Shared publicly  - 
OPINION: Is it clear the Obama administration made a deliberate decision to mislead Congress and the American people about the #Benghazi attacks?
john splater's profile photoMike Mac's profile photoBryan Kroger (krogebry)'s profile photoObama Failed America's profile photo
Its a bit redundant for you to put 'opinion' at the front there isn't it? Since nothing you guys put out can really be characterized as 'facts'.
Based on the fact that it was called an act of terror within hours, and consistently after the attack, not sure what the angle is here other then incitement...... Did they withhold some information due to national security?  probably, as has every administration in the past, and as will every one in the future....
C Banks
Putting the disclaimer OPINION makes everything a-okay. ;o)
You folks in comments above, obviously didn't pay attention to the Petraeus testimony now did you...

Oh that's right...because FOX was the only source that even reported about it. Does that mean they are biased or does it mean that YOUR sources are biased for not reporting it? He testified. He told the truth.
Fox doesn't make that stuff up. 

Your call now Democrats.
Obama went around telling the country and the world  this was a spontaneous attack because of a youtube video.  This was a very smart move for a campaign running on being the one to kill Bin Laden and destroyed Al Qaeda.  How could Al Queda or an affiliate destroy an embassy and kill our ambassador if Al Queda was decimated?  Well done white house... Well done.  
The truth is stranger than fiction?  But then, fiction got an overhaul.. I don't know what to believe anymore.
Still think Prez O labelled it an "act of terror" within hours (+Mike Mac)? Guess you haven't seen this CBS video where a short time later that day neither the reporter or the prez are aware that was the case:

KROFT: Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word terrorism in connection with the Libya Attack..

OBAMA: Well it’s too early to tell exactly.. ..I don’t want to jump the gun on this;60minutes  
Of course, you might also note that CBS cut this part of the video out of the original airing and didn't release this clip until a day or so before the election.
... because Faux News is the steward of clarity.
New republican talking point.........   Keep polishing that turd Fox "News" .  
What if: What if in the course of things, with this administrations deep connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, and other radical Islamic factions – what if Libya was the means that (under the table) this administration used to funnel weapons to Israel’s enemies. So that on the public stage, this administration could continue to show “support” of Israel, while simultaneously arming its enemies and allowing the whole thing play out. 

Why… because knowing full well that Israel would do all that it could to defend itself… But what would be the point of that? An escalated war in that region would be extremely devastating to all interest involved, so to be the white knight riding in on the horse under the “diplomatic” flag, it could justify the attempt to get all the nations on the UN security council to condemn and mobilize an international army (humanitarian “peace” force) to force Israel back to Pre-1967 borders, which I might add, has been this administration’s goal all along. Not to mention the goal of every radical Islamic group in that region. See, with a crippled Israel, they could easily initiate the radical Islamic goal of total annihilation if the Nation of Israel. 

Why… beyond the initial saber-rattling hatred, Israel has discovered an abundance of oil just from Leviathan Energy and Zion Oil and Gas (not to mention all the other petrol companies). What has been discovered there would swing the balance of power in that region from those who want nothing but to destroy the “great satan, and the little satan” to our greatest ally in that region. This would greatly stand in the way of the iron rod and tyrannous oppression of sharia and all the money they could squeeze from the evil infidels. 

Many might dismiss this “what if” as being “tin-foil hat” conspiracy theories with credible no basis, and try to distract with a lot of trivial and meaningless facts, “on-the-record” polices, et al to keep the official narrative on both sides of the isle alive – which is fine. I simply am throwing this out there as a discussion point in hopes that all angles of what happened in Benghazi are explored and that we are not getting too myopic in our scope, but broaden it to try to look at the bigger picture. And there definitely is a bigger picture here or the media, this administration and all those involved wouldn't try to do all they could to get the attention on anything else but the real reason. 

Let’s face it an affair in DC, isn't really news – it would be more news worthy to report on those in power who were faithful in their marriage commitments (sadly that doesn't run well in the gossip mills and there wouldn't be enough ratings on those stories). Then there is the issue of 4 dead Americans on 9/11 and the cover up. This is what they want to hide because once you answer the “who knew when and why nothing done about it”, then you have to address the ultimate question….why. 

I believe the ‘why’ in this is so damning both domestically and internationally, which is why at all costs they will stonewall, they will stall, they will keep throwing expendable people under the bus to keep the lie alive. They have too, because when they went public with their lame excuse, one I believe was in desperation (like a kid who got caught red-handed and is now lying to their parents to get out of it) and blind hubris, they honestly believed that they public both domestically and internationally would buy it. SO they go on apology tours on Islamic TV denouncing a “video” all in the hopes that people would think it plausible and hence let it go quietly into the good night. 

That didn't happen, so they “leak” a TMZ style story of a torrid love affair with the current CIA director with juicy allegations of national security leaks, et al so that they could pin it on a man the left hated to begin with (you know… General Betray-us) hoping that the tabloid gossip mindset would either be the Band-Aid fix or detract long enough for them to launch another distraction and propaganda campaign on it. I hope my 'what-if' will keep people digging, keep people searching, keep people engaged(and not buying the ever changing narrative) so whatever the truth is will be revealed and all those involved, from the top down will not get “a pass “ out of exhausted indifference – but because of what happened there, that the congress and the people of this nation will demand that justice be served and that truth be revealed so that something like this never has the chance to happen again.

To those out there who want to rip this to shreds fine( I really could care less) all I ask is don’t start quoting the definition of ad hominem... let's not go down overused boring path of distraction and or citing rules that are only cited when people cannot use the merit of their message to stand in its own. Also  I am very familiar with the rules of Alinsky so please, do us all a favor, be intellectually honest and do not try those in your response – let the flaming from the narrative keepers begin….
+Paul Jewkes My point exactly.  Apparently you don't think you are the keeper of your own clarity.  Faux News keeps it for you.
New liberal talking point....... come in and bash Republicans "biased news sources" and then never come up with any proof of their own. For some reason our news source is biased and theirs isn't. :/
+Rusty Meyners   I just know what I heard with my own two ears, without "interpreting" it . 

But I was surprised he would say that so early, it should have taken days or weeks to come to a definite conclusion if it was or was not a premeditated terrorist attack. 

He should have said point blank, we do not know for sure, but we will let you know when we figure it all out.

That would have eliminated probably 90% of the crap that keeps being stirred up.....  and FOX would have went back to the "after-birther" looney's for a story.

or he would have been slammed for "jumping to conclusions" in the other ditch....

But fact is, it could have just as easily been a spontaneous target of opportunity, and not some pre-planned major attack. 

How long does it take to say "Yo, Yasser, call Hamid and have him and his brother meet us over my the consulate in 5 minutes with those rocket launchers they found last week"

If your married and your wife says meet me behind the coat rack in even say... 30 minutes, That is pretty spontaneous.....
Amazing that they "knew" right away that it was a video, but now they are still "investigating" exactly what happened. What?! I thought they said they "knew" what happened.
+Paul Jewkes   the problem is, FOX is biased lol    You think this notion just fell out of the sky?  LOL

This is not new bashing, its the same ol bashing that contributed to loss of the election....
+Mike Mac the problem is MSNBC, CNN, NBC is biased lol  You these so-called news organizations are NOT biased? Do you live under a rock or with blinders on?
+Mike Mac You can't throw that stone when you live in a glass house.
+Mike Mac Agreed, there was no reason to absolutely nail it as terrorism in that Rose Garden speech and indeed your own ears will tell you if you watched the CBS clip that he did not.

But weeks later when they were running from the "blame the video" narrative, someone finally realized they could spin his ambiguous Rose Garden remarks into a rebuttal. In fact, if you check the timeline on that, you may very well find that MSNBC was the first to spin it that way even before the White House picked up on it. Even then, it started out as "Terrorists", then back-tracked to "Terrorism" and then to "Act of Terror" when his only direct label was actually "terrible act".

But O is a very careful wordsmith and even he wouldn't own the words himself when R gave him a chance in the debate, instead asking Candy to "repeat that please, louder".
+Buddy Quaid     where did I say anything you claim?  I did not, they are all biased, but FOX News USA is considered world-wide to be one of the most biased, and they are even banned from broadcast in Canada because of their lack of journalistic integrity.
You apparently hear what you are told to hear. He did not say in that rose garden speech that the Benghazi attacks were a terrorist action. He was speaking in general terms about the country as a whole. If this were Bush, you would be saying just the opposite right now and blaming Bush about something else. 
+Rusty Meyners   he had already said that, he was making a fool out of Mitt by asking a 3rd party to confirm Mitt was wrong, it was a serious turning point for Mitt....He was caught flat-footed with his pants around his ankles.....

So again, what is the real burr in the saddle here?
You don't think I see that +Mike Mac?
My question is- Why is our source biased, but not yours?

Why do all liberals discount what Fox has to say because it is biased, but think it's OK to follow MSNBC as if they tell the news completely unbiased?

MSNBC had a tent with the logo "Lean Forward" on it...
If that isn't biased toward the left, I am not sure what is.

My argument is simple really...
If you want to argue "facts" then don't just sit and tell us we are wrong because our news is biased...because yours is too. Come up with something other than "FAUX News" as your comeback as to why Obama is innocent here.
+Buddy Quaid   that is exactly what the GOP has said, you are correct there.  Other then that, you have no idea what you are talking about and are making a fool of yourself assuming my position.
+Mike Mac yes it was called an act of terror by the Administration just hours after the attack. Yet the UN Ambassador went on 5 Sunday Morning News Shows days after the attack and said the Benghazi siege appeared to be a "Spontaneous protest rather than a Premeditated terrorist attack" (The quote came from the Boston Globe.) Clearly either the administration was attemptin to coverup something or downplay it just beforethe election, or they have a serious communication problem between the White House and the Ambassador to the UN. The fact that the President emphasized the video both on Late night TV and to the UN long after the attacks is a pretty good indicator that there is no miscommunication between himself and Rice. 
+Mike Mac You do realize that Candy came out and admitted Romney was actually right don't you?
Oh I forgot...You don't watch the news.
+Paul Jewkes   where did I say anything was not biased?  And why do you think I would ever watch MSNBC?

+Rusty Meyners   lol  99% of Republicans surveyed indicated they think MSNBC is more biased then FOX  LOL
+Paul Jewkes   no.. .she did not say Mitt was right, she said he was wrong in his wording.  She said he should have said what he was thinking differently and may have been more right.  Mitt gaffed it big time.
+Mike Mac I know exactly what I'm talking about. You think you are smarter than me? You think you're better because???? I know that you types of Dems, who don't have reason and can't think for yourselves, all think you're smarter than everybody else and are also hell-bent on covering up lies for the President to save your own asses. You guys are pathetic and mud slingers. It's people like you that are the problem with society in our country as a whole. Whenever someone challenges you, like I did, your only comeback is to belittle or demean the person to make yourself feel better about yourself. Try thinking for yourself and sifting through facts. Maybe you didn't watch the hearing with David Petraeus? Guess not. Blame, ignore, deflect!
+Buddy Quaid   pssst.....  I an not a democrat dumbass, I was trying to give you that hint but you so not seem to get it..... Moderates hate the current GOP and they crap, get used to it, it will change.
Actually +Mike Mac 
"according to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism."
Cute for the 99% Republican comment though... Just shows you didn't read the article.
+Mike Mac 
No "Republicans", no "survey" - Statistical analysis showed MSNBC 3 times as biased:

The study also reveals the degree to which the two cable channels that have built themselves around ideological programming, MSNBC and Fox, stand out from other mainstream media outlets. And MSNBC stands out the most. On that channel, 71% of the segments studied about Romney were negative in nature, compared with just 3% that were positive-a ratio of roughly 23-to-1. On Fox, 46% of the segments about Obama were negative, compared with 6% that were positive-a ratio of about 8-to-1 negative.
+Paul Jewkes you gotta realize +Mike Mac has no idea what he talks about. He reads the headlines and not the stories. He doesn't fact check what he reads. He doesn't go to another source to read the same story to see the different spins and where the truth lies. He is a spoon fed Democrap.
Gotta love the fact that Mike mac is always casting dispersions on people who "assume" his position as if it wasn't already clear. Talk about a guy not wanting to own his words. Its like arguing with a 9 year old. 
+Paul Jewkes   difference is, MSNBC comes right out and attacked Romney, FOX tries to do it covertly, and through innuendo, without mentioning Obama, they did it though hitting the talking points, rarely mentioning Obama by name.   It just says they ran more articles mentioning Romney by name, then FOX did mentioning Obama by name.  Really nothing to write home about
+Buddy Quaid  careful, your starting to sound a lot like one of those bed pissing moonshine swilling  #teabillyfucksticks , we would not want people to think that  now would we?  Your not a teabilly RINO are you?
Like I said, arguing with a 9 year old....
Problem +Mike Mac Is that you always say you aren't a democrat. May be true, but you get angry with people assume, yet you only play the "Attack Romney" card and NEVER claim your beliefs.
In all the posts I have seen you argue on in the last months, you never state what you DO believe...only what you don't. So don't get angry when people assume your stance. You are too cowardly to state it.
+Paul Jewkes  LOL  cowardly?  really... What specific political position of mine are you getting all wet over knowing?   The days of attacking Romney are over, he is a has-been... I only brought him up because the article you are all referencing is about him.
+John Shepard   did you have anything constructive to add or are you just running your mouth?
The fact that months after the attack we still don't know what really happened raises some serious questions about the leadership and trustworthiness of the Obama Administration.
+Dan Seeley   I would have a hard time trying to defend against your statement.  There has been a lot of excessive delay(s) but everyone needs to understand that that does not mean it is a big conspiracy theory...  There will be details of that attack we will never know , no matter who was president.
Tell me in 10 words or less what it is you believe in then +Mike Mac 
I don't want to hear anymore about us assuming your stance until you grow a pair and tell us who YOU voted for.
+Mike Mac respect for other people's opinions goes a long way. Until then, you're just a foulmouthed, hateful individual. 
+Paul Jewkes   first, I never disclose who I voted for in any election, it has nothing to do with "growing a pair" or not.  It is actually something I personally feel more people should do.  I also will not tell you my salary.  If you can not respect that, then that is not my problem :)  I will say I did vote, and I did side with the majority of the voting US who voted for someone other then the GOP candidate.

 but in 10 words or less....  How about I go about it this way...

I am Pro-Gun, Pro-life, veteran of the USMC,  and have spent the majority of my adult life in lower and middle management of Fortune 500 companies, and running several personally owned small businesses.  I believe in substantially reducing the size of our government across the board, getting our troops home and keeping our collective noses out of other countries business, I do not believe in legislating morality and feel if the "church" wants a say, they need to give up their tax-exempt status. I feel taxes are too high for many of those that pay them.  I feel the federal government needs to oversee and administer major like-minded programs across all the states and not give the states more control of things like education and other social programs.   I feel every human being hash the same rights, and no government can dictate or legislate who they are, who they can be, who they can associate with, who they can marry or have a relationship with.  I have many very strong conservative personal beliefs, but I do understand that I have no right at all to impose my beliefs onto others through legislation.... 

What specifically are you looking for ?
+John Shepard   so where exactly did I disrespect you before you came in here running your mouth?
Fox News bashers out in full force this morning 
You know what I live about Fox News? The trolls! I love watching the trolls entertainment. Everyday....all day long!
Ward A
+Fox News you gonna report on Daddy Murdoch about the antisemitic remarks he made this morning? 
Ward A
+Debra Seaman Lol. I know what antisemitic means, so much so that I can actually spell it. Anything posted that doesn't hype up the three dead Israeli soldiers and shows that there are other causalities in this Palestine v Israel conflict is considered: "Anti-Israel" in Murdoch's mind. He states that Jewish owned news agencies are anti-Israel. The rest of the actual news is reporting this to be an antisemitic statement. 
Can it BE any clearer?  They saw with their own eyes, then suggested it had anything to do with a film nobody saw.

Then for TWO WEEKS STRAIGHT they had Rice claiming it in if she's out there every day making the press rounds.

No, this was another World Class Democrat Party foreign policy failure on 9/11, and then lies to cover it up.

Anyone else trying to tell you different is selling something.
+Brian Fahrlander   looks like the majority of America didn't agree, what can you say.... or at least they thought this
issue" was not as big as it is trying to be made be...
Great.  Keep believing this crap.  While you're at it, buy some guns and survival food and dig yourself a big hole.  The rest of us will go on living....Now, fun time is over, back to reading the news that matters.
Yes, Obama admin. intentionally missled America to save their political back sides. Sick.
This tainted his rep as the president thats 'tough on terror'. Thats why he's covering this up. To not look weak during the elections. This man played politics and 4 brave Americans payed the ultimate consequence.
Ward A
9/11/01 The memo.

The problem is that if the GOP starts claiming that Obama falsified information and fed us a lie, just to help himself get re-elected, then all the left wing media will jump all over it and tell Republicans to get over it already, they LOST the election just GET THE FRIK OVER IT.   

That said, cynic that I am, this whole coverup stinks to high heaven and I think it had to do exactly with that, and the re-election campaign.  I could be wrong.  

But in terms of "getting over the election" part.  The whole campaign was massively negative and hurtful personal attacks from both sides (I dare say more so on the left against the right but I wasn't counting).  It was loaded with horribly misleading information - on both sides - and the vitriole that was spewed over the airwaves was unprecedented.

And NOW Obama just wants the GOP to just get along (with him), toe the line (with him), and get on with doing America's business.. methinks a bit naive of him perhaps?  

Fact:  4 Americans are dead
Fact:  It was due to a terrorist (Al Queida?) attack on the Libyan Embassy
Fact:  There was no spontaneous protest over this you-tube video in Libya
Fact:  CIA knew this within 24 to 48 hours afterwards
Fact:  CIA incorporated this in their talking points within 48 hours
Fact:  Somebody removed those facts from the talking points and spun the story to blame a you-tube video.
Fact:  5 days later, Susan Rice addressed 5 national talk shows blaming the you-tube video
Fact:  Obama himself addressed the UN and led everyone to believe it was due to this spontaneous thing related to the you-tube video.
Fact:  Everything the government stated was incorrect.

The question you have to ask yourself, is why?  That is conjecture, not a fact.  But in my cynical mind, oh gee the election is just around the corner (at the time).  If we tell the truth, then the whole campaign angle we've been selling the ignorant public about Al-Queida being "on its heels" will make us the laughing stock of the country, and we could well lose the election due to this.

Conjecture:  Perhaps Obama didn't know, maybe he never heard anything from the CIA.  Possibly.  Maybe all the information he had received up until 2 weeks after the attack, had been thoroughly scrubbed.  Why?  Plausible deniability? Who knows?  That leaves our President ignorant and incompetent.  He should've picked up the phone and called Petraeus directly, and immediately.

Question:  IF (and this is a big "IF" that I think should be asked... "IF" President Obama did know precisely what had transpired, and "IF" he (or his campaign engine) purposefully misled the country in order to save his own arse in an election cycle, then what do you think the consequences of that should be?
Yes, they are lying liberals. The worst kind of people.
I have a simple question.  Put aside Petraeus, Rice, the transcripts, the talking points, Hillary's responsibility -- put it aside for now.  Can someone clarify for me exactly what the President did between the time he learned of the attack and the time he went to bed and then on to Las Vegas?
+Jeff van't Slot I think you are making up your facts about who made claims about what Obama did or didn't do to cover up Benghazi .... If he didn't have a hand in the cover-up then whoever changed the report did so without his knowledge, which makes him incompetent or he hand ordered someone to do it and thought people would not question it.... Which again makes him in competent! So either way he is incompetent.
Worst presidential scandal in modern times.
LOL +William Carlson    I guess you are right, its much worse then a president that "accidentally" invades a sovereign nation, destroys the entire country, directly responsible for the deaths tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of brave US Military service members, borrowed over $1T to pay for it and can not travel the world freely because is considered a fugitive from international justice and a war criminal.

Earth to  Billy.  Come in Billy.  Is there anybody out there?

But you are entitled to your opinion.  I just think your perspective needs a few clicks left and up, your hitting in the butts
+Mike Mac doesn't congress have to approve and fund wars? Btw Clinton like Obama also invaded a sovereign state/county and Bosnia still has our soldiers there
+Debra Seaman   I was comparing Williams assessment, not something from the past to strawman with you over.  The president is responsible no matter what congress does, isn't that what you all parroted during the election, why change it now?  But so you think the Iraq war fiasco was less of a blunder then this issue being blown up out of proportion (IMHO)?  That is what you are suggesting by trying to trivialize my statement.
+Violetta viola "Your chameleon style of changing colors is amazing."  ?  huh?  what changing colors are you specifically referring too ?

 and why do you think you feel the need, or are even qualified, to "Let me explain to you" ? 

are you a foreign policy expert?  or just another Monday Morning Quarterback complaining about the calls but does not understand the game of football
Has anyone come in with a rip about how those WMD's that were the basis for the various wars that we're now having to pay for never actually existed?  Where is the indignant rage over that?  Or the death panels that never happened, actually has Fox gotten anything right ever?
+Bryan Kroger when they base/qualify their "news reports" as opinion and editorial work, and just follow "what if" paths using "maybe"  "could have"  Might"  "possible"  then how could they ever be wrong or be held accountable to any standards for journalistic integrity?
LOL  Just set your expectations very low for Mac Butts, if can breathe unattended and only shits himself while he is sleeping, its a good day for him.
He is the unfortunate example of why most people don't take people like him seriously.  They yell and scream, but when it comes to "show me the numbers and facts" it's all hot air and bullshit.  The conservatives have almost nothing left in the credibility department.
+Violetta viola Good points.  I guess what I'm looking for is a way to get the data about my local area and work from there.  For instance, if I could get a data dump of the financial data then maybe I could find a way to fix whatever problems "they" are complaining about.  For example, one of +Mac Butts big complaints is about how nobody takes responsibility for anything.  Fine, if that's your claim, than prove it by using the data from you local branch of government.  Give me the data, I'm amazing at picking out patterns, and the data doesn't lie, so if there is problem, I can find it.  But let's not keep doing this bullshit where we blame others for a problem that we can't prove exists.
+Violetta viola  its great you have world experiences, but back to my direct specific question I asked you:

"Your chameleon style of changing colors is amazing."  ?  huh?  what changing colors are you specifically referring too ?
Mike Mac i see your still playing your head game with everyone. Lol! 
what a clown you are, lol.
+Mike Mac S.O.P again ha! your so funny grow old man two reply a day so play time over go take a nap Mike Mac, lol! clown
+Bryan Kroger You do not know what your talking about me and Mike Mac have been here G for the last 2 and half year so but out!
+Charles Wierzbicki What does that have to do with anything?  If time is a measure of quality, I'd say you have a few more years before you're going to catch up with the rest of us.  Good luck with that.
+Violetta viola   I am still unclear about your "chameleon" comment towards me, unless you were not talking about me :)
any one who post thing for Think Progress has got problem, so edd say
+Mike Mac checks and balances.... The president is the commander in chief but only congress can declare or fund war....shish
+Debra Seaman   exactly, just like only congress can pass a budget. Most people do not realize just how little power the president actually has.  He sure does not have the power to do most of what it is claimed he is doing lol

I am glad to hear someone that seems to have deep Right leanings acknowledge that fact.  There is again hope for the GOP if many others start accepting those realities.
+Mike Mac thanks but though I am a conservative doesn't mean I am a party bound individual. I have voted for Carter, Perot to name a few. I vote who I think is best for the country not who is running on the GOP ticket and... I am ready for a Conservative party to emerge and run third party successfully. Don't under estimate the power of a president he Caldwell wield his executive powers and this one takes it to the edge doing so.... I believe in the constitution and that being said I go for who I think will uphold that best.... Ron Paul would have been the best candidate... But not many people now days want to stand up for someone that refreshing!
impeach obama ASAP. and everyone in and around the white house including biden and clinton. put um all in jail.
+john splater yea, lock up everyone in power you don't like, declare a military coup and burn the flag and Constitution in the process, good solution. 
Add a comment...