Shared publicly  - 
The Obama administration has agreed to provide emails pertaining to the controversial CIA talking points which critics say pushed an inaccurate picture of what happened during the terror attack last September in Benghazi.
Brian George's profile photoErik Walz (E)'s profile photoRon N's profile photoRaymond Jaeger's profile photo
Talking Points? I'm not interested in talking points! I want the Truth!
Obama said that we are running out of questions to ask.
The Truth is that only One question (of many) was actually answered.
+Stephen Beres What truth is you seeking? Makes no different 4 people killed and getting into this witching hunting( did the president take nap or president went to do something else) will not fix this going forward
+Paris Mosley Ever hear of Watergate?  Iran/Contra?  Bill Clinton and Monica's dress?  Four American citizens dead makes Nixon and Clinton look like saints in comparison.
So here is my honest question for those who are truly concerned about the Libya incident:

What exactly do you suspect of Obama having done, or not done?  Is it because they didn't have their stories straight or that they actively worked to get these people killed or they actively ignored please for help or lied to the public?

I'm actually curious as to why I keep hearing Benghazi chanted over and over from the right.  I'll admit to not having followed the situation because I didn't see any major problems with the situation (besides 4 people dying, of course).
My honest answer is the ever shifting story lines.  Culpability doesn't stop at the doorstep of the White House.  At least Hillary had the balls to say she was responsible, although she was very defensive in doing so.  For me it is not whether the POTUS purposefully ignored calls for help, it is the road that led to that day and that situation.
It does matter going forward. It shows a complete lack of leadership, and competence. He shkuld have been all over that, not preparing for a campaign stop. 
Right, Left, Independent, Radical, etc.  Makes no difference here.  The questions posed is will the alleged President turn over official emails/documents to the Senate panel that have not been altered and state the truth.  The answer, based on past performance, this individual will not comply with un-tainted information.  Whatever it is that he believes he has to hide from the Senate panel and the American people is something that has gone on long before this incident took place.

In other words, he's proven himself time and again to be untrustworthy, dishonest, non-transparent, and less than Presidential.  No other President in the history of this country has ever disgraced the office of the President of the United States of America more times in more situations than this individual has without due process following/haunting him till his last day.

What makes this person above the laws of the land and the Constitution?  If/when someone can explain this to me without political bias, and make it make sense, I'll support him to the end.  Otherwise, this buffoon is not worthy of leading the once Greatest Nation on the planet & I will continue to not recognize him as our leader and speak against him.  He's simply not worthy of the office!
I believe that those 4 died because of a policy directed by Pres. Obama that was to understate our presence in the area. He was more worried about offending Muslims by having a large visible military and security presence there than he was about providing adequate security for them. It was a risk and he (and the 4 killed) lost that gamble. As with all the "gates", if the administration had come clean, told the truth, and let public sentiment be whatever it was..we would be having a different conversation now. Someone thought that we the people's questions could be answered by issuing a knowingly false proposition that it was all the result of a film made by an American that sparked a riot that got out of hand. That wasn't the truth and they knew it...but the alternative was that the people be informed that this President has the capacity to make a mistake that caused death to brave innocent people...and they weren't going to let that happen. We just want the truth...tell it and you can go back to redistributing wealth like you do best.Leave the military stuff to those that care more about proper security than they do about offending Muslims. Just tell us who thought the film explanation would work on us.
+Larry Weathersby This isn't Watergate, or Iran contra. This is just a witch hunt by GOP members who think they have a winning political issue on the President. Where is the Watergate type hearings on lack of WMD in Iraq? We lost over 4K people there. Also, isn't this being investigated by the career professional?
+Paris Mosley refresh my memory. Was anyone killed during Watergate? Ther are 4 Americans dead here, it's been 5 months, and we have no answers. 
+Erik Walz What answers are you looking for? To me it seems like anything the Administration gives you guys isn't good enough. This is just a fishing exercise. Maybe you think the President lack leadership on this, but the majority of the country has different view of him? That is why this Libya issue only concern those on the Right.
+Paris Mosley You were either asleep or too young to remember when nearly all the Intelligence agencies of the world said that based upon available intel Saddam Hussein had WMDs. History showed that had them and had used them against a minority group in his own country.

What information has the president actually provided?
Having bad intel (WMD's in Iraq) is not the same as this situation, either.  Don't see your point.  I was comparing Presidential controversies based on media coverage.

If the situation in Benghazi truly is only concerning those on the "right" then this country is in worse shape than ever.  There were questionable policies and procedures that led to the attack that need to not only be truthfully revealed, but corrected for the future.
+Paris Mosley you are bias to the point of blindness if you think Americans should just look past this.
DEMS would not look past this if Romney was in office - nor should they. The fact that you don't see the seriousness of this proves a partiality that cannot be objective.
Put politics aside for a second and consider re-evaluating your position for the sake of what is true and right.
Let's have some fun and imagine this was Bush. Would the so-called answers and mixed up stories provided so far be enough, or would more answers be demanded. 
Thank you for your honest answers.  But what I'm mainly seeing is people that originally didn't like Obama and now just want to nitpick the answers that have been given about Libya so they can prove that he's an unreliable and untrustworthy leader when it won't make any actual difference because he's already been re-elected.

Everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion, but there doesn't seem to be anything that can come out of this that would be beneficial to anyone in the long run.
+Mark Wallace So no one is held accountable for not providing the security that was requested? No one is held accountable for Failing to act to save the lives of the Ambassador?
+Mark Wallace can you honestly tell us that if Romney was in office and 4 people died because of government non-responce - and then the White house lied (or got their story mixted up) and then covered up what actually happened - you would not demand answers?!?
Your politics has blinded you. I would demand this no matter who was in office - and any DECENT American would too.
+Mark Wallace you're probably right. Everyone loves us, this situation will probably not happen again, no need to pursue it any further.
And, predictably, it always comes back to Bush. 

Yes, I would be just as inquisitive if he were still POTUS and had been this secretive.  Liberals could not honestly say they would not be picketing the WH lawn if roles were reversed.

We, as a country, left 4 people without proper protection in the environment they were doing their civil duties.  Saying there is nothing that can come out of this that would be beneficial to anyone is beyond my ability to comprehend.  Lessons can only be learned when the truth is revealed as to what led to the lack of preparedness so this never happens again.
+Jay Carlson History also showed that we help him and developing them as well. If you want to get into the conspiracy theorem. Iraq was just our test case in trying to democratize a region that don't want it. But that still didn't justify WAR and losing over 4K soldiers and over 10K wounded and mimed for life.
+Gregory Althouse Not to come across mean, but in the grand scheme of things we only lost 4 people in a part of the world we probably should not be. This again is just witch hunt. We are not hearing solutions to make sure this doesn't happen again. We are only hearing " was the President eating during that time"," Did the President go walk his dog during that time", "Did the President pickup the phone at certain time" or " Why didn't order a battle ship in the region that would sent fighter jets without no concise intel". This sounds like a witch hunt.
+Gregory Althouse and +Erik Walz, nice strawmen!

I have no problem with the investigation, and if something is found that proves Obama or someone else in the white house to have been negligent, then yes, they should be disciplined, exposed, whatever.

Also, please don't paint all democrats with the same liberal brush.  We don't all march in lockstep and many of us have varying opinions on different things.  Also, I don't think I would be attacking Romney if this happened on his watch, but since he's not there, I can't guarantee that.

My concern is that this is being fueled by a partisan need to show the other guy as incompetent.  

However, If, as many of you say, you honestly believe that the security of our embassy people are at risk, and if this investigation could actually lead to changes being made to improve our security, then I'm fine with it. 
That's my concern +Mark Wallace , but it goes hand in hand. I believe he is incompetent, snd this potentially puts other embasies at risk. If he was more forth-coming, this investigation would already be over, and hopefully any errors or over-sights corrected. It is his administrations lack of transparency that is dragging this out, and frankly, looks like he is hiding something. 
+Mark Wallace I agree with +Erik Walz
its not a straw man - its a point. One that could be elaborated on further (and has been) - but not here.

I find the poo-pooing of the further investigation by DEMS very two-faced. It is the DEM party that wants to make a dozen laws about guns to possibly spare the life of one person - but then sweep the horrible death of these four people under the rug - to forget about and move on.
There is no defense for that. None. It shows that many DEMS only value the protection of life - if it supports their agenda. Hideous.
I don't know if this goes directly to the POTUS or not. I don't care. This is a failure so gross, dozens people should be losing their jobs, and charges pressed. If that includes Obama - then so be it. If Obama is innocent - he should be championing this investigation, and he is not. Failure.
This is not a discussion about Iraq. You are the one that bought it up. The US sold conventional weapons to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq War. Contrary to what libs/progs like to believe we did NOT sell WMDs or WMD technology to Iraq.

Now, can we go back to the real discussion about accountability for Benghazi?
+Jay Carlson How do you know what was sold to them? Where you there? As I have said before, GOP had some legitimate questions on Benghazi, but since their nominee for President turned it into a political football. This issue is not carrying that much weight. Also, the Administration has turned over all documents requested. The issue now is over who changed the "talking points" on a Sunday show
Ron N
+Mark Wallace. Here is my concern. I hope it does not come off as to frivolous. When there is an attack on an American Embassy on foreign soil, the White House gets live information via cameras and communication. We had access to save these for lives. As for the questions that you seem to want to hear, what was the president eating, what was he doing, etc., I'll stand for the 1 question that we all have. Why didn't the president do anything to save these 4 American lives. If 1 of these men were 1 of your family members, would you also be "nitpicking"?

Ron N
+Paris Mosley. The president sent these 4 men "where they shouldn't be". Then did nothing to save them. I hope that didn't sound too mean.
+Ron N The President sends 1000s of people aboard in dangerous spots in the world. You really can't expect him to protect all of them 24/7. Shit we can't even protect our own citizens in our own country. How many homicides we have everyday? Hope that didn't come across mean
+Paris Mosley that's a shitty atitude. I do expect him to protect them, or at least be engaged enough to povide support.
+Erik Walz What should have been his level of engagement? Mind you none of us was in the room when he was told.
+Paris Mosley None of us can afford an all expense paid trip to Vegas for a fund raiser, where he was told. All documents have not been turned over, not! Why bring up Iraq... To keep the conversation from the real truth. It's called "spin", "rhetoric",, "illusion", "deflection". Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat. Paris you say that it doesn't matter to the American people and I say it doesn't matter to "Un-American" people.
It's kinda looking like BHO was too busy campaigning to be bothered with affairs of state. Further, he was talking about how great everything was in the Middle East. What with the Arab Spring and all, so taking any action to protect them prior to the event or effect a rescue during the event would have been contradictory to this line.

What we know;
1. The Ambassador had requested aid.
2. One hour into the seven-hour-long terrorist attack the White House was listening to phone calls and watching real-time video from drones.

What we want to know;
1. What did the president know?
2. When did he know it?
3. Why was security augmentation denied?
4. Why was no rescue attempt made when the attacks began?

Too much to ask for?
+Brian George What truth you is looking for? There was not the resource there to help those people at the time of the assault. Now you can blame Obama, State Department or Congress( for is cuts in Embassy security). Also, why is this President's perk of the job being in question? I didn't hear this when others are President. Maybe you inspire to be President than you can get your own plan
+Paris Mosley I don't know his level, but from what panetta testified to, it wasn't much. I would expect when an embassy is under attack, he would remain in constant contact, doesn't sound like that was the case. But he needed his rest I suppose, what with the flight to Vegas to campaign and all. The best campaigning he could have done would have been to be presidential and actually be the commander in chief. 
+Erik Walz That is ridiculous the President can be President anywhere. So his flying to Vegas is really not relevant here. Unless you have facts that the President denied security or help to those embassy's officials, this is a mute issue. Now Congress has to decided if funding Embassy security is a priority or are we still in austerity mode
+Paris Mosley Provide evidence that "other presidents" were campaigning during a terrorist attack on Americans on American soil! If I did aspire to be President you can bet your bottom dollar I would have done allot more than it appears Mr. Obama did to defend, and protect American citizens.
That's part of the problem +Paris Mosley they are not forth-coming withnthe facts. I can only speculate form what has come out already that he appeared dis-engaged before the attack (there was ample evidence that violence was increasing), and during the attack, which happened to be on Sept 11.
Ron N
+Paris Mosley. Your statement about no resources is incorrect. There were 2 locations 2 hours away reinforcements could have been sent from. The only thing our president did was sit and watch them be killed. No the present doesn't have to watch over the 1000s of people he sends over there 24 7. But he at least could make a damn attempt of the protecting them.
I don't mean to sound mean or uncompassionate about this. Anyone who serves the US Government overseas should know the risk they're taking with their lives. They represent the US Government and their lives will always be constantly threatened. What the people should be asking for is complete transparency when it comes to these types of issues. That hasn't happened with this President and his failure to act shows a contempt for the American people and a disregard for their saftey while serving overseas.
On another issue that I've seen in this post. Anytime someone questions the actions of the President the first response from a liberal is that's a "talking point". Guess what we are doing here!? We're talking, and evidently the college education you received from your "diverse" liberal college forgot to equip you with how to handle someone that is a true free thinker.
Add a comment...