Free Republic

In the minds of jihadis, the weakness shown here is taken as an INVITATION to attack.

Wow..I stand corrected, I had heard otherwise but what you say I believe to be the case.

When you donate directly to a candidate, your name and the amount of the donation is a matter of public record. The 501C4 was set up such that those who wanted to exercise free speech could do so in anonymity. Right or wrong, I believe that to be the law.

So, the mere request by the IRS to provide donor lists would seem to me to be violating the law. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d be interested in knowing the truth about this.

The mention of “stingers” in the Roger Simon article should be of grave concern.

The State Department doesn’t have stingers, only the Defense Department could have provided them, if indeed they were provided, which should bring Leon Panetta back to a hearing if true. If Panetta was involved, then Obama was involved. Others on this forum may have better info than I do.

I tend to believe the “missiles” were manpads, a big step down in lethality from stingers, and that Roger may have misunderstood the leaker.

Petraeus would never have been on board had stingers been involved, IMHO.

But I guess one should never underestimate this crowd.

Sooner or later, some Democrats will break with the president and try to save their own skins by supporting the inquiries.

Yes, I agree with this statement and the gist of the article.

Impeachment is what the Democrats would like us to do for them, and we shouldn't oblige them. Obama is an albatross around the dems' collective necks. Once it is perceived that the party could go down supporting him, then the party will begin to cooperate. Impeachment would then be possible, also the party asking him to resign. Would he resign? Probably not, but he would then represent even more of an anchor on dem political prospects.

The media, meanwhile, seems to already realize that it's the party or him. They seem to me to have chosen to protect the Democrat party.

This revelation on its own may seem to be small potatoes, but it serves to corroborate the motive behind the targeting of the 501-C4 apllicants. This is where the “with malice” part becomes provable.

This revelation on its own may seem to be small potatoes, but it serves to corroborate the motive behind the targeting of the 501-C4 apllicants. This is where the “with malice” part becomes provable.

If true, what is being revealed here could complete the circle-it could give us the answer to the question as to why, up until now not satisfactorily answered, there never was any thought given to rescuing those in danger after the ambassador was murdered.

So, we would then have at least two dead Americans who died in the name of protecting dear leader’s election chances.

Extra-legal activity? Check.

Cover-up? Check.

Conspiracy? Check.

Motive? Check.

Treason. Provable treason. Hillary and Obama.

Former diplomats, hmmm....one of whom served in Iraq in 2004....hmmm.. with Petraeus?....hmmm....

You don't arm your enemy and then expect them to treat you like a friend.

Good observation.

In general, this is the way liberals think, and specifically, this is Obama's belief. liberal foreign policy can be likened to Nicholas Berg, who thought his good intentions toward the enemy and his affinity for their cause would shield him from harm.

We all know what happened to him.

With the news yesterday that two Democrats in the house have called for Lois Lerner’s resignation, perhaps the dam is beginning to break.

I agree with the author, this is an opportunity, not so much to get Obama out of the White House, but to deal the Democratic party a huge defeat. Obama is an albatross around their necks now, and we shouldn’t talk impeachment, at some point that’s something they’ll want us to do for them.

No, Obama’s their problem. Either he goes down, or the party goes down. I believe that’s their choice now.

I agree with you that impeachment is not something we need to pursue. He’s becoming a detriment to the party, and the media. I’m pretty sure donations will be difficult for dems to get soon.

He’s their problem, impeachment and removal is probably what they’d like us to do for them. No. Let him dangle in the wind.

2014 will be more like 2010 than 2012, Obama won’t be on the ballot. Then we can begin to “uninstall”.

While we’re all riveted to the unfolding scandals, it may be important that we step back and take a look at something much more dangerous to our country’s well being.

Many of us linked the 9-11-2001 attacks to a series of very weak responses to smaller attacks that preceded it, under Clinton’s administration. Bush’s response, though cloaked in defensive, even altruistic justifications, was thankfully perceived by the enemy as punitive and retaliatory. Our willingness to put boots on the ground and die to exact consequences on our enemy represented a profound change in the way we confronted them. Whether the wars were won or lost is not important, what is important is a message was sent that the Great Satan was no longer a paper tiger.

For eleven years the enemy’s will to lash out was stymied.

Then comes Obama. He cannot even call the enemy by its name. The response to the Fort Hood shootings, the underwear bomber, the Boston bombings, and now Benghazi, has sent a message that the jihad can count on American weakness once again.

I believe all of the above happened because Obama has displayed weakness, and I’m here to tell you more attacks are coming. Why? As always, weakness invites them to attack. And that’s what they see. Weakness. Profound weakness.

There is no way Obama gets out of office without another attack, probably a planned and well-coordinated one, on our homeland, and with the goal of killing as many innocents as possible.

We’ve been living in a deluded world, thinking somehow we can eradicate their capability to strike us, when it’s not their capability that’s at issue, it’s their will. And their will has been restored. Once again.

The liberal support system is comprised of the following:

1-Donors-Soros, et al.

2-The Main Stream Media.

3-The Democratic Party.

Would you want to bet with your money that Obama is going to retain enough power to provide you what you want for your donation? He doesn’t need donations now but the Dem party does. Obama couldn’t get the gun bill passed BEFORE the IRS and Associated Press scandals surfaced, and before the worst of Benghazi was revealed. Most of what he wants to do will be opposed by some Democrats anyway.

The money will dry up for Democratic congress people too.

I could be wrong, but if I’m right, then the “preference cascade” has begun. First the donations begin to dry up, then the Democrats in congress begin to turn on Obama. They will need him off the stage. Soon.

The media, it seems to me, realizes that they must choose...it’s either save Obama or save the Democratic party. It’s too late to do both. Obama’s dragging the party down, and neither the party, nor the media can trust him to do the honorable thing. They know his character too, and it will work against him.

So no, I’m not as pessimistic as most here on FR, that the media will revert to form.

It’s the Titanic, and its captain, as everyone knows, has clearly demonstrated that he’s the type that will let everyone drown in order to save his own skin.

So, liberals, prop him up and the ship will sink.

Today is Pfeiffer’s audition to replace Jay Carney as WH presstitute. I bet he fails.

Connecting the dots.....

The Cincinnati office is the hub of the scandal because most of the battle ground states in the 2012 election were under that office’s purview.

Cincinnati’s role didn’t just happen, it was chosen.

While conservative free speech was being stymied, liberal group applications were being fast-tracked. The Barack H. Obama Foundation, a ‘charity’ begun by Barack’s half brother, received approval within 32 days. The approval was signed by Lois Lerner.

No malice? The malice comes with the deliberate harm done to the Romney campaign, and by extension, the American people. Targeting by definition is intentional. And targeting by the IRS is a violation of equal protection laws, and the Hatch Act.

We may never be able to prove Obama himself was involved, but the conspiracy between the Obama campaign and the IRS, to illegally influence the outcome of a presidential election is what all this should head toward.

If you donate directly to a candidate for public office, it becomes a matter of public record. You may find your name and the donated amount in the morning paper.

If you donate to a 501-C, by law, you have the expectation of privacy. People donate to these entities for this reason.

Merely the act of requesting the donor lists from these applicants should then be a violation of law.

How then can the head of the IRS sit there and say he “doesn’t think” it is illegal? What burns me is he pretty much got away with it.

The targeting itself is a violation of equal protection statutes, the Hatch Act, and even the first amendment, as speech was indeed stifled with the actions of the IRS.

I’m not a lawyer, can someone set me straight if I’m wrong on this?

My point was: In not getting a conviction in the Senate we did more damage to our side than to theirs, and I don’t want to do that again. I’d settle for a Special Prosecutor with guts and brains and subpoenas in hand. Maybe Impeachment later if he turns something.

I agree with Cyber.

We have a far better chance that the democratic party will realize that it is an existential matter for them to ask him to step down. Never happen? It will if they know what's best for them.

The 2014 elections are going to be more like 2010 than 2012. We could then undo an awful lot of the damage, veto pen or not. In the meantime, we should have hearings and attempt to reveal all we can, but should stay away from impeachment.

Impeachment is what the dems, now rightly afraid the party will go down because of Obama, want us to do for them.

Leave him there, like an albatross around their collective necks-he's their problem. Obama is taking the party down, and this is why you see the media turning, and some dem pols already speaking out against him.

Either he goes or the democrat party goes, we should let it all play out.

Obama asked someone to resign who had already agreed his job would terminate in fifteen days. And he’s staying on until then!

Man, he’s really angry.

Krauthammer could be right.

There’s more going on here than what the media may desire to happen, or desire to be the case.

There are four actors in this play-the left-wing donor community, the democrat party, the Obama presidency, and the media.

The party will take its cue from the monied interests, and the media will take its cue from the party, because the party could go down with Obama. At some point, and we may have reached that point, the media may perceive it’s the party or Obama, that they must choose to preserve one or the other.

It looks to me as if the party is getting signals from the monied interests that it’s time to give this guy the hook. It is not insignificant that Rangel seems to have concluded it’s time to cut the losses. The party cannot win a race for dog catcher without the black voting constituency.

For all practical purposes the Obama Presidency is over. It’s all Select Committees and Special Prosecutors and Democrats running for the tall grass from here on out.

I agree and here's why. A choice must be made. It's either the Democratic Party or Obama. The media must choose, and it seems as if they've chosen. The party could be relegated to the political basement for decades to come if they don't get him out of the (white)house.

Once it's clear that the media are no longer in protection mode concerning Obama, this will give party apparatchiks the signal to move. And move they will, it means the survival of the party in general, and particular jobs within it now. This has become a political existential issue for the Democrat Party.

I think what may be going on here is that the leftist media realize that a choice now must be made. Either protect the Deomcratic party, or protect Obama.

The effect of all the scandals together could relegate the party to the political basement for decades to come.

At some point, and this would be the tipping point, Democratic Congress critters will realize the conundrum they confront, and will want him off the stage. Even before all this, dem pols were going to have to run against some of his policies in various districts in order to get reeleccted.

If we perceive a media turn, then they do too, and that may be the domino that topples the party's support for Obama.

I think the media turn has staying power. We have to understand that this administration has such a persecution complex that it has beheld the left wing media with only slightly less disdain than Fox News.

Obama's minions have acted as if the MSM was a wholly-owned subsidiary, and have attempted to control them for some time now.

So the left wing media may be feeling "if this is the thanks we get".

The other problem for Obama is that the left wing media must be beginning to feel that the Democratic Party could go down here, and a choice must be made. It seems to me they've made that choice.

I believe Sheldon Adelson should be added to the list. Audited and harrassed, in his words, by IRS after donating to Gingrich campain.

... a report in the Wall Street Journal Sunday said that a forthcoming Treasury Department inspector general report would show that no one outside IRS developed the criteria.

This statement simply cannot be proven. How could anyone possibly know this? A meeting in a park could set the ball rolling, and there would be no proof.

I'm surprised the WSJ could report this with a straight face. Just who was the beneficiary of all these shenanigans? The question answers itself.

I watched the press conference with David Cameron in real time. Obama was clearly stumbling to answer the question on Benghazi and the IRS. He no longer seems so sure of himself. He looked tired, afraid, and discombobulated. Worse, the content of his answer was lies that we all now know to be lies.

The faces of the media revealed that they were stunned. Absolutely stunned, in their eyes it must have been a pipitiful performance.

Don’t look for any more press conferences. I thought Jay Carney’s press conference on Friday was far better, though equally ineffective.

There's blood in the water - Bengahzi's got them bleeding pretty badly .....

Yes there is.

Obama is in dire trouble here.

But what I'm focussed on is the media and the Democratic party, aren't they in trouble too? I think they have to make a choice. Now. Them or him. Whether they like it or not, or know it or not, they've been implicated by association in all the misdeeds.

I think what we are now witnessing is that the media is beginning to report on this, it's self preservation for them. Next? Democrats in Congress. One can wish.

The perfect storm that we have here, is that for both the media and the Democrat party, a choice has to be made, him or us.

They media seems to have made a choice. Once it is clear to the dems which way the media is going, they will fall in line. They have no choice. The survival of the party will become paramount.

These whistleblowers will include some CIA personnel who were in the annex on Sept 11, 2012.

Being CIA, they will be privy to what the op was designed to accomplish.

Guns to Syria?

There’s something that tells me that it’s guns alright, but not Syria. Think about this a minute. A clandestine op would not be necessary to funnel guns to Syria, if the administration convinced congress it was the right group of rebels, then it could be done without a secret op.

Because of the fact that Petraeus had to be in the loop, I think the weapons were destined for Iranian dissident factions. The Turks would have been happy to assist, as would the Saudis. This also explains why Petraeus was put at CIA to begin with.

Note that no one in the White House is disputing the Syrian angle. This is telling.

Iran. It’s the only thing that explains why Petraeus was involved. He hates the Iranians.

The Israelis had no trouble with the vaunted Syrian air defenses. This is embarrassing that we’ve now announced to the world we can’t get to a trouble spot in less than 8 to 20 hours.

And we’re afraid of a bunch of rebels in Libya.

I think Dennis Kucinich represents what may in the end become a movement against Obama from the anti-war left, who have been displeased with Obama for some time now. Benghazi is a told-you-so moment for them.

Guantanamo stil bothers them, and of course, the intervention in Libya really peeves the anti-war left.

Doesn’t help the dem party in ‘14, either.

We have a confluence of a number of train wrecks involving the Obama administration right now.

In foreign policy we see in the Fort Hood murders, the Boston bombings, and the Benghazi terrorist attack, that the failure to confront the enemy, the failure to name the enemy, has emboldened them. What we see as weakness is being viewed as cowardice by the jihadis. Weakness invites attack, but cowardice invites a succession of them. Our enemy views our Commander in Chief as a coward.

They see clearly that we lack the will to respond now. Worse, we have now admitted before the world that we cannot get to an attack site anywhere in the ME or North Africa within 20 hours. We could debate the time, but the point remains that they could hit us just about anywhere with impunity.

More attacks will surely come.

I think it’s the combination of all these attacks that has precipitated a thought process culminating in an instinctive conclusion that this administraton’s policies are causing them.

Instinct also tells us that our response should have a retaliatory and punitive flavor. Won’t happen with Obama as president.

It’s not a pocketbook issue, it’s a security issue, an existential issue, and this is why I believe the people are beginning to turn. I won’t predict that Obama will be impeached over what has transpired thus far. But I do predict impeachment over what is to befall us very soon, because there will be more American deaths at the hand of the jihad before the year is out.

His cowardice has sent them an invitation to strike us, again and again.

It had to happen, sooner or later.

It’s not so much the gay themed shows that offer a reality we all know is false, it’s the seeming inability of Hollywood to air a drama, suspense, or mystery show that dosn’t include the gratuitous gay interlude.

It’s become tedious. We now know we’re being preached to, and we don’t like it.

These shows seem to simultaneously malign religion, you know-the ubiquitous cleric who in the end becomes the perp, or the perps who are portrayed as justifying their evil with Christianity.

Perhaps the change we are witnessing in the legacy media has to do with the fact that they’ve begun to realize they cannot continue to defend him and maintain their relevance.

The other factor now in play is that, with so many missteps and misdeeds coming together at the same time, certainly the Democrat Party, and possibly even liberalism itself, could be damaged irreparably. That’s the conundrum the media faces, but worse for the left is that the monied interests behind Obama have an even clearer choice-he is simply no longer a good investment.

If I were a Dem I would want Obama escorted off the stage. An illness would be oh, so convenient, now wouldn’t it?

Cowardice is exactly what we are witnessing here, not just with Benghazi, but with everything that is going wrong. We are telegraphing a message of weakness, and it is inviting the enemy to strike.

There will be more attacks.

What’s most important is what it is revealing about Obama’s character. The lying doesn’t surprise anyone, and besides, truth be known, it’s considered an endearing quality in the left’s leaders.

No, I think something is seeping through the woodwork here, and it’s from an accumulation of events, and the way Obama has handled them.

First, the desire to close GITMO. To please whom? The Islamic Middle East. It’s weak.

Next the Fort Hood shooting. ‘Couldn’t even name the enemy. Afraid to confront the enemy even in nomenclature.

The Boston bombings. A rush to mirandize. Again, to please whom? Scared.

And now Benghazi, where weak, scared, and afraid have become cowardice.

We need to begin using the word-coward.

It’s something we on the right have perhaps sensed, but now it’s become the elephant in the room.

My focus is on the legacy media, aren’t they taking it on the chin here, in a big way?

And it’s not just Benghazi, though Benghazi may represent the proverbial straw in the straw/camel metaphor.

We have an accumulation of liberal failures, from Obamacare (train wreck), the debt, the economy, the Gosnell trial, the attack on the Catholic Church, and the Boston bombings, all being evaluated now in a different light. We are no longer looking at what might happen, we are seeing what HAS happened.

If we look at the big picture, we have to conclude that that which liberals and the liberal media cherish above all-liberalism itself-is under seige. Liberalism is under seige not by reporting, or opinion, but by events. The results of liberal governance are now coming to the fore, and it’s not pretty.

Lots of chickens, lots of roosts. The effect is cumulative. Have you noticed your liberal friends aren’t so interested in talking politics anymore? I’m not sure it’s necessary for Obama to be impeached. What we conservatives told them would happen, is happening. Liberalism itself is being discredited and exposed by results and events.

The cumulative effect is causing the left to have to choose- protect your man, or protect your cherished ideology. Which way will you go, liberals?

I don’t think the undeniable turn we are witnessing has anything to do with Obama, or Hillary, or even Benghazi.

Though the disappointment in Obama is palpable, as in Maureen Dowd’s column, I sense the fourth estate is afraid for liberalism itself.

Their world is crashing all around them, Obamacare, Benghazi, Boston, gun control, the debt, the economy, the Gosnell trial. They’re beginning to see that liberalism will (rightly) be blamed for it all.

Liberalism always looked great on a bumper sticker, and now it’s been put into practice. The social trappings are disappearing-the feeling that their beliefs were superior to ours, the perch of moral high-ground they’ve occupied. Poof! It’s gone. My lib friends don’t want to talk politics anymore. Liberalism is being defeated before their eyes, not by elections, but by events. And it’s the accumulation of events that may have caused a catharsis, a turning point.

The loss of power is what they fear, what they see coming, and that’s personal for each and every one of them.

ABC is now reporting on Benghazi, but you have to go to their website and search for it, nothing on the home page.

Obama is between a rock and a hard place. His only choice?

To announce that the video lie was concocted, and that they had to lie to protect national security. In other words, he will claim that the mission our Ambassador was on would have made Israel safer, when the truth is perhaps just the opposite. We know that Obama called Netanyahu on Sept 11. Hmmm....

Who might our president have been sending weaponry to if it wasn’t Syria? Why would David Petraeus have been in on the lie?

We should be careful, we may be walking into a trap here.

Petraeus made a vow to his wife, and broke it. Why would anyone think that he wouldn’t break a vow he made to his country?

Very good point, and must be taken into consideration.

My only thought is that he is first and foremost a soldier, and great, brave men have frequently displayed failings of the flesh, but still were willing to die to stay true to their country.

I don’t think for a minute the cover-up had to do with enabling Obama to continue his election run-up mantra that “we have al-Qaida on the run”. When America is attacked, the people rally around the president, he could have reacted in a way that would have enhanced his chances for re-election. There’s something far more important to obscure here, perhaps sinister, perhaps not, so we should be very careful that we’re not being set up.

I have some different questions:

1-What could be so important to accomplish, that it would unite Hillary, Obama, and General Petraeus, all of whom have lied about this, Hillary under oath?

2-Why would weapons need to be funneled to Syrian rebels in a clandestine manner, when our President is contemplating openly today, to do the same thing?

3-Doing harm to whom, would have brought Petraeus in on the plan?

4-We now know that non-Libyans were brought in to carry out the attack. Who then, sent them?

5-It surprises no one that Hillary and Obama would lie, I can think of only one reason Petraeus would lie-national security. So who were we going to send those weapons to?

6-It defies imagination that the 30 survivors could be “muzzled” even by this administration. They were “in the loop” on the plan, could it be they’re not talking for the same reason Petraeus is lying?

7-If Turkey was involved, why does Syria have to be the only destination for the weapons being considered?

8-If the target regime discovered our plan, wouldn’t this explain the attack on the ambassador? Wouldn’t it also explain why the adminstration, after being informed our ambassador was dead, felt that the hostilities would cease, as the objective of our enemy was met, and the White House knew it?

9-For Hillary to say “what does it matter”, isn’t it an indication that there’s still a trump card to play?

10-Those who will testify Wednesday were not in the loop, and they’re all from the State Dept. Again, the survivors were largely CIA, and not one of them is coming forward. How can this be when they were the ones whose lives were endangered?

I just can’t get it out of my head that Petraeus was on board with whatever they were doing, and he was willing to lie to help the cover-up. I don’t believe this is a man who would lie for political reasons, but national security is another story. It’s entirely possible that Petraeus was lured to CIA because of the magnitude of the project. The appointment never made sense to anyone, and this may explain it, it’s something he wanted to be a part of.

What bothers me is that Petraeus participated in the cover-up, after he was outed as an adulterer.

Let’s be very careful here. I’ve never believed the coverup was designed to protect Obama’s “we’ve got them on the run” political meme, and overtly providing arms to Syrian rebels wouldn’t have bothered anyone. No, they’re protecting something bigger than that, and something that Patraeus would be on board for.

What mission was Benghazi part of that would unite the three of them, Obama, Hillary, and Gen Petraeus? I don’t think funneling weapons to Syria would have accomplished this. Whatever it was, Petraeus was brought on board specifically for this mission, IMHO. The heavy CIA presence in Benghazi says a lot.

Who else could have used some American weaponry, that may wish to overthrow their government? Why was Turkey involved?

I saw this on Fox this morning.

Rep. Lynch defended the administration at every turn until the question came up concerning the talking points. Stephen Hayes, in an article on the Weekly Standard website has provided the smoking gun proof that the CIA knew not only that it was terrorism, but that affiliates of al-Qaida were involved. The documents show that every reference to terrorism was redacted by political operatives within the White House. Lynch was apparently aware of this and had nowhere else to go on this question.

Neither will other democrats, they'll have to concede that the American people were lied to. Deliberately. Not only a deliberate lie, but a deliberate lie personally delivered to all Americans by Obama, Clinton, and Rice.

But this is a case in which the cover-up can't possibly be as bad as the crime. Four people died as a result of negligence, incompetence, and cowardice. No attempt was made to help them. That was the crime.

Perhaps catching them red-handed covering it all up will lead us to answers to more important questions.

Bold decision. In comparison shows how cowardly our President is, and how aware of this fact Israel is.

Netanyahu gave his military Cross Border Authority to protect Israel from future attacks, but Obama wouldn’t do the same to protect Americans under siege in Benghazi.

The most damaging result of this involves the family, more specifically the relationship between parent and child.

For thousands of years, kids have begun to test their parents’ authority in their teens. “Yes I will” has been followed by “no you won’t”.

Now, in the year 2013, here comes “But the government says I can.”

Big, big change, this, it’s an attack on the family unit that has a huge downside.

That said, it’s overreach, and it will backfire, IMHO.

Of course, the majority of Muslim immigrants do not want to kill us, but they are not the Muslims we have to worry about. The problem is we have no way of distinguishing the Muslims we do have to worry about from the ones we don't. And we can't watch them all.

And we shouldn't have to apologize, because they haven't policed their own, and show no inclination to do so.

What a great article. Spot on.

Another reason to do what the author is saying is that wars are fought on tactical, strategic, and psychological battlefields. The all important psychological is being ignored. We must do something in which the damage accrues to all Muslims, yes, even the bystanders. If you are a Muslim, and you're not actively and vocally opposing the jihadis in your midst, you're an abettor, and consequences should accrue to you.

The Ayatollah of All Crapola can yet be impeached!

Only a few days ago I would have said you're wrong, and now I believe it to be a possibility, because of the conclusion we're all about to draw from the Benghazi hearings next week.

I'm not sure it's even necessary to impeach Obama for Benghazi to completely cripple the remainder of his term.

The Obama team thinks these whistle-blowers have something very damaging to say, because yesterday, in announcing that Kerry and Biden will attempt to "honor" the victims we see a clear appeal to curry favor with them, and more importantly, with the survivors, who are about to spill the beans. The change in focus is also a tacit admission that their plan to sweep it all under the rug has failed.

Unlike other scandals, in which plausible deniability is possible, it's impossible here, because this isn't about negligence or incompetence, in the end, Benghazi is about cowardice.

By process of elimination, this will all be laid at the feet of Obama, because the President and the President alone could have given cross-border authority, and he didn't.

The hearings will reveal clearly that he could have, and the reason will boil down to cowardice.

This cowardice is also being shown in the aftermath of the Boston bombings. Obama is showing that he's afraid to finger the real culprits. And when people die in a war zone, it's one thing, when people die on American soil, the psychological impact is a magnitude greater.

Put these two events together, and our President begins to be revealed as a coward, and this very well could lead to his political demise.

This means that Obama was not successful at getting enough people to ignore Benghazi, so now he has to make a gesture toward understanding the public’s concern.

I think it is a good sign that Obama is getting flustered about this.

Oh, yes, me too, and it means that not only do they believe they've failed to get us to ignore this, they know that the survivors of Benghazi have some very damaging things to say.

This is going to be laid at the feet of Obama, by process of elimination. Hillary will not take the blame, and even if Brennan attempts to take the blame, he really won't be able to. Cross Border Authority is in the hands of the President, and the President alone. Not allowing rescue teams to cross into Lybia is the reason at least two of the four died, and all the rest put at risk.

Benghazi is not about negligence, it's about cowardice, and that makes this scandal different from all the rest.

And Obama can’t stop it from happening-oh, he’d like to pull a Hugo Chavez, but it won’t happen in this country. Thank goodness for private property.

If we can take the Senate in 2014, we may even be able to open up some of the Federal lands. One can dream.....