Hi 23° | Lo 9°

Letter: Obama’s foreign failures

The Obama administration’s foreign policy is non-existent. He has relinquished our leadership role in the world as evidenced by various setbacks.

The State Department failed to increase security in Benghazi after receiving warnings of increased terrorist activity, and then the White House covered up the fiasco by blaming an internet video on the Benghazi attack.

Although we won the war in Iraq, terrorists are now in control of some Iraqi towns, and the Iraqi government has forged close ties to Iran while Iran moves closer to the development of nuclear weapons.

We will be withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan this year, but it appears President Hamid Karzai is cozying up to the Taliban. He recently released dozens of imprisoned terrorists.

The war in Syria continues in a stalemate between the government and its Shiite followers against the Sunni fighters, and it is drawing in other Middle East countries.

Vladimir Putin is reasserting Russian power with the takeover of the Crimea.

Obama’s proposed cutbacks in our military, coupled with apologies to world leaders for our successful society has reduced our stature in the world and hurt our national security.



Legacy Comments76

The only real point to make on this fine letter from Donald is that incompetence is incompetence no matter how progressives try to spin it. Failure is failure no matter how progressives try to spin it. Inability to lead is inability to lead no matter how progresives spin it. Ruling through ideology rather than upholding the oath of office is ruling through ideology rather than upholding the oath of office no matter how progressives put a spin on it. Period.

Mr. Moskowitz's letter contains a litany of statements that he fails to link in any coherent fashion, except possibly in his own mind. Each claim distorts the facts--on Benghazi, on the Crimea, on Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, on proposed cutbacks to the Pentagon, and on Obama's alleged apologies to other nations. To take one example in more detail: Republicans are treating the Benghazi attack as though the administration claimed the anti-Islamic video was the ONLY cause of the Benghazi attack, when in fact they made it clear early on that much was still uncertain, but that the video was likely to have been a significant factor in causing the attack. That the video WAS a factor was the finding of the NY Times December investigation into the attack. You can dispute the findings if you want, but the reporters based their findings on interviews with participants and witnesses, and laid out the evidence plainly. As much as some might wish reality to be simple and black/white, it is usually more complicated, and snap judgements are usually wrong and ill-informed. Most of the posts on this thread from the usual suspects are more of the same: there is little in any of them other than empty claims, and over-heated partisan bloviating.

repeating the disproved NYTIMES fairy tale simply does not make it true

"Disproved" by whom, one asks? The unsupported claims of partisan politicians and their factually impaired audience? Cite the news "source" for your claim.

Disproved by the facts.....

The problem with the claims of the frothing trolls on here--echoing the Republican lynch mob counterpart in the House, is that they're treating this as an either/or situation: either the video was at fault or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then the administration was lying. But as I've posted before, the reality from the beginning was much more complicated. The administration never claimed the video was the only cause of the attack. But was it a factor? Contrary to the hypocritical and hysterical claims of the hyperventilating Tea P'ers here, it was. Claims to the contrary rely on far-fetched conspiracy theories of the kind that constantly sprout from the manure that comprises the right-wing echo chambers that some here rely on for their sustenance. The NYTimes story remains the best single account of what happened on the ground in Benghazi.

no..the problem is probably referring to people that dont agree with you as frothing trolls...

My apologies, you aren't frothing.

The problem with you Bruce is that you are under the impression that this is all about the video. There was a lot going on prior to this horrific act. Most of which you never discuss. There were more and more terrorist camps being set up in the area, Stevens noted this in an email to the state dept. There were incidents in Benghazi that lead to the UK pulling out and I believe the Red Cross also. During that time frame the President was assuring us that the terrorists were on the run. They had it covered. The NY Times interviewed reliable sources that had no stake in what they said right Bruce? They were all honest and had no connections to any terrorist groups right? And obviously they know more than our intelligence community. The issue is not about the video, but you have to start somewhere to get the truth. The NY Times nor you want the truth. Nor do you care if you are lied to by an incompetent administration, even if the lies are in regard to security from terrorists. Basically you take the same approach to every issue. You just claim it is all about politics, conspiracy theories and refuse to look at what the real issue is. We are lied to constantly by an administration that has to cover up it's failures. Does not matter what those failures are. They have to cover up. And the way to do that is to make it about politics to get the debate away from the real issue.

You make a lot of sweeping and disjointed statements, of which some are opinions that have no basis in fact ("The NY Times nor you want the truth" [sic]) or which may be accurate and truthful as they stand, but that imply on your part some dark conspiracy involving a cover-up of a needless tragedy. Was a terrorist group involved in the attack--yes. That question was asked and answered long ago. The terrorist group responsible was Ansar-Al Sharia--not Al Qaeda, as one of the other Carpers has wrongly claimed. As to humanitarian organizations pulling out of the Benghazi region--so what? Ambassador Stevens went to the Benghazi mission knowing of the danger. CentCom General Carter Ham at least twice offered Stevens more security. Stevens refused each time. As I've written before (I think I was the first to mention it on this site) it's likely that the CIA mission in Benghazi involved taking weapons from anti-Khadafi forces and others and smuggling them to anti-Assad forces in Syria. As I've also written before, this is likely the reason for the attack, and also the bungled public relations response from the CIA,State Dept. and the WH. The CIA was covering up its secret mission, using the video as justification for the attack because it seemed plausible, given the sudden outbreak of violence in Egypt and elsewhere directly related to it. Stevens was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Times article quotes several participants in the attack as saying the video did play a role in the attack. There have been several Congressional investigations, one by the DOD, one by State Dept.. For those who are fair-minded, the questions regarding Benghazi have already been answered. The latest inquisition, prompted by the new e-mail (which adds nothing new BTW) is politics plain and simple. It's being led by Trey Gowdy, who in another context has disparaged the concept of "expert witnesses". Darrell Issa, for another, has repeatedly made knowingly false claims about the Benghazi attack. The words of these two strongly support the belief that this new investigation is not interested in the truth, but only in insinuation and smear of the WH and Clinton, in an election year. Many of the comments on this thread are in a similar vein--filled with insinuation and dark hints of conspiracy, when it was the fog of war combined with naivete or recklessness on Stevens' part that led to this tragedy. Stevens' "sin" was that he cared so deeply about Libya and its people that he willingly risked his life on a daily basis to see their revolution through to a successful conclusion. He is mourned in Libya as a hero. The pity is his death is being used as an excuse for partisan fighting and fund-raising.

Tripe, conjecture, spinning of the facts and providing cover at any cost for obama.

Feel free to point out the "tripe, conjecture, and spinning" in my post.

Maybe it was Lara Logan.

My final word on this investigation. Since I don't think it can be worded any better- "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. " -------Hillary Clinton to Senate Foreign Relations Committee

"What difference does it make?" in a snarky, bitchy tone. Totally unacceptable for an administration member and for a future leader. Enough said. It IS the job of this select committee to figure out what happened and if nothing comes about because of it we can only make sure that it does not happen again. You protest too much. It reveals that you are worried about the outcome rather than concerned about the truth.

I lied, as long as you keep the idiotic responses coming it sucks me back in. What's snarky. The select committee of GOP with an agenda is just a farce. And what difference does this email issue really make? None. I protest against what I see as nothing but a bunch of right wingers trying to make a big issue out of Nothing. So if I protest it is because there is only one thing that irritates me more than right wing soap box thumping and that is what I view as intellectually changed responses on this subject - no fear on my part. And FTR her response was directed at a particularly belligerent GOP Senator. You see context is the key. By choosing just 5 words from her response you show your true color. I can't help it if the future President scares LIRV's.

Well of course GCarson. Just a witch hunt. The Dems did everything in their power to make sure these invesigations were provided with all the info they requested. That happened with all the investigations. Hillary got up there and told what she knew. Lerner was incredibly forthcoming with her testimony. Holder was also helpful. Everybody that testified at these hearings that disputed what the Dems put out there, lied. And yes Petreaus stepped down because of his affair the day before he was suppose to testify. Morrell did not change his testimony right. Cummings also by the way did his little act on purpose. He took a hissy fit when it was exposed that he sent letters to True The Vote. He was outed and did not like it. Of course all of us that actually know what happened in these hearings saw pretty quickly the tough questions that the Dems on the panel pressed to get answers and find out the truth.

Maybe you should skip Fox for a day or two, and see how the rest of the country views these constant investigations and how no other work is going to be done DC until after the elections. The Reps are playing to their base and pretending to have some high moral calling, but the fact that they are fund raising on Benghazi proves their real motive.

It all boils down to politics if you are a leftie. Nothing needs to be fixed, investigated or looked at. Why are you lefties so quick to brush away incompetence? How many more scandals and lies do you need before you see what is in front of your face. Why the denial? Is it so hard to accept the fact that president Obama lies, has a level of incompetence that he is trying to hide, and basically admitted on TV that he does not like mundane tasks like attending briefings? He wants the title but does not want to put the work in. He likes to campaign period. He surrounds himself with folks that are not up to the task also. That is what is evident. I have not seen one of you lefties on this forum actually evaluate his performance on anything, ever. You brush aside everything. When he cannot read a spread sheet and invests in green companies, you give him a pass. He lied about the ACA, you give him a pass, He allows his color to be used for political reasons, you give him a pass. What have you not given him a pass on?

Rabbit, I must disagree with you on almost every point. He admitted he doesn't like mundane tasks, what a shocker. Name one person that does - it is possible to not like something but to still do it. So your view is just innuendo. As far as surrounding himself with people not up to the task, again a very subjective claim but certainly not a distinction he has a monopoly on. As for us lefties, obviously you haven't read all my posts. I didn't think he was ever qualified, but in reality with the growing recession at the time. the office was basically radio-active. Then for his second term he was up against the perceived elitist Romney. I basically am of the mind that seldom is a first term congressman ever qualified for the office. So I agree but for different reasons. Now the "green Companies" comment is just uninformed. In 2013 there was $169.5 billion in private worldwide green investment without the gov. spending. China out spends us at a growing rate, in 2103 is was nearly 2:1. China has a plan to reach 20% of it's power usage in "green power" by 2013. Our long term plan is to drill, drill, drill. Which plan do you think is smarter? On ACA I would argue that any program of such a magnitude would be expected to be problematic and require fixing. There is the issue - your folks are only interested in killing the program not fixing it so it works better. You say lie, so be it but it really isn't that black and white. We went thru the same thing with the arrival of HMO's in the 80's, I was forced to change my Dr. then. It didn't start out as a lie but subsequent actions and events sure made it look like one. On color, I got nuthin, he's the President. You know the whole "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" ---------What pass have I given him or for that matter has anyone given him. Help me I'm in the dark here. You insinuated that I don't want an investigation. Well lets see Republican congressional investigations on Benghazi have included "13 hearings, 25,000 pages of documents and 50 briefings." There's been a Senate hearing and now the GOP wants to form a select committee of republicans over an email stressing talking points. Talking points, nothing to do with the attack or preventing another, but on what a political spokesperson was supposed to say. This is no investigation this is 2016 politics in play. So another waste of time rehashing what is already known, does not fill any relevant need.

While you are answering my first question, I forgot this. "This is about Obama, what he knew and when he knew it. " This is more about why didn't we get all the details the second it happened. This story hit the news almost immediately before it was even clear what the details were. When the story changes as more info is released, people just naturally assume some sort of cover-up when the story changes. The question is not as much who knew what when, hindsight is very convenient. The question should be - What can we do to prevent this from happening yet again.

Should be a reply to Itsa oops.

GCarson if you want the question of what can we do to prevent this from happening again, then why are you against the investigation? That would give us the best shot for asking what we can do again to avoid another blunder like this, wouldn't it? Let's get the facts and then decide or don't you want the facts?

Now that I have calmed down a bit, just explain one thing. Do you really think a GOP House Committee is an objective means of investigation or for that matter an American one. This whole process is an insult to everyone and a perfect example of guilt by innuendo. Not a single piece of concrete information exists " the smoking gun email" I read about it on Fox News and so what, it means nothing. If you are going to rely solely on right wing sources for information, then you have ZERO interest in getting at any truth. Just the same old partisan politics disguised as an investigation.

The Republicans are investigating " talking points, talking points, talking points". That is all they have talked about since Susan Rice was on tv. Even the "smoking gun email" is about talking points. Does anyone really think they care about finding out what really happened or stop it from happening again?

The fact remains that the White House knew it was a terrorist attack and for days after continued to use the video excuse. Again, what did Obama know and when did he know it? Why did they continue to lie after they knew that the cause was not a video? What was Obama doing in the 10 hours where he went missing? A question for you, do you really think that Democrats unlilaterally designing a health care system is an objective means of improving health care?

Remind me again, what was the Republican means of improving health care?

Not knowing the answer to that proves a lot of what we state offen

Readers answer this 1 question - how many CIA personnel were in a building just blocks away?. If you do not know the answer then you are a LIDV

Facts are facts. Judicial Watch has uncovered the smoking gun email...."dudes"! But at any cost and in full denial, progressives refuse to hold Obama responsible for any of his failures, gaffes and outright inability to manage or lead. And what did Nixon do, he had spies break into the Democratic pales in comparison with the Obama arrogance and the way he ignores the Constitution, picks and chooses which laws to follow and enforce, etc. Foreign Policy? What Obama foreign policy. He seems to think that his self appointed rock star status gets him a free pass on the world stage. How did that work out with Putin? Iran? to name just a couple.

Too bad you are not President and could pull a John McCain and "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," and Putin too while you are at it.

Seriously? The latest so-called "smoking gun" is more wishful thinking on the part of the right, who are once more salivating at the prospect of impeaching a Democratic president. The latest email shows once again that the WH was repeating what the CIA was claiming: that the attack on the diplomatic mission was likely due to the anti-Islamic video broadcast. Your post makes more of the same fact-free and outlandish claims we've heard on here for six years: about Obama the secret socialist/Muslim/ New World Order/Agenda 21/Warmist/ unconstitutional pretender/community organizer/ Alinsky clone. In your fevered dreams.

Any claims by anyone that this attack had anything to do with a video are 100 % false. Start with that fact and determine why we were lied to.

Says who? There is ample evidence that the video played a role in the assault. The NYTimes December investigation reached that conclusion. The Times own reporting from the ground early is evidence in support of a role for the video. "On Sept. 12, 2012, the Times reported that "fighters involved in the assault” told its reporters of being "moved to attack the mission by anger over a 14-minute, American-made video.' "Kirkpatrick and Steven Lee Myers wrote the Times' early coverage, with journalists Osama Alfitory and Suliman Ali Zway contributing on-the-ground reporting from Benghazi. The Times reported that many attackers “were determined to defend their faith from the video’s insults."

NY Times article has been debunked - save yourself more embarrassment - burn it.

Seriously Bruce, that is not what Deputy Morrell's testimony was at the hearing. He stated the video was never mentioned and that he was shocked when Rice mentioned it on TV. Basically, the WH wants to put forth that the info about the video came from the CIA. They are also putting forth that the Smoking Gun E Mail just released was not about Benghazi. Pretty much the same thing they did with the IRS scandal, blaming a rogue underling for targeting conservative groups. The are trying to cover their lies. The President was up for election. You either think folks are stupid Bruce, or you are intentionally misleading them to take responsibility off the President. But then again, your party does this again and again with every scandal. I watched every hearing on Benghazi, the IRS and Fast & Furious. I saw every Dem on those committees refuse to ask any questions to get to the truth.

Once again RabbbitNH, progressives always deflect the direct questions that everyone needs to know. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Who decided to go on the news stations and blame the video when they knew it was a terrorist attack. Like the missing 10 hours of the Nixon tapes, where was Obama during those ten hours? This is not about paranoid conspiracies or what happened under Bush or other unrelated hyperbole and rhetoric. It is about what Obama knew and when he knew it and if the information was purposely skewed to protect his re-election.

Your making too much sense Itsa. Your asking the left to use common sense. That Dude guy stated that Obama was not in the room when this was going on. He obviously only goes in there for photo OPS like the capture of Bin laden. The other thing that jumps out at me is this. We hear from all reports that Stevens repeatedly ask for more security. Then we hear from the left that he turned it down when offered twice. I believe those sources were never named. What happened in that embassy leading up to this horrific attack is also suspect. I believe England pulled out of there and there were numerous incidents that occurred. Were they not paying attention? Did Clinton miss that also? Then you add that they did not want to submit the info to the panels for months on end. Not the actions of folks that are innocent. When caught they take the 5th. Then they lie to the parents about a stupid video. The list goes on it seems with every scandal from Fast & Furious, IRS and this. How much proof do you need to realize this administration is corrupt? If they are not, why all these scandals? More added every day it seems, that points to a huge level of incompetence. If they cannot manage anything, God help us if they drop the ball on security in the US from terrorists..

Those questions have already been answered. Republicans just don't like the answers, and hope they'll be different this time, or at worst, will simply keep playing the same Benghazi card, because Republicans have little to run on this year otherwise. Unfortunately, lies and distortions of the facts can, when repeated often enough, work to fool at least some portion of the electorate. That's what Koch money can do in an election cycle, thanks to the gutting of campaign finance laws

As usual, not quite." Morell addressed what his critics have argued were damning points. He explained why the famous talking points continued to say the Benghazi assault emerged from a “protest” even though the CIA station chief in Tripoli had said the opposite in a cable two days before: At that point, the agency’s analysts still thought wrongly that it was a protest, and Morell went with the analysts. The real significance of Morell’s testimony was that he directly rebutted the GOP charge that the CIA, in concert with the White House, “cooked the books” on Benghazi with manufactured talking points that Morell knew were wrong, and then covered it up. To continue their Benghazi conspiracy-mongering, Republicans will now have to continue arguing that Morell and hundreds of others are lying. I suspect they’ll double down, once more, rather than concede that this is a losing issue that has been grotesquely blown out of proportion.

What is your fear? That something will come out? What did Obama know and when did he know it? Why did they use the excuse of the video when they knew early on that it was terrorism and why did they continue to use the video?

How many investigations have already been held? The right's grasp of the facts on this issue is as shaky on this issue as on most others they rant on, as you and others here once more try to turn this into a witch hunt. Benghazi has been investigated several times over. The facts have already come out. The alleged "smoking gun" is nothing of the sort, but it provides yet another opportunity for grandstanding politicians to pontificate, and sling mud. Or what looks like mud, but smells worse.

What Difference Does It Make, BPR. She did not see that memo, When asked the hard questions at hearings, she cried. Cripes the panel assigned to investigate this, did not even interview her and others She is protected. Had to get the evidence from elsewhere, because they would not release it. That is why it dragged on. All she did as Secretary was have photo OPs basically. No reset anywhere to change anything. The list of times Hillary has lied is there for all to see. Condi Rice is the only Secretary that should be held responsible for her actions. Hillary gets a pass, even when she claims to be a model for women, but when it comes to her husband, she is all of a sudden a woman who is fine with allowing him to embarrass and abuse her. She trashed Tammy Whynette about standing by her man, but then she did exactly the same thing. It is called having it both ways. Do as I say, not as I do.

Hillary is a Saul Alinsky disciple as is NObama.... hmmmm. HEADLINE: 65 percent wanted the next president to have different programs or policies from those of the Obama administration

"Headline" from what frothing right-wingnut site?That information is always curiously absent from your "news briefs".

Rabbit, you inadvertently always let the truth slip out. This Benghazi witch hunt is to get a real "witch" Hillary, You didn't even mention Obama. He is a lame duck anyway. If Hillary decides not to run what do you want to bet the Benghazi hearings just fizzle away.

That is what you folks want, all the scandals to just fizzle away. That is why any investigation does not go forward. Take the fifth and refuse to turn over information requested. The best thing for Reps is if Hillary runs. She will have to put on an Oscar Performance to play the poor me getting bashed by sexist Reps. How dare they ask me to debate them. Then of course she always has the huge task of keeping a lid on her husband's escapades. A few photos have snuck out, but who knows how many bimbos he has been with while she was flying all over the world to do photo OPS. Will they crawl out of the woodwork if she runs? Inquiring Minds Want To Know.

So four bipartisan congressional investigations, plus the State Dept investigation, aren't enough for you? Maybe after this one, Congress will look into the 13 attacks on diplomatic outposts that occurred during the Bush 2 years.

I doubt it Bruce because there was a Republican President in office so those events are totally OK as far as the Republican Congress is concerned

Hillary obsessed minds are the only ones that want to know.

If that is the case Tillie, how come you do not want to know. You defend Hillary at every turn. Yet you have no problem with her lies in regards to everything. The folks who are obsessed with Hillary are the ones who refuse to evaluate her performance as Secretary and want to ignore her history of lies. They also want to portray her as a victim of a witch hunt. That witch hunt narrative is to set her up if she runs. The idea there is to prevent her from having to answer questions in debates. Instead the left will pull the she is being attacked because she is a woman card. Very predictable. We know how you roll now, so we can pretty much predict how you will operate. Not all voters are stupid.

No Rabbit, we know how you roll and roll and roll. Ugh I hate these hackneyed phrases. I doubt I have mentioned Hillary more than a few times ever, so stop writing things that are not true. This whole so called "investigation" is to tarnish Hillary if she runs. Fox knows it, Republicans know it and Democrats know it. This will just embolden Dems and it will turn out just like the impeachment of Clinton for the Republicans. Your whole post is about Hillary, have you mention the deaths of four Americans at all? You can fool yourself but it very obvious.

The writers opinion I feel is a bit skewed. The underlying problem is one that we as American's don't seem to grasp properly. As a result our term of "winning" has no meaning. I do see an analogy between these countries issues and the current trend in the US of ultra partisan politics. There entire histories revolve around fighting over both cultural and religious issues. With no ability or desire to work with each other. These people have been around thousands of years longer than the US has even been in existence. There are parts of their culture and practices that we can't even grasp given our cultural set of norms. There is no winning in these areas, we may go in and win battles but we'll never win the war. Next thing you know it's back to normal and all we have to show for it are casualties. I have said it before, but the last one to conquer Afghanistan was Alexander the Great. This whole part of the world has and will continue to exist in a state of constant turmoil and no western power can do anything to prevent it. Benghazi was tragic no question but in no stretch was it the first tragic loss of life nor the worst in the last 30 years. There are no diplomatic answers to the issues the writer presented. A ground war with Russia, neither of our countries are that crazy nor are any of the NATO countries. Not everything fits into our notion of right and wrong. These countries are examples of what happens when people just won't learn to work and live with each other and would rather spend generations fighting it. The US learned to work and live together as one nation and that has been what made us great - in spite of politics. But we do love affixing blame above all.

Why do you progressives ALWAYS fail to discuss the facts at hand and search for ways to dismiss the issue at hand. "Well, Bush.......", "these people have been around thousands of years....", "you had not problem when Bush......", we just want to know when Obama knew what he knew and if they lied about the video to protect his re-election. I would think that progressives would treat this and the IRS scandal and the Fast and Furious scandal all like Iran-Contra, Watergate, etc. If not, you folks are partisan hypocrites.

Your knowledge of history appears to be non existent. The writer made reference to winning in Iraq and fighting in Afghanistan, in case you missed it, that was part of the issue at hand. Who was talking about Watergate. My issue is with the moral indignation and zeal given to the Benghazi attack. Why now, what makes this such a lightening rod of an issue? I don't see how I could have made my response any more concise or on point than I did. List just one thing I stated that was false, just one. You are pretty free with lines such as - "Why do you progressives ALWAYS fail to discuss the facts at hand and search for ways to dismiss the issue at hand. " If there is an adult in your household that can read my response to you, please have them do it. Then, I ask again what was untrue and what was off topic. Plain and simple. You accuse everyone about failing to discuss the facts and yet you do the same thing to some one that has. BTW - fast and furious, watergate, iran-contra, and the IRS were never mentioned in the letter I responded to. So what exactly are you blathering on about.

That is a great post GCarson. You cannot undo centuries of culture. Especially culture that is based on religion. We can go in there and spend money and lives, but in the end, when we leave, those countries always revert back to their way of life. We cannot be the world's caretaker. It is an admirable idea to promote democracy, but most times our efforts fail in countries that will never change their cultures.

Correct, we should not try to instill democracy in countries who do not have the ability to live with freedom. We also need a strong defense so that those countries do not impede on our freedom and democracy.

These people don't have the issue with freedom. Their issue is they can't or won't work with each other. Ring any bells?? We have a strong defense. It's measured by technology instead of boots on the ground. However we can also spend a million $$$ destroying a $27. donkey cart. The only way to deal with these issues is by occupation and that is something we won't due. Yugoslavia did it after WW2 and with an Iron Fist Tito held the country together. As soon as he died the Bosnian, Serb's and Croatian's became the recipient's of mutual genocide. You really need some history for added perspective - like it or not.

This is Hillary's FAILURE - she is the one that ran the Foreign Policy world wide globetrotting reset policy FOR 4 YEARS that ended up in the murder of the Ambassador in Benghazi - AMBASSADOR DIED - HILLARY LIED

BUSH Jr LIED AND THOUSANDS DIED! Who is the real failure here? 13 plus American Embassies attacked resulting in American deaths during Bush Jr's. tenure as President. Where is your outrage for that? Oh..wait...a republican was in office so those things are just fine. Please spare us your false indignation

This is not about what Bush did or Republicans did or someone 30 years ago might have done. This is about Benghazi, this president, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton and a host of other questions. Unfortunately, every time anyone has a question about or on this president, progressives defend it by quoting history or points to wrongs of the past. It is irrelevant as two wrongs don't make a right. This is about Obama, what he knew and when he knew it.

I don't know what it takes to get thru to you, or if it is even worth the trouble. Which I honestly don't care about. I am simply trying to understand WHY NOW! What makes Benghazi so special other than it happened under Obama? When your opinion is challenged or an attempt to put it in historical perspective is made. You circle the wagons and spew righteous indignation. Your cadre seems to feel that the deaths of additional 4 people in a hostile country is somehow the biggest issue the country has endured in years. Quite frankly, if this had happened under Bush it would have been a faint memory by now. So answer my question. Why the outrage now? What besides the fact that you don't like Obama makes this even a minor issue? So it's not about two wrongs, it's about trying to grasp why is this a source of outrage. Should be an easy question to answer - Let's hear an answer.

I want to know where Obama was in the 10 missing hours of this event. What were his actions? His orders? Why he still used the video excuse even after he knew it was terrorism? I want to know if this was a coverup so close to the election. I think if this was the only thing that happened it might not be so magnified but there are so may scandals. I might ask the question of why you are so opposed to getting to the truth here? What harm will it do if it exonerates Obama and his administration? Why such fighting against finding out.

You are crazy if you believe that. This is a right wing fueled witch hunt. The GOP has already tried-convicted and sentenced the Administration in the press, fund raising appeals. Why ruin it with a so called investigation. Joe McCarthy would be proud that his legacy lives on. .............Just look at that knuckle-dragger PBR's last post. The GOP is so terrified of Hillary in 2016 that they will spare no level of lies or distortion to manufacture a story where clearly none exists. An investigation will be fine, but a committee hearing is far from an investigation. Besides no one cares about anything other than vilifying a democrat. So don't fool yourself - someone with a 3rd grade education can see this for what it is. So one more time - WHAT MAKES BENGHAZI SO SPECIAL?

GCarson, now that you have voided yourself of all of the Left wing propaganda and talking points, I hope that you are feeling a little less under the weather. How is this any different from Iran-Contra or Watergate. Someone lied about this being a spontaneous demonstration, someone lied about this being about a video and cripes, they arrested and detained without rights, the video maker (oh yes, I know he had some kind of charges against him and they used that as the excuse) and Obama kept saying that is was about a video long after he knew it was not terrorism. This is special because this president has a track record of lying and skating and bypassing the Constitution. This is not the only scandal, we now have the Veterans Administration (preview of our future under Obamacare) and the IRS scandal where Lois Lerner knows something but it would incriminate herself and others so she pleads the fifth and then voids her plea by adding comments to it. Bottom line is that it is about time that we hear some truth from an administration that promised to be the most transparent in US history and has been the most closed.

Your post demonstrates the paucity of both evidence and imagination the right displays on its scandal sheet. The "ten missing hours": you're implying like Bush and Cheney went AWOL after 9/11?

Bruce, what was Obama doing in those ten hours? He claims to have no knowledge. Of course he went right on campaigning as if nothing happened the next day. Like the ten missing hours from the Nixon tapes, we need to know. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Why did he continue to use the video excuse after he knew it was not the video that caused the act of violence? When did he know that it was a terrorist attack? When did he know that it was not spontaneous?

Hillary, Hillary, Hillary! Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi! That is the answer. And for those who say this is not political, the Repubs are already sending out fund raising letters on the Benghazi investigation. So much for the memory of the dead Americans.

Hillary is unqualified to be president and she is polarizing so no one cares about that. However we do need to know what Obama knew and when he knew it.

you do realize this happened in an Al Qaeda stronghold on the 9-11 anniversary. Do you know how many CIA operatives were holed up just blocks away. What about massive weapons cache to be traded to the enemy. liberals hate the military so I can understand why they are not outraged that we did not try to save them.

You demonstrate once again your shaky grasp of the facts.The Benghazi area was NOT an "Al Qaeda stronghold". And weapons "to be traded to the enemy"? And "we did not try to save them"? Those are both scurrilous claims that aren't supported by the facts, but as you repeatedly demonstrate, facts never get in your way.

This was on the 9-11 anniversary..... It was all about GUN RUNNING - do you even know how many CIA agents were in a house blocks away?

So tell me Itsa, as I have asked before where is your indignation on the Lies Bush Jr. told that cost thousands of lives? Where is your indignation on the 13 plus embassies attacked and lives lost under Bush Jr as well? And yes this about what a previous president did because he nor any of his cabinet NEVER been held accountable. So why are you fired up about 4 deaths from one embassy that from all accounts, the ambassador even refused more security? And lets not get into the fact that the Republicans reduced funding for the Secretary of State while Hilleary was in charge. Having been in the service during the Clinton years I can tell you from experience that the State department likes our assets over seas to be "non-aggressive" in appearance. That caused the USS Cole to be attacked as she was seen as a non-threat while in a neutral port. As Libya is a known hotbed, I can understand the Choices the ambassador decided to go with. Now the question needs to be how can we prevent this from happening again! Everything else in this case is nothing but a red herring to try to keep the conservative base "stirred up" I

Well, it is not about Bush, it is about Obama, so question answered.

No Itsa my questions have not been answered, just ignored by you and your ilk. Tell me why was it ok for thousands of people to die or be maimed over huge lies told by Bush Jr. and Company? Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? Why was it ok for over 13 US assets over seas to be attacked during Bush Jr's tenure? I'm still waiting!

We are not talking about Bush and Iraq, we are talking about current events . Period. Even if Bush was wrong and so on, two wrongs don't make a right. This is about Obama.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.