Comments about ‘Mystery of Benghazi mess deepens’

@Tolstoy

Of course you don't understand, because you do the exact same thing as George: You ignore evidence presented to you that does not fit into a narrow left-wing view of the world, then you attempt to shame anyone with a different opinion into silence by discounting inconvenient facts as merely being "wild conspiracy theories" that hurt people.

I find those people that abuse and censor in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to be a particularly nefarious group (which is why I am far less conservative than I am merely abhorrent of political correctness).

The families are demanding knowledge, not silence. Therefore using feigned concern for the families as rationalization for bullying anyone not cowing to Obama into silence and advocating sweeping tough questions under the carpet, is the truly "disrespectful" and offensive tact.

If your respect for the families was motivated by anything more than the need for political cover - you would be demanding the truth; not rationalizing smokescreens.

Advocating obfuscation is a perpetrating behavior - not a "sensitive" or "tolerant" one.

@ jim l 7:20 a.m. Nov. 1, 2012

Because Glennie is the pinnacle of credibility, right!?

In more important & pressing news; Bama & LSU play tomorrow.

@mark:

"So, wrz, you would love to provide evidence, but you don't have any. So you guys will just make up stuff."

It's in his book. Read his books. There are several. It's all in there.

"Beautiful."

I'd call it more like ugly.

@Rifleman:

"... and why is he refusing to divulge it?"

He can't afford a picture of ineptitude this close to an election. So, for him the best solution is just keep the whole affair under wraps until after the election. And then, it won't matter. Even after that, if he wins, it will continue to be unresolved. But then all the air will have gone out of the story and it will collapse go the way of all old news.

@CI

what evidence?

"I find those people that abuse and censor in the name of tolerance and sensitivity to be a particularly nefarious group."

now who is playing the victim?

We all want the truth but all you offer are conspiracies which only serve to retraumatize the victims families not move us closer to the truth.

Uh, wrz, read whose book? What is all in there? Are you talking about Presidents Obama's books? If so, there aren't several, there are 2, I believe, and there is absolutely nothing in them dealing with Benghazi, how could there be? But yes, I am aware that the President smoked pot and used coke when he was younger. At least he admits it, and I don't care. And it has nothing to do with Benghazi.

"You ignore evidence presented to you"

Counter intelligence, what evidence? That's the point, nobody has presented evidence to back up these wild claims. Nobody.

Since when does Obama need to "investigate" how much he knew? Why can he not tell us what he knew and when he knew it? It is so silly to imply that he needs to investigate what he knew and what his orders were.

The way I see it Obama could come out and say it was all his fault, he knew it was an attack and attempted to cover up his failures, release the videos, and STILL some people on this board will say "Where is the evidence?"!

So in other words, Riverton Couger, you have absolutely no evidence.

mark,

I did not say there was no evidence. I was just saying that no amount of evidence will ever convince you that Obama was wrong. Have the testimonies that have been presented concerning the attack (i.e. they were warned of an attack, they did not provide adequate protection, etc.) not count as evidence? Or does Obama, as the savior of our nation (as proclaimed by democrats in 2008), have such power that his word is automatically designated as fact without rebuttal?