They will not be satisfied until they can force President Obama to testify and admit publicly that he is in fact a lifelong member of Al Qaeda and that he personally tried to cover up their involvement because he helped them plan and organize the attack as part of his grand scheme to help them rise to power across the middle east and Africa and then to destroy Israel and America. Anything less in their conspiracy-ridden, addled minds is insufficient.

As the song goes, they "cain't git no...satisfaction."

Graham proves two things: a) South Carolina really is too small to be a republic and too large to be an asylum, and b) we should have turned that traitor's swamp into a desert in 1865 when we had the chance.

I have to applaud you for this brilliant comment. You have made my day with this. In much admiration.....

As long as the Rethuglicans insist on making it impossible to close Gitmo, then Miss Lindsey and a lot more of them should be shipped there, pronto.

Yep. Let's have another round of cheers for Harry Reid and his masterful handling of McConnell's Senate manglers and filibuster "reform."

Dystopic: Once again, you strive to engrave the definition of disengenuous onto your forehead. Blaming Harry Reid for Republican insanity makes a suggestion about the "fillibuster reform" proposal that has no basis in truth, the proposal obviously would not stop what Graham claims he is going to do. You are just as dishonest as Lindsay Graham, literally no better when you try to suggest the Senate would be peaches and cream if only Harry Reid would put his foot down. It personifies an intellectual laziness you show over and over in this forum...

Aww..., it's so cute when our Lebowsky Dud and resident Dependably Useless Democrat shows up to make his defense of the spineless. Then while erroneously accusing somebody else of something -- intellectually lazy this time -- does that exact same thing by constructing a strawman that, even with that specious and useful construct, can't even knock it down. As if anybody believes the Senate would or could ever be "peaches and cream."

Strange act, this Lebowsky Dud. And creatures like him are the reason Democrats have put on this 20+ year show of spinelessness in the face of bullies.

Disdainfortruth: Go right ahead and outline for us the specifics in the fillibuster reform proposal that would apply to Grahams threat. Of course you won't be able to do that IMHO, but I am willing to listen. You use Harry Reid as a crutch, a living excuse for all your complaints about the Senate, as if Reid had a magic tonic he is holding out for reasons unexplained. This is all bluster from a dishonest loser who will be facing a primary challenge, and you want to blame it on one of the only adults in the room.

Getting a little tired of you two insulting each other. Get a life.

Just about as embarrassing as "open mike night" at the comedy club, when Lindsay refused to yield the microphone, yelling, "I just had sex, and boy, are my lips chapped!"

"They don't trust him because they think he's gay."

Gosh all golly gee, I have a little something in common with the TP people. Only, I don't trust him because he's totally untrustworthy.

OpEds are based on opinion and you have to read more than the title of a document to understand its importance.

Shooter- Harry Turtledove writes books that you would really, really enjoy. In fact, you should send Mr. Turtledove some of your "thoughts" for possible use in future books.

It's the Post...Nuff said

Stevens died large in part because of smoke inhalation in a fire. Next bogus question that "hasn't been answered". Better question he's dead, does it really matter how?

Epic fail.

And you know this, how?

And you know this, how?

ARB committee report on the Benghazi attacks page 26, paragraph #2:

"....With the clearing of smoke, Ambassador Stevens’ rescuers found him within a room in the safe area of Villa C, did not know his identity, pulled him out through an egress window, and sought medical attention for him. Although the Ambassador did not show signs of life upon arrival at the BMC, doctors attempted to resuscitate him for some 45 minutes before declaring him deceased, by apparent smoke inhalation."

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

And once again he's dead it's really not all that important how so it's hardly an important question. What difference at this point does it make? Not only are you mistaken you're creating a foolish narrative. The fact that Stevens died in a fire doesn't matter.

Lindsay Graham is a bad joke. He just can't stop his attention getting tactics. I am very tired of this miserable twit.

Lindsey Graham isn't coming out to deny these allegations so they must be true. Time a for a hearing and a full investigation into Graham Clowngate. The people deserve to know.

kevo, Pope Benedict XVI is resigning due to ill health and advancing years.

http://www.armstrongmywire.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA4CF1681%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=931

Lindsay Graham needs to reign as well.

The kettle has a claim against the Pope there .

typo: #11.1

Resign! Not reign! LOL, Graham probably believes he should reign!

Lindsay needs to shut up.

Ratzi the Nazi is likely resigning because someone found the mother of all smoking guns in the Vatican archives from back in the day when he was running the Inquisition and threatening anyone who wanted to expose their Pervert Protection Plan. And he's going to be replaced by the votes of a crew that includes such spiritually-eminent folks as Roger Mahoney, exposed as a protector of perverts and conspirator to obstruct justice, or the Archbishop of Ireland, exposed as the protector of monks, nuns and priests who abused Irish orphans for 70 years (at least), not to mention all the other obstructors of justice and protectors of perverts in the Red Hat Gang, who will elect one of their own to continue the conspiracy.

I'm thinking along the same lines TCinLA!

Pope Benedict, perhaps, is resigning so, hopefully, the Catholic Church can pivot more cleanly into its post-pedophilia era! -Kevo

Zora, A-men!

Is there a cure for egomania?

Yes, there is a cure for egomania, but it is awfully final, and you probably wouldn't approve.

India: The proposed rules would have not outlawed the fillibuster, only modified it. Graham has not actually done anything yet, it's all bluster. Nowhere in any rules is bluster outlawed, Graham will need fourty of his colleagues to manage this proposed fillibuster, and he does not even have John McCain on board with that. Of course you can opine whatever you like about Harry Reid, but this notion that Reid is responsible for Republican Senate intransigence is not based in fact IMHO.

If the Republicans are successful in derailing Hagel, then one of two things will happen: We will either 1) make a Democrat Secretary of Defense, instead of having another Republican there; or 2) go through Obama's second term without a Secretary of Defense.

After all, Republicans are perfectly comfortable with having many government agencies (ATF, FTC, FCC at times, etc.) function without having anyone at the helm. I wonder what would happen if the Senate simply didn't confirm anyone?

How can we Democrats ever forgive Harry Reid for caving in to Mitch McConnell on the filibuster? Don't Democrats ever learn who they are dealing with?

Well according to Harry Reid it was democratic senators who were too scared to vote for it because apparently they don't wat to have to do talking filibusters if there's a GOP president(Not a huge threat anytime soon by the way lol).

I would like to know the names of those senators if that is true, it makes no sense at all. This would not have done anything other than force people to put effort into blocking legislation.

And MP if the GOP block Hagel then they can stop saying how much they care about the DOD. That's the last thing we need right now I would be furious if they played that game.

Hysteria-mongering troll talking points.

Except there was no heavy push on any video, the administration never once asserted any of the early statements as fact and were very intention to say it was their best assessment at the time.

Protests around the world were stoked by al qaeda thugs as the next perceived slight by all of America and they don't have jobs so why not go riot it's not like they ever have anything better to do. Al Qaeda very much used this pathetic excuse for cinema as propaganda. That says nothing important about the video itself it's simply the administration that it was used to create semi-faux outrage. Whether one finds that logical or not is irrelavet because that is what happened.

Honestly we all know you people thought that the attack could have had some relation to all these other international riots just like everyone else so don't pretend that is a crazy assumption. You made it too and you know it...either that or you're stupid to realize some things aren't a coincidence. Now in this case we were all wrong but that does not mean it was an illogical hypothesis. In fact we still don't know for sure why the attack happened when it did, we can make educated guesses but there's no solid proof to suuport any explanation to be entirely honest. Technically we can not be certain we will never know, luckily for us it really doesn't matter.

You people are so caught up in Obama hatred you can't see anything outside of pointing fingers and blame when the efforts of the administration was never to deflect criticism, simply to explain what they thought happened at the time.

Honestly anyone really think if there had been a protest the people would be just fine what happened in Benghazi, you think people would be more sympathetic? You see thinking you have that the American people are stupid is what keeps losing you elections. 4 dead people is four dead people no matter what happened.

More importantly in case you don't know this but releasing specific operational evidence to the media the next day is big no, no for intelligence agencies. Like it or not you don't go on and tell everything you know to the chattering class. Police do this often, law enforcement routinely makes sure that the people are not told the entire story because doing so takes away their potential advantage by tipping the bad guys off.

To say the video had a part in some way no matter how small in the protests or riots in the Arab world is not a value statement it is just the simple fact. That is not blaming anything because "blaming" implies that the intention is to pass accountability when in this case it is intended to say what did occur. It has nothing to do with whether or not we think a video like this should not have been used as propaganda but it was, nothing changes that.

If you want to see lies look at Darth Cheney who to this day refuses to admit

Citizen, I appreciate your attempt to exonerate the administration, but your arguments are not very persuasive.

First off, you claim 'there was no heavy push on any video.' That is flatly not true. What was Susan Rice doing when she was sent out by the Administration with those talking points to FIVE different Sunday talk shows? What was Jay Carney talking about during those days? What were Pres. Obama and Sec. Clinton doing when they kept referring to the video and to the need for religious tolerance? Read the transcripts of Susan Rice's talk show appearances -- in every case she states that according to the best available evidence, the incident in Benghazi started as a protest to the "awful" YouTube video. Of course she's not going to state it as fact but that's hardly the point. The purpose of the Administration sending her out there was to establish a narrative about what happened.

[One way in which she goes completely wrong is in telling us that the YouTube story is the "best available information." No one has ever been able to substantiate the information or intelligence that the YouTube story relied on.]

You seem to have trouble recognizing the political implications of controlling the narrative. The political implications were being well-discussed at the time. This was an Ambassador and three other Americans being killed -- the first time in many, many years that a US Ambassador had been assassinated. Other countries (England, for example) had pulled out of the Benghazi area because they viewed it as getting too dangerous. This was just two months before election day. It would not look good for Obama and the Administration, nor for Hillary Clinton who wants to run for President in 2016, if they had been caught with their pants down, so to speak, by lax security and an inability to respond to an emergency situation involving a high-ranking diplomat or US security personnel.

If the blame for instigating the attack could be shifted away from Obama and Clinton, they could salvage themselves politically.

The narrative of an unexpected, unpredictable attack on the Ambassador, rising spontaneously in response to some yay-hoo, intolerant, offensive, anti-Muslim idiot with a video camera was just the sort of deflection the Administration could utilize.

The point is, that the Obama Team was actively pushing a particular narrative on the American people that they knew they did not have evidence for -- yet it served a political purpose to deflect accountability.

Final note: you are completely wrong about my being "caught up in Obama hatred" such that I cannot see what's really going on. I do not hate anyone. I do not, however, wear azure-tinted glasses. I don't interpret Obama through a blue lens.

The Obama administration did not blame any video they simply asserted it may have played a hand in a protest that was thought to have happened as there were numerous concurents incidents around the world where protesters claerly were stoken by al qaeda propaganda. This propaganda according to the rioters themselves was connected to this video, it was simply the latest in a never ending string of events extremists used to iflame hatred of the US.

You claim it was stated as clear fact and then say they ever said it was final. You can criticize the inarticulate nature of Mrs. Rice and that the administration should have gotten more facts before going forward however you have nothing to substantiate any willful deception.

If there was a cover up what was covered up? If you want to do a cover of deaths you should start by making sure no one knows about those deaths in the first place. Your assertion that the american people would have felt better about the situation if the end result was the same is moronic. If you trully think people would not have been upset if there was a protest, so be it but it's still idiotic.

Clearly the people found out and Obama still won the election how would they have done that if this was such a huge scandal. From the beginning faux news and your ilk crafted conspiracies of all kinds on the issue before the election and roughly 2/3 of the nation did not believe it then so clearly not politically harmself and yes it was covered by every network.

The attack indeed came from nowhere as there was no operational intelligence to suggest a specific incident of this nature was going to occur in Benghazi. None. The reports and testimony of the real experts have made that clear unless Obama, Clinton, Panetta, Pickering, Mullen, a senate investigative committee and the CIA was all laying. You know it's a bogus theory when you have to bring more and more people in to support your conspiracy.

You on the right have invented myth after myth from gunning running to Turkey, to the guards not having any bullets, the claim military forces were near by, that the fighting lasted for 7 hours without any ceasing, that the POTUS did not authorize the state department and the dod to do whatever they believed was neccessary, that the administration never said it had any connection to terrorism....and list goes on for miles. No one believes any of it because the reports show it to be untrue yet you still will push them.

The administration was clearly caught with it's pants down unless you're wacko enough to think no one knew about the only important part ie the dead americans until after the election. You see most people are smart enough to recognize that when we have a national incident we do not point fingers first before discussing real solutions.

No has said or believed if the video did not happen there would have been no attack. If you're not smart enough to comprehend that the story was that a protest similar to ones going on across the world towards american culture sparked this time by some video and that attackers supposedly showed up during that to take advantage of the situation.....so be it. The story was never that the protest was an attack or the protesters in the story were there to attack simply that those who do hate america showed up while the guard would have been distracted. It did not happen and no one has refused to admit they were wrong. If you're to dumb to understand this is incompetence not conspiracy then I don't care but in the future lets not add to the fog of war by making up lies with the chattering class. Lets go after the terrorists more than the president. Your belief is as smart as the idiots who think GW had something to do with 9/11

Sure Graham is playing political games, but why should that be a surprise? That's par for the course in Washington. Have you forgotten about the confirmation shenanigans pulled by the Democrats in the cases of Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Pricilla Owen, Miguel Estrada and the like?

Remember when Pres. Obama was running for his first term -- how he vowed to change the way things were done in Washington? Then only a month into office when he and the Democrats were pushing the nearly trillion-dollar spending bill as a so-called economic stimulus? How did Pres. Obama sell it? Well, he ADMITTED that it had a bunch of junk in it (my phrase), but chuckled it off by telling us, "What do you expect, this is Washington!" Yeah, the same old political games.