Mandeville, LA - I was listening to your show a few minutes ago, 10/16/2012, and your ranting about whether Obama should be pressured on his Benghazi knowledge whether it was a terrorist attack or not when it happened and not a video. You were criticizing conservatives for pursuing this thought, at least what I picked up on from listening to you. If wrong I apologize. You have your opinion as I do. You have the mic which doesn't make you God's gift to conservatism and I listened for entertainment and perhaps learn something. I end up listening in short bursts to you because I don't like your comments or how you phrase them and choose to listen as little as possible. I love conservatism and the constitution, but find this issue on Obama has nothing to do with either. Did he lie or not, and why did they cover up the terminology. I have my reasons for wanting to know.
My opinion is that we need to know that detail for the simple reason that it appears to me that he is covering up the fact that Al Queda is not dead as he proclaimed a few months earlier. Like he attacked George Bush for speaking on the aircraft carrier with the "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him only for the war to go on, this is similar. Saying the video caused the problem is like Mission Accomplished. He doesn't want his foreign affairs image to be damaged and by avoiding that label, it covers up the need for more security protection that appears was requested by Ambassador Stevens. If the attack was not deadly but just an attack and all our people survived, the issue of what caused it might not be as important, but I think it is an issue, a hot political issue and needs to part of corrective action and send the message that lies and coverups will not be tolerated.