Ham was shortly after the incident "retired" from his post. (This part is not rumor, is verifiable fact)

While I am not a regular watcher, the few episodes I have seen of his show recently have been giving me a pretty strong indication that the problem with Glenn Beck's Fox show was not Beck himself, but more likely the network hosting it.

The focus here is the the father of the dead Seal

and how the current administration lied there ass off.

I really don't see how you can spin your way out of this one.

Yeah, Glen Beck, now there is a guy we should listen to.

Hell if we did it with steriods and baseball, then we sure as hell should demand this.

Sini has no problems with americans dieing as long as a democrate is in office.

Spare me your phoney "he hates flag, freedom and constitution". Everyone involved knew the risks when they signed up. They were patriots, so don't soil thier names with your politicking and conspiracy theories.

Spare me your phoney "he hates flag, freedom and constitution". Everyone involved knew the risks when they signed up. They were patriots, so don't soil thier names with your politicking and conspiracy theories.

Wolfgang, you are making this analysis with a benefit of hindsight. Simple truth is that nobody knew what happened for DAYS after it, least while it was happening. Yes, we live in information age, but when you are dealing with war-torn hellholes you still have to wait for Pheidippides to show up.

Red, you finally went off the deep end into deranged territory. Take your meds.

STATEMENT CENSORED FOR CONTENT VIOLATION

Yes, we live in information age

If you can't behave in a somewhat civilized manner you will be asked to leave this forum.

You're absolutely right it's an Information age, they had real time video in the air during the attack.

STATEMENT CENSORED FOR CONTENT VIOLATION

It is hard for me to fathom how you right wingers can single out this gentleman and patriot when at the same time you all ignore the total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers that were killed in Iraq.

George Bush was not impeached, tried as a criminal or any of what you are calling for when over 4000 times the lives were lost and lied about over and over.

You people amaze me.

If Obama made a bad descion based on bad intel, then so be it. But dont say one thing while doing anthoer. If after a congressinol investiagtion it comes back that everything was tried at the time so be it. If it comes back that due to budget constraints that they did not get extra secuirty then so be it. But if we are willing to waste millions of dollars on wither or not some one took steriods, then by the holy spaggti monster they can go over this and release the information.

We are not talking about Bush, we are talking about Obama. Dont forget dems voted for that war also. looking at the same intel that bush did. was bush played? possiblely, did bush back his SOD when he should have kicked him to the curb, yep.

I am also not calling for crimnal charges or that other horse shit, but an investgation is needed. IT will take months, and we will not find out till way after the election, but it does need to be started in ernest.

It is hard for me to fathom how you right wingers can single out this gentleman and patriot when at the same time you all ignore the total of 4,486 U.S. soldiers that were killed in Iraq.

George Bush was not impeached, tried as a criminal or any of what you are calling for when over 4000 times the lives were lost and lied about over and over.

You people amaze me.

Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was joking.

Clarke is due to testify this week before the special panel probing whether the attacks were preventable.

His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," by Free Press, a subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units of Viacom.

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the Situation Room in the West Wing.

"I kept thinking of the words from 'Apocalypse Now,' the whispered words of Marlon Brando, when he thought about Vietnam. 'The horror. The horror.' Because we knew what was going on in New York. We knew about the bodies flying out of the windows. People falling through the air. We knew that Osama bin Laden had succeeded in bringing horror to the streets of America," he tells Stahl.
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said, 'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report. And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."
Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept. 11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too. But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning, they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada, driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject, or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.

Richard Alan Clarke (born October 27, 1950) is the former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism for the United States.
Clarke worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.[2] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to chair the Counter-terrorism Security Group and to a seat on the United States National Security Council. President Bill Clinton retained Clarke and in 1998 promoted him to be the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush, Clarke initially continued in the same position, but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access. He later became the Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity, before leaving the Bush administration in 2003.
Clarke came to widespread public attention for his role as counter-terrorism czar in the Clinton and Bush administrations in March 2004, when he appeared on the 60 Minutes television news magazine, released his memoir about his service in government, Against All Enemies, and testified before the 9/11 Commission. In all three instances, Clarke was sharply critical of the Bush administration's attitude toward counter-terrorism before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and of the decision to go to war with Iraq.

If you see Bush as sitting at his desk covered with money, cringling his hands and laughing like a manic, then yes it is malicious.

If you see Bush sitting at his desk covered with intel reports from our country and other countries saying that they still had WMD's, then no it is not malicious intent.

It comes down to how you view Bush.

You ether don't understand what "real time video" is or don't understand "they".

Reports I have read say that even people in the compound didn't know what was happening at the time. Way I understand it from reading reports is that most/all US casualties, including ambassador, were from diesel smoke inhalation in the safe room.

That accurate information actually was available to people in a position to make a decision.

I know conservatives like drastic military actions, but somehow I don't see carpet-bombing Benghazi, even to save an esteemed ambassador, is a viable course of action. Just consider implications of disproportional US response in already destabilized region would be.

Obama denied multiple requests for additional security arrangements, and ignored reports decrying the poor status of the security environment. This is also not partisan, not conjecture and not hearsay - it is fact.

Real time video was two drones in flight over the attack. It was real time enough that one drone flew on station until it had to return for fuel at which point a second was deployed to cover the situation. "They" is the situation room at the White House.

False. The ambassador was beaten and sodomized. One of the SEALs was killed on the roof while attempting to suppress the attackers.

The SEAL on the roof was in constant radio contact with his superiors.

And yet you were a royal asshole when some one asked for a congreesnial investagtion to get all the facts out there.

It is 'congressional investigation', at least try to proof read your posts before you barf them out, and no, outside of your deranged mind I did not oppose such investigation.

Why do you even bother posting here when you are perfectly capable of having imaginary conversations with your imaginary Sini all on your own? Stick to that and quit interrupting adult conversations.

No Red, it doesn't work that way. I wish Jet stayed out of this, but not most of your drivel is lost, save one I copied into your profile so it can serve a reminder of your on-going hostility.

There is no "back" component to any of your madness. You are acting as a spoiled teenager throwing temper tantrums when people do not immediately agree with your often ridiculous and almost always poorly informed opinions. Your fits of rage is nothing but unprovoked lashing out of a deranged, unhinged mind.

Here you go again.

Yep the asshole of the year award is showwwing that he is not out to have a conversation but to attack and belittle people. I will piss on your grave one day.

If by "conversation" you mean responding in kind to your verbal abuse, then I will pass.

Feel free to take a cold shower, calm down and come back with coherent argument. I actually highly recommend it.

The verbal abue began with you, and it is you who should calm down and stop being a fucking prick.

I know there is ZERO chance you'd listen to anything I say, but perhaps you could ask others in this forum to provide some outside perspective?