Senator McCain's Washington office phone number.

202-224-2235

Call at ask that he Resigns.

McCain is no war hero. There is no evidence that he was a good pilot. He crashed a number of planes before he was shot down over Hanoi. He was a significant prisoner and his picture was publicized because he was the son of the U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander. He was tortured, yes, as were many others. He admits that he broke. He has gotten a lot of mileage out of that picture of him as a POW.

Why is he speaking out the way he is? Karl Rove wants Benghazi to be part of his "divide and win" strategy in 2014. Rove and the Kochs have not retreated from their belief that they almost won in 2012 and would have won had it not been for the misfiring on women's issues and the unexpectedly large number of Latino, Black, and young people who voted. But they believe they will have enough issues and large enough wedge populations and enough money and almost complete control of the media in targeted markets to repeat the success of 2010 in 2014.

As he often has in the past, McCain is willing to lead the charge....even when he charges in all directions.

Probably not. But there should be...

If there were such a rule, the Senate could never get a quorum.

After proving the Hussein Obama administration to be a lying, incompetent and deceptive administration...at the detriment of 4 Americans that were left to die...YOUR only question is babbling about illegal immigrants? I'm certain there is a railroad line running South that you could follow. *Sheesh*

Why oh why must the trolls be so incompetent?

Scott, if you're going to complain that Luz had only ONE question, please at least have the friggin dignity to pick a post wherein there was indeed only ONE question.

Scott: "YOUR only question ..." Luz: Just keep asking the guy more questions; "what should we be doing in the middle east?", what are you ideas on immigration?, how do you think it's best to prepare for the second comming?,,,. Granted, I'm not a mathematician, but by my count, that's THREE questions.

Was this an attempt at snark by chance??

A public meltdown is a terrible thing to watch.(another manic monday)

Especially out of an elected official.

scott,

i have a question.

why in 2009 did paul ryan, darrell issa and other house repubs vote to cut 1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions?

first, let me say, it is TRAGIC when any life is lost, especially those who are serving our country. everything possible should be done to protect these patriots. still, they know GOING IN these positions are "life-threatening", death is a possibility, UNFORTUNATELY.

why are you all having such a cow about this when we hear nothing about the thousands of troops lost in the iraqi war, to say nothing of the 100's of thousands of innocent iraqi lives? all this because w. bush dropped the ball on bin laden, and decided to go after saddam instead.

repubs need to ask themselves, "why are they really persuing this"?

"get over it", as barbara bush said. repubs lost.

Here is the big thing,, what happen and where it happen at was a CIA control area, so pretty much ever thing the teapublicans are asking for is CLASSIFIED!

As was why Stevens was in Benghazi and not Tripoli, by the way no one has mentioned if there was protest `s going on at the REAL EMBASSY and not a annex or consulate.

After proving the Hussein Obama administration to be a lying, incompetent and deceptive administration

Incompetence is a subjective term, although I'd be willing to meet you half way and say that if you can prove situations in which the administration did not know how to handle something in a way uncharacteristic of other administrations I'd be willing to say it's an example of incompetence.

Otherwise please tell me when the Obama administration lied and when it caused 4 people to die.

What does it mean to be deceptive and when was the administration deceptive? Again this is another subjective term, but if you can provide something that says the administration wasn't being honest or forthright for reasons that aren't understandable then I'd be willing to meet you half way and say yeah they're deceptive.

Also how did such incompetence and deceptiveness lead to the death of 4 persons?

Remember to show your work scott

After proving the Hussein Obama administration to be a lying, incompetent and deceptive administration

Taken from an Article at: http://www.politicususa.com/benghazi-gate-deflates-republicans-finally-grasp-reality.html

Per Think Progress: KING: They were not involved — it was done, the process was completed and they said, “Ok go with those talking points.” Again it’s interagency — I got the impression that 7, 8, 9 different agencies.

Q: Did he give you the impression that he (Petraeus) was upset it was taken out?

KING: No.

Q: You said the CIA said “OK” to the revised report -

KING: No, well, they said in that, after it goes through the process, they OK’d it to go. Yeah, they said “Okay for it to go.”

Is this not what Susan Rice said: "Putting together the best information that we have available to us today— Our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was, in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons, which, unfortunately, are readily available in post-revolutionary Libya, and that escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that's our best judgment now. We'll await the results of the investigation, and the president has been very clear we'll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.

What about the lies that came from Bush Administration that took us into a war with Iraq that lasted over 10 years and how many men and women died because of those lies? Or was it bad intel?

‘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/

We need to fix the way we receive intel and how and when it gets reported.

We need to fix the way we receive intel and how and when it gets reported.

I wish I could give you a million thumbs up for this comment.

That is EXACTLY what I'm thinking happened here. I'm thinking 2 things happened: intel dropped the ball and Al'Qaeda has now made a foothold within the Libyan government BOTH of which are serious concerns for us as a nation.

we do need to fix the way we receive intel and how and when it gets reported. what if we have an administration intent on going to war, and an adminstration who chooses to ignore intel?

isn't it fairly common knowledge that after no WMD were found, that "intel" HAD tried to convince the bush adminstration that there were NO WMD in iraq, but the bush administration WANTED TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ. doesn't anyone remember the outing of Valarie Plame, the CIA agent? the bush administration outed her because her husband, Joe Wilson, wouldn't back up their "story" about WMD in iraq.

i knew that "intel" would get the blame WHEN THEY DIDN'T FIND WMD.

guess who got the blame for the iraqi war?

as bush said, "bad intelligence".

guess we all forget the big think in Intel

The Need To Know! if you have the need to know you have the info. if you dont have the need that you dont know.

nothing strange or evil or scandalous or hidden about what went down.

still need the investigation to compete to get a true understanding of what happen.

I think it is more than bitternesss. Seriously, I think it is mental war wounds that are coming around with old age. The guy LOVES war. He loves conflict. To him, invading and occupying other countries is a reasonable and in fact, only responsible way to deal with the rest of the world.

This guy ran out of his Veteran Capital along time ago. No more, he is a vet, he can get away with it. This guy is dangerous. Can you imagine where we would have been had he become President?

Gee Sharkey...after the laundry was sorted out WHAT was i wrong about last week? Fire up the impeachment proceedings for the complete F-up in the oval office. And for Liberals NOW to complain about the guy that shook the sordid truth from the general that Hussein was desperately trying to keep from testifying, is almost to the point of being pathetic. And you believe Susan Rice still has ANY credibility to hold ANY position in an official capacity is downright criminal....

scott - still sucking on the FAUX NOISE teet? Susan Rice spoke at a press conference with the "briefing" that she was provided by the intelligence agencies that gave her the best intel that they had at that time. She didn't write it up herself, and the intel had been signed off on (trust me)! To fault her for her supposed complicity in a cover-up is like faulting Colin Powell for the bad intel that he briefed the United Nations for that led US into Iraq - neither of them personally wrote that stuff up, they were going with what the intelligence agencies wrote up!

To continue to believe that doddering, blathering, small minded, addle brained Senator McCain is actually doing more than venting those sour grapes he still has in his mouth make you as much of an idiot as he is.

Soo...The FACT that immediately following the incident it was KNOWN who plotted this deed ...This President continued on a campaign of deception to the American Public....and worse...BLAMED this whole sordid incident on an American citizen and free speech. You can go whizz up a rope with your either blatant ignorance or willful ignoring on the criminal actions of this failure-in-Chief.

I think everyone has to take a step back, stop the partisan jabs, and let the facts come out. As testonoy has shown, the CIA believed it was terrorism from the beginning, and their talking points reflected that. So, who changed the points? There were also enough talking about the lack of security and other events to connect the dots that it was a dangerous place. To either not increase security or pull out is inexcusable. Budget cuts are an excuse to cover incompetent management.Competent management adapts to reality.

The best early answer would just have been we don't know, rather some lame youtube clip.

I find it fascinating that for years the Right leaned on Petraeus like some stone oracle for wisdom with which to trump the Democrats on anything from troop draw downs, to DADT. It was un-American, treasonous even!, to question, doubt, or challenge The General in a time of conflict.

Until, of course, Petraeus testifies that certain identifying information was scrubbed from public talking points for legitimate operational reasons, and testifies to the quite unsurprising fact that sometimes you don't publicize all the information you have the moment you have it (heck, every day you hear of some police department withholding information because the crime remains under investigation), and further testifies specifically that there was no cover-up. Somehow all of that falls outside the Republican range of hearing.

At the time Rice spoke, the FBI hadn't even arrived in Benghazi yet. The investigation was far, far from complete. She made precisely those qualifications in her statement. Moreover, no one has explained what difference these allegedly "serious lies" made -- you really think the election turns out differently if the terrorist taking advantage of the mayhem in the street has a name or not? You think it impacts the military, strategic, intelligence or Congressional response? Because that's no more sane than Dickie Morris predicting Romney gets 325 EVs.

This isn't an argument Scott is making, it is a derangement he is manifesting.

LOL

gee scotty only laundry you seem to have sorted out is your own holier and brown satin shorts.

you keep asking questions that have been answered as well as the classifications aloud.

here is the big reason McCain and his puppet Lindsey didn't go to the briefing, cause if they did they would have learn all the classify stuff which then would mean they have to STFU!

Scott. You've been watching Faux Snooze too long. You beat a dead horse. The facts are this: Information was sat on while investigations were in place. No investigation can proceed efficiently when you're letting the perpetrators know what you are up to or who you hold responsible. Your true motivation is to discredit Obama. Where was all this false outrage when the planes were falling out of the sky? Bush knew but your side didn't raise even a whisper. You are a hypocrite and an ignorant one at that.

Yes...they now HAVE been answered..and the criminality is undeniable. the 2 weeks he was placing the blame on a US Citizen while being aware of what transpired AND by whom. Watched it live via satellite and denied and withheld aid. Yes Sharkey...the truth IS out and now? This guy HAS to be held accountable for his inaction and later his deception in the Deaths of these 4.

LMAO at you very hard.

to bad i could not really say just how ignorant you are and just how far your head is up your fourth point of contact, with out hurting your bowl system.

so i notice you have no links and creditable sources.

by this rate you will have completely gone off the shallow end and are just floundering on the dry cement.

LOL entertaining you are.

As pathetic are you...after demanding links that would be ignored in a swift fashion by Liberals anyway...the truth is inevitably the truth and "posting a link " changes not a whit either the truthfulness or dishonesty at what came out in the hearings on the public record. which backed up the veracity of the charges against this administration. But now that The General has testified that there was NO great mystery about whether this was some kind of spontaneous violent protest CAUSED by an American exercising their freedom of speech, or rather just a blatant lie concocted by this Administration USING an American Citizen as their own personal scapegoat to what end? To cover up their culpability in the deaths of these Americans?

the CIA believed it was terrorism from the beginning, and their talking points reflected that

No that is not what Petraeus stated. He stated that he had a suspicion that Al'Qaeda was involved and the CIA put information out there that they believed Al'Qaeda assets may have been present at the protest. The CIA was the final vetting agency for the talking points given to Rice and the CIA approved those talking points after they went through an inter-agency adjusting. The mentioning of Al'Qaeda operatives according to the testimony was left out in specific because the intelligence community did not want to tip their hand that they knew some of the people involved. In the least bit this neither shows incompetence on behalf of Rice nor does it show that the administration intentionally lied to the American public nor does it state that the protest did not exist and that the video did not spur the attack. None of these tenets have been proven. You guys keep asserting that X has been shown to be true when it hasn't. Provide proof or quite honestly shut up. I'm so sick of this.

As for your claim that more security should have been provided: please enlighten me Tom. How much security would have been needed to stop these people from dying and how much would've been needed to stop anyone from dying on our side?

You don't know this answer yet you still want to assign blame for "mismanagement" of resources even though by your own logic you're already admitting that if the limitation of resources prevented enough security from being present then more people would've ended up being killed.

Has every Republican out there lost their head on this issue? You did so over Solyndra and you were wrong. Then there was Fast and Furious and you were also wrong. Why do you think you're going to be correct this time? What the hell happened to humility???

But now that The General has testified that there was NO great mystery about whether this was some kind of spontaneous violent protest CAUSED by an American exercising their freedom of speech, or rather just a blatant lie concocted by this Administration USING an American Citizen as their own personal scapegoat to what end

At no point in time did Petraeus state any of this in his testimony. He stated that they thought it was a protest that had been used as cover for an attack by Al'Qaeda. Actually go back and listen to it. You want to dispute? OK then prove your argument. If you cannot that's on you. And by the way no one is going to discredit you unless you link to conservative only papers. Why might that be? Because the conservative movement in general has a stated claim in the outcome of the narrative which makes them, by academic standards, unreliable for information in this case. I would still be willing to read the information you have to present even in that case, but it is from that lack of academic sourcing that you get pushback when you link to Fox News or World Net Daily- because those organizations have an interest in lying.

" Watched it live via satellite and denied and withheld aid. "

LOL that tells me you do not have links or sources but only of fox and ones who make money on knowing nothing.

but it is funny to watch your flop around like a fish on the deck. i also hope for your sake that the checks you still getting will not bounce on you.

LOL it`s not like your enablers/handlers and such has a good track record.

Cartoon: As far as what Patraeus said see http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/16/david-petraeus-testimony-congress-live

As far as security, I stated it was an either or. There were enough warning signs that Benghazi was a boiling point. Not to act beforehand, to me, was incompetence. There are always questions over what is enough security, but a risk analysis based on facts needed to be done.

While I recognize people want to spin this as a left/right issue, let Sen Feinstein complete her review. She still wants to get to the bottom over the talking points.

There were enough warning signs that Benghazi was a boiling point

Like?

Here is all your article states about the issue and your article is overblowing it:

• Disgraced former CIA director David Petraeus told members of the Congress that the CIA had labelled the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi as the work of terrorists, but the description was edited out of unclassified talking points later used by UN ambassador Susan Rice and signed off by Petraeus

• Petraeus is also reported to have told the congressional intelligence committees that the references to terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida was withheld to avoid tipping off the groups involved

But that is a problem with the media overall- they don't go into the substance of it. First off no one actually knows verbatim what Petraeus said because his testimony was not public. What we know are the accounts as reported by the various parties and the account being reported here is the one given by King. The one given by both Democrats states that Petraeus had "suspicions" that it was terrorism and they quoted him verbatim on that statement which the guardian is overlooking (this isn't a unique problem: this is just like how a majority of the press overlooked that the video on YouTube was played on a network in Egypt and never mentioned that the panel told it's viewers to protest and that it was sponsored by the US government). Everyone should note this because this is how misinformation gets validated by the MSM.

Petraeus' initial review of the situation, again, also was that it was a protest with what possibly were Al'Qaeda militants present. That, again, isn't getting reflected and I'm amazed by how quickly this has changed. If Pretzelogic or Needmorecoffee have the article you linked a couple of days ago in which you discussed the manipulation of the right that Petraeus was "certain" there was terrorism when he really said "suspected" terrorism could you please toss it my way? I can't seem to find it.

While I recognize people want to spin this as a left/right issue, let Sen Feinstein complete her review. She still wants to get to the bottom over the talking points

So you want the review to be finished, but you have no problem giving spin about the security at the base or other things that you admittedly have no evidence for or reason to believe true? What a contradiction this is.

To either not increase security or pull out is inexcusable

You stated that budget cuts are inexcusable when it comes to defense. Now lets think this through. Did we have people present in Benghazi as per the request of the administration? No. Stevens and his assistant were NEVER ordered to be in Benghazi and we STILL do not know why he was there in the first place. So how could we "pull out" when we never ordered them? And, again, you cannot make the security argument unless you know how much security was needed. But you do not know how much security was needed. You don't know a damn thing about whether or not more security would have helped. It's a hypothesis you are falsely putting forward that is based on nothing.

There were enough warning signs that Benghazi was a boiling point. Not to act beforehand, to me, was incompetence.

Were there? Please share. Because most of what I have read is that there were lots of problems with Tripoli and there have been problems with Benghazi in the past. But there wasn't information suggesting that Benghazi was going to be the center of an attack on 9/11 or any other day which is why the consulate had such little staffing. But how can you have a beforehand assessment of the situation when you don't even know why the ambassador is there to begin with?

I think everybody should pay attention to little scotties comment and note, he's not made one without insulting and lying. Nothing new from him.

Well said Kaneblues...

WHAT? Deception and blatant criminality has become "the new normal" that this administration is trying to sell the American public? This is an obvious criminal cover up by this administration and should be pursued as such.

People who knew the risks died in a dangerous place. It is tragic, sad, and we need to learn from it for the future. . . but before you go setting your hair on fire and running around screaming "criminal!" could you perhaps explain what law was broken, by whom, and how? Otherwise you're just a cheap slanderer.

Because This President was aware of the threat to the consulate, and yet did NOTHING to reinforce the facility. Watched the incident go down in real time...with held aid to these people, and then begin with a cover up. Criminality??? Let's start reviewing charges....

The president never watched the incident go down in real time- no one watched it go down in real time. No aid was withheld to the people requesting aid and the extra security that was asked for was from the Libyan government, not the US government. There were requests that the US send in more private contractors or CIA operatives or other security personnel, but those requests weren't responded to. And, for the record, those requests were made in Tripoli, NOT Benghazi. Increase security in Tripoli would NOT have helped save the lives of these individuals in Benghazi. You do understand that these are TWO DIFFERENT cities more than 3 hours apart, yes?

Indeed the complaints here should be more about Scheiffer for the repeated featuring of the grumpy ignorant old man.

Cartoon: For the record, the CIA did try to dispatch aid from Tripoli. Through a combination of errors and delays, they were held up for awhile. The entire security arrangements for diplomats needs to be examined. http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/11/cia_timeline_of_benghazi_assau.html

Please, both sides, stop the spin until the facts are in. I, for one, just want us to get to the facts and put in measures to prevent a reoccurance.

": For the record, the CIA did try to dispatch aid from Tripoli. "

also from their safe house in Benghazi as well.

first thing was there protesters at the embassy in Tripoli?

did the drone come from there as it arrived a hour after the attack started. which would have or could have put the drone over Tripoli?

so protesters at the embassy could have clouded info gathering judgments.

still to early to tell, but it also not the scandal and F-up people are looking for.

imo

Cartoon: For the record, the CIA did try to dispatch aid from Tripoli.

This in no way has anything to do with the statements I was responding to dealing with scott. What are you even talking about here? Aide was never withheld from the base in Benghazi and the requests for increased security that he is talking about were from months before and those requests were for Tripoli, not Benghazi. He never mentioned the administration's response to the attack when it took place. So what's "for the record"? You're making a point to a statement that was never issued in the first place.

Please, both sides, stop the spin until the facts are in

And then you have the audacity to say this? WHO was putting spin here, hmm? I'm not putting any spin you jackass. I'm stating exactly what has been reported on the issue. I cannot stand the lack of critical thinking that has came about because of this incident. I haven't taken a position on this you DO realize that, YEAH? Fact checking someone =/= taking a position on the left or the right. It simply means you are FACT CHECKING statements they make that are FACTUALLY untrue. So you accuse me of spinning facts when YOU are responding to a statement NO ONE gave.

"Hero"? Sadly, no, just the product of RHIP (Rank Hath Its Privileges), and a complacent media.

TCinLA can give you the biographical details. Suffice it to say that he had a "career" similar to GW Bush. AFU (Always Fail Upwards.)

I have no quarrel with the idea of a peaceful retirement for McCain. But hero? You must have missed this:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/make-believe-maverick-20081016

Naaah. I'm really sorry to say this, but no, McCain is no hero. He's always, always been a self-aggrandizing egomaniac git. Anyone who crashed FIVE planes, at least three of them owing to his own stupidity, but who WASN'T an admiral's son, would have lost his wings well before he fell out of the sky over Vietnam. Not to mention being the only prisoner who spilled his guts completely. This hero business is a carefully orchestrated whitewash, and now we're just seeing all the personality flaws that were always, always there.

You are so pathetic it's sad. You waste your time to DEFEND the Bill Clinton's of the World that commit adultery and purger themselves to cover their tracks. But this is a new low point....This guy (Obama) declared executive privilege to hide documents pertaining to the death of an American border agent, and THEN follows it up by putting 4 Americans in an outpost that was inadequately defended, even AFTER the diplomat begged for more security...and THEN watched live on satellite coverage and did nothing while an attack THEY KNEW was being planned... subjected these 4 Americans to being sodomized and dragged through the streets of Libya. This is a Criminal act of incompetence and deserves to be prosecuted as such. While it MAY NOT happen while the Liberals control the Senate...justice WILL catch up to this administration before it get's out of office.

Purger?

I've never understood the commonplace assumption that McCain is a war hero because he was shot down and captured in Vietnam. I think all that makes him is unlucky.

The fact that he could have parlayed the Family name into an early release and said no and spent another five years being abused physically IS an act of heroism....

declared executive privilege to hide documents pertaining to the death of an American border agent

This never happened. The DoJ requested that documents pertaining to an ongoing investigation not be released initially and then later capitulated from Senate pressure and agreed to have those documents released as long as it was done privately.

and THEN follows it up by putting 4 Americans in an outpost that was inadequately defended

This did not happen. The consulate building, for the record, is not a US owned building. It's a joint-diplomacy building shared with other nationalities as well as the US. The ambassador and, I believe it was, an aide were at that building for some unknown reason: we still do not know why the ambassador was there, but we do know he was never asked or ordered to be in Benghazi on that day. The other 2 Americans involved were security personnel hired by the CIA through a private contractor that were at a nearby location where the CIA and other operatives were conducting operations in Libya. When the attack happened they went to the consulate building to try to help the ambassador and died doing so. We still do not know why these 2 men defied orders and went to the consulate building.

even AFTER the diplomat begged for more security

Ambassador Stevens did express concerns about security in Libya, but his concerns were with the local military and police NOT with US personnel. Now there were requests by a former general in Tripoli for increased US personnel security at the US embassy. Those are two DIFFERENT locations more than 3 hours apart from each other that have absolutely nothing to do with one another

and THEN watched live on satellite coverage

This never happened. There was no satellite coverage of what was going on in Benghazi. There was, however, testimony given by Lamb who stated that she was receiving phone calls and e-mails from the people at the consulate notifying them that the consulate was under attack. She stated that they kept hanging up and calling back and sending e-mails detailing what was going on so as to make it essentially that of real time. At no point in time did the e-mails or phone calls clarify that it was a terrorist incident and not a protest and in fact many of the cables and phone calls indicated they were protestors.

and did nothing while an attack THEY KNEW was being planned

Absolutely zero evidence has came forward stating that the intelligence community or the White House knew that a terrorist attack was being planned for the consulate in Benghazi on 9/11. It has been traditional, however, for Al'Qaeda to call for killings on the anniversary of 9/11 and in this particular case it was in response to the 2nd in command of Al'Qaeda having been killed a week or so earlier in Libya. There was increased security in the area where we thought we were most likely to get attacked: Afghanistan (and other bases near that region in the Middle East). That's because no intelligence was available suggesting an attack was imminent on the consulate in Libya. There was an attack, for the record that no one seems to care about on the right, in Afghanistan that claimed several NATO lives 2 of which were US soldiers. But we never hear the right wing talk about those deaths that also took place on 9/11 because the right wing doesn't give a @!$%# since they can't be used for the conspiracy. But that's my own personal gripe. Anyways at the very most what this shows is that our intelligence on Libya was off which does point to an intelligence problem. I have maintained that we will likely find out that Al'Qaeda infiltrated the military and/or police forces of the Libyan government (if true that's an issue we STILL haven't dealt with because of all this bull@!$%# conspiracy nonsense) and that someone tipped off Al'Qaeda that the ambassador was in Benghazi that day from within the Libyan government. I also believe that we will find intelligence dropped the ball at some point in time which lead to the lack of tightened security. But as of yet we have zero evidence for my theory or the conspiracy.

subjected these 4 Americans to being sodomized and dragged through the streets of Libya

Yeah no one was raped. I have no idea where this comes from

Scottie just makes stupid statements. He never reads the replies or pays any attention to the proof offered so don't even waste your time answering, although I did enjoy your very informative answer.

LOTS of Liberals in conservative areas...we will see.

Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with
experience.
- Samuel L. Clemens

Patriotic Liberal? as you D-bags trash a war hero as a result of his exposing the Criminal behavior of these Chicago slime balls currently residing in the White House speaks to what Liberals lack in moral clarity and the general lack of Patriotism when it comes to defending the Bill Clinton's and Hussein Obama's that reside in the Democratic party. Urinate on a war hero instead of calling a criminal a criminal.

Never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with
experience.
- Samuel L. Clemens

Duh! Clearence Thomas continually harrased a woman and flashed his genitals at her!

Yes, the headline is misleading.

And the office isn't vacant yet, although Secretary Clinton has announced that she plans to retire from it.

The Midwest is well enough armed, thank you. SOMEBODY should be keeping close eye on the Criminal in the White house.

You do know, don't you that neither Nixon, nor Reagan nor GW Bush are President?

Because only if you didn't know would what you posted make any sense!

Liberals are a despicable bunch that at every chance has slandered a guy that has served his country with great distinction to cover the tracks of a guy in the White house that basically MURDERED 4 Americans then went about covering it up. You people are nothing short of despicable.

@Scott-3blahblahblah

Gotta say, it's pretty entertaining watching you become more and more untethered from reality as your posts propagate. Keep it up!

It is hardly surprising that Liberals defend a criminal over a Military hero. That has been the norm since Viet Nam. The Truth on this cover-up is unfolding on a daily basis and this is much,much more serious than Bubba's adultery and lying afterwards. This is clearly an incompetent Administration that cost these Americans their lives and then set about trying to deceive the American Public to the point of laying the blame at the feet of an American citizen when knowing all the while THEY were at fault. You MUST be kidding or oblivious to the world around you.

to cover the tracks of a guy in the White house that basically MURDERED 4 Americans then went about covering it up

This never happened. There was never any cover up and the White House didn't murder anyone and no one is covering the tracks of the White House

to the point of laying the blame at the feet of an American citizen

But the US citizen in question wasn't ever blamed or even mentioned by name by the administration. What was brought into focus was the YouTube video which did cause protests in over 2 dozen countries including Libya. At the MOST you'd be crying incompetence because the administration did not know whether or not the attack was a protest or a pre-planned terrorist incident and then you'd be getting mad that the administration took a position it should not have before it actually knew. OK in which case your complaint is that the administration spoke too soon. That's a far cry from a cover-up, from lying, or from allowing 4 Americans to be murdered.

The Liberal reaction to this is almost to the point of being shocking. He lied? So what...4 died...hey, they were just diplomats and former Military...no big deal...just..wow.