Like that's ever stopped them before; they're wingnuts for a reason.

Exactly.

It's unclear whether the Right has come to grips with the political implications of the distortion field created by what Schmidt called the conservative entertainment complex.

The real problem that McCain has with Rice was that she was right, and he was wrong about coordination with allies in the way we intervened in Libya. McCain wanted a much more masculine Bush like unilateral approach with boots on the ground.

He was wrong and she was right.

And he can't let go of it.

They lost....they should just stop now or lose even more ground. What exactly are they looking for anyway? The President wants a full investigation. Once that is done, we should hopefully know where to go from there. Without a full investigation, there might be a reaction as if somebody believed that there were WMD's there!

Here we go again

You guys knowingly voted for all to suffer from government partisanship and gridlock while blaming the "Other Side". Talk like this from the President pretty much confirmed and solidified we're in for another four years of the same.

thanks allot

You're welcome!

Have a nice day!

and Happy Tax Day for all!

Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said.

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204712904578092853621061838.html

But, was the President's understanding of the evidence different from Ms. Rice on 9/15? She said it was a spontaneous action from a riot but the President said he knew it was a planned terrorist attack on the day it happened. Why didn't someone from his administration correct her?

Obviously the intelligence was off somewhere, I think they were busy reading 30,000 pages of salacious e-mails.

Dubya and Cheney threw Mr. Powell under the bus.

When the President says "you have a problem with her, then you have a problem with me" you bet your bippy McCain and Graham are now thinking twice about what their next move is.

I suggest they take the President seriously, or, it will get ugly.

Within a couple of weeks after the attack, it was widely recognized by all, including Rice, that this was a terrrorist attack. Sometimes it takes a few days for all the intelligence to filter down, and it was, at this point, an ongoing investigation. 30 years ago, the American public probably wouldn't have even heard about the attack, let alone the myriad details, until days after.

And your getting all pissy because not everyone in the US Government is using the exact same semantics at the exact same time? Get over it.

W. still thinks there are WMD's in Iraq.

RobDon, he said it was an act of terror. Any attack like that is. He didn't say they planned it etc. etc. etc. because they didn't have the info yet.

Personally, I think the biggest problem we had was that we expect answers immediately. It takes time to sort through the garbage to get to the truth. Instead, we demand answers NOW and you know what? Answers change as our understanding changes. But to blame the messenger? Ridiculous.

If John McCain, Lindsey Graham or anyone else for that matter have a problem with Susan Rice they actually have a problem with the CIA. Susan Rice pretty much spoke word for word from the CIA directive she had received that morning and because of this fact, the CIA came out to aggressively defend Susan Rice as soon as she started taking fire. The only other entity at fault in this false smear are those in the mainstream media who continue to say Susan Rice gave misleading statements ignoring the FACT that what Susan Rice said precisely reflected what the CIA said given the information they had at the time.

By the way, it is possible that terrorists had planned an attack on the Consulate and spontaneously decided to engage that attack hoping that it might initially be considered a protest because of all the other protests and gain an advantage because of this cover. Still so many possibilities, this President has done the right thing and engaged in a thorough investigation right away and we need to give the professionals the time they need to complete the investigation so we know exactly what happened, adjust our mission accordingly and deliver justice to those who deserve it.

You are absolutely correct! The attacks were BOTH inspired as a protest of the video AND the spontaneous execution of a plan already prepared prior to that day as was reported in the media from sources in and close to the militia believed to be responsible. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?ref=daviddkirkpatrick&pagewanted=all

Tony, I don't believes there was any type of protest in Benghazi. Your article is from 9/12.

Largenose, you are absolutely right. Furthermore, in the case of Rice, the four were already dead. In the case of Colin Powell, the killing was about to commence. In fact it was an excuse for the killings that were to happen. There's no comparison.

RobDon

That is the point. The article IS from 9/12 and it quotes the participants of the attacks about what motivated them. Our personnel inside the compound didn't know what motivated the attacks, nor did the CIA personnel in charge. You don't need analysis to figure out why they attacked when those attacking told those reporting from the actual scene that their attack was in protest of the video and inspired by the events in Cairo mere hours earlier. But even for those more informed, its hard to process that the attacks were started to protest the video, yet were also pre-planned and spontaneously executed all at the same time and certainly were acts of extremism (terror) all rolled into one. The only thing additionally is that Ansar al-Sharia is not operationally affiliated with AQ although they believe in the same type of fundamentalist Islam. They're only concerned with Libya, not global jihad or ridding the Arab peninsula of a US presence.

There is a perfectly reasonable explanation why Rice made the public statements. Not every piece of information that the CIA had in their possession would be necessarily be included in the the briefing documents. Some of the classified information would not be put in writing that was circulated to the various agencies including the State Dept. Obama would have had more information from the CIA than Rice would in her brief. Any questions?

We don't need the US intelligence agencies to tell us the motivations behind the attacks in Benghazi when those perpetrating them told the media in the first place:

To Libyans who witnessed the assault and know the attackers, there is little doubt what occurred: a well-known group of local Islamist militants struck the United States Mission without any warning or protest, and they did it in retaliation for the video. That is what the fighters said at the time, speaking emotionally of their anger at the video without mentioning Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or the terrorist strikes of 11 years earlier. And it is an explanation that tracks with their history as members of a local militant group determined to protect Libya from Western influence.

To those on the ground, the circumstances of the attack are hardly a mystery. Most of the attackers made no effort to hide their faces or identities, and during the assault some acknowledged to a Libyan journalist working for The New York Times that they belonged to the group. And their attack drew a crowd, some of whom cheered them on, some of whom just gawked, and some of whom later looted the compound.

The fighters said at the time that they were moved to act because of the video, which had first gained attention across the region after a protest in Egypt that day. The assailants approvingly recalled a 2006 assault by local Islamists that had destroyed an Italian diplomatic mission in Benghazi over a perceived insult to the prophet. In June the group staged a similar attack against the Tunisian Consulate over a different film, according to the Congressional testimony of the American security chief at the time, Eric A. Nordstrom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-overshadow-nuances-of-benghazi-investigation.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp&pagewanted=all

Tony, I don't believes there was any type of protest in Benghazi. Your article is from 9/12.

hahahahahahahahaha

OK OK- anyone who EVER thought that RobDon wasn't a troll please refer to this post. LOL!!!

Also , CBS news interviewed the leader of the local militia who the state dept had hired for local security , he told the ambassador the day before that it was too dangerous there and they all should leave , the guy said he was shocked the next day when he learned they were still there and calling them for help

The gop congress critters know these details , but they are political hack sore election losers , why the ambassador was not hunkered down in a secure location and fully mechanized by 9:00 pm the next night is the question to be asked and answered , and the answer has nothing to do with the u n ambassador or obama

Exactly.

People died, Obama lied.

Oh, good grief.

No, shooter, OBAMA DID NOT LIE. That's the right who thrive on lies and hate. I see that is a hard addiction to give up.

Shooter, your comments do not appear to add anything substantive to the conversation. Why didn't the administration correct the Ambassador if she was incorrect on 9/15 Sunday talk shows? If instead the administration agreed with her assessment, what information changed their understanding?

If the President or others have addressed this, I'm willing to read it. Anyone? Please source.

Despite their growing uncertainty, intelligence officials didn't feel they had enough conclusive, new information to revise their assessment. Ms. Rice wasn't warned of their new doubts before she went on the air the next morning and spoke of the attacks being spurred by demonstrations, intelligence officials acknowledged.

More information casting doubt on the protest element came in on Sunday morning, around the time that Ms. Rice was completing her TV appearances, the officials said. She began taping the shows early Sunday morning. By the time intelligence analysts began to realize "there's enough here to build a body of evidence that there probably were not protests, those things were already recorded and she [Ms. Rice] was already out there," a senior intelligence official said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592704578065110900205432.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories

RobDon:

No one is smearing anyone's name.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/lindsay-graham-on-susan-rice-i-dont-trust

"She is so disconnected from reality that I don't trust her," Graham said of Rice at a Capitol Hill press conference calling for a select committee to investigate the American deaths in Benghazi, Libya.

"I want to make sure that we don't promote anybody that was an essential player in the Benghazi debacle," he added.

Tony, excellent response. Thanks. I've seen the article and although it is very slim on specifics, it does attribute her statements to evolving intelligence. Yet, it also says:

Officials declined to provide details about the nature of the intelligence that arrived over the weekend of Sept. 15 that prompted their shift in thinking. Officials said interviews with U.S. officials and Libyans who were at the scene contributed, but it was unclear when those took place and what other intelligence affected the assessment.

This was my question. Just to say, "well, it changed" doesn't give evidence to the fact it changed or what changed it, which was my question. But, your point is well taken.

Rollo, I think your quote is missing Graham interpretation that led to his conclusion which is that either Ms. Rice was poorly informed and strongly pushing (5 shows) wrong information or she was being misleading. You can disagree with his assessment but everyone agrees that Ms. Rice was wrong on 9/15.

My belief is that the attacks were BOTH linked to protesting the video as occurred in Cairo, AND a spontaneous execution of an assault plan already formulated long before 9/11 which most certainly was an act of terror as well. This is what the extemporaneous reporting from the scene indicated on 9/12 and was also backed up by statements from militia spokespeople in the days afterward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/world/middleeast/us-envoy-to-libya-is-reported-killed.html?ref=daviddkirkpatrick&pagewanted=all

Shooter - I am so glad you are not my neighbor!

I'd most probably try to return something that came flying over the fence only to be met by you interrogating me as to just how I got the item in the first place while I stared down the barrel of the gun you were cowering behind! -Kevo

Tony, I see the position you are putting forth and that may eventually prove to be exactly the evolution. But there was real time video and real time communication with our agents and to this day I have seen nothing from them that indicated a protest, a video, or a spontaneous act, everything including security requests, prior attacks, and the actions of other who had already left Libya indicates a planned terrorist attack.

Still, you make a valid case.

Apparently nothing will satisfy you until you think you've caught Rice or Obama in some kind of contradiction. Sorry they're both too smart for you, and way too smart for Graham and McCain.

RobDon

See response #5.10

But there was real time video and real time communication with our agents and to this day I have seen nothing from them that indicated a protest, a video, or a spontaneous act,

Really? funny how this was never mentioned in the official time line the cia released , how about a link for that rondon?

And what question is ambassador rice suppose to answer ? why she basically repeated what the cia told her? after the cia confirmed they gave her that info

the cover up where nothing is covered up , the moron party strikes again , dems can just govern bull dozer style from here on out , these people are worthless

but everyone agrees that Ms. Rice was wrong on 9/15.

you are just a full of $hit troll rondon

RobDon, there are a few different timelines but they all agree Obama knew what was happening within hours. As Obama said today, Rice was saying what she was told to say. Obama refused to call it terrorism and linked in the movie for weeks, so did Clinton. In the end it was the entire administration, including Carney, that tried to sell the story the attackers had justification.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

RobDon, Rice was delivering the best PUBLIC intelligence she could.

There are several of us here saying this, it should be very clear.

McCain answered the mystery with his glossing over there may be a "closed hearing", meaning it cannot be made public.

I am not baffled by this at all. I am not suspicious of it, there are some things that cannot be put into public, especially if we are going to have justice for that incident.

It just doesn't seem like a great idea to tip your hand when you have people over there that may be helpful with information.

I can see Tony Anderson's reasoning and I HAVE to trust our elected officials, our state and military personnel to keep quiet about classified information.

The President says they should go after HIM, not Rice.

This is politics. They lost the election and having a blame game.

Has anybody ever thought to let the invetigation do it's work and keep your mouths shut. Nobody know exactly what happened. Especially people with no inside information. (us) Most of what is known, it still classified. Not one person outside that circle knows a damn thing about it, including the media, McCain etc.

larry74

Americans don't have to "keep our mouths shut" and I resent any implication that citizens should. I do not need the government to tell me when or how to engage my mind and to discern information already in the public realm. I'm sure that you're not aware that the Benghazi militia members have been fairly vocal in describing why and how they launched their attacks on our compound. Our intelligence agencies do not need to translate what I can read for myself. Here is a link to an interview with the alleged leader of the attacks (even though he denies it): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49473771/ns/world_news-the_new_york_times/#.UIEt0GCmIVk&__utma=5875948.394285977.1349625348.1350604587.1350649804.44&__utmb=5875948.1.10.1350649804&__utmc=5875948&__utmx=-&__utmz=5875948.1349625348.1.1.utmcsr=(direct)|utmccn=(direct)|utmcmd=(none)&__utmv=5875948.|8=Earned%20By=cable%7Cmsnbc%20tv%7Crachel%20maddow%20show%7Crachel%20maddow%20show=1^12=Landing%20Content=Original=1^13=Landing%20Hostname=maddowblog.msnbc.com=1^30=Visit%20Type%20to%20Content=Earned%20to%20Original=1&__utmk=222025116

Here is a link from the BBC from 9/12 also linking the attacks to "protests" over the video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19575753

There is more information if you look for it that isn't dependent upon the government filtering it before you give it consideration.

Bet everybody is injecting "opinions" of what was and wasn't known, when nobody outside the circle knows. YOU don't have a clue. It's under investigation why not let them finish before placing judgment? All I've read and heard is just that, JUDGEMENT.

Tony, if there were interviews with the attackers the night of the attack, then that settles it...it was about the video. No investigation needed. Please.

Patango, no troll here, just me. You are correct. I should not have put "video" in my comment. Lamb from the State Department only said they "could follow what was happening in almost real-time." (see page 5 of her prepared statement)

Lastly, President Obama indicted himself in the news conference by saying he sent out Ambassador Rice "who had nothing to do with Benghazi" to speak about what happened in Benghazi. Why not send someone from the State Department who had oversight, or the CIA who was monitoring and gathering the intelligence.

Maybe after the investigation there will be nothing. It just seems odd that given the violence in Libya, the prior attacks there, the leaving of everyone else including the Red Cross, the request for more security, etc, etc, etc, that the first emphatic and long response was that it was only a response to a video.

Tony Anderson, I agree. I am offended when people say I am disrespecting the office fo the president when I question the motives, values, policies and beliefs of the man (key word here "man"). I will not shut up or aplogize in questioning people in office.

People (the left) seem to forget those in DC are elected by us to work for us, not the other way around.

larry74, I for one have passed judgement. I have no information from the brick white house. The information is not available. We are not being told anything. It is under investigation. STALL STALL STALL. When children are asked to tell the truth and they don't answer the question, they are hinding something. If there is nothing to hide then be a transparent white house, is that not what BARRY promised back in 2008.

So... you're excusing Obama because of something Republicans did, or are you defending what the Bush administration did, because Obama did the same?

They are never going to stop with the hate and accusations. Mc Cain is a doddering, angry old fool who is still angry that he got beaten by Obama in 04. He hasn't made any sense in years, and needs to retire.

Lindsay Graham is just another disgusting Republican attack dog for the right.

They never tire of this, but the American people are getting damn fed up with the BS!

I see the trolls never quit, either. Give it up, shooter. You're dead wrong, and too blind to know it.

E-mail sent to Graham:

Benghazi was horrific – anytime an act of violence on our citizens occurs and causes their death it is a tragedy. I agree we need to find out what happened and why, but not for the same reasons as you. I want to ensure that we fix any failure on our part and reform policies that were ineffective. Your purpose is to demonize our President and the Democratic party. My question Mr. Graham were you as outraged on the following:

Bush Administration had a few security issues:

2002: U.S.Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured 2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan 2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. 2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria 2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens 2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen 2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/14/krauthammer-whitewashes-bushs-history-to-bash-o/189890

‘He Kept Us Safe’: Bush Ignored Repeated Warnings Of Terrorist Attack
September 11th, 2012 12:52 am Joe Conason “New documents uncovered by investigative journalist Kurt Eichenwald show that despite repeated, urgent warnings from intelligence officials about an impending Al Qaeda attack, Bush did nothing because his neoconservative advisers told him that the threats were merely a “ruse” and a distraction.”

http://www.nationalmemo.com/he-kept-us-safe-bush-ignored-repeated-warnings-of-terrorist-attack/2/

Thank you sic-n-effin-tired for the embassy data posted a short time ago.

Shooter - the point of bringing these things up is because problems, errors, mistakes, misguided decisions on faulty intel, etc unfortunately happen. Did McCain, Graham and the other Republicans have the same reaction than as they are having now?

Oh, for Christ's sake. Yes, by all means let the preemptive outrage over things you just know are going to happen because he won't use the words you want him to use when talking to the Village asshats begin.

After all the time and time and energy a lot of people on the left wasted working themselves up into a outraged tizzy over the cuts to Social Security they just knew Obama was planning that never actually happened, you'd think they'd be more inclined to actually give the man some room to maneuver.

I mean, FFS, it got to be like "When Prophecy Fails." The more the predicted cuts didn't happen, the greater the certainty that they were going to happen soon, you just wait and see ,and then they didn't happen again, and again, and again until, eventually the line became "it was only because of our constant state of outrage that those cuts didn't happen!"

Yeah, right. Because the only alternative to that was admissions that a lot of people made damnfools of themselves. But hey, it's never too soon to drop all of that fail down the memory hole and start back in on the preemptive outrage again, I guess.

I wish Graham would come out of his closet already.

Trainer, Graham's not the only GOP'er in the closet. There are a number of prominent GOP Senators and Representatives that are hiding out in the same closet as Graham.

YOu mean when Barney came out he did disclose his buddies?

Ah, yes. John McCain picked the nitwit who barely scraped through college, and quit every job she has ever taken on. Such good judgement.

As for saying Ms. Rice "wasn't that bright", I'd like to ask "As compared to whom?" Susan Rice graduated from Stamford University, went to Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship (not exactly handed out in Cracker Jack boxes), got an MA and a PHD from Oxford, and has been extremely successful in her subsequent career. We should ALL be not so bright!

and that's what Romney's people said about Obama ...

Yes Matt, That was funny. Thank you.

Matt Koegler,

McCain is a doddering old fool who was never very bright and is way less so now. He and Lindsay Graham are beneath contempt. Graham is a damned liar, and a weird man on top of it. I can't bear to look at either one of them. Graham will do anything to hurt Obama. That's who he is. He's a racist and he has no one fooled about his motives.

I am so damn sick of this GOP and their endless bullsh&%! Let's talk about stupid, McCain: Sarah Palin was a heartbeat away from the presidency of the U.S. It is hard to top anyone stupid enough to want that nightmare for America. But you chose her. You chose Sarah Palin to be your vice president, without even vetting her. I wouldn't throw any stones if I were you!

Point well taken!

However- and a BIG however- it is not clear if it was a State Department operation or a CIA operation. Or both. Since WWII State has given diplomatic cover to 'spies', from the OSS to the CIA.

Given the number of ex SEALs there, I suspect that the spooks were in charge. And of course they have complete deniability of everything, everywhere!

They must have had trouble catching up when their party made that hard right turn. They're trying very hard to catch now.