They plan to kill the Second Amendment by legislating it to the point that no one can afford to purchase or qualify to purchase....already happening.

The goal is to collapse the USA as we know it.

Any questions?

It would be Bush's fault or a movie.....

You folks on the right know that President Obama is going to crush Willard and it's driving you even more crazy.

Come on and get on board and support the President, so that we can move Forward!

Move forward from 16 trillion of debt to what?... 20 Trillion

I voted for him four years ago and have been waiting for the forward movement since then.

When does it start? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice...

Well, you know how it goes. No thanks.

I really hate tp break it to you but once you adjust your polls to even bias Obama is down in every poll. Your polls assume a heavier Democrat turn out to vote then in the 2008 elections now.. Since Democrats could not fill a stadium at your convention I would have to surmise the hopey and changey is done for....

By the way Rasmussen Polls have Romney up by 2 with independents. And Rasmussen polls were number 1 in accuracy in 2008.

I find it also hilarious how when your supposedly up by so much in Ohio Obama sure loves to campaign here. If your polls were right he would be campaigning in a different state.

I wish to point out that as I drove home from work up here in Ohio I saw no Obama lawn signs. I saw a hell of a lot of Romney lawn signs. That is very unlike the 2008 election of your fake man.

Job1 and voting for Obama? I guess he must have bailed your company or gave you money for your green company that is now bankrupt?

He is either union or a paid troll most likely both.

Job1

You folks on the right know that President Obama is going to crush Willard and it's driving you even more crazy.

You're right. Those of us that are concerned about our foreign policy have lost our patriotic focus. Your concise viewpoint on nothing has convinced me that our nation is also threatened by some within our own borders.

Glenn Beck...the name sounds familiar.

He's on 24/7 now a liberal nightmare.....

Wilcow is also on channel 212.

Obama cant take Michele to the middle east. The reason he is of Muslim faith and

there for she would have to obied by their law and you know what law that is .

I would hold your optimism if the Brotherhood wasn't so embedded in the government , Military and CIA...

Do you have a list of names?

But if you watch the rueters video there was no demonstration. Just a group of heavily armed thugs. And how many spontaneous outbursts of violence just happen to have mortars and rpg's in their back pockets?

You don't get it. Guerilla groups and/or terrorists use the weapons of the weak and seldom engage in set-piece battles wherein they could be easily defeated. What they do do is either plan long term operations, such as 9/11 or train to take "targets of opportunity," wherein via relatively short term responses to virtually real time intelligence, they may seize a very brief superiority...striking and then retreating.

Based on what I know from news accounts, this latter was apparently the case in Benghazi. The Foreign Service Information Officer apparently e-mailed a friend shortly before the attack, noting that one of the Libyan security guards was photographing them in the compound. That person may have relayed information of the Ambassador's presence and the relatively light security, to the attackers, who - if prepared - could have marshalled the attack on quick notice...i.e. "spontaneously."

It is still not clear to me why the Ambassador was in Benghazi? The Consulate must be very new, because it is not listed on the STate Department's website of ALL embassies and consulates. Initially, I assumed the Ambassador may have been lured into a trap, with the promise of a meeting with a turncoat Al Qaeda member. Now, I think that less of a possibility.

On the Reuters video...??? Don't know when it was taken or under what circumstances.

OK stone you win, rueters lied.

If the proper security would have been in place the guy photographing would have told his potential buddies a whole different story ....stay away. This would not have been a "target of opprotunity" in the first place.

The whole jest of this conversation stone is that heavy security commensurate with the environment was not provided even though we had a specific warning to a specific target.

I didn't say Reuters "lied." I said I didn't know the circumstances of their taping. Seems to me that that tape was made around 10:00 PM, DURING the terrorist attack. A demonstration COULD HAVE taken place earlier, although I understand now that that did not happen.

Obviously, had there been more security the attack would have either not taken place or failed. The unanswered question is why there wasn't adequate security and I don't think anyone knows the answer to that as of now...and you just narrowed the "warning" down to a "spe\cific warning and specific tareget." Based on what?

To clarify, you are backing down on agreeing with, "I listened to Rice. She said the State Department believed the Benghazi attack STARTED with demonstrations against the video." since you now believe it was an ORGANIZED event, correct?

No. As of now, it appears there was no prior demonstration. On the other hand, why were some 40 other consulate staff members moved earlier to "a safe house?"

What I suggested was that there could have been a demonstration against the video, at the consulate, and then a later attack on a "target of opportunity" by Al Qaeda terrorists.

Why do you find that an impossible scenario?

It contradicts the news stories. There were no demonstrations at the embassy prior to the attack on the Ambassador. If it was a "target of opportunity" then it was a terrorist attack. And, if that is the case, then why did it take the administration so long to come out and say it was a terrorist attack?

Intially, it was not clear whether or not there had been an earlier demonstration. Since it occured on the day other demonstrations were occuring elsewhere, it may have been a resonable, but unverified assumption.

I don't think the Administration ever said or implied that the attackers were the same as the demonstrators.

The question of why the Ambassador was in Benghazi and why security wasn't better remain open questions.

Yes, they did imply the attackers were demonstrators.

What we all know now is that the intelligence community and the White House knew within 24 hours of the attack, that it was a coordinated terrorist attack conducted by a militia group.

To parade UN Ambassador Rice on all the Sunday news talk shows 5 days after the attacks to perpetuate a story that she knew was false. I don't hold her personally accountable. She is a mouthpiece for the White House administration. She dutifully regurgitated the message that she was given. The question is why is there a reluctance to identify actions against the US or US interests as terrorist attacks?

It was a gross attempt to mislead the American public. The question is why?

About everything Obama says is a lie... Sort of like powwow Warren....

Why would it?

Yeah...well Bush Junior is safely retired to Dallas, Texas after dropping the ball on pre-9/11 intelligence, fighting one war too many, and throwing us into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Guess I can give President Obama a little slack on not being involved with consulate security details. People engaged in wars seldom win all of the battles. We lost one in Benghazi. But, I'd say, we're still ahead in the war against Al Qaeda.

Holy cow stone, is every reply to Benghazi ....."But Bush..." LOL

Since you keep wanting to talk about Bush, although he has nothing to do with Benghazi, i will bite and ask you to explain to us how Bush caused the mortgage meltdown and credit freeze? What specific policy did Bush put in that caused the mortgage meltdown?

Google "Bush Atlanta Speech June 2, 2002." Then, google "2004 HUD Proposal for Affordable Housing." Then, google "Roland Arnall." Then connect the dots.

Long, long story. I don't blame Bush for either the dot.com recession (March 2001 to November 2001) or for 9/11. That blame, IMO, goes to Clinton.

And, I don't blame Bush for the tax cuts in early 2001. There was a forecast of ten years of surpluses amounting to $5.3 trillion, based on the final Clinton years.

I do blame him for not going to Congress after 9/11, and asking for a declaration of war against Al Qaeda, and a repeal of the tax cuts to pay for the wars. However, at the time, and based on an initiasl "apparent" quick victory in Afghanistan, we underestimated the length and expense of both wars.

More later...gotta run an errand.

I know what he said in speeches. But speeches and proposals do not equal policy. There is no direct policy he put into law that caused all the derivitives to bust with subprime loans.

stone6

Some blame the following for the collapse of the housing bubble which resulted in the credit crisis and that caused the recession.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley passed after Sandy Weill of the Travelers and John S. Reed of Citicorp went to the Clinton administration and asked if there would be a problem with the merger of those two entities. Robert Rubin Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury assured them that there would be no problem. He later received 126 million in compensation from the newly formed Citigroup for approximately 14 months work.

There had to be more than one vote on the Bill because it passed the House the first time by a vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1),^{[5][6][note 1]} two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6 by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and 1 Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats oppose - this was not enough in the Senate to override a veto threatened by Bill Clinton.

Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLB, stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates thereof, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).^[16] This was an issue of hot contention, and the Clinton Administration stressed that it "would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements." ^[17]

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,^{[13][note 4]} and by the House 362-57.^{[14][note 5]} The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Please note that only 5 of those 8 votes against were democrat.

Stone6 - "I do blame him for not going to Congress after 9/11, and asking for a declaration of war against Al Qaeda," He did go to Congress and got the following - "The Authorization for Use of Military Force ^[1] is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001. The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups"

House of Representatives

On September 14, 2001 bill House Joint Resolution 64 passed in the House. The totals in the House of Representatives were: 420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting. The Nay was Barbara Lee, D-CA. ^[2] Lee is notable as the only member of either house of Congress to vote against this bill.^[3]

Senate - On September 14, 2001 Senate Joint Resolution 23 passed in the
Senate by roll call vote. The totals in the Senate were: 98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2
Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry
Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

Interesting...but largely irrelevant. No study on the cause and effect relationship of the CRA has been found to be significant...and those studies include conservative economists.

The "boom" period of the subprime mortgages was between 2003 and 2006...you may check loan statistics to verify that. There was a smaller upswing earlier, and virtually none afgterwards, but the "boom period" is clearely visible on a graph.

The CRA didn't require no doc or NINJA loans...the Boston Fed did put out Fed guidelines on "alternative measures" for evaluating credit worthiness, primarily to help their banks avoid discrimination laws uits by organizations such as ACORN. The rating provision was used very little in qualifying merbgers or expansions.

Lending standards during the boom fell, not because the CRA forced them to fall, but because of the securitization process itself and to meet the demand for the new loan packages, which had been sliced and diced and placed into "traunches" (or levels) of risk. The risk management models were also largely based on prior subprime mortgage histories, in which higher lending standards were manitained, thus failing to account for falling standards (one large bank, UBS, has admitted such in a report to its stockholders).

A large percentage of the loans made were by front line lending institutions NOT subject to CRA regulation (such as Countrywide, Ameriquest, New Cdentury Mofrtgages, et al).

When failures begain to mount, the last loans made tended to fail first, thus reflecting the lowering lending standards over time. And, there was very little risk, b ecause of the ability of the front-line lender to sell the mortgages up the food chain for securitization.

On top of that derivatives, such as credit default swaps had the effect of providing "insurance" if all else failed. That, and a poor ratings job by the rating agenmcies, and differences in European and American banking standards in how and what counted as capital reserves, which effectively eliminated leverage limitations.

Regulatory arbitrage also played a major role in that the regulatory environment was not substantially adjusted after Gramm-Leach-Biliby to fit the new banking structures. This allowed banks to "cherry pick" their own regulator overseers by the way they structured their corporations. Plus several dozen other failures.

When asked what the single largest cause was for the meltdown, Bden Bernanke replied to a Congressional Committee, "Asian savings." By that, he meant, the flood of Asian savings built on the basis of trade surpluses, coming back into the USA (and other EU countries) seeking "safe haven investments."

In sum, it was the investor's "dream," a nominally high risk investment, with high returns, miraculously turned from iron to gold, by the alchemy of "new financial instruments" and Wall Street.

And Freddie and Fannie? The Bush Administration (and certain Republican Congressmen) complained a lot about the "Government Sponsered Enterprises," or GSEs. They complained about real accounting scandals. They complained about excess Congressional lobbying. They complained about the broad danger of "moral hazard,." in that so much of the American housing market was "underwritten" by a private corporation, with implied government support.

What they NEVER complained about was their portfolios of subprime loans. In fact, ion 2004, HUD was COMPLAINING about how little they were participating in that market and encouraging them to lead that market.

In May of 2006, Ameriquest, whose founder and CEO, Roland Arnall, had been Bush's largest individual campaign contributor, in 2004, and virtually bankrolled the Republican Convention that year, and whose company was the largest subprime loan lender in the nation, laid off 4,000 employees and closed their retail outlets across the country. It was a sign of the beginning of the end. In late 2006, housing prices began falling in certain regions of the country. In the Spring of 2007, most of the front line lenders either went under or closed their doors, or merged with larger banks. In December 2007, as real estate prices continued to fall, the country went into recession.

In March of 2008, Bear Stearns - on the verge of bankruptcy - was saved through a Treasury-Fed sponsered sale to JPMorganChase. And, as the campaigning for the Fall election began in earnest, one Administration official after the other (including Greenspan at the Fed), went before Congress to testify that the falling real estate market was merely "a correction," or "a blip," or my personal favorite, "the fundamentals are good."

In July 2008, Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, wsent before Congfress to ask for the authority to place the GSEs into conservatorship - the equivalency of a bankruptcy. When questioned if he thought that was a possibility, he replied no, but he wanted to have that "bazooka" in his pocket, to use as leverage in making sure that he didn't actually have to use it.

Two months later, he used it.

Lehman Brothers failed a week or two later.

Did specific Bush policies lead to all of that...some. I believe his June 2, 2002 speech outlines the 5.5 million new home plans and mentions specific financing help. But, most of all, ikt was simply through "beign neglect." Any opne of a dozen agencies could have stepped in and stopped the bubble by enforcing lending standards, reinforcing leverage reqjuirements, or a dozen other solutions. They didn't.

Iraq is another story. Not the emocrat's finest hour, because a number of Senators (Kerry anmd Clinton among them) were starting to line up for the 2004 election and did not want to appear "soft" on potential terrorists.

With hindsight, a number of Democrats now claim they "thought" Bush would first obtain U.N. approval, which he attempted, but couldn't get.

Personally, I backed Bush in Afghanistan, but thought he should have remained focused there. I thought the intelligence on Iraq's WMD was very shaky and that two simultaneous wars were too much for us with our military dreawn down in the "peace dividend mode" of the post Cold War period.

P.S. I don't like the War Powers Act...it obfuscates the issue, when a democracy's greatest weapon in time of war is unity and clarity of purpose. Fight them only when absolutely necessary, with a preponderance of overwhelming force, at the right time and place (a strategy employed not only by Powell, but by Naploeon as well).

Then fight them hard and fast.

Here is more interesting reading:

"In a nutshell, the much-maligned Bush Administration recognized the Fannie-Freddie problem early on. Slowly, relentlessly, from the 1980s on, mostly Democrat-controlled Congresses pushed both quasi-governmental entities to prod banks into ever more liberal loan policies that would allow less and less qualified loan applicants to obtain mortgages and—often for the first time—purchase housing, regardless of whether they were financially able to carry their mortgages."

"From a September 2003 report by the New York Times' Stephen Labaton, on a Bush Administration proposal for a new agency charged with the financial oversight of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.'''

The original reason for the CRA, which Carter signed in 1980, along with an Act that ended usury caps on interst rates banks could charge, was "redlining," which was basically discrinatory lending.

I'll add the Labaton article to my file...but note this was in 2003, at the beginning of the bubble.

What was the date of the Frank quote? I suspect it was also 2003, at which time the GSEs didn't have a subprime underwriting problem. And, of course, in 2003, Republicans were in control of the House.

I would respectfully disagree that the underwriting problem didn't exist in 2003. We bought a house about that time, and were shocked at how little information we had to supply compared to a previous home purchase. We were also VERY shocked at the amount of money they were willing to lend given our income--it was over six times our income. In fact, we laughed and said, "Are they serious? Do they want us to be able to eat!". Of course, we declined the amount and stuck to our budgeted amount. And, yes, you are correct on the year of the Frank quote and who had control of the house.

Just for the record. I blame both parties equally regarding the housing crisis because it was not ONE event that caused it.....but most want to blame Bush entirely which I disagree with. Furthermore, I blame the American people because they didn't act like adults as well by buying homes they couldn't afford just because they were offered the money.

Google "2004 HUD Proposal for Affordable Housing." I have a copy, but I'd have to dig through a pile of paper to find it. In 2004, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, whioch reports to the President, was complaining about how little the GSEs were underwriting subprime loans, setting higher participation targets for them and insisting that they should be leading the market.

The GSEs came relatively late to heavy participation in the subprime market, largely due to Administration pressure, as well as the pressure of GSE investors, who wanted returns comparable to the Wall Street banks. Remember that the greater the loan risk, the higher the interest rate on the loan and more profit for the company holding the paper.

In his book on the crisis, "On the Brink," Paulson notes his conversation with a high ranking Chinese official, "suggesting" that the U.S. Government should stand behind the GSEs, or they might reevaluate their continuing purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds. He also noted a conversation between Putin and Bush on the same subject. Both the Chinese and Russians were heavily invested in the GSEs.

I would agree with you that BOTH Parties were to blame, but that is NOT the position of the extreme right, who would have us believe that it was all Barney's and Chris' fault, along with the CRA, Carter and Clinton.

I believe that story was largely concocted to avoid confronting the failed economic policies of the Bush Administration - namely supply-side economics and deregulation - which continue to be the basic policies of the Republican Party today.

I will not return to the Republican Party until I believe they have economic policies good for ALL Americans and the domestic economy-at-large - i.e. a reunification of Main Street and Wall Street.

Hmmm...I didn't hear anyone calling for Bush's impeachment after 9/11.

When insurgents killed the U.S. contractors in Baghdad and dragged them through the streets, or when IED's blew up our patrols, I didn't get mad at our President. I got mad at the enemy.

We're still at war, with forces in the field. I consider attacks on the Commander-in-Chief, in time of war, to be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Big difference stone is that we had a specific warning for this embassy 3 days prior from the Libyan govt itself. That they couldn't protect it. Rice had more security with her when she was giving her interviews than our ambassador had. And on 9/11 for crying out loud why was there not a forward marine unit there? On the face of it that is a no brainer for much more security as its one of the most dangerous places anywhere for americans now. Un-reakin-believable. This isn't a partisan issue, it's just plain incompetance that cost 4 lives.

A reserve base near me in the states had triple the guard and a bomb sniffing dog on 9/11. Libya of all places an embassy got nothing. Inexcusible.

Sorry...I've noted above that we "lost the battle of Benghazi." Yes, there should be an investigation and if people screwed up the security they should be at least replaced or fired. I am not sure what you mean about the Libyan's warning our embassy about security 3 days in advance? The embassy is in Tripoli and it is still not clear to me exactly why the Ambassador was in Benghazi.

Frank - I don't think you have the slightest idea of what you are talking about...and consider you just another "knee-jerk Obama hater."

No...I don't think Obama "messed up" any more than Bush "messed up" when he failed to ask the Defense Department about the adequacy of body armor or armored Humvees in Iraq...the inadequacy of which led to American deaths.

The libyan govt told our state dept 3 days prior that they couldn't protect the consulate(i said embassy, should have been consulte) in benghazi and there was a potential threat. That is a good question why was he there and why did he have almost no security.

And, if memory serves correctly, they did correct the issue with body armor and armored Humvees. And, another difference....Bush ALWAYS said we were at war.....but Obama won't acknowledge the war with terrorists.....they won't even say the word terrorists.

Ask Bin Laden whether he thinks Obama thinks he's at war with Al Qaeda. Terrorism was a poor Bush choice of terms. Terrorism is a method of operations, not an "enemy" in itself. American revolutionists may have been thought of as "terrorists" in that they fired from behind trees rather than lining up in regimental drill for the battles. The Israelis used "terrorism" against the Brits in the late forties to force them out of Palestine. I have no problem in condemning "terrorism," but it is always good to be very precise about who your enemy is, less you make more enemies out of those who weren't enemies to begin with.

In the Bush Administration's case, I have come to believe they were very, very frightened by the 9/11 attacks (who would not be) and deliberately wanted the definition of who the enemy was to be left vague. That ploy unfortunately left the door open for the neo-cons to influence policy.

As a former Republican, I always thought Cheney was an excellent administrator...but a bit light on policy.

I don't think it was a poor choice of words. It does fit in exactly with the historical use of the word where terrorism is concerned. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't call it what it is. And, even though BinLaden was caught on Obama's watch, that doesn't prove he "thinks" we are at war. It only proves that he knew if he "got him" he would stand a better chance at re-election--he had to have something because otherwise his administration has been a failure. He even said he would be held to one term if the unemployment remained at or above 8%.

On the 8%, he missed his target. So what? Was it an observation or a "cross my heart and hope to die, if I should lie," promise?

What do you mean by "fits with the historical use of the word?" As in the War on Poverty? The Drug War? I'll stand by my comment on "defining your enemy."

He gave the order to kill or capture Bin Laden. The Special Opns General who briefed him and received the go-ahead order has confirmed that along with Obama's call on whether to go with a helicopter raid or missile attack.

The dems won't admit to anything - it's called duck and dodge and hope nobody notices.

And this info was known to the administration, yet for another 10 to 12 days they blamed a months old video. Nice.

When it was known a day or so after that mortars and RPG's were used it was pretty obvious a planned effort.

About what? What did I write that was "shameful?"

I am afraid the "shame" belongs to you.

stone you need to go find the rueters video. There was no demonstraion. There was a group of guys armed with mortars and rpg's. How many spontaneous demonstrations have mortars and rpg's? Very specific intel this site was in danger and NOT ONE extra person there for security. You really gonna try to justify this dude? Seriously? This was very preventable and amzingly no extra security.

Initially, the report was that there had been an earlier demonstration. I don't consider that to be relevant now, one way or the other, since it was obviously a terrorist attack.

Why do you think the Ambassador didn't have more security? The two security people with him appear to me to have been "personal bodyguards," plus the Information Officer.

Frank - I am neither defending the President, nor convicting him. What exactly do you want to blame him with?

Not a clue on security. There appear to be a fair amount of sensative material there that was taken so on the face it seems there should have been more protection. Should him and all the material have been in Tipoli? Should he have even been allowed there? Lots of questions to be investigated so this doesn't happen again.

Stone6 said, "It was "spontaneous" in the sense of a terrorist group acting quickly to take advantage of a "target of opportunity," which now appears to be separate from the other demonstrations at other embassies and consulates."

Is this your take of the administrations definition of spontaneous? Now that is spin! The administration meant "spontaneous" as in the results of seeing a movie.

That's your interpretation. rice's interview was the first I heard on the attacks, from the Administration and she clearly "qualified" her statement, with "started with demonstrations." I don't see that as a significamt error.

On the contrary, I do find it curious that the only information that seems to exist on the "three day warning on security," seems to be coming from the Libyans themselves, whom I suspect you wouldn't give any credence at all to, unless it conflicted with the announcements of the Administration.

Do you consider the Libyan government to be a friend or foe?

If the first you heard on the attacks was from Rice, then you were way behind in the statements that came out. And, yes, it was a significant error. The other attacks on embassies in 21 different countries were demonstrations.....no doubt. But, the embassy attack in Libya was different; it was planned--whether immediately or one year in advance....makes no difference. Obama went to a fund raiser in Nevada the night of the attacks...not very Presidential.

Hi Stone6, always a pleasure. The spontaneity of the attack is irrelevant. It was obvious to any military combat veteran to recognize this as a coordinated, terrorist attack. It is irrelevant that this was or was not a target of opportunity. It is irrelevant that there may have been intelligence chatter about an attack on the Benghazi consulate three days prior. The only thing in question is why does the president have a reluctance to state that this was a terrorist attack.

The only person that I have heard report that there was a group of demonstrators outside of the Benghazi consulate was UN Ambassador Rice. The two questions I have is: Where was her source for that information (that we now know was false)? The second question is: What was Ambassador Stevens doing in Benghazi instead of Tripoli, especially since we now know that he feared for his safety and knew that AQ had him on a hit list?

On a side note, the info on the housing crash was accurate.

I agree on the remaining questions, including a clarification of Rice's remarks.

On spontaneity, I basically agree, but was pointing out that the plan could have been for a generic type of attack, but the specific opportunity was spontaneous...as in the specific rapid response to the Ambassador's location, as a "target of opportunity."

I disagree, however, on the warning. IF there was a credible warning regarding the Consulate and Ambassador, by the Libyans, three days prior, then it would seem there was some failure in either intelligence evaluation and/or communication. Was the Ambassador "hiding" in Benghazi, with the anticpated attack coming in Tripoli? Don't know...and, if classified material is involved, we may not know for a very long time.

Why is it important that the President use the term "Terrorists?" Clearly, he considers them "enemies." We will never rid the world of all terrorists or terrorism and many - particularly on the left - fear that the term could be used to justify a never-ending war.

The reason it is important for the president to use the term "terrorist" or even "guerilla", "anti-US militia", is because it is a big difference from an escalation of a demonstration due to some film.

The fact is that as long as there are extremists, there will be attacks and counter attacks. The costs of those wars escalate when we try to force our ideologies on others which goes against their deeply held religious beliefs.

The fact is that with every drone strike, the collateral deaths and injuries serve as a perpetual motivator to promote more attacks against US interests.

But, after serving 23 years as an Army officer, I question the motives of an administration who tries to deflect cause of an attack on a US interest on the anniversary of 9/11 as a spontaneous act that escalated from demonstrations based on a film. That is an insult to my intelligence and my profession.

Yes, it is possible that this was a target of opportunity. However, the precision with which it was accomplished, suggests that the attack was thoroughly planned. That the force who carried out this attack were trained militants.

However, the administration knew within 24 hours (Sep 12) that there was no demonstration outside of the consulate in Benghazi that preceeded the attack on Sep 11. 5 days later, UN Ambassador Susan Rice was marched out with an administration approved message that was purposely designed to mislead the American public. Why?