that's not a proper reply, Bo.

Somebody dropped the ball in Benghazi, no doubt about it. Who? NOt sure, but it was probably some low-level commander, or a private contractor, on the ground.

If we're going to go over with a fine tooth comb everything about Benghazi, how about a similar look into 9-11-2001. How did Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld know enough to keep their families off commercial airliners two months before the attack? Why did the administration downplay reports that OBL was planning to use commercial airliners to attack some target in the US? If the warnings were enough for two high-level administration officials to keep their families off commercial airliners, why wasn't it enough for the rest of us?

I don't agree with the "Small Change" crowd that believes 9-11 was an inside job-that the World Trade Centers were destroyed in an internal demolition, although it's hard to believe that av-gas on the planes were enough to bring down those two building as if it were a planned implosion completed by a commercial demolition company. And that the third building collapsed two hours later for not apparent reason.

But I do believe in proportionality-that reactions to disasters or screw ups should be based on the number of lives lost. In that account, Benghazi was small change. Not to dismiss the lost of life, but how is 261 or more than 5,000 compared to four or five?

I've always wondered where the GOP was when Ronald REagan purposely left guards at the marine barracks in Beirut with unloaded rifles, a directive directly from the Oval Office, allowing a suicide bomber to drive into the barracks killing 261 marines.

Not a peep, even when, three days later, Reagan invaded Grenada on the pretext that the Cubans were building an airstrip and that radicals had taken over the government of the Island. Even Maggie Thatcher protested the invasion-Britian had financed half of the airports construction costs-an airport designed to open the country to more tourist trade.

I talked to USMC brass in the 1990 who said they had no faith in Reagan after that. And now there's all this talk about a handful-4, 5, who died in what may or may not have been a big State Department screwup. Not to diminish the value of the lives lost at Bengazi, but where was the outrage about the 261 marine lives lost in Beirut?

Issa talks like is was directed directly from the White House-like the president overseas the security of every US mission in every country overseas. Issa said months ago 'we're going to find" evidence that proves his far-fetched notion. So far he hasn't, but not for a lack of trying. Time to put this one to rest, Daryl.

You can't bemoan one tragedy with bemoaning the other. And one's response should be in proportion to the loss and the involvement of higher-ups. So far Bengazi has proven nothing except perhaps maybe even most likely, a low-level screw up.

There was NO directive from the WH that required the Marine Guards with unloaded weapons. that order came from the Marine commanders, read the commission report.

The difference of this and Benghazi is that Reagan didn't come out right afterwards and blame it on a YouTube movie! And, Reagan wasn't covering up a gun running operation to Al Queda!

And the excuse you use that the President doesn't know everything going on at posts overseas? I guess you are unaware of the security briefing the president receives each morning? He knows far more than you state here. They just cover for him, and I don't state that as a fault of this administration, it happens with all administrations.

The thing that really galls most of us is the BLATANT LIE the Obama Adminstration put out about the cause being due to a YouTube movie clip, that only had something like 70 viewer hits at the time! It's the BLATANT LIES that come out of the mouth of this man that is coming back to bite him right square in the butt, deservingly so.