I am impressed that the Globe readers seem to know what likely happened at Benghazi and are posting right wing comments, mostly.

Who do you trust?
The Obama protectors who have been lying for 6 weeks in one form or another?
Or, the troops on the ground.

There is a log somewhere. It lists who made and who received the calls for help. Find the log.
I also don't understand how Obama can claim he referred to Benghazi as an act of terror in the Rose Garden on Sunday. WHO told him that, or is he claiming he just made that up? If someone told him that, then the question is, "Who?"

We will never find out what happened or punish those responsible.

We know precisely what happened already. Obama stood by and did nothing while four Americans were murdered.

Then he went to bed.

He is the one that needs to be incarcerated. His talk about an investigation is preposterous he has no intention of investigating himself.

They are a step away from claiming to never have heard of
Libya.

We know it was an organized attack on our embassy but, basically, it doesn't matter who or what the hell it was. Our embassy was under attack and American lives were in danger. The question should be why were no American forces called on to prevent the loss of life in Benghazi. Who made the decision to stand down? McConnell and Cantor should be holding press conferences on this matter every day.

Sorry, consulate.

Am I the only guy in America who remembers the guy Hillary and zippy put in jail out in California? If it was a terrorist attack, as zippy now says, then why is the filmmaker in jail? Why was the filmmaker put in jail at all (this being America where you can say that Mohammed was the pedophile he was any time you feel like it)?

Hillary is on tape telling a relative of a victim that she was going to put the filmmaker in jail, so there is a cause and effect there. In other words, Hillary should be prosecuted for subverting our law for political points. If zippy agreed to it, he should go to jail.

Why is that guy still in jail?

don't say "probation violations." We know he went to jail because Hillary wanted him there.

Note that the CIA denial is very specific, "...no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need..." That leaves a number (but a small number) of people who are not "in the CIA" who could have given such an order.

Rumor from tigerdroppings.com is that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

They are digging themselves do deep into the lying muck that they'll be striking oil any minute now.

What No. 10 reports is very interesting and a number of intel sources on the internet are stating the same or repeating it. However Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz of Utah states (1 report so far, not verified) that he spoke with Ham and he denies it. Of course, at this point even a denial isn't 100% with orders having taken place afterward. Reports are conflicting and with the 0bama regime as always, the effort to bury the truth is the most massive one.

As little as I think of Barack Obama, it is still hard to believe that he made the political calculus that the American media would suppress this story, and therefore, he told the military to stand down. Mr. Obama wanted only to substantiate his claim that Al Queda was "on the run". And he thought this tragedy would get swept under the rug. Which is what almost happened.