A: We impeached our former President, Bill Clinton for lying about his relations with Monica Lewinsky but have yet to impeach President Obama along with those who were responsible for lying to cover up the scandal in Libya?? Is this really not a concern to the American people? We are nothing but objects to this administration! The truth is starting to unfold in the Congressional hearings that took place yesterday. I know we all don't care about politics, I never did until recently, but this, this is a huge cause of concern for us all. President Obama, among others were warned by our Ambassador Chris Stevens, that he desperately needed more security. He feared his life was at stake. However, this request was denied for reasons I can't wrap my head around and now, their are 4 American families that will never see their loved ones again. I don't know which part is more bothersome, that the government officials denied these requests and disregarded their duty to protect American lives or that they lied to cover it up so that everything would appear 'normal'. This is outrageous!


B: I don't mean to start a fight, but I don't really see how some of the assertions you've laid out follow from the facts presented in that article. It seems specious to believe that a request for increased embassy security would ascend all the way up to the President. It's a tragedy, but I'm wondering what feasible increase in security would have been able to repel the initial assault that included by some reports roughly 125 men armed with guns and grenades. Still given credible intelligence of the possibility of an attack in libya and the previous attempts on the facility, denial of further security personnel or precautions is admittedly a poor decision which otherwise may have prevented the deaths of one or more of the men lost that day.

B:Onto the issue of characterizing the Obama's administration as a lie, that is more problematic. It does seem that within the bounds of the information they had available it would appear that the attack was preplanned and not merely an angry mob run amok. The administration, while making apologies for the infamous video, was accurate in that the cause of the general demonstration that preceded and coincided with the attack was motivated in response to that video and they promised investigations to discover exactly what happened. At this point they seem to have taken what was probably a pragmatic decision to try to calm the pervasive demonstrations (pervasive as in geographic areas, as many in various countries only consisted of relatively small numbers of people) against the US for this video and thus perhaps blunt the effect of the extremism of the Benghazi attack getting picked up in a more professional or in the more generalized mob mentality fashion. Which leaves the question of it being a lie to whether or not you consider it a falsehood to not say something you suspect, even strongly, when you haven't yet investigated what has happened yet on the ground in any thorough way and thus haven't gathered the evidence to truly say you 'know' that it was a terrorist attack conducted by so and so,etc. Which leaves us to what a better response would have been in this case. Do you simply in light of what you suspect when you first hear about it call it what you think it might be, even though you could be wrong, however slim that chance may be? And do you address the cause of the unrest driving these demonstrations at numerous embassies around the world or do you simply gloss over it as a purely non related, non relevant issue?

A: Yes you are correct that tightening security may not have saved Stevens life, but certainly we would all agree that denying additional security when it was being requested was a huge mistake. I call that neglect. You see we all have responsibilities to uphold in life. As a student teacher I always had to make sure that students were as safe as possible and try to prevent any injuries in gym class. I relate it to this: if I was aware that the roof above the gym was leaking, I as the teacher am responsible for making sure that it is taken care of, and if it meant taking the kids out of a potentially unsafe environment to ensure safety that is what I had to do. The same would be if. A student noticed spilled juice on the floor, I would need to immediately act to ensure no one stepped on it and slipped. We all have written and unwritten responsibilities to uphold in our jobs and daily lives. When issues are brought to light, that may pose a hazard to someone's safety, our responsibility is to take care of the issue in the best way possible and as quickly as possible, failure to do so is neglect. Sure, you can say that our Ambassador and 3 seals may still have been killed even with tighter security-- but the problem is we will never know, and many of us like to think that if we at least ' try' to remedy a problem there would have been some benefits. Perhaps all 4 men would still be here, perhaps only 1 would have lived. It is the duty of our administration to see to it that the safety of Americans is our #1 priority, ESP. When sending them overseas to places we know will be considered dangerous. Requests were made, but denied. Many of these government officials, too many to name now share a responsibility for what happened. Their families should be treated with the utmost respect for making the ultimate sacrifice, that so many of us wouldn't do in a million years. These families, and our country deserve to hear the truth. They deserve to hear from the President, that they failed to honor their requests and accept responsibility for what happened. No one has been 'big' enough to do that. Biden went on the BP debates last night and continued to lie to the American people by saying "they didn't know they needed more security, they never asked". That has already come out in the hearings thus far, that there were several attempts to request security--these requests denied because they wanted the scene in Libya to spear to be 'normal'. Setting up barbed wire fences and tightening security, didn't appeal to their idea of what Libya needed to look like. We all should have to answer for things that happen under our watch, the same way any other American would who is in any kind of supervisory or management position. We assess risk, and when a potential safety hazard arises we deal with it, or their are consequences. If a child was hurt under my watch for failure to do somethingor not do something, I would quite frankly lose my license, and face a massive lawsuit. For goodness sake, 4 men were killed!

A: And yes, when terrorists attack, you call it a terrorist attack. Not a protest gone arwy(sp?). That's called a cover up. The administration continues to lie to these parents of the slain, stating it was caused by the YouTube video and giving them no details about their sons deaths. This is the most despicable way I can think of to show your gratitude for their lives and service to this country.

B: Leadership is of vital importance. Truly it is. But let's say, to use the metaphor you brought out, that a student teacher failed to report a leak and children got hurt as a result. Do we demand the resignation of the superintendent of the school district or the person who made the error? To take responsibility requires that one had knowledge and did not act or acted incorrectly, which I'm not sure is demonstrated in this case. If you have sources that indicate this I'd be sure to review them. To say that Biden's response in the VP debates was merely a direct rejection of the congressional testimony given by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb I think is an illogical step given that this would equate itself to accusing her of perjury, which when accusing people of serious crimes requiring litigation such as this or, say, to be impeached, would seem to need hard evidence of a contradictory positive sort or, in the negative sense, the contra-indicative kind. You also seem to conflate suspecting a cause with knowing the cause. The immediacy of what was known surrounding the assault on the Benghazi embassy was limited. To simply resort to calling it a cover up brings up issues that I would like you reflect upon. If this was, as you say, a cover up, why wouldn't they pressure the Libyan gov't to rescind their initial assessment of it as a premeditated planned attack? Why wouldn't they try to assure that the 'investigation' big quote marks generate the kind of result they desired if they were trying to have it all end up according to what they apparently desired? Why is their no sign of any of this tampering, whether in the tampering of evidence, silencing of witnesses, bringing foreign governments into line with the official story, etc? Are you trying to say that they utterly failed to contemplate how such an egregiously disparate accounting of the events on the ground would impact them in a materially government super cover up way yet somehow seem to have covered the tracks of the cover up with Jason Bourne/James Bond like efficiency? Nothing I've seen begins to point to that conclusion. Look I'm not saying all this to change your vote. You can vote for whoever you want and I won't bat an eyelash, but I'd at least like it to be for good valid reasons. Maybe you like Romney because a territorial tax system makes sense or socially conservative issues are important to you and you think he'll support them. I'd even favor it if you voted for him simply because he says he'll cut your taxes. But this is just conspiracy theory mired in an emotive dislike for the person of the President and the policies you may dislike about him. There is no factual evidence that I can see that would make such a cover up even desirable. If you have access to any and would like to present that argument I'll listen, but it doesn't seem to be borne out by what's written in that article or any source I've encountered thus far on the subject.