Senate report: Attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi could have been prevented...

The report said that on Sept. 18, 2012, the ��FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.

But it took six more days for intelligence officials to revise their chronology of events and say that ��there were no demonstrations or protests�� at the diplomatic compound ��prior to the attacks.��

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/senate-report-attack-on-us-compound-in-benghazi-could-have-been-prevented/2014/01/15/5e197224-7de9-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

I would hope you are beginning to look so that you can make an informed choice for 2016....

It is a fact that the outpost and CIA annex did not have adequate security when they were attacked...It is also a fact that the Obama administration knew the attacks were planned and carried out by terrorists...Another know fact is that Hillary Clinton issued a press release blaming inflammatory material posted on the internet for inciting or triggering the attack...More facts, Susan Rice backed up Clinton's lie...Clearly, the choice to hide and politicize the facts surrounding the Benghazi attack was made in order to preserve the strength of Obama's re-election campaign stance on terrorism...The truth was stonewalled for almost two years...It was this "series of known facts" that lead to these, still unanswered, questions...Questions that Democrats are quite willing to sweep under the carpet in order to assure Clinton's election in 2016...Questions that every American should demand be answered...Why were we in Benghazi with such a strong CIA presence?...Why were 23 requests for additional security denied?...What was the coordinated response force status on 9/11/12?...Who issued to order to stand down?...Where or exactly what was Obama doing on the night of the attack and why did he attend a fundraiser the very next day?...

Benghazi is not a partisan issue!...Benghazi is an American issue!!...Clinton and Rice lied...On 9/16/12, Libyan President Magariaf told Bob Sheiffer on a televised segment of "Face the Nation" two things...The attack was not conducted by Libyans and the attack had been planned for months...On 05/09/13, an American diplomat testified at a congressional hearing that the attack was terrorist and that he personally informed the Obama administration of pending trouble and requested help for the consulate...It is important that Americans know the facts leading up to and surrounding the Benghazi murders...It is vital that our leaders be judged on more than rumors, opinion, and innuendo...If the President and former Sec'y of State have reasons for their actions before, during, and after the attack, they are obligated to tell the American people those reasons...They are obligated to tell the American people THE TRUTH...

http://www.cagle.com/2014/05/a-new-angle-to-benghazi-gunrunning/

Democrats and their liberal flacks are rallying around the idea of boycotting the Select Committee to Investigate the Benghazi scandal.

Brilliant idea.

Just think of how much trust such a move would imbue in the American people if the Republicans had thought of that during the Iran-Contra hearings.

Meanwhile, police are investigating threats on the life of Select Committee Chair Rep. Trey Gowdy by the violent left.

This indicates radical liberals must believe there is a serious crime, for why else would they go to such extremes to silence the process? Surely it's not simply because President Obama and his administration lied about the nature of the Benghazi protests. It's likely because his supporters have read the domestic and foreign press reports about the true nature of the facility in Benghazi, Libya.

The New York Times has already reported weapons being shipped through Benghazi to the Syrian rebels under U.S. auspices. Seymour Hersh, the famous investigative reporter who exposed the My Lai massacre, reported extensively on the arms being shipped by the U.S. to Syrian rebels through Turkey.

This is the real fear: Hillary Clinton and perhaps President Obama will be exposed without credible deniability to have been shipping weapons to the Syrian rebels, who are mostly Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliates.

Why would anyone care that the President lied? Because four Americans died and he's covering up the reason? Every President lies about something. A few, such as Nixon, LBJ and Clinton have lied to cover up incompetence, misbehavior and crimes.

Others simply lie about policies to push their agendas.

Lying to cover up the deaths of an ambassador and staff in an expected attack would surely erode confidence in the leader, but not nearly as much as the fact that he was instrumental in providing arms to Al Qaeda.

This is what the Select Committee really needs to learn: how many weapons had the retired Navy Seals, experts in weapons transfers, shipped to Al Qaeda and their affiliates in Syria? Was the President aware of this program? Was the program designed by or approved by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then Director of the CIA, David Petraeus?

I suspect that if you go back through the internet and read the New York Times reports as well as Seymour Hersh's reporting you'll come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus were in charge of this operation.

As Hersh reported,a secret agreement (was) reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus.

Obama may not have known the specifics of the Benghazi trading post, but Hillary and Petraeus certainly did.

Sure, emails discovered by Judicial Watch show that the President and his administration schemed to cover up the nature of the attacks on the facility, but that's not the worst of it.

I would say that the worst of it is the gunrunning to jihadists itself.

This is also where it becomes so dangerous for Hillary Clinton's political future. Remember, she resigned just as the Benghazi investigations were beginning. What would happen to her viability as a Presidential candidate should she be found complicit in giving weapons to Al Qaeda and their affiliates? Would women still support her if it's proven that she was instrumental in arming jihadists intent on killing their children?

The political fallout would be measured in percentages of voters lost and volume of defensive propaganda maneuvers.

The question that really needs to be answered is, Why were they doing this at all?

If the President and former Sec'y of State have reasons for their actions before, during, and after the attack, they are obligated to tell the American people those reasons...They are obligated to tell the American people THE TRUTH...

There is no such obligation anywhere, this is but a reference to a moral and just society. That society exited many decades ago, perhaps never to return, at least not during the current state of consciousness.

The truth, that would be the joke of the century. Those that know the truth have either been contained or are dead.

But what can be determined of the truth is as obvious as the nose on one's face but then that is hard to see when most are so busy looking down one's nose to scorn others.

Many here just want to blame some silly tape and totally ignore the facts. Those facts being the events involve from the US standpoint two of the current administrations biggest psychopathic statists and the CIA, the kings of black ops. Add to that the incident happens not in the main embassy in Tripoli, but in port city called Benghazi and just what could be going on that involves the CIA and a port? Some kind of smuggling? And of course, the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi was attacked by a heavily armed group of 125-150 gunmen, whose trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Sharia, a group of Islamist militants working with the local government to manage security in Benghazi, that has no significance to the matter would it? Then there is the matter of the last meeting of the day, coffee with a Turkish diplomat, ended at eight thirty. And just how does Turkey fit into the whole scheme of things during that time?

So what really happened will in all probability remain a mystery but there can be no doubt about the intentions and they are not good. But then most Americas believe that being spied on is ok by them, they had nothing to hide so why should they care about our government using this ignorance to restrain and besiege another nation's sovereignty be of any consequence.

Just during this current king's reign of terror this nation has usurped the governments of more countries than any before him and there are more on the table as we speak.

Glib, sarcastic, negative and defeatist...You, of all people, speak about looking down one's nose to scorn others?...There are many pieces to this puzzle and you are not (by a country mile) the first or the only one to take note...What really happened will not remain a mystery...The recent release of new documents tied to the murders has created a need for yet another investigative committee...This one will focus on the new information as well as bring fragmented results from previous investigations together... Pushing the issue could be damaging to both parties chances in 2016, but it appears there is enough determination on both sides to continue investigating regardless of the outcome...And you are wrong, this administration absolutely has an obligation to present the facts to the four families who lost their loved ones and to the American people who "hired" them to do a job...Your hyperbole brings nothing useful to the table...In fact, it's exactly the type of attitude that lends a hand to those determined to "grow" government...

Glib, sarcastic, negative and defeatist...You, of all people, speak about looking down one's nose to scorn others?...There are many pieces to this puzzle and you are not (by a country mile) the first or the only one to take note...What really happened will not remain a mystery...The recent release of new documents tied to the murders has created a need for yet another investigative committee...This one will focus on the new information as well as bring fragmented results from previous investigations together... Pushing the issue could be damaging to both parties chances in 2016, but it appears there is enough determination on both sides to continue investigating regardless of the outcome...And you are wrong, this administration absolutely has an obligation to present the facts to the four families who lost their loved ones and to the American people who "hired" them to do a job...Your hyperbole brings nothing useful to the table...In fact, it's exactly the type of attitude that lends a hand to those determined to "grow" government...

Glib, not at all; sarcastic, absolutely; negative and defeatist, no just realistic and my scorn goes eyeball to eyeball, right in your face but that isn't the issue here is it? But I'm not here to win any popularity contest, I just really don't care.

But thinking that this whole thing will ever amount to anything other that political rhetoric to keep the red and blue team against each other would be a pretty naive outlook at best.

And to an administration that has no problem killing those in their way, yes there are bodies everywhere, not to mention lying and destroying any records in the way, do you really believe there are lose ends that will lead anywhere. I don't.

But I do believe that there are still at least a couple of "Oliver Norths" remaining in the woodpile. If it becomes really necessary, one will come forward with some very untrue but plausible story and fall upon the sword. However even that will in all probability never be needed, it is just going to be an election year partisan bicker that will run its course and go the way of the snow in the spring after the election. It's all about divide and conquer.

And obligation is a moral issue, something that has been missing from elected officials for centuries so just where do you propose to impose that obligation? And it is not I that is naive, so don't try to place the blame of government growth on me, it doesn't fit. I don't vote for them, I am not represented by them because I don't need representation and I don't give them any fruit of my labor.

Sad to see you so frustrated but until you can accept the fact that this will never be resolved. This is no longer the era of Nixon but has degraded to the era of the super psychopathic statist that will stick together irregardless of which team colors they wear.

PS: ob�li�ga�tion[ �bbli g�ysh'n ]

1. duty: something that must be done because of legal or moral duty
2. state of being obligated: the state of being under a moral or legal duty to do something
3. gratitude owed: something that somebody owes in return for something given, e.g. assistance or a favor

Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 1968.

LEGAL. 1. Conforming to the law; according to law; required or permitted by law; not forbidden or discountenanced by law; good and effectual in law. Freeman v. Fowler Packing Co., 135 Kan. 378, 11 P.2d 276, 277; General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Schwartz, 118 N.J.L. 25, 190 A. 625, 627.

2. Proper or sufficient to be recognized by the law; cognizable in the courts; competent or adequate to fulfill the requirements of the law.

3. Cognizable in courts of law, as distinguished from courts of equity; construed or governed by the rules and principles of law, in contradistinction to rules of equity.

4. Posited by the courts as the inference or imputation of the law, as a matter of construction, rather than established by actual proof; e. g., legal malice. See Lawful.

5. Created by law. De Vita v. Pianisani, 127 Misc. 611, 217 N.Y.S. 438, 440.

6. Lawful; of or pertaining to law. Kinsley v. Herald & Globe ***'n, 113 Vt. 272, 34 A.2d 99, 101, 148 A.L.R. 1164.

LAWFUL. Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to nor forbidden by the law. Ohio Automatic Sprinkler Co. v. Fender, 108 Ohio St. 149, 141 N.E. 269, 275; McDonnell v. Murnan Shipbuilding Corporation, 210 Ala. 611, 98 So. 887, 889; Hafner Mfg. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 262 Mo. 621, 172 S.W. 28, 33.

The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction.
"Lawful fraud" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of "equitable." Thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but not of "lawful assets," or "lawful estate." But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful" writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or process.

So the short of the matter is that legel is associated with the laws of man and lawful if associated with the laws of nature. It would be lawful that would denote the "moral" fiber, malum in se as opposed to malum prohibitum.

So therefore legal connotates no "moral" obligation whatsoever but the second clause of the definition is "moral". And just where in Washington are you going to find anything or one that even has a glimmer of morality? Not going to happen.

Thank you!! ^^^^ ...Every word only serves to reinforce what I said concerning your "counter" contribution to solving the problem...

Speaker John A. Boehner on Friday appointed seven Republicans to the 12-person panel, which was created by a largely party-line vote last week after the release of an email that showed the White House tried to shape the way the attack was discussed by Susan E. Rice, a former ambassador to the United Nations, on several Sunday news programs.

...

But Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said on CNN's "State of the Union" that the panel's findings had been "predetermined" by Republicans. She enumerated the hearings, briefings and documents that have already been dedicated to investigating the attack.

Who's frustrated now?....lmao...

I don't need nor care to know just who gave Rice some ridiculous talking points about some film or any other diversions that ensued.

So I gather....But your feelings don't affect those of other, more politically astute, posters....

What good does it do me, after all, if an ever-watchful authority keeps an eye out to ensure that my pleasures will be tranquil and races ahead of me to ward off all danger, sparing me the need even to think about such things, if that authority, even as it removes the smallest thorns from my path, is also absolute master of my liberty and my life; if it monopolizes vitality and existence to such a degree that when it languishes, everything around it must also languish; when it sleeps, everything must also sleep; and when it dies, everything must also perish?

There are some nations in Europe whose inhabitants think of themselves in a sense as colonists, indifferent to the fate of the place they live in. The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called "the government." They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved. They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.

When a nation has reached this point, it must either change its laws and mores or perish, for the well of public virtue has run dry: in such a place one no longer finds citizens but only subjects.
- Alexis de Tocqueville