. “Well, where this went awry is, anybody that brings weapons and mortars and RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades) and breaks into an asset of the United States is a terrorist in my view.”

We are being overwhelmed with lies and scandals. Problem is we have a House full of Republicans but not a single spine or pair of testicles among them. Do you think the democrats would have been silent had something like this occurred during the Bush administration? We already know the answer to that, the dems gen’d up scandal after scandal when there was no wrongdoing.

Of course when the dems own the media, it makes getting the message out more difficult.

AZfederalist on November 18, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Ever hear of Trey Gowdy from SC?

Rep. Trey Gowdy Explodes At Libya Hearing: ‘I Want To Know Why We Were Lied To’

In his appearance this morning on Meet the Press, Lindsey Graham said Susan Rice is nothing but a “bit player” in the Benghazi scandal, and proceeded to heap blame on the intelligence community, the State and Defense Departments, and, ultimately, the president, for allowing our consulate there to become a “death trap.” He called for a select committee to look into the intelligence failures that led to the attack. Prompted by David Gregory, Senator Graham delivered quite a soliloquy:

What about the months before this attack? What about the rise of Al-Qaeda in Benghazi? What about the British ambassador closing the consulate in Benghazi because it was too dangerous for the British? What about the Red Cross leaving? What about all the warnings to come out of Benghazi? Did the CIA tell president that Benghazi is falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda? And I blame the president more than anybody else. Susan Rice is a bit player here. Was he informed of the June attack on our consulate where they blew a hole where over 40 people could go through? Was he aware of the August 15th cable where Stevens was saying we can’t withstand a coordinated al-Qaeda attack, there are ten militia groups all over Benghazi? I blame the president for making this a death trap. I blame the president for not having assets available to help these people for eight hours. We need a select committee not only to look at intelligence failures, but how could the Department of Defense not help these poor people for over eight hours, and why did the Department of State for over eight months ignore pleas for help?

If that (the squib headline) sounds like a non sequitur, you’d be right. But that’s precisely what Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein told David Gregory earlier today on NBC’s Meet the Press. Asked whether Director Petraeus’s testimony on the Benghazi attack has remained consistent – he has now testified twice – Feinstein said:

We have a transcript of that meeting on that day and Petraeus very clearly said that it was a terrorist attack and outlined who he thought might be involved in it…that’s the day after the attack, I think there’s no question about it. What has concerned me about this is really the politicization of a public statement that was put out by the entire intelligence committee [sic], which Susan Rice, on the 16th, was asked to go before the people and use that statement, did. I have read every one of the five statements she did that day. She was within the context of that statement, and for this, she has been pilloried for two months. I don’t understand it, it has to stop. If it continues, it’s going to set up, once again, a partisan divide in the House and the Senate, which Congressman Rogers and I have tried to overcome with some success with respect to the intelligence committee.

So, if Petraeus said it was terrorism, everybody should stop attacking Susan Rice for saying it was the video? As Senator Feinstein might say, “I don’t understand it, it has to stop.”