Kevyn,

That is an old opinion piece by the OIS (Obama Information Services). I have a question for you...

1oldgeezer[/quote

A lot of twisting the truth on this and a long long pc so I will not post it all..

FALSE: Administration officials watched the attacks unfold in real time but did nothing to intervene.

FALSE: Requests issued by U.S. personnel for military back-up during the attacks were denied.

FALSE: General Carter Ham was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi attacks.

FALSE: Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was relieved of his command for attempting to provide military assistance during the Benghazi

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp#Hfjfqz6YrLxMTsMQ.9

General Carter Ham headed the U.S. Africa Command during the attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. A late October 2012 rumor claimed General Ham declined an order to "stand down" and attempted to provide military assistance during the attacks, only to be relieved of his command "within a minute" of doing so, and Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was likewise relieved of his command for ordering his forces to support those ordered into action by General Ham. That rumor was fueled by an 18 October 2012 announcement that President Obama had selected a nominee to replace General Ham (who subsequently retired from the U.S. Army in April 2013) as commander of the U.S. Africa Command:
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced.

In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.

"Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region," Panetta said. "I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service."
However, Secretary of Defense Panetta stated during an October 2012 press briefing that General Ham was one of the military commanders who had judged it too dangerous to send troops to Benghazi without a clearer picture of events on the ground:
The "basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," [Panetta] said during a joint question-and-answer session with Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey.

"As a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, General Ham, General Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation," Panetta said.
On 29 October 2012, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also asserted that this rumor was false:
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/benghazi.asp#Hfjfqz6YrLxMTsMQ.99

Much more if you wish to read it.. The rumors are false, made up BS by those with an agenda...

And now our Traitor and Chief has decided to further weaken the US by firing some of best military leaders exactly when we need them most. Dismissing 20 to 30 thousand of the mid lever commanders. We are going to be attached by ISIS, Israel is being attacked by Himas and about to enter a full scale war, our borders are not being maintained even a little bit. And the Obama pig is weakening our military.
Either this guy is a traitor or the dumbest monkey on the planet. I don't think he is that dumb.

Yes:

Panetta, in his February testimony defending officials' actions, said, "The bottom line is this, that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault, which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response, very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region. Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.

"Despite the uncertainty at the time, the Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the Department of Defense received we did, we accomplished."

So I am wondering what you think you uncovered?

Yes:

Panetta, in his February testimony defending officials' actions, said, "The bottom line is this, that we were not dealing with a prolonged or continuous assault, which could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response, very simply, although we had forces deployed to the region. Time, distance, the lack of an adequate warning, events that moved very quickly on the ground prevented a more immediate response.

"Despite the uncertainty at the time, the Department of Defense and the rest of the United States government spared no effort to do everything we could to try to save American lives. Before, during and after the attack, every request the Department of Defense received we did, we accomplished."

So I am wondering what you think you uncovered?

All of the quotes and basis of the administration point of view are from people whose heads could roll if the truth were to ever be fully fleshed out. How about we hear from the 30 survivors who were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements? What is it they might have to add that the administration is so fearful about? If, as Panetta stated, "...spared no effort to do everything we could...", is true: (a) what actions were taken, and (b) why concoct a story about a video?

Nixon didn't commit the crime of burglary, but was justifiably nailed for the cover-up. Libs rant and rave about how much of a failure he was... but how is Obama different? Every hint of scandal is met with obfuscation, cover ups and lies.

All of the quotes and basis of the administration point of view are from people whose heads could roll if the truth were to ever be fully fleshed out. How about we hear from the 30 survivors who were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements? What is it they might have to add that the administration is so fearful about? If, as Panetta stated, "...spared no effort to do everything we could...", is true: (a) what actions were taken, and (b) why concoct a story about a video?

Nixon didn't commit the crime of burglary, but was justifiably nailed for the cover-up. Libs rant and rave about how much of a failure he was... but how is Obama different? Every hint of scandal is met with obfuscation, cover ups and lies.

All of the quotes and basis of the administration point of view are from people whose heads could roll if the truth were to ever be fully fleshed out. How about we hear from the 30 survivors who were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements? What is it they might have to add that the administration is so fearful about? If, as Panetta stated, "...spared no effort to do everything we could...", is true: (a) what actions were taken, and (b) why concoct a story about a video?

Nixon didn't commit the crime of burglary, but was justifiably nailed for the cover-up. Libs rant and rave about how much of a failure he was... but how is Obama different? Every hint of scandal is met with obfuscation, cover ups and lies.