U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[jamny]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.

Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

Also sad that you didn't care about embassy bombings before 2012.

How many Americans died in the examples you so boldly cited?

10 in Karachi. In Uzbekistan, 2 were killed and 9 were wounded. 8 in Saudi Arabia. 1 in Syria. 10 in Yemen.

So, there's that.

I said Americans.

Might want to look closer. One killed in Pakistan and that wasn't at the embassy but down the block near a Marriott.

So, there's that.

Nine Americans died in the Saudi Arabia compound attacks, 31 total. Fairly similar events although executing them in Saudi Arabia is much more difficult than in what was a remote outpost in Libya.

Circumstances were different however since the Americans in Saudi Arabia were to be protected by host nation exclusively while in Libya it should have bee a mix of host nation and U.S. personnel.

In 2004?

 

[jamny]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

Also sad that you didn't care about embassy bombings before 2012.

How many Americans died in the examples you so boldly cited?

10 in Karachi. In Uzbekistan, 2 were killed and 9 were wounded. 8 in Saudi Arabia. 1 in Syria. 10 in Yemen.

So, there's that.

I said Americans.

Might want to look closer. One killed in Pakistan and that wasn't at the embassy but down the block near a Marriott.

So, there's that.

Most human beings typically care when anyone dies, not just Americans. How many Americans died in Iraq?

So, there's that.

I was just pointing out the differences and why there is more attention paid to Benghazi. Do you not agree there should be more questions when Americans, including our Ambassador, are killed in an attack? Sorry, but I think there should be.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.

Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

Also sad that you didn't care about embassy bombings before 2012.

How many Americans died in the examples you so boldly cited?

10 in Karachi. In Uzbekistan, 2 were killed and 9 were wounded. 8 in Saudi Arabia. 1 in Syria. 10 in Yemen.

So, there's that.

I said Americans.

Might want to look closer. One killed in Pakistan and that wasn't at the embassy but down the block near a Marriott.

So, there's that.

Nine Americans died in the Saudi Arabia compound attacks, 31 total. Fairly similar events although executing them in Saudi Arabia is much more difficult than in what was a remote outpost in Libya.

Circumstances were different however since the Americans in Saudi Arabia were to be protected by host nation exclusively while in Libya it should have bee a mix of host nation and U.S. personnel.

In 2004?

No, I was talking about this one.

A lot happened in those two years in Saudi, I was really worried about their internal security. What they did though was become a hard target, something Bin Laden saw as too difficult to influence even though this was perhaps his #1 goal (even more than destroying American influence in the region, or America itself). As an aside, Saif al-Adel the Al-Qaeda that was recently implicated in the Canadian bomb plot, was said to be the chief architect behind all the Saudi attacks.

 

[SmoovySmoov]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

Also sad that you didn't care about embassy bombings before 2012.

How many Americans died in the examples you so boldly cited?

10 in Karachi. In Uzbekistan, 2 were killed and 9 were wounded. 8 in Saudi Arabia. 1 in Syria. 10 in Yemen.

So, there's that.

I said Americans.

Might want to look closer. One killed in Pakistan and that wasn't at the embassy but down the block near a Marriott.

So, there's that.

Most human beings typically care when anyone dies, not just Americans. How many Americans died in Iraq?

So, there's that.

I was just pointing out the differences and why there is more attention paid to Benghazi. Do you not agree there should be more questions when Americans, including our Ambassador, are killed in an attack? Sorry, but I think there should be.

Definitely. But, I also feel that those questions have been answered, ad nauseum, and that those who continue to harp on it are doing so purely because of politics, not because they care more for American lives than the current administration does.

 

[Slapdash]

Still confused what the conspiracy is supposed to be here. False flag?

 

[Novice2]

The FBI has just issued a NSL to the FFA therefore any further posts shall be forbidden!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

The tragedy isn't the issue. This nonsense is still in the news b/c of the administration's approach of not calling it a "terrorist attack" for a couple of weeks. So all of this is about semantics.

Which is absolutely ridiculous.

The administration tried to call it a demonstration based on a anti-muslim video that got out of hand.. That's not semantics, that's an outright lie..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this.

And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again?

Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

The tragedy isn't the issue. This nonsense is still in the news b/c of the administration's approach of not calling it a "terrorist attack" for a couple of weeks. So all of this is about semantics.

Which is absolutely ridiculous.

The administration tried to call it a demonstration based on a anti-muslim video that got out of hand.. That's not semantics, that's an outright lie..

Welcome to page 4.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

The tragedy isn't the issue. This nonsense is still in the news b/c of the administration's approach of not calling it a "terrorist attack" for a couple of weeks. So all of this is about semantics.

Which is absolutely ridiculous.

The administration tried to call it a demonstration based on a anti-muslim video that got out of hand.. That's not semantics, that's an outright lie..

Welcome to page 4.

Cliff notes?

 

[jonessed]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

 

[Fennis]

so there is that

 

[sporthenry]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

 

[jonessed]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources.

Several witnesses seem to be calling that into question, hence the hearings.I don't know if we will ever get the complete story or exactly why the administration lied, but I would likt to hear what the people closest to it have to say.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this.

And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again?

Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources.

Several witnesses seem to be calling that into question, hence the hearings.

Military personnel'?

 

[sporthenry]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

They obviously left this embassy without security...

If there were not attacks or imminent threats in the other areas, it makes no sense what so ever to not send help to where it was needed..

I'll look for a link.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this.

And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again?

Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

Helicopters sitting on the ground in italy

 

[sporthenry]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

They obviously left this embassy without security...

If there were not attacks or imminent threats in the other areas, it makes no sense what so ever to not send help to where it was needed..

I'll look for a link.

Where was it ever written that the Benghazi embassy didn't have security?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

We're you outraged about Abu Ghraib? How about Valerie Plame?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this.

And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again?

Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

Helicopters sitting on the ground in italy

So on one hand, we have an editorial from Investors Business Daily. On the other we have Panetta and Dempsey.

Who do you think has a more informed and accurate opinion as to the events and strategic possibilities of the US military capability in Libya?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this.

And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again?

Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

Helicopters sitting on the ground in italy

So on one hand, we have an editorial from Investors Business Daily. On the other we have Panetta and Dempsey.

Who do you think has a more informed and accurate opinion as to the events and strategic possibilities of the US military capability in Libya?

Which do you think is more likely to be involved in a coverup?

 

[-fish-]

Still confused what the conspiracy is supposed to be here. False flag?

Massive conspiracy by the government causing nobody to care.

 

[Apple Jack]

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

They obviously left this embassy without security...

If there were not attacks or imminent threats in the other areas, it makes no sense what so ever to not send help to where it was needed..

I'll look for a link.

Where was it ever written that the Benghazi embassy didn't have security?

A couple body guards, and Apache attack helicopters aren't nearly comparable..

 

[tommyGunZ]

Which do you think is more likely to be involved in a coverup?

So your position is that the Chairman of the US Joints Chief of Staff and the Director of the CIA are involved in a massive cover up so that the Obama administration could delay referring to the Benghazi incident as a "terrorist attack" for ~ 3 weeks?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this. And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again? Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

They obviously left this embassy without security...

If there were not attacks or imminent threats in the other areas, it makes no sense what so ever to not send help to where it was needed..

I'll look for a link.

Where was it ever written that the Benghazi embassy didn't have security?

A couple body guards, and Apache attack helicopters aren't nearly comparable..

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

 

[RBM]

Can't imagine there is a bigger, more glaring example of the ridiculous media bias in this country than with this story.Sad that people on this board and in this administration would rather mock the tragedy than figure out what happened.

We're you outraged about Abu Ghraib? How about Valerie Plame?

So similar to Benghazi right?

 

[sporthenry]

Nobody (or most people) doesn't care because most of the media adores Obama and won't go on and on about anything that makes him look bad, but trust me, if the switch was flipped and it had been a Republican in the White House when this happened, they wouldn't stop talking about it, and then plenty of people would care. But the media for the most part doesn't talk about it, and when it is brought up, you get that "Oh, we are still talking about this?" answer from the White House. Jay Carney even said last week that Benghazi was a "long time ago" , so that shows you how much the White House is trying to bury this.

And of course the GOP's interest in this is politically-motivated, but that doesn't mean that there is nothing there. And if the situation had been reversed, as I said earlier, the GOP would have done everything possible to bury it as well, so this is nothing new, from either side. They both suck.

Bury what? The important questions to be raised are all about why we didn't have adequate security at the embassy. What was the process and why did it fail? How can we improve the system so that we can prevent this from happening again, or how can react more quickly and provide aid when it inevitably does happen again?

Of course those aren't the questions being asked by House Republicans. They simply want to know why the administration was cautious with calling it a terrorist attack afterward. Which is silly.

I think the opposition wants to know why the ambassadors requests for help where denied not once but 3 times..

That's the big question for me. I don't care about BS'ing talking points.I want to know why we left these people hanging out to dry both before and during the attack.

Well that is all that matters and that question seems to have been answered, hence why the Republicans have moved on from this talking point to the "B/S" as you put it. The military has said that there wasn't enough time to get resources. That they couldn't abandon the Tripoli outpost or others b/c similar threats existed throughout the Middle East. If they really sat on their thumbs and didn't do anything, that might be something but when both Panetta and Dempsey have said they couldn't get any more resources there, I'm going to believe them over most others.

Then it comes down to whether the embassy should have had more security. As Panetta said, they had 281 threats in the 6 months leading up to it. And obviously their threat matrix failed them which is why they didn't have any more security either in Benghazi or in surrounding areas. But that is also why 4 State Department employees resigned b/c presumably it was their fault why the cable wasn't acted upon.

I disagree. I read somewhere that they had the ability to have helicopters in the area but choose not to. There is a difference between, "there is a threat of violence" and "an actual attack on an American installation".. So, Americans were under attack, but there was a threat of violence somewhere else, not an actual attack, maybe not even a real threat, so to bad, so sad?

I didn't say that. But you also don't leave other consulates and embassies without security. If you have the resources sure, but you don't take all of Tripoli's security and risk even further issues. And I'm gonna need a on the helicopter.

Helicopters sitting on the ground in italy

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/panetta-benghazi-hearing/index.html

Panetta said a Marine security team platoon stationed in Spain was ordered to prepare for deployment while another platoon prepped to head to the embassy in Tripoli. A Special Operations force, then training in Central Europe, was told to prepare to deploy to a staging base in Southern Europe, and another Special Ops force, based in the United States, was told to prepare to move there, too.

"Some have asked why other types of armed aircraft were not dispatched to Benghazi," he said. Armed drones, AC-130 gunships or fixed-wing fighters with the associated tanking, armaments, targeting and support capabilities were not near Libya, and it would have taken at least nine hours to deploy, he said.

That followed these comments from Dempsey

Later in his testimony, Dempsey told Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, that the bases in the Mediterranean have aircraft, which "wasn't the right tool for the particular threat we faced."

Dempsey noted that, at the time, he was also concerned with other potential flashpoints -- Sanaa, Yemen; Khartoum, Sudan; Islamabad and Peshawar, Pakistan; Kabul, Afghanistan; and Baghdad, Iraq. "We had some pretty significant intel threat streams against those places as well," he said.

So what you'll have on Wednesday is Hicks saying aircraft would have scared the fighters in his professional opinion when we already have the Joint Chief saying it wasn't an aircraft mission. So do we listen to the Joint Chief or a Foreign diplomat regarding war and attacks?

And as far as the extra troops from Libya. They had already sent 7 reinforcements in from Tripoli. And this talk of the troops who were ordered to stand down. You know how many troops were going? 4. If it really was that bad, 4 troops probably wouldn't have done anything. Not to mention the little detail that they wouldn't have arrived until the fighting was over.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

I am completely baffled by any claims that there weren't American, and or American allied jets and helicopters within striking distance in one of the most hostile and militarized areas in the world..

We're talking about the middle east here... Seriously? The attack lasted 6 hours.. You really think everything we had was more than 6 hours away in the middle east?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I am completely baffled by any claims that there weren't American, and or American allied jets and helicopters within striking distance in one of the most hostile and militarized areas in the world..

We're talking about the middle east here... Seriously? The attack lasted 6 hours.. You really think everything we had was more than 6 hours away in the middle east?

According to your editorial source, the Jets and Helis were not within distance. They were in northern Italy.

Read the article, they stated they were never moved to Southern Italy.

Over 1000 miles away.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Which do you think is more likely to be involved in a coverup?

So your position is that the US Joints Chief of Staff and the Director of the CIA are involved in a massive cover up so that the Obama administration could delay referring to the Benghazi incident as a "terrorist attack" for ~ 3 weeks?

There has already been false information given from white house officials. Wouldn't you agree the white house does influence military officials?

General Petraeus was scheduled to testify on the events and all of the sudden a little birdie turns his life inside out with the infidelity scandal which after talks with the pres brings him to leaving his position and missing the hearing.. Could be a coincidence, maybe not... Politicians are dirty...

 

[sporthenry]

I am completely baffled by any claims that there weren't American, and or American allied jets and helicopters within striking distance in one of the most hostile and militarized areas in the world..

We're talking about the middle east here... Seriously? The attack lasted 6 hours.. You really think everything we had was more than 6 hours away in the middle east?

Well that is the big question. I don't know the answer but I assume that Panetta and Dempsey don't go under oath and lie about something which could be easily verified by someone else. Maybe someone with military experience can chime in but I tend to think that things don't go together as quickly as we see them in movies.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

You are the accuser here, not me.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Which do you think is more likely to be involved in a coverup?

So your position is that the Chairman of the US Joints Chief of Staff and the Director of the CIA are involved in a massive cover up so that the Obama administration could delay referring to the Benghazi incident as a "terrorist attack" for ~ 3 weeks?

This happened right before the election.. You you going insist that the Obama administration would have had no political implications here one way or the other and they had no motive to try covering up a failure to handle the events properly?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

You are the accuser here, not me.

No, I'm the one who wants the truth not you..

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

You are the accuser here, not me.

No, I'm the one who wants the truth not you..

The "truth" from that article you espouse is that the jets and helis were not within a timely distance.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Ok, never mind.. It's totally inconceivable that our government could have completely mishandled a situation, or that there may have been political ramifications so close to an election.. So unbelievable that our government could lie to us or put a deceptive spin on something.. I mean we're talking about politicians here. We know they are always honest..

When out politicians screw up they just admit it.. Especially right before they are up for election.. Good old honest American politics.. O wait, they don't screw up.. Sorry, I forgot..

 

[Politician Spock]

I am completely baffled by any claims that there weren't American, and or American allied jets and helicopters within striking distance in one of the most hostile and militarized areas in the world..

We're talking about the middle east here... Seriously? The attack lasted 6 hours.. You really think everything we had was more than 6 hours away in the middle east?

Well that is the big question. I don't know the answer but I assume that Panetta and Dempsey don't go under oath and lie about something which could be easily verified by someone else. Maybe someone with military experience can chime in but I tend to think that things don't go together as quickly as we see them in movies.

I disagree with the bolded. I think A Few Good Men drew it out far longer than was needed to figure out Colonel Jessup was lying.

 

[Christo]

Why are we saying, "so there's that" all the time? You guys sound like my 13-year-old niece.

whatev

 

[Carolina Hustler]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

You are the accuser here, not me.

No, I'm the one who wants the truth not you..

The "truth" from that article you espouse is that the jets and helis were not within a timely distance.

How fast do you think a jet flies? This attack went on for 6 hours... Do some math..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

 

[sporthenry]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

You are the accuser here, not me.

No, I'm the one who wants the truth not you..

The "truth" from that article you espouse is that the jets and helis were not within a timely distance.

How fast do you think a jet flies? This attack went on for 6 hours... Do some math..

The attack didn't go on for 6 hours.

Panetta said that U.S. officials learned in the months after the incident that "there were actually two short-duration attacks that occurred some six hours apart," the first on the consulate and the second on an annex two miles away.

"The bottom line is this: That we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault, which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response, very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region," he said.

Dempsey said he could not have gotten troops on the ground within 13 to 15 hours.

Phillips told Hicks that the nearest planes were at Aviano Air Base in Italy and that it would take two to three hours to get them off the ground, the diplomat told congressional staffers. There also were no aircraft nearby that could have refueled airborne planes.

“The answer was, it’s too far away, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond,” he said.

 

[sporthenry]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

I'd say it is much more the other way of so many willing to make this political b/c of their party affiliation. I've said if evidence came out that they sat on their hands, I'd condemn them but at this point, the Republicans are just grasping for straws.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

You are the accuser here, not me.

No, I'm the one who wants the truth not you..

The "truth" from that article you espouse is that the jets and helis were not within a timely distance.

How fast do you think a jet flies? This attack went on for 6 hours... Do some math..

You needed HELIS. How long to get helis there? What about logistics?

You were not going to fire rockets on the embassy from a flying Jet.

But obviously you are going to say damn near anything.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

You are the accuser here, not me.

No, I'm the one who wants the truth not you..

The "truth" from that article you espouse is that the jets and helis were not within a timely distance.

How fast do you think a jet flies? This attack went on for 6 hours... Do some math..

The attack didn't go on for 6 hours.

>

Panetta said that U.S. officials learned in the months after the incident that "there were actually two short-duration attacks that occurred some six hours apart," the first on the consulate and the second on an annex two miles away.

"The bottom line is this: That we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault, which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response, very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region," he said.

Dempsey said he could not have gotten troops on the ground within 13 to 15 hours.

Phillips told Hicks that the nearest planes were at Aviano Air Base in Italy and that it would take two to three hours to get them off the ground, the diplomat told congressional staffers. There also were no aircraft nearby that could have refueled airborne planes.

“The answer was, it’s too far away, there are no tankers, there is nothing, there is nothing that could respond,” he said.

 

[pantherclub]

You are pinning your entire stance from that editorial article with zero references? Good luck with that.

Are you pinning yours on what you're being told by the same government that has lied about the matter already?

You are the accuser here, not me.

No, I'm the one who wants the truth not you..

The "truth" from that article you espouse is that the jets and helis were not within a timely distance.

How fast do you think a jet flies? This attack went on for 6 hours... Do some math..

wtf do you think a jet is going to do?

Good Lord dude at least show an inkling of common sense on they threads you go all in on.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So many are willing to just look the other way because of their party affiliation..

I'd say it is much more the other way of so many willing to make this political b/c of their party affiliation. I've said if evidence came out that they sat on their hands, I'd condemn them but at this point, the Republicans are just grasping for straws.

I'm not affiliated with either political party and I want answers.. The current administration has tried to hide the truth.. So if I have to ride the backs of politicians bent on self promotion to get the answers I'm looking for then so be it...

The fact that republicans have something to gain by uncovering a mishandled situation where Americans died is besides the point. If they are promoted in some way by the process, maybe that's just deserts.. Don't lie to the American public..