Clear
57°
Clear
Hi 74° | Lo 49°

My Turn: Ayotte’s push for truth on Benghazi courageous

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., center, speaks as she, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., left, discuss the investigation of the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in Washington, Friday, Dec. 21, 2012, during a news conference on Capitol Hill.  (AP Photo/Ann Heisenfelt)

Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., center, speaks as she, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., right, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., left, discuss the investigation of the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi in Washington, Friday, Dec. 21, 2012, during a news conference on Capitol Hill. (AP Photo/Ann Heisenfelt)

Thank you, Sen. Kelly Ayotte, for leading the unrelenting pursuit for truth, accountability and justice for the deaths of the four Americans killed in the attack on Benghazi.

This event has touched me deeply, and the lack of resolution remains a serious concern to me.

My country has always had my unwavering confidence in its ability and committed desire to use its resources to protect and defend its citizens serving in foreign lands. It is my opinion that it is this confidence and pride in country that gives the families of those serving, in one capacity or another, the security and peace of mind to face what lies ahead.

Following the Benghazi attack, like so many Americans, I watched and listened to the news for answers as to why and how this happened, and what would be our country’s response.

I watched as the president and the secretary of state greeted the caskets of the fallen Americans and their families, promising to hold accountable those responsible for this attack. I waited, and waited.

What I have learned in the year-plus following this tragedy, is that we, the American people, have been misled, no one has been held accountable, that politics guides decision making and loyalty to party affiliation is above responsibility to constituency.

Perhaps it was naïve of me to place such confidence in the hands of this administration.

Sen. Ayotte, something is very wrong in Washington. I thank you for being my voice, and the voice of the families of these four brave Americans, and of the many men and women who serve this country abroad, and their families who await their safe return. Thank you for having the courage to stand on your principles and to work to bring resolution to this tragedy.

(Anna Marie Varsalone lives in Pembroke.)

Republican inquisitors on the election-eve panel investigating the Benghazi attack will be looking for the simple answer that confirms their preconceived narrative of the events. The reality is more complicated, containing elements of both the administration's and the opposition's accounts. One more time, from the NYTimes investigation: "Fifteen months after Mr. Stevens’s death, the question of responsibility remains a searing issue in Washington, framed by two contradictory story lines. One has it that the video, which was posted on YouTube, inspired spontaneous street protests that got out of hand. This version, based on early intelligence reports, was initially offered publicly by Susan E. Rice, who is now Mr. Obama’s national security adviser. The other, favored by Republicans, holds that Mr. Stevens died in a carefully planned assault by Al Qaeda to mark the anniversary of its strike on the United States 11 years before. Republicans have accused the Obama administration of covering up evidence of Al Qaeda’s role to avoid undermining the president’s claim that the group has been decimated, in part because of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. The investigation by The Times shows that the reality in Benghazi was different, and murkier, than either of those story lines suggests. Benghazi was not infiltrated by Al Qaeda, but nonetheless contained grave local threats to American interests. The attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned, but neither was it spontaneous or without warning signs. Mr. Abu Khattala had become well known in Benghazi for his role in the killing of a rebel general, and then for declaring that his fellow Islamists were insufficiently committed to theocracy. He made no secret of his readiness to use violence against Western interests. One of his allies, the leader of Benghazi’s most overtly anti-Western militia, Ansar al-Shariah, boasted a few months before the attack that his fighters could “flatten” the American Mission. Surveillance of the American compound appears to have been underway at least 12 hours before the assault started. The violence, though, also had spontaneous elements. Anger at the video motivated the initial attack. Dozens of people joined in, some of them provoked by the video and others responding to fast-spreading false rumors that guards inside the American compound had shot Libyan protesters. Looters and arsonists, without any sign of a plan, were the ones who ravaged the compound after the initial attack, according to more than a dozen Libyan witnesses as well as many American officials who have viewed the footage from security cameras." http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0

Bruce Currie said "The CIA was running the weapons operation, for which the State Dept mission was apparently "cover". The deaths at Benghazi can most likely be attributed to the CIA and State not working well enough together...Now compare that to what Susan Rice said on the Sunday talk shows.. “What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video,”...Now, maybe its just me, but these 2 accounts seem quite different.

It's just you. For one who is a charter member of the Carp Per Diem Brigade, and so believes all manner of impossible things before breakfast on the economy, the deficit, taxes, the causes of the Great Recession, and a warming planet, and thus demonstrates the ability to hold at least 2 contrary ideas simultaneously, what is so hard about understanding that these are two sides of the same coin? The video claim originated with the CIA, and Rice and the WH accepted this account. The NYTimes investigation of the attack supports the claim that video did play a role in the attack. The CIA was apparently covertly funneling weapons to Syrian rebels. So what? That's what the CIA does. Left unexplained by Glenn Beckians is why an Islamic militia would attack the outpost, if they knew that the CIA station was funneling weapons to Syrian rebels, when ostensibly they're fighting on the same side. but I'm sure there's a good conspiracy theory from Beckistan to explain it. I can hardly wait.

why an Islamic militia would attack the outpost, if they knew that the CIA station was funneling weapons to Syrian rebels, when ostensibly they're fighting on the same side.....good question for a Monitor reporter to ask Clinton should she run for pres....

Here's a theory: maybe there was an anti-Islam video involved.

So you think Rice should have gone on a tv show and told the world (including Russian, Assad's friend) that the CIA was running guns to the rebels? Also it seems the rebels fight with each other so maybe Al Qaeda didn't like the side that was getting the weapons. Do you like that for an answer or should I keep trying?

The usual suspects who rant about Benghazi follow the latest conspiracy nonsense breathlessly. Recall that soon after the Benghazi tragedy, it was about all about how aid was supposedly told to "stand down". Once that was shown to be false they were on to their next Glenn Beck-inspired nonsense. Repeated description of the events and actions taken by the Obama administration on this thread by the usual suspects are inaccurate and distorted accounts of the facts. The questions they seek answers to have already been answered in previous investigations. If they were the least bit interested in the facts, rather than politics, they'd know that. But when you hide behind a screen name, accuracy and fairness disappear along with any accountability for the truth. Here is an accurate accounting of the facts: example.http://www.factandmyth.com/benghazi/benghazi-attack-timeline-facts-and-myths The fact that the CIA (not the State Dept) likely was involved in arms smuggling to Syrian rebels from its base in Benghazi should come as no great surprise. Covert operations are what the CIA does, after all. And Republican presidents have a proud history of such actions--often in direct defiance of U.S. law. Amb. Stevens lived and worked in a war zone; he knew the risks he was taking (twice refusing extra security from Gen. Ham, for example). He helped the Libyan people rid themselves of a tyrant. Perhaps if Bush2 were president and had made a big to-do of that fact (another "Mission Accomplished") the Carp Per Diems would feel differently. What we know in hindsight is there should have been extra security, but State was dealing with many different Middle East hotspots at the time. Finally, as my post below documents, there were at least 13 attacks on diplomatic outposts during the Bush2 years, including one that killed a U.S. diplomat. The silence of Republicans in response to each of those tragedies was deafening. Their hypocrisy is stunning: they demonstrate that partisan political advantage is their only interest, and toward that end they'll say and do anything. If the American people have any sense, they'll defy the conventional wisdom that says mid-term elections favor the other party, and finally give Obama the working majority he needs to carry out his agenda, the one he was twice elected on, (not the paranoid version we can read about on this site and from the likes of Glenn Beck), and which Republicans have repeatedly blocked, not from principle, but from hatred and spite.

More name calling, innuendo and cherry picked facts from Left leaning sites. What did Obama know and when did he know it? Why did he knowingly use the video as an excuse for the attack when he knew it was a terrorist attack? By the way, being the President does not mean that you can install your "agenda", that is the issue that Americans have woken up to. Majoritarianism is not leadership or fair to everyone. There are three branches of government for a reason. We will see how his agenda has been received in November.

You're a broken record--a programmed broken record. BTW: Still waiting for that retraction/ acknowledgement that your posted assent on an internet hoax about Obama was a "mistake". It's been several days, after all. It's about basic honesty, after all.

More failure to address any issues, your only goal is to not engage in discussion or debate. Again, being the "President" does not mean that you can install your "agenda" and everyone needs to just "go along". We do not live in a Majoritarian country. There are three branches of government for a reason. Therefore, is is not obstructionism when one party stope the President from accomplishing his "agenda", it is call democracy and proper governance.

Discussion? You mean Inquisition. The Carp Per Diems aren't interested in honest "discussion" of Benghazi, or any other issue for that matter. They're posing questions that are either inanely conspiratorial in implication, irrelevant, or have already been answered--repeatedly.

Again, being the "President" does not mean that you can install your "agenda" and everyone needs to just "go along". We do not live in a Majoritarian country. There are three branches of government for a reason. Therefore, is is not obstructionism when one party stope the President from accomplishing his "agenda", it is call democracy and proper governance. Now do you want to discuss that or change the topic again and deflect from your previous point of: "Finally give Obama the working majority he needs to carry out his agenda, the one he was twice elected on".

No, my point was clear. Just as it's clear that the GOP has no interest in governing, but only in obstructing Obama at each and every turn, from hatred and spite. Not unlike your posts.

Kelly Ayotte is the most disingenuous and intellectually dishonest member of the United States Senate since Scott Brown of Massachusetts was defeated. She is, by far, someone who puts political ideology and Republican political loyalties over the best interests of the citizens of New Hampshire and the United States. Anyone who would defend the incompetent George W. Dunce and the unscrupulous Dick Cheney should be condemned. Those morons cost thousands of American lives because of their idiocy, American men and women slaughtered in Iraq for a war that should have never been started. Those two idiots almost destroyed the banking system of the United States; nearly ignited a worldwide depression; squandered the largest budget surplus ever left by one administration (Clinton) to another (Bush); destroyed more American citizens savings (401K's) and nearly rendered Wall Street bankrupt; and presided over more American jobs lost and more small business bankruptcies since the Great Depression. And Kelly Ayotte and Clown Boy Scott Brown, as state and then federal officials, both cheered on, endorsed and defended the Bush-Cheney destruction of the American economy and sellout of American men and women in uniform. Kelly Ayotte is a disgrace. tand

Hey, the only reason the Republicans are making so much issue out of Benghazi is Hillary Clinton. Boy, will these Republicans stop their foolishness (and look VERY foolish) when Hillary says she won't run for Pres.

Hillary "what difference does it make! Clinton

You're taking Clinton's words out of context to put an invidious spin on them. Here are excerpts from her testimony,in which she is being badgered by TPee Senator Johnson of Wisconsin. Recall also that just hours before the Benghazi attack, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo was set on fire by militant Islamists offended by the video. Clinton: "And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren't reached initially? And I appreciate the - I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown..." Clinton: "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"

"I certainly did not know..."....new verb... "Shinsekied"...didnt know what was going on.

That is a great idea, lets take the name of a decorated combat veteran and use his name as a derision. How very Republican of you. .

you realize vets died because he didnt know what was going on..right? "I didnt know"...is an epidemic in the Obama admin. And apparently even decorated combat veterans are not immune.

Yes, like when you buy something but you don't know what you are getting, that would be "Polsied". When you cheat on your wife and then deny it, that would be "Clintoned". When you serve your country but you really have no respect for your country so you meet with the enemy and throw away your medals, that would be "Kerryed". When you think you can keep your doctor if you like your doctor and then find out that it was all a lie, you have been "Obamed"

Hey I know...lets have all the democrats talk about everything but what Stevens was doing in Behghazi, and what the Obama admin was doing in Benghazi...because, they really really dont want to talk about it..

Does anyone want to talk about how the Republicans DENIED security funds requested by the State Department for American embassies in 2011? Or how about the lack of Republican outrage over Bush/Cheney/Condoleeza lies that took us into Iraq and killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and cost us $2 Trillion and the health of our economy? Silence from the right? Bueller? Bueller? I thought so.

No, that is off message, sorry. What did Obama know and when did he know it? In the 11 hours of the seige, where was Obama and why did he continue to campaign the next day instead of managing this crisis? Why did he continue to blame a video even after he knew it was terrorism. Two wrongs don't make a right so please stop trying to justify ignoring Obama's problems because somehthing you did not pursue happened in the past.

Off message? Are you moderating this discussion? The Bush2 decision to invade Iraq arguably is THE pivotal act plunging us into the Middle East quagmire.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Please stop with your obvious defense of anything this administration does as if it is an issue because of Bush. Obama has had 6 years to deal with these issues and at every turn he has made the wrong decision like supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and destabilizing Egypt and replacing a despot in Libya with instability. The real story here is.....What did Obama know and when did he know it? In the 11 hours of the seige, where was Obama and why did he continue to campaign the next day instead of managing this crisis? Why did he continue to blame a video even after he knew it was terrorism.

Sorry Its, what the lusting Republican panderers like Ayotte want everyone to forget is the common-sense truth at the bottom of this: that it was the video that set these people off, not an actual planned terrorist attack. Yes, it was an attack, but al Quaeda? Please point to any attack in which al Quaeda killed its intended victims through smoke inhalation. I can wait... Keep it real.

Sorry, you are wrong. I guess that spontaneity requires grenade launchers and rockets and machine guns, huh? Are you aware that the Al Qaeda flag was flown just blocks away from the donsulate? Bottom line, the country is a cess pool of extreme religious groups. Of course, if you are trapped in a burning building, you might die of smoke inhalation before they get to you through the flames.

Do you have a source for your claim that "the Al Qaeda flag was flown just blocks away"? Other than the discredited "60 Minutes" piece by Lara Logan, that is?

Still waiting for your to back up your claim about the Al Qaeda flag. This makes at least the second claim in a week you can't support.

Itsiewhatsit: So I guess you concede that no recognized “Al Qaeda” or “terrorist” cell has ever carried out an operation intended to kill its victims through the misfortune of incidental suffocation? (And just where was a purported “Al Qaeda flag” flying during any recognized Al Qaeda attack?)

This is not about Bush! He has been out of office how long now? The left is all about growing an already incompetent govt. The disease of incompetency is spreading everywhere. All about social issues, and we fix nothing.

Bush, Bush, Bush, Republicans...Bush, Bush..Bush...Is that the best you got? How about...what WAS Stevens doing in Benghazi..what was the Obama admin up to??

Stevens was brokering an arms running scandal with our sworn enemy. A job the CIA refused to do so Hillary decided to have her State Dept do it....... - then they LIED LIED LIED when it caused the murder of our Ambassador

I think you're confused. You should post links to your claims. The CIA was running the weapons operation, for which the State Dept mission was apparently "cover". The deaths at Benghazi can most likely be attributed to the CIA and State not working well enough together--no surprise there. Once more: Stevens was offered extra security by CentCom at least twice, and refused. He was working in a war zone, and knew the risks he was taking. Stevens believed he was working in the best interests of the Libyan people--he'd helped rid their nation of a tyrant, after all--how quickly we seem to forget that.

In reality we had no business interfering and taking sides in Libya. But I see it is convenient when the ends justify the means.

And you surely felt the same way in 1986.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

Yes, I did. But even if I did not, "what difference does it make"? We are talking about Obama and Libya, not Reagan and Libya. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Sure you did. BTW: still waiting for any retraction/acknowledgement on that internet hoax about Obama.

Oh, running weapons, like Fast and Furious I guess. Arms for hostages looks pretty principled compared to arming Islamist rebels in Syria. It was not our place to "rid" Libya of a tyrant, you were all up in arms when we did that with Saddam.

What does "Fast and Furious" have to do with this thread? Nothing. But since you brought it up "Gun-walking" operations like "Fast and Furious" were begun under the previous administration. "Arms for hostages" like Reagan's are "principled"? There's a laugh--it was a deliberate effort to subvert the will of Congress. One can imagine the howls of outrage and calls for impeachment if Obama had done the same. There are a number of rebel groups fighting in Syria. We're supporting moderate elements in an effort to have some leverage in the country after Assad's eventual fall from power. That's the kind of interventionism that we've practiced over and over since the end of WW2. But not since the 19th century have we invaded a sovereign country on such a flimsy pretext as we did when we invaded Iraq, an invasion you cheered and supported from the outset. Only since 2009 have you acquired scruples about intervention in the affairs of other nations.

Since you rarely ask questions for which you don't already have ( in your mind at least) the answer, why don't you tell us what you think Stevens was doing in Benghazi?

dying..while Obama slept.

Another scurrilous and false claim from the Carp Per Diem Brigade, from whom no claim is too base, despicable, and groundless. "...[there] is a misconception that Obama himself was not in communication.  But Leon Panetta’s testimony states that he was in contact with Obama soon after being informed of the attacks.  Obama instructed Panetta to attack with 'all available DOD assets.'   Whatever one thinks of the response time of US forces, Americans were evacuated from the embassy and, along with the CIA Chief of Station, flown to safety.Another common mischaracterization of this event goes something like 'Four Americans are dead and nobody did anything about it.'  The belief here is that 4 Americans were simply left for dead, while no one helped.  But in fact, two of those four Americans (Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods) were part of the security team who mounted a rescue and led an evacuation of the compound." http://www.factandmyth.com/benghazi/benghazi-attack-timeline-facts-and-myths

yep..and they got hit with mortars...and died...what..8 hours after the attack began.

I think your timeline is off. More like 4 hours later. And within about 8 hours, U.S. and Libyan forces had regained control of both buildings.The implication of your post is that the cavalry could have arrived in time to prevent the deaths of the 4 men. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/ Funny, we're not hearing any of that "stand down" nonsense anymore, are we? As Kevin Jones said: ”Of all the nonsense that's been spewed about Benghazi, the never-ending series of "stand down" conspiracy theories has undoubtedly been the stupidest. Every time one got swatted down, another one popped up to take its place. It was a fast-response team from Italy. No wait. It was a team Gen. Carter Ham was going to send in until Obama ordered him not to. It was a garrison in Tripoli. It was a C-110 team in Croatia. It was a different team from Tripoli. By the time all these theories had been aired, it was apparent that half the United States military was thought to be within striking distance of Libya on the night of the Benghazi attacks. And as little sense as most of the Benghazi conspiracy theories make, this one made even less. There's simply no reason that any president of the United States would get in the way of a rescue mission in a situation like Benghazi. But none of that ever mattered. To this day, there are millions of Fox News watchers who are convinced that the deaths in Benghazi could have been prevented but President Obama refused to allow it. Why? Well, if he's secretly bent on undermining the strength and influence of the United States, it all starts to make sense, doesn't it? And I wonder where anyone could have gotten that idea?” http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/05/hillary-clinton-takes-benghazi-crackpots

yes..you are right on the time

Thank you.

Only a liberal could equate a bicycle bomber outside an embassy that kills zero Americans with our Ambassador murdered on the 9-11 anniversary ,no troops sent to help, and then Hillary and Obama LIE LIE LIE. ...... on top of it was the fact that it was all about illegal weapons running.

And only sail/bpr can be relied upon in his inimitable fashion to distort the facts on any issue and hyperventilate with his "headlines". It was THIRTEEN attacks--not just one "bicycle bomber".

The Republicans have spent no time at all on how this could have been prevented or capturing those responsible. All they care about are the damn "talking points." How some one can write a letter like this when and not know that the Republicans have been using Benghazi as a way to raise money and make political points I don't know.

You cannot fix a problem if you do not know where the problem is. As far as using an issue to raise money, the left does that very well. They are no slouches when it comes to capitalizing on tragedies. We have several issues here that all point to incompetence. We also have several issues here that the left want to ignore, as opposed to getting rid of the incompetence in these depts. But the left does that with everything, they fail to see the problem and instead want more funding for programs that are failing. They believe more money fixes everything. I worry about the IRS having too much power, I worry about incompetence showing up in other areas, and I worry about the economy staying stalled. I also worry about health care on these narrow networks, long wait times, and the possibility that folks will not have their tests done to catch things like cancer early. And I worry we will be paying high prices for poor quality care. It appears the left is fine with all of this. It also appears we have accepted our govt doing a lousy job on all levels. We use to demand quality, now we accept incompetence.

You are doing it again saying it is ok for the Republicans to politicize Benghazi because Dems do it tool The only ones making hay of Benghazi are Republicans. And by the way, the only real scandal is the VA mess. The others are made up and Bush did say we are leaving you a mess in the VA admin. but that is not to say Obama has not done enough to fix it.

Actually, that is not what I am doing. The fact that you have no worries about the power of the IRS is very disturbing. The Head of the VA has no clue what he is doing. Your blatant refusal to see the incompetence here is very scary. Your the one who is all about politics Tillie. I want things fixed and not have to worry about an incompetent administration. We accept incompetence on every level it seems. I am not okay with that.

What I believe or don't believe shouldn't scare you, Rabbit. I know you think I have a lot of power but I don't. So what I think won't affect you one way or the other, so relax. What I think is scary are billionaires who are able to do what 250 years of outside enemies couldn't do, take away our democracy.

NEWSFLASH : 62% of Americans want the Benghazi cover up investigated & exposed

Is that how the poll question was worded, "the Benghazi cover up"?

"You cannot fix a problem if you do not know..." Nor can one comment intelligently if "you do not know". The Review Board investigation by Thomas Pickering identified the problems and offered solutions. It just didn't come up with the answers you and the other Carp Per Diems expected or wanted. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/12/thomas-pickering-benghazi_n_3263073.html

Pretty hard to figure out how it could have been prevented when those in charge refuse to cooperate. Nobody knows nothing, did not see the memo and blame each other. Add not coming through with documents, and we find out nothing. The lame excuse that all these scandals are political is the line used to divert the attention away from the incompetence in this administration.If the mistakes are not deemed political, then the race card is used. That fails, blame Bush. It is amazing, folks do not accept this kind of incompetence in their daily lives, yet when it comes to govt they are fine with it.

Courageous? How about cravenly political? "The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009. January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed. June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al-Qaida attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51. October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of “Bali Bombings.” No fatalities. February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed. May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al-Qaida terrorists storm the diplomatic compound killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb. July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people. December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaida terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed. March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name “David Foy.” This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.) September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting “Allahu akbar” storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded. January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities. March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaida-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two. July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed. September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months. A few observations about this timeline. My initial list was quoted from an article on the Daily Kos which actually contained several errors and only 11 attacks (the above timeline contains all 13 attacks). Also, my list above doesn’t include the numerous and fatal attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Iraq war — a war that was vocally supported by Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Fox News Channel. Not only have numerous sources previously debunked the Benghazi information being peddled by the Republicans and Fox News (for example, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, yes, reinforcements did in fact arrive before the attack on the CIA compound), but none of these people raised a single word of protest when, for example, American embassies in Yemen and Pakistan were attacked numerous times. http://thedailybanter.com/2013/05/13-benghazis-that-occurred-on-bushs-watch-without-a-peep-from-fox-news/

Benghazi denier...no hope...

Better than being a climate change denier.

Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. All those things may have happened, but they were all in the PAST, you silly man, so they don't count. The only ones that count are those that happened since the Kenyan Communist occupied the White House.

And that is his point. Why no uproar over these? Why were there not any investigation, after investigation, after investigation, on these matters during the Bush administration? These Republicans are the worst hypocrites I have seen in many years. These people that have raised such an uproar now over Benghazi remained very silent on those other attacks during The Bush Jr. years.

Well, anyone with half a brain - with even a room temperature IQ - knows that President Bush was doing THE VERY BEST HE COULD and therefore should not be held accountable for those little slip-ups. Because President BUSH was a GOOD and PATRIOTIC man!

How is that 68 degree temperature working out for you?

Itsa, is this how you treat your supporters? I make my best attempt to articulate your position in a way that LIDVs can understand, and this is your response?

Two wrongs don't make a right and we are discussing Benghazi, not other attacks. Why did Obama continue to blame a video even after he knew it was terrorism? What did Obama know and when did he know it?

silly girl - from 2006 on democrats were in complete charge with majorities in both House and Senate and did nothing but drive the country into a recession..... however investigating why an bicycle bomber killed non Americans outside an embassy is hardly as worthy of an investigation as the Murder of an Ambassador on the 9-11 anniversary during a Hillary State Dept weapon running operation and then LYING about it. !!!!!!!!!!!

You are still confused by the facts: there were thirteen SEPARATE episodes--not one--and those include a 2006 attack in Karachi in which 4 were killed, among them U.S. diplomat David Foy.

Irrelevant. We are talking about Benghazi, two wrongs do not make a right.

Remarkable, those Democrats. Able to do in 2 years what 6 years of Bush tax cuts, two trillion dollar wars, years of de-regulation and an inflated stock market/ housing bubble couldn't. That's your story, and you've stuck with it.

Go Bruce!

Post a Comment

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