Hixter

And then offense was taken that I had the audacity to take 9/11's name in vain. Both are historical events. Both happened on September 11th. It's a date. I can mention any or all of them without intending to provoke an emotional or angry response. Is it that difficult to understand?

Most of my neighborhood and I are heading out to see Willie Nelson tonight. It's an annual ritual.

I find it unfathomable that you think that an historical event can't be mentioned without the intention of provoking an emotional or angry response.

It's rather ridiculous to remove Social Security and Medicare when we're talking about social spending. I spent 4 years in the Army, but I'm not sure where that gets us. I don't like it when our elected leaders lie -- especially when they're lying to get elected. The same holds true for the president's infamous "If you like your current insurance you can keep it" fib that he told over and over, even though he knew it was a lie.

It would be better if you'd just stop trying to tell other people what they are thinking. If I'd wanted to "evoke an emotional response" I would have written something much frothier. As for scoring points in a discussion, I'm not sure it's even possible. This isn't a sporting match or contest and I'm not trying to "win" or change anyone's mind; I'm just voicing my opinion. It's understandable if you misunderstood the intent of my post, but you'll have to take my word for it when I tell you that you misunderstood. I'm not a liar.

No, the administration's original story was that it was a spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video, although they knew at the time that it was a lie. Spending on social programs dwarfs military spending. The administration knew otherwise. There was no spontaneous protest in Benghazi, just an attack that the administration knew was al Qaeda from the start. An admission that they lied, for starters. I'm not going to own up to something I didn't do. Because it was an attack by terrorists on September 11th. I had no intention of evoking an emotional response or "scoring points."

No, it's what you think I did.

And what does that have to do with the attack in Benghazi? I did no such thing.

Or maybe "the 9/11 to end all 9/11s"? (Didn't work out so well for the WWI folks.)

It was a well-coordinated, pre-planned attack on Americans that took place on September 11th; I'm sure the date wasn't just a coincidence. For accuracy's sake, from now on I'll call it a milli-9/11, since the deaths were on the order of 1/1000 of those that occurred in 2001. I never said that they did.

Yes, the four people I quoted appear to have issues with my "mini 9/11" description.

Mini: 1: small in relation to others of the same kind It was a terrorism-related attack that killed Americans on September 11th. I'll stand by my description.

You can't save lives after they've already been lost due to incompetence. She failed to defend the American facilities properly and people died. Then the administration played coverup for a year. Even the president's bosom buddies in the media are beginning to tell it like it is. President Obama had his own mini 9/11 a few weeks before the election and he and his administration lied about the circumstances to save his campaign. It's impossible to arrive at any other conclusion.

It's been more than 13 months and it was only in the last week that actual on-the-ground personnel in Benghazi began telling their stories. How was anyone supposed to investigate without being able to speak to the people who were there? It's quite clear that the administration was warned that an attack by al Qaeda was likely and they knew from the earliest moment that it was an organized terror attack. Even as the bodies were being unloaded, officials like Hillary Clinton continued to put the blame on a YouTube video in order to save President Obama's campaign. Now they're trying to save Hi

I remember a little bit, but mostly on Drudge, etc. The whole Benghazi thing took place less than 2 months before the 2012 election, so everybody was in full-on campaign mode and the media mostly gave the administration a pass at the time. It's nice to see them finally showing a little backbone.

Exactly. Germany's intelligence apparatus has had an inferiority complex that dates back to WWII. They are also a little jealous of our "special relationship" with the UK, so this is their chance to complain publicly. Every other nation that complains is doing so for similar reasons, not because they are actually outraged and surprised.

The 60 Minutes report on Benghazi is worth a watch. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t8HeHEO-Qk

It happened on September 11th.

Would you feel the same if Republicans rammed through legislation that cost trillions of dollars without a single Democrat vote?

Absolutely. Health care spending has slowed a bit in recent years because of the terrible economy, but the general trend continues in an upward direction. Health care is expensive and the money is eventually taken from our pockets. Costs are also increasing in countries with single payer systems -- I read the other day that England's NHS won't be able to continue to offer free care unless new means of funding (taxes) are procured.

The fact that the bill garnered no Republican votes should explain why half of the population is irate.

Unless you live in a poor, rural area.

I think it's safe to assume that the administration's refusal to release signup figures is an indication that the first month has been disastrous. I expect that we'll see some sort of deadline rollback in order to save face (and the careers of Democrats up for reelection in 2014.)

Completely different. This is a case of a government-appointed panel saying, "We don't care what you want. We're pulling the plug against your wishes." It's not a road we should go down.