navigator

The problem here is many posters fail to see the obvious and claim that facts have been debunked. There were previous attacks in Benghazi. There were warnings of more attacks to come. Security was reduced in Benghazi weeks before 9\11. I have posted links previously that show the streets were quiet shortly before the attack, The State Dept., CIA chief stationed in Tripoli and the president of Benghazi all said it was a terrorist attack, within 24 hours, and made no mention of a mob protest in Benghazi. So who came up with the mob protesting a video talking points? Maybe the re-election committee? The only shred of evidence in this thread that it was a mob protest was one administration official claimed there were 20 intel reports that said it was a mob protest. And yet you guys use that one peice of hearsay as evidence to claim it debunks the numerous intel reports that said otherwise. Add to that the lack of support during the attack, the half hearted attempt to evacute American personel after the attack and the lack of an investigation to this day, show where this event falls on Obamas priority list. I am zealous about this because I liked Obama in '08. He campaigned for a transparent administration and campaign reform, among other issues that I liked his stance on, but what I am now learning, was more accurately, just rhetoric to get elected. The longer he is POTUS, the more the criticisms from the right seem accurate.

It was obscure, until it was needed to deflect attention, then Obama used Petreaus and Rice, the UN etc. to parrot the talking point. He also said it was a mob protest. Would you consider taking a month just to get the FBI on the ground in Benghazi 'on top of it'? Get all the facts? What else do you need to know? 1. The streets were quiet shortly before the attack began. 2. The State Dept. reported within hours it was a planned attack and made no mention of a mob protest. 3. The CIA station cheif in Tripoli reported within hours the same thing. All within 24 hours. Obama misled people by claiming it was a mob protest, an attack on free speech, while other times correctly calling it an act of terrorism.

The Obama administration. The CIA station chief in Tripoli and the State Department never said it had anything to do with a mob protest. The best information his agency had? Wouldn't that include his own boots on the ground and the State Dept? I have already linked the pertinant points in the speech that highlight the bolstering of the mob protesting an obscure video all the while implying it was an attack on free speech and ignoring it was terrorism. It is pretty simple to comprehend the impact any mention of terrorism could of had on his campaign. Well thats comforting, kinda gives me a feeling of fitting in. I just wonder when some started believing everything the POTUS said, and the way the media reports it? The BS misled the American people. Because, despite the evidence, you fail to acknowledge that Obama was playing both sides of the fence. I wasn't oblivious or assuming either, the conversation never went that direction. I am curious why security at all embassies, in high risk locations, wasn't heightened? If he wasn't re-elected then there would be no reason to worry about impeachment.

If the Obama administration had heeded the warnings of more attacks in Benghazi, the fact that 9\11 was approaching and previous attacks, instead of making campaigning a priority, then second guessing might be cowardly. If Obama reduced security in Benghazi, direcetly due to funding, he would have said so, but then that would have hurt his competence in foriegn policy, because most people don't allow their blinders to shape their opinion and would see that, inspite of the cuts, there was enough intel to support beefing up security in Benghazi. He only needed a few weeks to get past the election. His statements of the Benghazi events changed depending on who his audience was. If that was the case, Obama would have said so; all he knows is pointing a finger. Leaders take responsibilty, Obama is a good orator, not much else.

Rigney, I wish I could say it was due to us hillbilly's being the only one's capable of connecting-the-dots, I understood the point you were conveying, unfortunately intellectual dishonesty is commom place around these parts. Obama and brilliance go together like oil and water, however he seems to enjoy dumping heaps of BS on the American people. All one has to due is look at how he criticized others for their lack of transparency during the '08 campaign and then compare it to the transparency of his own administration. P.S. Check your PM's

I guess I shouldn't be surprised the way many posters here cherry pick the news that agrees with their political bent, but the lack of objectivity on a science forum is disheartening. Rep. Chaffetz also said this... The cuts were for all embassy's security, it is up to Obama to properly allocate the available funding. Despite previous attacks at the Benghazi consulate, requests for more security, warnings of more attacks, security was reduced, including just weeks before 9\11. Reports of diverting funding to beef up security, in places like Benghazi and Egypt prior to 9\11 would have disrupted the al queada on the run narrative and could have hurt his FP and campaign. Oh ok, right, it was the other yellow cake that supposedly came from Niger, I guess that means the yellow cake that was always in Iraq was not WMD's and nothing to worry about. Are you serious? And you keep harping the faulty initial intelligence when there are numerous reports that it had nothing to do with the video and that minutes before the attack began, the streets in Benghazi were quiet. And the Libyan President the day after said it was a planned attack and not a mob protest, were do you come up with this stuff? I have only seen one report that one official said there were 20 intel reports pointing to the video as a cause, but there are no other specifics about the sources. There are numerous reports, with named sources, hours after the attack, that it was pre-planned terrorist attack. Clearly, Obama cherry picked the intel to best suit his campaign, disregarding the facts and possible affects on our national security. The biggest problem I have is going forward, if all Obama can do is point the finger, he will never take responsibilty for his own errors and therefore these types of occurances will continue to happen. And the media has clearly shown its willingness to fall in line, lock-step

DH did a fine job of cherry picking the quotes above, I will post links for context he so convienetly left out, shortly. Doesn't matter after the election, its showing pattern of putting campaigning for re-election above whats best for the country. Petreuas misttress may have had access to classified info above her clearance, odd that they allowed it to stay under the carpet for so long. I can see no other explanation for Petraeus to change his testimoney from Sep. 14th, trying to save his job and legacy, to after resigning. I don't know at this point, but I did know better than to believe an attack on the Benghazi consulate on 9\11 was due to a mob protesting an obscure video. A mob celebrating the 9\11 anniversary would be easier to swallow. So you selectively cherry pick what Obama said, with no links for context, and claim those are the facts. Yet you accuse the right of a witch hunt LOL. Lets start with the speech to the UN... If you read the whole speech and cannot see that it was really a speech defending freedom of speech, because according to Obama, the video caused the attack, then check your blinders at the door and read it again. U.S. Secretly Takes Yellowcake From Iraq. Either you are very un-informed, or so driven by political ideology, that being objective is not possible. You can choose to drink that kool-aid if you want, the bottom line is all the departments that reviewed the evidence take their orders from Obama. The President is the boss, and unless they want to loser their jobs, and possibly be charged with criminal charges of one sort or another, they pretty much have to do what the President says. Telling everyone something that is an obvious lie is completely idiotic in this situation. If he just didn't want to say anything about it, he should have just said that they were investigating it, and weren't going to comment. Instead, they put out this nonsense story about the Benghazi attacks being caused by a Youtube video.

Thanks. I do want to reply, but it deserves more time and attention than I have right now. Cheers, and hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving!

Obama did when he addressed the UN, appeared on The View, David Letterman and the Sixty Minutes interview. The FBI ivestigation into the affair started eight months prior to his resignation, it is plausible that he was influenced by the fact that the administration held his fate, and legacy, in their hands. As long as they needed him to repeat the narrative, they kept quiet about the affair, as soon as the election was over, he was no longer needed. Because I agree, Funding obviously shouldn't have been cut, but it was also not appropriated very wisely. And maybe they too were getting drunk on the al queda on the run narrative and felt not as much security was needed.

Apologies, I was referring to the way DH blames the right-wing media. Ok, so does he have a link to that news? Yes, Petreaus resigned two days after Obama's re-election, due to an affair with his biographer. Protecting his name and legacy as a General for starters. And Obama needed to protect the al queda on the run narrative, so they ran with the mob protest story instead. Im not dismissing it out of hand, the funds that were appropriated could have been used more wisely. There were previous attacks, warnings of more attacks to come and yet the security in Benghazi was reduced just prior to 9\11, when all security in areas like Benghazi should be heightened the highest level.

Can you stop blaming the messenger? Link to the 20 intelligence reports? Yes, prior to resigning and being exposed for having an affair. Plenty of motive there for the Gen to stretch the truth. Now that he has resigned, I would think his testimony wold be more credible. Besides, anybody with a shred of military experience knew it was a planned attack the next day when it was reported that mortar fire had killed the 2 seal agents. Further, the next day, a Libyan official said it was clearly a planned attack. Regardless, there were prior attacks to the consulate in Benghazi, requests for added security and warnings for retribution for the drone attack that killed Libyan terrorist months earlier. Obama made it pretty clear duringthe campaign he had al queda on the run and 4 Americans paid for this campaign lie with their lives.

Good grief, the failure in the media is most are Obama's lap dogs, did you believe it was a spontaneous mob protesting a youtube video? If the initial intelligence wasn't perfect you might have a point, but the head of the CIA at the time has testified he knew it was terrorism from the start, which was accurate.

You act surprised, as if unaware that it happens on both sides, its not just a right-wing conspiracy. It does sound like we are in agreement that there needs to be a thorough investigation though. The only way I see anything even remotely close to what you descibe happening is if some how it was proven that Obama put these Americans life in danger by making damage control for his campaign a priority over their safety.

Obama's own objectives when he said 'do whatever we need to do to make sure they're safe' to his national security team. Was it essentially over, or did they evacuate, despite not finding Stevens body, because the 17t brigade could no longer hold the perimeter? He also said it was a mob reacting to the video, it really depended on who was in the different audience he's spoken to over the last six weeks. Investigating the deaths of four Americans is a witch hunt? Thats rich.

Reports I have read say the drone arrived around 11 pm, the consulate was evacuated at 11:30. No clear indication when the first attack ended. Why would a drone be sent in to provide real time intel only to be ignored? Petraeus, head of CIA prior to resigning ,testified yesterday he knew from the start it was terrorism Obama on the other hand wanted people to believe otherwise. And then there was the UN Abassador Susan Rice's statements, Obama on The Letterman show, The View, the sixty minutes interview...

This is all your opinion, do you have anything to back it up? I was never under the impression it was one long continuous fight, the CNN link to the time line of the attacks clealy shows it was not. That does not cange the fact that the response to the attack by the Obama administration was completely inadequate. Did Obama not claim the attack was a due to the anti-islamic video two weeks later when he spoke to the UN? Here is a clearer picture... There was plenty of intelligence within hours of the attack, that it was planned and not a spontaneous mob. I never said it was an impeachable offense, however, they have done a very good job of creating alot of confusion trying to cover their tracks. Thanks! But we are probably more alike than you think, Im just a young hillbilly. And I totally agree, regardless of party, there needs to be a bi-partisan investigation so the American people know the truth, regardless of what side it falls on.

Ok, fair enough. While I do feel you are putting words in my mouth, I see no benefit commenting further on your opinion of D H. Which is the whole point in why I pointed out the errors in his post claiming Fox news is spreading a bunch of lies when in fact most were the facts, same as reported by other MSM. I was incorrect about one and Cap'n corrected me. Maybe you can correct me on the others so we can agree on the indisputable facts.

Maybe true in some cases, but that is hard to square with the POTUS first priority, protecting the American people in this case. Further, there is a vast chasm between turning a blind eye and not being sufficiently psychic... security in Libya cut before Benghazi attack inspite of two recent attacks, failing to convene Counterterrorism Security Group , Obama only calling it terrorism when convenient, etc. The Obama administration has become drunk on its own kool-aid, Osama is dead and Al queada is on the run, remember? That is what his actions have shown, leading up to the attack in Benghazi, as well as the inept response.

Over six hours after the initial attack, former U.S. Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty are killed in the mortar assault. Also there were six security agents sent into Benghazi, from tripoli, four hours into the attack so they are contradicting themselves by saying there wasn't sufficient time. And to top it off, The airplane sent to rescue the evacuees and security personel the next morning was too small, so a group had to wait another three hours for the plane to return. Serious lack of leadership.

Surely you jest...or are you really implying that if there was sufficient time to form a rescue, in leiu of all the confusion, that his transparent administraion would have admitted it, right before an election? And why did it take a month before the FBI had angents in Benghazi to begin an investigation? Also, the second attack is when the last two seals were killed on the roof of the annex, I have heard reports that they had laser targets for air support that never came. If a rescue team been sent in to the consulate, the second attack could have been prevented and the seals lives spared.

Thanks, I stand corrected, he is still in command. However, that doesn't change the fact that there was ample time to respond. Whether or not an order to stand down was given, there is no doubt our military brass were chomping at the bit to go in and attempt a rescue, but the order was never given. Coupled with the conflicting statements given by this administration about the nature of the attack makes one wonder what they are hiding.

I lurk here from time to time to find what the left wing talking points currently are and I am rarely dissapointed, it is always amazing to see the alternate reality many posters on this board live in, this post is a good example. 1. abc news washingtontimes 2. Many news outlets have reported the statements made by Mrs. Broadwell that the CIA was holding prisoners, thats what news agencies do. washingtonpost usatoday guardian 3. Hard to see anybody, with any military experience, that objectively looks at the details of the attack, come to a different conclusion. 4. Are you claiming the attack did'nt take place over seven hour period? There are testimonies and timelines that show it did. AP 5. I guess you were unaware that there was a drone overhead during the attack. See the AP link in #4 6. Not sure about the CIA or DOD, but a quick seach for General Carter Ham and you will find evidence that he was relieved of his duties for preparing a rescue team after ignoring an order told to stand down. 7. There is little evidence to support this, but there are some that claimed to know very early. cbs news 8. Two weeks after the attack, Obama went in front of the UN blaming the video, blatanly lieing about the nature of the attack.

wikipedia 20 weeks or 350g, stricter than any of the of the countries using the statute of limitations.

Are you aware that many countries use very different methods to report a stillbirth? Weight, length, length of pregnancy are all used to define a stillbirth, as well as signs of life. Here is the statute of limitations for the 'stillbirths' who show signs of life and/or survive. So if a child survives a day or 11 months, but doesnt meet those requirements, it is still not reported as an infant mortality, instead reported as a still birth. In the US, once the gestation period is passed(20 weeks), if the baby shows any sign of life, even for just a second, with the placenta and umbillical cord still attached, and then passes, it is reported as an infant mortality. To me, the fact that the US is still within 5 deaths per 1000, from the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates is astounding!

What I don't understand is why the numerous violations and penalties were ignored for so long. There are other reports of BP not performing tests, using a sub-par BOP and casing strings, ignoring warning signs for months leading up to the leak, meanwhile the Interior Department exempted BP from performing an analysis of deep water drilling in the GOM. Back in June, the EPA told BP to reduce the amounts of Corexit and find a better dispersant within 24 hours. The way BP routinely brushed it off and continued using Corexit in untested methods and amounts suggests it was not the first time BP abjected the EPA's authority. The Deep water Horizon just left the Tiber field after capping a 33k' well, set a record for the GOM. Confidence was flying high and pockets were getting full, problem was they were behind schedule and it was costing BP half million $ a day at the Macondo site. It looks to me like BP had control of the reigns while the DOI was snookered looking the otherway, at the royalties. But I think the problem is more than just lack of oversight. For one, there are only 60 inspectors for over 4,000 sites. And then theres that.