Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?
October 24th, 2012
04:43 PM ET

Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The truth about what happened in Benghazi – and when President Obama knew it – could have a huge impact on the closing days of this campaign.

Turns out the White House, the State Department and the FBI were all told two hours after the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that an Islamic militant group had claimed responsibility. Two hours.

One government e-mail from the State Department shows a Libyan group – called Ansar al-Sharia – claimed responsibility for the attack on Facebook and Twitter. The group denied responsibility the next day.

This is big. It suggests that the president had reports that very day that the attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans weren't because of some film clip.

And yet – we heard just the opposite.

It took the administration nine days to refer to the attack as the work of terrorists.

Instead, top officials insisted there was no evidence suggesting the attack was "planned or imminent."

They continued to suggest that it was that anti-Muslim video produced in the United States that fueled a spontaneous protest in Benghazi. This includes folks at the very top like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice and the State Department spokeswoman.

Why did the president and his top lieutenants obfuscate and hem and haw for so long before telling us what really happened? Try politics.

As for this latest report, the White House says that these e-mails were part of a public flow of information in the aftermath of the attack and that it's the job of the intelligence community to sort through this stuff. They still refuse to accept responsibility for misleading the American people.

However, the more information that comes out about the Benghazi attack, the more questions there are about how the administration handled this. And that's not good for Obama just 13 days before the election.

Here’s my question to you: Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Posted by
Filed under: Libya • President Barack Obama
soundoff (318 Responses)
  1. Olga

    maybe it is due to the idea that 'intelligence' is sometimes not privvy to everyone. Could it be that Republicans refused to fund this administration enough money to cover the security of these embassies and as a result this administration was forced to hire Afghans(since we are leaving Afghanistan) and it was this reason Benghazi was not properly or adequately protected? The Afghans may hate us for getting rid of Bin Laden and may be vengeful about this.

    You don't know what happened. The story will eventually come forth. We need to exercise patience, tolerance and realize that intelligence is just that.

    Austin, Texas

    October 24, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
  2. Eric in Houston

    I had hoped it was either a screen for a possible military strike against the perpetrators or a diplomatic need. However since no one in the administration came clean with either of these explanations after the fact of a terrorist strike was known, it strains logic not to conclude that it is for political purposes. When you are touting your foreign policy and success against terrorists as a major strength, I guess it doesn't look good to put a valued diplomat and other Americans in a position to be murdered. Now at this late date I guess he just plans to brazen it through.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:30 pm |
  3. Jon Campbell

    I don't know Jack. Do you think maybe there were some other top security matters involved that he couldn't share at the time?

    October 24, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  4. Ken in Pinon Hills, California

    There is this thing about politicians and used car salespersons. Come on, most of us didn't fall of the I-pad delivery truck.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  5. KB and JB - central Florida

    One of your easier ones to answer, Jack – could say his normal response to many things seems to be "opposite of the truth"–& presumably depending on your "definition of truth"(or your definition of terrorism)-sound familiar? mantra: Deny, Distract, Divide, Distort, Deceive. ....
    but – it appears the intial reaction was to try to keep public opinion in the mode that he is "keeping the peace", it could not have been ALLOWED to be called "terrorist" because he has based a lot of his portfolio of supposed "successes" on having "killed terrorist activities by having O-B-Laden removed. stay with me hereJack – if it was "terrorist" then he's not the great 'terrorist killer'...so, it could NOT be terrorist activity ... and, if you "say it enough, maybe someone will believe it"...and if you have flunkies say it enough, that gives it more of a ring of truth (or coverup) ...

    we keep hearing echos of "if you tell the truth, you don't have to remember which lie was told when...etc" - who said that? so where are we on it now? is it a lie he never called the truth? or a truth he never called a lie? or what???

    October 24, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  6. Jeff In Bishop, Georgia

    Mr. Cafferty, this administration's lies have been no surprise to any logical, clear thinking person. Obama's entire life has been shrouded in mystery and illusions. With the help of an enabling press, Obama has been skillful in misleading the great unwashed that vote for democrats.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
  7. Wilene Rushing

    President Obama will say or cover up anything that he thinks will help him win this election. I think he is without a moral compass to guide his decisions. Unfortunately, there are too many people who support him, no matter what he does.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:41 pm |
  8. Jayne in NH

    I think he did, but nice job spinning it for Romney.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
  9. Rosey

    Jack, its not about truth telling. Its about sifting through hundreds of information that pours out of a tragedy that happens in the middle of a volatile country. Information changes, facts are updated.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:47 pm |
  10. Kevin SD CA

    Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi? Because this is his psychopolitics; ducking, dogging, and altering data is purposely being done to avoid any real responsibility! When are the media, and people of this Country going to wake up form this bad dream?

    October 24, 2012 at 1:48 pm |
  11. usha

    why didnt George Bush tell the truth about how much he knew about 911...they knew, why....

    October 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  12. LeeMarie

    He rarely tells the truth, what is so uncommon about this.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  13. David of Alexandria VA

    For at least the past two years, Obama has avoided anything which might somehow diminish his prospects or re-election. This was a potential doozie right before a debate, four weeks before the election. His spin doctors probably hurt themselves whirling and swirling the spin, test polling different versions, and inadvertantly hurting their candidate's credibility. If Obama is re-elected, without another election to worry about what will he do with all that spare time? Govern? I guess we'd have to wait to find out.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  14. trikstergod

    LOL! You mean why didn't this LIE get swept under the rug like every lie Barack Husein has told since he hit the public scene? How about he counted on his faithful lapdog media to divert attention and attack Romney on some trumped up BS. Wake up, this administration couldn't tell the truth if it tried.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
  15. Kevin SD CA

    Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi? Because this is his psychopolitics; ducking, dogging, and altering data is purposely being done to avoid any real responsibility! When are the media, and people of this Country going to wake up from this bad dream?

    October 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
  16. Richard Texas

    Because he did not want it coming up this close to an election to compromise his chance at re-election. Politicians are a rare breed indeed Jack. When questioned they simply demand proof that what they did was wrong and then deny everything. Very few politicians will ever stand up and except responsibility.Obama is no exception.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
  17. John from Alabama

    Jack: It is Politics 101: Never kick a person who died while doing their job under the bus. Ambassador Stevens died doing his job. There is no consulate in Benghazi. There is an embassy in Tripoli. Ambassador Stevens should have had a security detail of 12 to 14 personnel. There are 4 personnel armed with M-4, 4 personnel armed 12 gauge shotguns, and i or 2 M-60 machine gun teams, and someone with Communication with the world, and a Security chief. Ambassador Stevens was a target of opportunity when he went to the front gate to say,"good night, to his guest" at 8:30 P.M.. Ambassador Stevens was spotted by a bad guy. It took about an hour to an hour and half to start the attack. There was no harden automobile or panic room in this house in Benghazi. Where was the CIA section Chief? Where was the military or Milpo commander. Answer those questions. Ambassador Stevens was the senior individual in Libya. and he was the boss. Again, it is Politics 101, never throw fallen personnel under the bus.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:57 pm |
  18. D from NY

    It was clearly not optimal for him to admit that maybe Al Qaeda was not on the run after all. It was also not optimal to stay in DC rather than going to Nevada and Colorado for campaigning and fundraising. This man was elected to take the 3 am call. He would not even take the 4:05 PM call. We know where his priorities lie.

    October 24, 2012 at 1:59 pm |
  19. Michael Bindner, Alexandria, Virginia

    He told what he knew at the time he knew it. That's like asking him if he has stopped beating his wife (which he never has done, as she is stronger than he is). Just because Romney is a pathological liar, it does not mean Obama is too.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  20. oceros

    Valerie Jarret would not allow him to be honest with our Country or to try to help the four Americans who died. Shame on all who would have the "Audacity" to defend his position, his words or his inaction. We deserve better.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:00 pm |
  21. bonnie from NJ

    He was probably advised by the people around him that it would hurt his reelection chances. Not a wise choice, but really, Jack, as far as politicians (including presidents) go, not many of them would recognize the truth if they fell on it. I think most middle of the road Americans thought it was a terrible tragedy for more American's to lose their life, but what are we even doing there? More loss of American life for what really? I don't care that he "lied" about this, I will vote for him because I don't want the Republicans ramping up the old American war machine.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
  22. Dave

    Because he DID play politics by covering it up. Romney was correct, and even Candy Crowley admitted it after the debate.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
  23. Richard C.

    Politicians always think they can hide the truth from the American people. Obama thinks he is smarter than the average American; he is not. Benghazi was a disaster and the administration did nothing to provide adequate security, and then lied about what actually happened. Obama does not deseerve re-election for many reasons. This is just one of the reasons.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
  24. gmcbride66

    History has taught us that there are a lot of reasons things are communicated to the public by government officials; particulary, when speaking of acts of war and terrorism. But I think that the official response makes an awful lot of sense...there were several plausible explanations for what happened. And it is not unusual for numerous radical groups to 'take credit' for acts of terrorism soon after they take place. Who you gunna believe at a time like that? And how do you verify a claim of that nature?

    October 24, 2012 at 2:01 pm |
  25. Linda, St. Louis

    You're kidding, right? Within hours of an attack on Americans? Remember when the first plane hit the tower on 911 and we initially believed it was a plane crash? How about the need to get the facts, all the facts as much as possible and disseminate accurate information? How about the need to act in the interest of protecting/rescuing Americans and in the interest of national security? America needs a president who is thoughtful and deliberative rather than one who shoots his uninformed mouth off for political expediency without any thought of the potential consequences. Obama/Biden 2012! Mitt Romney 1040!

    October 24, 2012 at 2:02 pm |
  26. Perplexed

    Why doesn't Romney tell the truth about anything?

    October 24, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
  27. JM from DFW

    It appears at this time, we still do not know the truth.
    Many people reacted in different ways when this occurred. The negative movie contributed to the confusion, just as much as the comments made by Mitt Romney. Obama administration accepted responsibility for their actions.

    America is becoming a hateful nation. The extreme right Republicans, is it possible that they are the new terrorist?

    October 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm |
  28. Steve, Clifton, Virginia


    don't you think that this Present and the Office of the President has been shown enough disrespect. When was it definitively established that the President didn't tell the truth? CNN is starting to lose it's non bias appeal that it' has enjoyed for so many years. We know that Bush lied and you never called him on it.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:14 pm |
  29. Tom Bulger, Canandaigua, NY

    Because like the rest of us he won't know the truth until perpetrators are arrested and tried.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
  30. Phyllis G Williams

    Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?

    I would imagine that he did not know the truth, and spoke whatever he was told, only to find later that what he said was false.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:19 pm |
  31. jimmy in greenville nc

    The Benghazi business was of secondary importance to getting reelected. The truth will come out in Obama's memoirs. Of course the Obama faithful think anythings he says is the Gospel. So what else is new?

    October 24, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  32. pburkart

    In this instant news cycle environment, everyone expects everyone to know exactly what happened at the moment it happens. The truth is, there was a lot of confusion over why it happened. And, when the tape was eventually "proved" to not be the main reason for the attack, everyone was notified. No cover-up, no lie, just fact finding. And sometimes that takes a bit of time. Especially when the place you're getting the facts from is half way around the world in a dangerous country. – Columbus, IN

    October 24, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  33. Ed from California

    All we know so far is twenty armed militia men attacked the embassy, and that the 17th of February militia was giving support. My only educated guess on this is that the Ambassador didn't really think it was a big problem at all. There wasn't a email from the Ambassador asking for help, either. Jack, these very brave men and women in our embassy's around the world. They know the risk, and accept it (Don't think I'd do it). It's a very dangerous mission trying to wipe out the terrorist nuts in this world. I don't think anyone lied. I think we are trying to do too much with too little troops. If, we want wars all over the world we need more troops, a draft, or volunteers.....perhaps Romney's boys will volunteer, or the Koch brothers children will volunteer.Jack, thanks to Bush and Cheney the Waterboarder....no one likes us much. But, there is hope.
    There"s a video on the web from a man from Seattle. Who traveled the world, including Iraq, Lebanon, North Korea and got thousands to dance on a video. The whole world doesn't hate us.......it's just the people who have the most to gain that hates us.....our top 1% who benefits the most from war mongering....

    October 24, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  34. carlos magallanes

    "Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate." Remember that the Republican congress cut funds for embassy security. For fiscal 2013, the GOP-controlled House proposed spending $1.934 billion for the State Department's worldwide security protection program - well below the $2.15  billion requested by the Obama administration. House Republicans cut the administration's request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012. (Negotiations with the Democrat-controlled Senate restored about $88 million of the administration's request.) Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans' proposed cuts to her department would be "detrimental to America's national security" - a charge Republicans rejected.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:32 pm |
  35. bob z.

    every thing he does is political so he had to lie because the terrorist are not on the run as he claims this man is not even close to being an american

    October 24, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
  36. Ben from Boston

    Maybe he was so focused on the campaign that he didn't know the truth or believed the video story that someone else told him. The President is not Hillary. Hillary is smart and tough – the buck stops with her. She is our iron lady - she would have told us the truth and had the bombers over the Ansar al Sharia camp within hours. But Hillary is not president. She has to front for the President who leads from behind her.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:34 pm |
  37. Steve

    Obviously the truth would hurt his chances for re-election. Most Liberals don't realise how much Obama lies or stretches the truth. They have their blnders on. They accuse Romney of lying. Romney is the most honest politician we have today but you can't convince the Liberals of that. That's why the Independents are important in this election. They don't have the blinders on.
    On the day that the Embassy was struck, I remember UN Ambassodor Rice came on TV and stated that the attack was due to the 1 year old anti-muslim film that provoked the riot on 9/11. Give me a break. I seen her and listened to her and I said to myself what a liar. She is covering for Obama. A ffith grader could have figured that one out. The president lies more than everybody realises, and the Press doesn't call him out.
    What needs to be done is somebody in the Press that is neutral (exclude MSNBC) in their views and make a list of all the lies/promises made by Obama and Romney. Publish those results on the internet for everybody to see. Most people will be shocked. Recommend you Jack or somebody at CNN to do that. You would have a feather in your cap.
    I think you'll find Obama would have a very lengthy lying/misleading list.
    The Independents are beginning to realise that and more and more are leaning towards Romney.

    Final note: The oddsmakers in las Vegas are predicting that Romney is going to win. They must know something we don't know. Remember the truth always prevails.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:36 pm |
  38. RickFromDetroit

    The reason President Obama didn't tell the truth about Benghazi was: [1] It was not known at the time if this was single act of terror or a prelude to another attack, [2] The President didn't want to send panic into the volatile stock market.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:37 pm |
  39. Reggie53

    Obama did not tell the truth because his re-election was more important to him than the lives of the 4 Americans who died. He is a totally selfish man who has no regard for the American people and that is why he does not deserve a second term in office.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:39 pm |
  40. Bryan, Colorado

    Same reason Romnet isn't telling the truth about what he really plans on doing if elected. Do you really believe Romney will actually do anything to benefit the middle class working stiff? Spending more on defense is just a way to balloon the national debt. That way they can sell this cut all entitlements bologna. Liars like Romney deserve to be pooped on.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:41 pm |
  41. Larry in Houston

    Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi ?

    Why do you THINK it wasn't told as soon as it should have ?

    Answer :The upcoming election, period. ( and the administration didn't want to make any "waves" ) before the election.

    To be perfectly honest – The embassy's all over the globe either have had some type of problem, or have been attacked, in one way / shape / or another, ever since I can remember, from the Kennedy days / Nixon days / Carter days / Reagan Days / and especially the Bush days ( 1 & 2 )

    (mostly in the mid – east area)

    In other words, we've had some type of trouble, in one way, shape or another, whether it's been some type of violence, or some type of problem, in some middle east country, or somewhere in the world, throughout the past 45 years, at one time, or another.And with protesters in places like the square in Egypt ( Tahrir square) and other places in the world, with people protesting everything you can think of, wanting their freedoms & etc. I suspect it will be more of the same, no matter who's in office, as President.

    Benghazi isn't any different.

    No wonder Ron Paul was so popular during the primaries

    October 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
  42. Pee Dee

    Why not ask the question "Why doesn't Mitt Romnesia ever tell the truth about anything?"

    Atlanta, GA

    October 24, 2012 at 2:43 pm |
  43. lou

    We've become so jaded about our government leaders that we think everything is some big secret cover-up. It happened in a distant country, already rocked with instability, so I doubt every detail coming out of there was crystal clear. The family members of the victims have already come out to say they are satisfied with the way the government is handling the investigation. Let's wait for all the facts before we go crying foul.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
  44. Gary

    Because the truth would have changed the administration's narrative that AQ extremists were "on its heels". A spontanious riot that got out of hand (or hijacked) is not something that any administration could predict, therefore not their fault. However, a pre-planned attack on the anniversary of 9/11 raises questions about the state of AQ and the security provided by the State Dept and Hilary works for the President. Perhaps it was Bill's suggestion that the administration steer the narrative to protect her chances for 2016.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
  45. chris

    president obama tell the truth are you kidding he never from obamacare to now lies lies

    October 24, 2012 at 2:46 pm |
  46. Tim

    As we learned long after Bin-Laden was taken out, and also the weapons of mass destruction that led us to war with Iraq. All of the facts will take sometime to be sorted thru so that the truth will surface.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  47. wayne, va beach, va

    Jack! The question should not be " why didn't he tell the truth" but "why doesn't he tell the truth." Big difference.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:50 pm |
  48. feifuai

    When the truth expose Obama's shenanigans , he will be impeached and tried for treason .

    October 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  49. ken atlantic ciy, nj

    Simple, It was a cover up so that obama could blame someone else for his failure to protect the u.s. embassy. Rice and clinton should be fired If qadafi were still in charge this would have never happened. Thanks for nothing obama.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  50. Phil

    Ummmmmm Cause it happened in the prime of the Election and Obama has a track record for being voter friendly. And by voter friendly I mean saying anything that will sway a voter in his direction. Obama is a career oportunist that is more concerned w/ his image and his career then he is with anyone else. Obama has no foreign policy experience going into the 2008 election and practically no experience in Washington and has not been tested with an event of this caliber when it comes to the Security of the U.S. Obama was never qualified to lead this country and built a campaign on empty & now broken promises and hopped on the Anti Bush Wagon and rode it all the way to the white house 4 years ago.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  51. Loren, Chicago

    Chicago politics. The national press seems to ignore how much an influence Chicago politics has had on President Obama. In this case, it would be "never admit a failure", "blame someone else", "find an excuse". So the President sought an excuse as well as placing blame: the anti-Islam film caused riots and the crowds were to blame. When that didn't work, they has Secretary Clinton takes responsibility. And to the last, he has yet to admit that his administration screwed up. They failed to provide minimum security, because his desire to cozy to Muslims made him forget how easy a target a temporary embassy could be, and when they knew the truth, they tried to downplay it, because of his desire to cozy up to Islam. Time for President Obama to stop making excuses for Islam and face up to the reality of the continuing threat posed by Islamic extremists.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:54 pm |
  52. Mark

    It's easy'er to blame other's when your in Washington, then to take up on your self.

    October 24, 2012 at 2:55 pm |
  53. Richard Oak Harbor, Wa

    The urgency to report Benghazi attack information through the media could have interfered with the investigation. Multiple claims of responsibility for the attack had not yet been verified 24 hours later. The Romney camp has exploited this issue far beyond its merit. Securirty for all Arab Spring countries' embassies and consulates should be reviewed within the State Department and funded accordingly Accidents have a way of happening even with the greatest security..

    October 24, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
  54. Bill (Tacoma)

    Jack, we still don't have the truth or what happen in IRAQ and WMD. How in the world do you expect us to get an answer to Benghazi in such a short time. I want to know what happen to the WMD before we go any further, I demand an answer. Well Jack, do a piece on that first.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm |
  55. Amayalive

    Political fall out? It seems as if there was a huge attempt to cover up the severity of this attack...these deaths. Bad timing for POTUS politically. Would have been easier to just tell truth from beginning. I think he didn't want to come out as "Bush-like" guns drawn with a statement of vengeance/justice. Instead tried to make this a "non-war" threat. He has been touting Al Queda "on the run" for months as an accomplishment. This contradicts WH message on terror threat being taken out with capture of OBL.

    Garden Grove, CA

    October 24, 2012 at 3:07 pm |
  56. Ted

    Jack.. It's called POLITICS. . . . . Know how to talk with style ... Have access to a lot of money... Be able to lie and make it sound the truth...This is why you will never be elected president.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
  57. Charles from Las Vegas

    Jack, I'll ask you why CNN is plugging Romney so hard just before the election if it is suppose to be fair and equitable?. CNN has been leaning right for a while now. I'm old enough to remember when CNN was THE voice of cable news. Now it seems you're just an also ran...how sad.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
  58. Overby

    Most of the people I've talked to have said it's the old fashioned Chicago thug mentality, but after the debates, they're saying it's more like school yard bully mentality when you try to win your points by ridicule and belittlement instead of intelligence and facts, and also, to think you can get away with it to look right into the camera and tell lie after lie. With more of the truth coming out every day, it's easy to see he's not getting away with it this time.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:09 pm |
  59. Bob in Ohio

    It's campaign season and right now he's a candidate first and the President second, and that determines what he tells us and when.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
  60. Gurgyl

    Don't you know it is all political stuff???? What Benghazi??? Right at home, 9/11 happened don't these GOP looters know??? Benghazi is 10000 miles away. GOP is nonsense and idiotic. Do not ba an idiot with them. Obama12. Period.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
  61. Gigi Oregon

    What proof do you have that you would have/know the truth if you saw it....I know for sure if the truth is out there on the campaign trail our nation is in jeopardy and our enemy is close at hand. That's why I'm voting for President Obama to continue as president. None of my family in the service has been wounded or killed in the past 4 years. Has yours? Because Romney and others have leaked information whether true or false our country is at risk.There are many plans and words that can jeopardize the strength of our military. It takes great strength to keep your mouth shut to protect our Armed forces and country. A true Patriot protect it's country and it's people by not using careless words or lies. . The enemy spreads lies which lead to death and decay of our nation.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm |
  62. Ron from NC

    Has he ever told a TRUTH?

    October 24, 2012 at 3:25 pm |
  63. Jim in Illinois

    Because he is an out and out liar and has been lying to us since his first campaign!

    October 24, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
  64. jk in MN

    Just reading your question without all your background for it make me think you are relying on the sabre rattling the GOP keystone clowns of Darryl Issa's oversight committee have been doing. I personally am more disgusted that Isaa and his band of nuts released information that may compromise the security of operatives in Libya just to score election points against the President. America forgets, the answers to what happened on 9/11/01 didn't all come quickly. Let the investigators complete their work and present their findings before we rush to judgment. Oh, I forgot, Americans seem to want everything "right now".

    October 24, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
  65. Elizabeth From Toronto

    How do you know he didn't tell the truth? What's your inside scoop, tell all the CNN viewers! Don't just make an accusation and let everyone think you are right! Tell us what you know!

    October 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
  66. Bill Ackley

    Jack: The reason is frighteningly simple. The administration cannot help itself. Throughout the campaign the president and all his men have attempted to manipulate stories in the media in order to protect or enhance the presidents image and thus, his electability. this is the latest , most disturbing and egregious continuation of that policy. Such manipulation is an insult to us all. This is not the open, honest unifier many of us voted for. Obama is more and more looking like the Emperor who has no clothes.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:30 pm |
  67. Doug Ericson

    It the President wasn't telling the truth in the days or even weeks following the raid on the American Consulate, I am going to guess he was stalling for time.The raid on the Consulate in Lybia was immeadiately followed by anti American protest all across the globe. I even saw a significant gathering of Muslims in NYC, so the situation was even in danger of flaring up at home. ( All related to that anti Islamic video ). So whatever words came out ot he President's mouth at the time, were carefully constructed, to try to put out all the flames rising everywhere related to the situation. I would personally excuse the President of a little white lying, if it prevented the Middle East from exploding, wouldn't you? Consider also, Obama's handling of the intitial Lybia crisis when Kadaffy was slaughtering people by the thousands. I think the republicans would love to make a mountain out of this mole-hill, by trying to blame the Obama Administration for four American deaths, not long after Obama helped to save tens of thousands of Lybian lives. Be carefull what you wish for if Romney wins. All it takes is one careless insult to inflame the Middle East and perhaps ignite WW3. I will sleep better at night with Obama in charge, from a National Security standpoint. Doug, Pepperell, MA.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
  68. Greg Cox of Bremerton, WA

    Can you say, "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" a few times. This "liar, "liar" conundrum for this President and his minions seems to their drum roll for accountability to us. They still haven't told us the truth about Fast and Furious and when called to task by the Congressional Oversight Committee and sued in Federal Court their response was to claim Executive Privilege after months of stonewalling. Why? It's obvious that they have something to hide, something that will cause them to lose votes and, more importantly, something that shows them guilty of more cover-up than we imagine. Their arrogance is second only to their boundless ability to keep information out of the reach of the public.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
  69. Gerry Erman

    This administration wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit them. The unique aspect of this is that there was no political gain to deceive the public. This government lies even when it doesn't have to. Bad habits are hard to break. That said, the previous administration wasn't a whole lot better.

    Ash Fork, Az

    October 24, 2012 at 3:39 pm |
  70. P.V.

    He´s a Democrat and that makes him automatically exempt from telling the truth about anything, he has The Great Blow Horn CNN and all it´s spin doctors to protect him... Just ask The Clintons !!!

    October 24, 2012 at 3:40 pm |
  71. Wilhelm in Las Vegas

    Oh for GOD SAKES, Cafferty!!! WHO the HELL is FORMING your QUESTIONS? the Republican National Committee? it seems like every other day it's another anti-Obama "PUSH POLL" question on your blog. you working on getting a job at "Faux News"?

    first off, there was TOTAL CONFUSION coming out of Libya about WHAT HAPPEND and with the demonstrations at other US Embassies in the Muslim world, it's NOT suprising they initially got it WRONG in thinking it was a demonstration that got out of hand.

    the BIGGER question should be WHY we had yet ANOTHER intelligence failure by the CIA, NSA, State Department and other US Government agencies. THAT would be a VALID question NOT "DID Obama LIE" which is what YOU are inplying.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:41 pm |
  72. Mike Danahy

    Come on Jack. This sounds like a poll on Fox News. Seriously. You really think President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton and the entire State Department conspired to lie to the American People? Why did 9/11 happen under Bush?
    Why did Pearl Harbor happen? Again, you're letting your bias show and it's annoying, Jack.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:46 pm |
  73. Lee in Wyoming

    "Sometimes the truth is hard to come by." We should all know this by now, right in
    the middle of a political campaign!!! We have heard phrases like "fluid situation"
    and "premature judgment" relating to the Benghazi events. How about "fog of war" which the military uses? Since our Secretary of State recommends not cherry-picking documents, and waiting for the investigation to unfold, how about following her advice?

    October 24, 2012 at 3:48 pm |
  74. Rose in Glendale, Az

    It was a cover up from the start. The White House did not want us to know that it was a Terror attack on Obama's watch. Today they make the excuse that intelligence was not clear. Hogwash, I think it is pure and simple a cover up, there are four dead Americans, this is far worse than Watergate.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
  75. Bruce Harrer

    Everything that Barak Obama does is based on a political calculation. In this case, he felt that it would do less political damage to obscure the fact that it was a terrorist attack, because if not, he would need to explain why the State Department ignored recommendations from intelligence organizations to increase security at the embassy based upon clear indications of a potential attack.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
  76. John

    As a wise man once said; "You can't handle the truth".

    October 24, 2012 at 3:52 pm |
  77. CaraW from Indiana

    The truth may be out there but I cannot find it. I feel like I am drowning in a sea of doping, politics, and Honey Boo Boo stories whenever I go to news sites. Apparently, most Americans aren't interested in what happened in Libya anymore, and if they are they are out of luck.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
  78. Toni

    Tell the truth in an ELECTION YEAR? Jack, are you serious???

    South Carolina

    October 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  79. Terry in Virginia

    Why didn't Obama disclose what he knew about the attack in Benghazi, my guess is the State Department and Homeland Security didn't want any information released while they developed a case against the perpetrators. A better question would be why didn't Bush/Cheney tell the truth about WMD, lies that got us into 2 wars with mass casualties? Years later the truth came out and Bush/Cheney just shrugged it off. The GOP didn't give a damn about those lies. So, before the GOP condemns Obama without the facts, perhaps its members, particularly those up for re-election, should do some soul searching into its recent past and WMD. Whom do I want for President - a man who lied to protect the integrity of a case while evidence is being gathered or a member of the GOP formerly led by men who lied to get us into war for their buddies' financial benefit? Easy answer: Obama.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
  80. Katy

    Obama pursued a policy of denial in an attempt to save face. He went as far as telling the American people, that terrorism is really not terrorism and that it must be because of a logical reason because all Muslims are reasonable people. He therefore gave them the film as an excuse for there attack.

    October 24, 2012 at 3:59 pm |
  81. Rich in Texas

    Jack, you would think these guys would get it by now. It's always the cover up that nails these politicians. He lied because he thought he would get away with it. Despite what a lot of people may believe, Obama has proven that he is just another political hack. Disapointing to say the least.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
  82. Dave

    Because he did apply politics to Lybia afterall.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
  83. Rich Texas

    Jack in all fairness I don't think even Obama knows what the truth is. We will have committees to investigate committees and still never be clear on what happened simply because that is the way our government works. There is a policy and procedures manual for every action in government including going to the bathroom however when something like this happens policy and procedure goes straight out the window and then those responsible go into cleanup mode and start trying to bury the evidence.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  84. Jennifer in Winnipeg

    IF he didn't tell the truth, then his advisors gave him misinformation. But even Candy Crowley says he told the truth. What are trying to start now, Jack??

    October 24, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  85. Mike Scarpelli

    The Truth! R U Kidding? He can't tell the TRUTH, if he does, he ADMITS he is NOT ABOVE THE REST of US!

    October 24, 2012 at 4:05 pm |
  86. Kimmy, in beautiful NC

    Because he is trying to figure out who else to blame!

    October 24, 2012 at 4:06 pm |
  87. Thom Richer

    The only thing that I know that he may have not been 100% open about is that he was slow in proclaiming it as an "act of terrorism." Beyond that, I need more specifics as to his not telling the truth about what happened in Benghazi. I am not sure that not calling it an act of terror is exactly not telling the truth. Please elaborate. I have a question in response. Why didn't Bush tell the truth about Weapons of Mass Destruction and his real reason for going to war in the Middle East? Perhaps if Bush had told the truth, we would never have gone to war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, et al and Benghazi would never have occurred and the question would not be asked.

    Thom Richer
    Negaunee, MI

    October 24, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
  88. Dan from New York

    I hate seeing sensitive foreign policy situations played out in the media. These are extremely complicated issues and our 24/7 news feed twitter reflexology begs for jumping to conclusions and gotcha politics. Yes, this is the President's watch and his people are at the top. However, most of our diplomatic corps are working for America and not either political party. Yes, we lost 4 Americans in Libya, an absolute tragedy. However, where is the outcry for the wasted American blood in Iraq? That apparently serves no one's political agenda.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
  89. Scott in Michigan

    Because everything is about HIS re-election as always has been! How people can't see through his lies and agenda is beyond me and why most of the main stream media ignores this story is beyond belief. If we cannot trust the press to dig for the truth and keep elected officials honest, our country is seriously in jeopardy.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm |
  90. Mike Scarpelli

    The TRUTH proves that there is NO Transparency in this Administration and Nothing is Believable!

    October 24, 2012 at 4:12 pm |
  91. BrainTurnedOff

    So Jack, I gather you don't trust the government anymore? Guess what, neither does Obama. We want to war in Iraq once due to flawed intelligence.. Better check it out before running to conclusions.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:13 pm |
  92. Myrtle, Keys

    What happened IN Bengazi? All this time I thought Benghazi was a person, Jack.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:15 pm |
  93. Gary in San Jose, California

    I'm sure they had conflicting reports in the early hours and days so the mistake they made was taking a position early. Once they got better information they lost time trying to figure out how to step back from their first position. We've all seen this many times so it was kind of a rookie mistake.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
  94. Gary H. Boyd

    What happened in Benghazi on 9/11 was a complete and total embarrassment for Obama. To have acknowledged as much in such a close presidential race was simply unacceptable to such a pompus man. His subsequent admission came only after a monumental display of smoke and miorrors, including his Secretary of State falling on her sword to protect him. . Obama's ego does not allow an admission of failure.

    Gary in Scottsdale, Arizon a

    October 24, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
  95. Ram Riva -- Calexico CA

    Mr Cafferty....this type of questions you put in your prestigious blog.....really only reflect your intention to aid Romney....we know that CNN has lost credibility in the US and around the world....at least try your best to be neutral.....don't believe you questioned GWBush when he never told anything that was truthful....WMD.....where were you when that lie was paraded by CNN all over the world.....this election has been decided....

    October 24, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  96. Christian

    POTUS could have been looking out for our national security. What if the terrorists, who attack the embassy, had affiliates in the U.S.?

    October 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  97. Karl in Flint, MI

    Jack, how much is Romney paying you to put this manure out here? You have lost ALL credibility in my eyes. The president isn't required to tell all until he knows the entire story and then if it is a security issue WE don't need to know everything. He didn't take 9 days to call it a terrorist attack he said the terrorist would be hunted down and punished the next day in the Rose Garden. You seem to have Caffertasia. Sad at such a young age, too.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  98. Simon/Orlando

    Because he wanted to tell the American people that he had the bad guys on the run as a political ploy. An organized attack against our embassy was not part of that program. I'm amazed he thought he could get away with blaming it on a stupid film.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  99. Randy from Rochester, MI

    The debates absolutely matter. We've now seen Mitt Romney lie in three straight debates. From his 4.8T additional tax cut for – primarily – his donors to the Bengazi political attacks to his lack of geographic understanding of the country that he declared our greatest threat. When he lied about whether the President stated Bengazi was a terrorist attack, which he did declare an act of terror, you and much of the media attacked the moderator not the dishonest candidate. Former governor Romney is going to lose his "home" state by 20+ %. They know the damage he did and will do. This phony move to the middle is as crass as Paul Ryans fake trip to an empty food bank to wash clean pans for the camera.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  100. Gordo from NJ

    President Obama has much more aggressive fighting terrorism than his predecessor, who famously ignored the NSA brief "Bin Laden Determined to attack in the US." Dealing with global complexity and random violence isn't as easy in real time as it is in media hindsight. Bad things sometimes happen, learn and move on. Chris Stevens was a brave Ambassador who strongly believed the US needed to get actively engaged with the people of Libya. Let's not sully his accomplishments by exploiting his death for political grandstanding.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
  101. Gail, Plano TX.

    Sorry, Jack, but uou are wrong! Refer to your own Camdy Crowley who moderated the second debate. She had the transcript of the President in the Rose Garden the day after the attack in which he stares, Acts of Terror etc. You really need to do your homework, Jack.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
  102. Jenna Roseville CA

    Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?

    Jack, the investigation in Benghazi hasn't even been completed yet, so what is there to tell?? The president isn't Mitt Romney. He doesn't shoot first and get facts later.

    Roseville CA

    October 24, 2012 at 4:29 pm |
  103. Pensacola Pete

    Wow, you are REALLY way off the charts here, Jack. The Prez referred to it as an act of terror within hours, and then again a short time later. U hate Obama so much that you now carry dishonest hwater for the Repubs, Jack? Shame on you. I happen to appreciate a prez that, unlike Bush and Romney, takes whatever time is needed to get ALL the FACTS, before making judgements and decisions. Cafferty, you owe the prez a BIG apology for this one.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  104. BiLL Brienza

    Why was the Ambassador away from the Embassy? Why was he in the unsecured Consulate? It is a long way from Tripoli to Benghazi... Something does not add up. Something does smell funny but until those questions are answered I am not about to blame the President. There were others responsible before the President.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
  105. Cam

    The reason why Obama didn't tell the truth in the first place is due to the fact that the media usually covers for him. I am waiting to see how the media will spin this in the coming days.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  106. Gerri Schlotterback

    We may never know the reason why he lied, but when a politician lies it is either for re-election purposes or something that will harm his agenda, or just plain stupidy and whatever the reason he should be upfront and not hiding behind a womans skirt.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  107. yousef

    He couldn't have known because maybe you forget we are all human maybe, he was still waiting on his advisers to sort through the info, you media people need to give PRESIDENT Obama more credit he's doing the best he can to pull this nation out of the mess Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. put it in. Also. Let's not forget he got bin ladin

    October 24, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
  108. Stephen Blank,DDS

    I would bet the President was more concerned with Americans still in Libya. What difference is it if Libyans or so called terrorists committed the crime? Does one need a certificate of attendance at an acredited terrorism school to be branded? Was Timmothy McVeigh a terrorist or just a murdering nut job? Does it matter what label is applied? Ask the victims if the title of the bad guys matter? Is that all Romney has as a reason to earn my vote? Pretty pathetic. Why don't they ask the families of the dead how they can help?

    October 24, 2012 at 4:34 pm |
  109. Anon

    Is it so difficult to wonder why? Because Al-Qaeda watches CNN too. Any possibility that the government can obscure how much they know and catch the perpetrators off guard is to be expected. If the president and his staff released all they knew purely because they were worried about elections, I'd call that an abdication of presidential responsibility in keeping the US safe and would not vote for him regardless of his views.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
  110. Jaime

    Not to excuse Obama, but do you think that other presidents have told the truth about blunders over-seas? Did George Bush ever tell the truth about Iraq? This was a definitely a screw-up that looks bad on the administration, and that would be the number one reason why not let the public know about it.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
  111. Sean in Roseville California

    Jack, i'd like to applaud you for not shying away from this story. You're absolutely right, this is big and gets to the president's character, as well as what looks to be a deception by our government weeks before an election. The truth is coming out that the ambassador's death had nothing to do with a video. What happened to the transparency that the president promised us?

    October 24, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  112. Cliff Glass - Rego Park, New York


    I'm speechless, not for the lack of your usual perceptive and insightful commentary, but for the sheer obtuseness of your assumptions. Since when are verdicts rendered before trial ? To echo Joseph Welch. Have you no sense of decency?

    October 24, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
  113. Michael, from Smiths, Alabama

    Jack, I refuse to believe that the Obama administration was hiding the truth from the American people. I rather believe that he held back from informing us, so that the terrorists behind the attack would not receive such 'popularity boosts' from broadcast information giving them credit for the attacks. Its the same policy of white-noise deception as has been used by the CIA for years. At least Obama has come out and told the truth about the reason behind the attacks, unlike Bush, who didn't give the American people the real reason for the Iraq War of 2003

    October 24, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  114. Jeff In Minnesota

    Seriously? This is an issue? Really? This is just an ultra-right wing attack about nothing and I'm a Republican and can figure that out. A militant group claims responsibility and then repudiates its involvement. Sounds like every day in the Middle East, so why wouldn't the Administration back off. I'm not saying the Administration is blameless in all of this, but really, this is the best we can do? We have much bigger fish to fry than to point fingers at one another over who knew what when. This certainly does not come close to a Watergate event, so let's talk about real issues like how we did ourselves out of the financial mess our government has left us in.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  115. Mark.....in Houston

    I'm still trying to sift through all the opinions, trying to find some real news, about what happened. Seems to me we had some "we did it"..."no we didn't do it" going on and a lot of "it's the fault of the video" being thrown into the mix. I'm having some problem figuring out how while sifting through all this the President mislead anyone.

    What I'm having no problem figuring out is how "opinion media" is trying to turn something pretty unclear into a huge issue against the President. But then I'm not a birther or a right wing slack jawed, prejudiced fool who believes anything their favorite media outlet feeds them.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
  116. Melissa

    From Pennsylvania. The emails and information speaks for itself so why is the whitehouse the last to inform the US citizens? It is clear to me their opinion of the intellect of the average voter. As a woman I have been appauled at the one dimentional approach to seeking my vote. As if women dont care or have enough invested in economic or world affairs aa men. Perhaps the current president and some in the media will be awakened by the atrong and powerful voice of the well informed woman voter.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
  117. Jim Charlotte NC

    He realized that the Media especially Fox News would make this a bigger story than 9/11 and tried to keep form reaching that degree.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
  118. Name*Tom

    Knowing that there had been several requests for extra security that was denied from this administration, it is pretty obvious why he lied. This situation is worse than Watergate was in that American lives were taken. "Why" does America deserve not to be told the truth should be the question.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
  119. Harold

    There's something else involved aside from admitting that it was terrorism and it didn't fit his narrative, Jack. Will be ever find out why this administration was so elementary in its stance that it was the anti-Islam video? There's many lies coming out of this administration on other issues as well.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  120. HURRICANEPAUL from Hawaii

    ** Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi? **

    Not only did President Obama not tell us the truth about the murders of the four Americans in Benghazi Jack, he is actively involed in a "cover up" that makes President Richard Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal pale by comparrison.

    The trouble President Nixon had, and the trouble President Obama will soon have, is our system has too many checks-and-balancesl for any one person, even the President, to get away with trying to cover up a crime, especially when it involves the murder of four Americans.

    It won't be long before 'Nixon & Obama' will be synonymous in the history books that have yet to be written.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
  121. Jake

    No assumptions there, huh Jack? Some anonymous poster goes on Facebook and makes a claim and it is supposed to be taken as gospel truth? Even though the OFFICIAL spokesflack for the terrorist group DENIED they took part in the attack a day later????

    And why didn't someone in the media pick up on this Facebook/Twitter claim the day it was made? Too cheap to have someone monitor sites that are known to the public?

    October 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
  122. Trask

    Wow, Jack. I used to respect you.

    FACT: Obama DID say this was an attack. And don't give me this "generalization" garbage either. He mentioned Benghazi, said that these acts of terror would not go unpunished, gave condolences to the families and said the killers would be hunted down. ALL THE VERY NEXT DAY.

    FACT: If the "Facebook claim" by said group was denied the very next day by the same group that claimed responsibility...then this renders the entire story MOOT.

    You cannot claim the President "knew and lied" about this when the group DENIED RESPONSIBILITY THE NEXT DAY.

    Get over it already. The fact that the media continues to drag this on is incredibly dangerous and shows that they, not the people, can influence an election just out of sheer greed for ratings. It's disgusting.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
  123. Andre R. Newcomb

    I think "the fog of war" is a very reasonable explanation. I don't know who the comment is attributable to.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:48 pm |
  124. AkCoyote

    Why did Obama call the Ft Hood shootings 'workplace violence'? Or the NY bomber a 'lone wolf'? This administration simply doesn't want to admit that we are at war with a people who hate us and want us to be wiped off the planet.

    Wasilla, Alaska

    October 24, 2012 at 4:50 pm |
  125. Shirley in Texas

    Well, Jack maybe it's because the group Ansar Al -Sharia claimed responsibilty one day, then denied it the next day He certainly didn't want to jump the gun like Mitt Romney did. He wanted to wait for all facts to come in. Thank God Obama doesn't practice Knee-Jerk responses like SOME!

    October 24, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
  126. Dean

    Does no-one remember when terrorist groups would claim responsibility for things they didn't do just to get the in the spot light for a short period of time? Maybe the Republicans are mad a terrorist org is using their tactic of telling a lie then retracting it the next day? What kind of intelligence agencies would we have if they were just like "oh hey, these guys posted on twitter that they did it. Well, good enough for me! Case Closed! whoo hoo!". Get real!

    October 24, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
  127. Tom L

    They thought they could keep us in the dark until the election was over. Also, why did the main stream media try to bury this story? Fair and impartial? I doubt it. Seems the media prefers a Big Brother government to freedom. Such a shame. Thanks for covering this story.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:53 pm |
  128. IearlyvotedforObama

    Why didn't Bush act on the Al Queda intelligence early? Why didn't Bush tell us the truth about Iraq and save thousands of American lives. You CONservatives are jokes.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  129. tom chadbourne

    You have not paid attention just like Mr.Romney. The President made a statement the following day stating that terrorists attacked the USA in Libya. Secondly how abount the reports that we had to arrange the removal of US personel from a building located nearby. Why is the news media required to know something immediately. The fact is the Ambassador and his staff was killed that is the real news.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:55 pm |
  130. Parisianne Modert

    Over and over again I see polling such as 47 Obama percent to 47 Romneys percent nationally without any mention of other candidates (3rd party) percentage. As an informed, committed voter for a candidate other than Obama and Romney I am offended by the deliberate and well thought out omission of the truth. The news media along with most polling firms are falsely leading the public in believing that 6 percent of voters are undecided when this isn't true. – Parisianne from San Diego

    October 24, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
  131. Paul in NC

    Wow ! Another iraational, unfounded attack on the president. Why am I not surprised, Jack? Except for the hairstyle it would not be difficult to mistake you for Donald Trump. Get over it. I know you are obsessed with Hillary, but she is not, and says she does not want to be, president. Accept that and move on.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
  132. Vinny in Connecticut

    It's simple, Jack. Obama and his administration lied because they keep pushing the narrative that since Bin Laden is dead along with many of the top Al Qaeda leadership, terrorism is no longer an issue in the US. Obama keeps boasting how "he killed Bin Laden" and we are now much 'safer' due to him. He wouldn't want something like Benghazi ruin that narrative and his re election chances, so he and his administration lied about it and had the film maker arrested instead!

    October 24, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
  133. Andrew (Ohio)

    Jack it comes down to intelligence and what his and other sources were advising him at that time and days after. What we have here is a bunch of hypothetical and assumptions. I feel as if the good majority of us realize that. Remember that at that time the middle east was in an uproar about that American made anti-Islamic film and rightfully so. It isnt hard to believe that at that time the attacks were based on that film and Obama and his administation was simply given the wrong information about what was happening and had happened. After all Bush was accused of allowing 9/11 to happen in 2001! How many of us believe that now? We all just need to sit back, allow people to do thier jobs at figuring this out, get the final reports, and then draw our conclusions.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
  134. Gigi Oregon

    Now let me answer that with a question. "Where was you... back when Bush went into the wrong Country looking for bin Laden?" Maybe if you had said something back then we wouldn't be going through this ordeal now. Over 4,000 thousand warriors would not have been killed...What if Bush had called in the Navy Seals what if..etc, etc, etc. I don't want another 8 years of those old Republican policies. FORWARD

    Jack, you are like a child hollering out at the secret and ruining the event...

    October 24, 2012 at 4:58 pm |
  135. Mark from New Jersey

    First of all, waiting to find out the truth is more important than accepting the word of lunatics claiming responsibility. After all, Saddaam Hussein claimed he had a nuclear program, the Bush administration bought it, and it wound up with wasting 5 trillion dollars and 5,000 American lives. Better to find out the truth before you run your mouth.That goes for you too, Jack. Compared to trying to strip women's rights, billionaires buying elections, or one party trying to destroy all the social programs that helped this country become great, this issue is di minimus, and typical of FoxNews, but not of CNN.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
  136. calaurore9

    It's a chaotic situation in post-Khaddafi Libya. On any day there could be a mob or a planned action against one group or another. That day a video in Egypt could well have served as a cover for a planned attack anywhere. Why are we so obsessed with labelling these events? What does it matter? People died who were trying to make the place better. But, they were in a high risk place. There could be very important reasons why we didn't want to foment further violence by blaming and naming. Nuance is necessary in these countries. It's not black or white.

    October 24, 2012 at 4:59 pm |
  137. sixmom

    Why? This is par for the course. Apparently he was a little more concerned about his bedtime and his rigorous trip to Las Vegas the next day. Get a clue what this man's character truly is -without a teleprompter and Greek columns.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
  138. Rick

    Great story, Jack. I hope it will give other journalists the courage to begin reporting on this story and asking questions of their own. Gone are the days of Woodward & Bernstein... maybe it's time to return to that time when reporters sought out the truth regardless of their personal politics.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:01 pm |
  139. David

    Jack, your ability to see *now* which piece of data is the one with the "right" information does not impact in any way what analysis had to be done on *all* the data then. Sometimes when chaotic things happen in chaotic places there are pieces of data that are *gasp* inaccurate. Even if they are emails!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
  140. Al in MS

    Part of your article :
    "Turns out the White House, the State Department and the FBI were all told two hours after the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi that an Islamic militant group had claimed responsibility. Two hours"

    Since this is an on-going investigation and response, it would be interesting to find out who your source is. The information you are stating, would actually still be classified and secure. Do you think, just maybe, you might have been misled (just a little bit)?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:02 pm |
  141. susie fisher

    A better question for the administration and for America to ask itself on election day is, How come Obama refused to act by sending in our forces? They knew as the attacks were happening in real time, a drone was video taping the killing Obama and Clinton made the call not to attempt to save our people for no other reason than this administration has a history of corruption, lies, and has shown how little Americans mean when compared to their agenda, their staying in office and a belief that Americans will accept any failure, cover up, and we can do nothing about it. I am angry at the media for aiding and abetting all of this administration's actions, policies, and plans destructive to America. Obama sees us all as stupid, as lacking in moral strength as he, and therefore he should tell us what to believe, how to live, think, and that we are failures not he. This president has no idea what TRUTH and Honesty are, therefore the truth can never come from him. America deserves a leader whom loves first America, her people, her history, and defends our values as a Country not this one whom will do and say anything to RULE.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
  142. Phil

    For the President to tell the truth about the terrorist attack in Libya on the anniversary of 9/11 would not be OPTIMAL.
    If it were, I'm sure the final report would be completed before the election, not after the election.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
  143. C Hinton

    The Obama administration cut security at the post to "normalize" it. In other words, to make things appear calm (as a result of Obama's policies) instead of an armed camp. When the terrorist attack happened, their "bet" that it would be okay lost and Obama didn't want to admit that the White House had left the American personnel literally wide open to what happened to them. This is why Ambassador Rice pushed the idea that the attack was "spontaneous" and could not have been foreseen (despite Amb Stevens begging for more protection.) Sean Smith was a friend of mine with a young wife and two young children. He served his country in the Air Force and the State Dept and did not deserve this to happen to him, all in the name of getting Obama elected again.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:03 pm |
  144. Chck Roeser

    Let's give it a break. The global neighborhood is one big poker game when you involve the muslim/arab world. Sometimes it is best to sit back let them play out their cards between themselves first. We should not jump at first,second or third reports and go chasing off to find non-existant WMD's again.
    The real source of this episode may be some day traced back to our dear partner in war – Pakistan Intellignece Services. Then what should we invade to deliver justice. I hav had my belly full of first rumors.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  145. Will in Iowa

    Jack, how about reading the Time magazine report detailing the events from the Libyan guards. Sounds like a hasty but planned attack on a target of opportunity by Muslim extremist motivated in part by an anti Islam video....Where is the lie Jack...I don't see it and I doubt you will reference the Time article

    October 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  146. Joe

    I don't usually have many good thing to say about CNN and their biased agenda, but have to give credit where credit is due. This is a cover up for political purposes as far as the eye can see, and I applaud CNN for their unbiased reporting on this story. The moral compasse has weighed in on this one.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  147. Brad

    I love these folks that are saying it's the House Republicans withholding money that caused this. The administration has not had an approved budget for years – even the Democrats voted against Obama's budget requests. Why isn't CNN and other media outlets asking about potential impeachment proceedings? You know damn well if Bush was still in office, they would have already stormed the White House with pitchforks and torches.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:04 pm |
  148. sixmom

    Why? This is par for the course. This is who Obama really is without his teleprompter and his Greek columns. He know his weak foreign policies were responsible and he dodged. Not only that, apparently he had a bedtime and a rigorous trip to Las Vegas the next day which were both more important to him than the lives of Americans serving our country on hostile soil. "It's the video's fault." Makes my stomach turn.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  149. Dorkus Maximus

    There's a big difference between being told someone claimed responsibility for something and being told that that someone was indeed responsible. Suppose a terrorist group claimed responsibility for an earthquake, as a boast to suggest God was on their side. Does the President then announce that the earthquake was a terrorist act? Hardly.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  150. DoseOfReality

    Thank you! I'm glad to see an objective view about this coming from a contributor to CNN! This is a HUGE deal involving complete incompetence or intentional lies and a coverup by the Obama administration mired in the politics of an election year.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:05 pm |
  151. C. J. TN

    Thank goodness SOMEone in the MSM takes on the role of proper journalism! These are the questions that should be asked. THIS President Lied to the American people. He watched as four Americans were murdered. He could have called military action and possibly saved these men. The facts will come out and those who have blindly supported this administration should be ashamed. He knew about the terrorist attack 2 hours after, so WHY march Susan Rice out to all networks to claim it was the video. Something does not pass the smell test...why were they SO desparate to cover this up? Maybe a copycat but hybrid Iran Contra to the 50,000 power?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
  152. Dyslexic doG

    POINT 1: Islamic militant groups claim responsibility everytime anything happens. Doesn't mean they did it. The US Government chose to investigate thoroughly before announcing because they don't want to feed these fools' causes.

    POINT 2: Any fool with a readily available gun or RPG can call themseves an Islamic militant group and afiliated with Al Qaeda. Doesn't mean they are one. The US Government chose to investigate thoroughly before announcing because they don't want to feed these fools' causes.

    If the Government had announced it, the Republicans would have been complaining that they announced it too quickly. There's no winning here, whatever the Government does, Jack, you as a responsible journalist, should be ashamed for feeding into this hackery!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:06 pm |
  153. Ron from Michigan

    Because they knew the media would help them cover it up. and if you look at the news today, is anyone making a big deal about this? If this had been President Bush, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE LEAD STORY EVERYWHERE! Nothing on the morning shows this morning. Not a lead story anywhere, except on fox. The media is in the Presidents pocket and the country knows it. It's so sad Jack what the media has become. You should all be ashamed!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
  154. Ray in Knoxville

    Really? Let's ignore what the President said for a moment. A group claimed responsibilty, then turned around and denied it the next day. Which is true? Doesn't it make sense to wait for hard intelligence before making a statement on that group? Now, to your assertion that the President didn't call it an act of terrorism, he called it an act of terrorism in his address right after it happened. Why would he mention acts of terrorism in that address if he wasn't talking about that incident? Final question, is Sean Hannity sitting in for Jack today?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
  155. Mr. D

    They say: "the truth will set you free." But it might also not help your election prospects.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:07 pm |
  156. Rob-Texas

    I am not concerned about hte video or the two weeks. I am concerned about the denied requests for security leading up to the attack.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
  157. Chris R

    So you expect the government of the United States to accept Facebook and Twitter as authoritative intelligence sources? I could create a wikipedia page right now that says that Romney is an alien from the 8th dimension intent on stealing our precious bodily fluids. Will CNN take that as an authoritative confirmation of Romney's alien status? Look, anyone can say anything on Facebook and Twitter – that doesn't make them true. Information gleaned from social media sources *can* be useful but it doesn't mean anything without corroboration from other sources.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
  158. Dorkus Maximus

    Obama is a deliberate, rational person who is not going to speak where there is no certainty and not going to act where there is no weighing of pros and cons . A previous president would not only have insisted it was a terrorist act, he would have demanded we invade some unrelated country.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:08 pm |
  159. Alan C. Williams

    Jack, you are beginning to make me think you belong right along side Jack Welch, Donald Trump and Joe Kernan on the first team, all Republiclowns bro'.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:09 pm |
  160. bill ball

    simply put jack because he is a person who cannot admit to any mistakes it is always someone elses fault cover it up or blame bush hillary or yourself jack but not mr oboy im great

    October 24, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
  161. Claudia, Houston, Tx

    After the country is told the truth about why we went to war in Iraq when we were told there weren't any WMD's, then maybe the truth will be told about what really happened in Benghazi.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
  162. Gary H. Boyd

    The Benghazi attack took place on September 11th. On October 16th, during a debate with Presidential contender Mitt Romney, Obama said, "I'm the President and I'm always responsible". He did so only because, the previous day, his Secretary of State had declared she was responsible making him look like he was leading from behind. A total screw up had become an outright embarrassment and he finally fell apart like a cheap suit.

    Gary in Scottsdale, Arizona

    October 24, 2012 at 5:10 pm |
  163. DT - Saint Paul, MN

    The President of the United States should have made an executive decision based off of a Facebook post? I really don't understand how this issue is as big as it is aside from the media concentration. The people don't know ANYTHING about classified material.

    The real politics is being played right here Jack.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  164. Chris R

    "One government e-mail from the State Department shows a Libyan group – called Ansar al-Sharia – claimed responsibility for the attack on Facebook and Twitter. The group denied responsibility the next day."

    Reread what you wrote and ask yourself why the administration took this information with a grain of salt. The key words here are 'Facebook', 'Twitter', and 'denied the next day'.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  165. Dyslexic doG

    To all the fools saying that the muslim world is ablaze, the reality is that out of countries with populations of millions of people, there were only tens or hundreds of dissafected youths being hooligans for the thrill of it. The muslim world is more stable now than it has been in decades. And don't counter with Syria ... that has nothing to do with the US, it's an internal strife that we should stay well away from.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  166. Larry in St.Jo, MO.

    I don’t care what you think, I don’t believe the President lied. If you think the president “lied” at this this stage in the election cycle, then you are a mere partisan propagandist trying to effect leadership change in this country for God knows what purpose. For all we, you, or, anyone else knows, Benghazi could have been an Israeli false flag attack and disinformation game intended to damage this administration for not sucking up enough to Netanyahu. There is an horrendous media scandal brewing here and you are part of it. You don’t run this country you know!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:11 pm |
  167. flameworker

    Did anyone ever think that denying the terrorists "credit" for the bombing might have been a goal of the administration? Terrorists commit their evil in order to gain attention but making them an anonymous "mob" as the administration characterized the perpetrators may have helped to diffuse the incident. And that, my friends, is the art of diplomacy.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  168. lisa s n.j.

    Hi Jack, I don't know why this administration chose to cover-up The incident in Ben-Ghazi . Why haven't politicians learned from Nixon and Clinton. The cover-up is always worse. As a member of a military family I am sickened and disgusted that the Vp and the President covered this up. How do you trust people who lied to you.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
  169. Dyslexic doG

    Jack, why are you becoming a Republican hack?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
  170. Diane

    I meant phrasing!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
  171. Jeetu

    There are several reasons related to national and international security that the POTUS cannot reveal things to public UNLESS absolutely sure about it. Just because of some early and prelimninary reports, POTUS cannot announce to the public what is happening. Besides, the POTUS did say that no terror attack is acceptable, meaning that he did suspect this to the case. he kept on repeating that but did not want to raise any alarms unless they were sure.

    This should not be an issue in the POTUS election as this case is already being investigated. I am nore concerned about the 47% comments ny Romney and his $5 trillion tax cuts and rasing the defense budget by $2 trillion. That will cause us to be in greater recession that we have seen recently and increase unempoyment to about 15% than the current 7.8%.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
  172. Roger

    So a terrorist group claimed it on Facebook, and we wonder why the president didn't come right out and say, "We know it was them because they posted it on their wall?"

    Have we become so naive that we think everything on Facebook is the truth? Not only that, but Facebook is more accurate than actual fact finding and making responsible statements based upon those facts?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, social media will doom us all.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm |
  173. Kate

    Why didn't he tell the truth? He knew he didn't have to because the majority of our country wouldn't care enough to demand the facts. Too many people in our country need to learn where Libya is before they can begin to understand that there were Americans there risking their lives and that the circumstances of their death were being covered up or spun in the interest of political gain. The better question is, why don't enough Americans care?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
  174. Deb from Skippack, PA

    Jack, be real this president is not an over reacter. I would rather have it that way. The news cycle and the republicans created half of this mess. Obama always weighs all information first and always thinks before he acts. Isn't this what we need to have in a commander in chief. Romney was like a maniac with the press the night of the attacks. I am glad that the administration was looking at all the information and not base every report on twitter or facebook. If they would base everything on those social media outlets we would be in serious trouble. Why is CNN acting like Fox network.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
  175. Ken Wayne

    Lets have the truth, Obama was naive going into office. We wanted so much to elect a black President, that we let his background be swept under the rug. Now we have come to regret it. He has been a failure both in domestic and foreign policy.
    and his handeling of the bengahzi incident is a perfect case in point.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:14 pm |
  176. fofojan

    This coming from a person who initially supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and says that he "bought the whole song and dance about WMDs? Well, Mr. Cafrey, President Obama is not like you, he test the water before he jumps in so he won't have to eat .... afterword.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm |
  177. GI Joe

    I guess for the same reason W and Cheney used to always tell us they couldn't give us all the facts because of Natiional Security..

    How many facebook pages and emails are left to go thru before the whole truth comes out? Maybe 10 or 11 years like 9-11 and WMD.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
  178. Sanity

    Well Jack, did you ever think that a facebook and twitter posting by a nutjob radical group is not necessarily firm intelligence? That maybe more credible and actionable intelligence was what they were basing earlier assessments on? I can just see the GOP circus had the President made a statement to the American people based off a radical group's tweet that ended up being wrong. Use a little common sense.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:16 pm |
  179. Joseph

    Jack, This is the straw that broke the camel's back, I can not TRUST the president to tell the American people the truth. Within 24 hours after the missiles were discover in Cuba, JFK went to the American people. JFK was a leader, Obama is not … So my vote goes to someone that I think can lead this great nation, Mr. Romney, you have my vote.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
  180. Roger from NY

    I am asking the same question and come to the same conclusion, politics. However, there is another question that must be asked and it is of equal importance. If the WH knew about this 2 hours after the attack started (in the Sit room), why weren't jets scrambled and troops brought in to help our people there considering that such assets were an hour out (at a base in Italy) and the attack lasted for 7 hours. It is equally bad that we may have been lied to, but of equal importance that our Commander in Chief failed to protect our sovereign land and our people. Truly a sad story made worse by the actions caused by politics!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
  181. Matt, Santa Barbara

    It was posted on both Twitter and Facebook?! And then retracted the next day by the group claiming to be responsible? Well surely this is news that must be immediately provided to all Americans the second it is posted without investigation, review or analysis by the intelligence community and certainly without consideration on what the ramifications of such an action.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:17 pm |
  182. Steve

    An hour after the lone gunman Fort Hood attack the white house released a statement saying this was not a terrorist act. An hour after the lone gunman wisconsin mosque shootings the white house issues a statement saying this was a domestic terrorist act. Several hours after mob armed with RPGs, hand-held missles and automatic weapons the white house says attack was result of a video, and then finally brow-beaten 9 days later the white house admitts it might have been a premeditated attack. Don't offend the muslim community.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  183. Tom Barrister

    We wouldn't want Mr. Obama go out of character and start telling the truth for a change.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  184. Nora

    Because the information came from Facebook. Is that really the way to verify such important information?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:18 pm |
  185. alan staats

    ...by all means, Jack, we should have told our enemies precisely what we knew as soon as we knew it. Great way to fight a battle, manage intelligence, and catch the bad guys.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  186. Jerry, Oregon

    Jack are you drinking again? You're starting to sound like Donald Trump! Maybe he could help you with your comb-over!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  187. Al Alvizo

    Maybe that was the truth as he knew it at that time!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:19 pm |
  188. Ron Elliott

    Shame on you, Jack!! President Obama did tell the truth!! The very next morning (in the Rose Garden), he indicated the attack was by terrorists! Wish you would not make such blatant statements that imply the administration does not tell the truth!! You're way off base!!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  189. Burbank

    Obama didn't tell the truth about it for the same reason the Romney side isn't telling the trurh about Romney's son Tagg buying up easily hacked voting machines in Ohio, which is highly illegal by the way. They are both unscrupulous candidates that will do anything their puppetmasters tell them to. I'm writing in Hillary!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  190. Rick Baber

    A terrorist group claimed responsibility? So what? If your car blows up tonight, Jack, from too much gas in the front seat, some terrorist group, somewhere, will claim responsibility for it. It was responsible for the Administration to not give them credit until an investigation into the matter was completed.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  191. wolfpackbob

    Any Democrat, Republican or independent should want clarity. The death of Americans should trump politics every time. But the ONLY thing that is clear to Americans is that not only was this a fatal error, it is also clear that there is an intentional delay to not fully inform America until AFTER the election . That smells. And that is politics and America is offended.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  192. bqm13

    Hillary Clinton said that posts on FB/social medis cant be used as evidence of terrorist attack 2 hours after the US Consolate was attacked in Libya. But they used a film on another social media outlet to fuel there story. How ignorant do they really think people are?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  193. Jack

    Your own report suggests the information was inconsistent and non-credible and you suggest that the President was misleading?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  194. Scott - St Louis

    He did say so the next day. Retire sir the technology has passed your ability to digest it.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  195. Aaron Lattanzi

    I can't answer that question because I don't work for the State Department. But for anyone watching, it's an extremely distressing situation to witness, particularly because the evidence points so strongly towards them knowing it was a terror attack immediately after it happened. I wish the President would take a leadership role and address the public about what truly happened, what they currently know, and what they are trying to find out. The American people deserve to know. This transcends politics

    Aaron from Connecticut.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  196. Jill from New Jersey

    Jill Curley Baruffi In my opinion, I think the Obama Administration was trying to control the political implications of a failed policy in the Middle East. Clearly, the Consulate was left exposed to the whims of an unstable country. By the President using the words "act of terror or terrorist attack" during a speech shortly after the 9/11 attack, he made a covert acknowledgment of the dire situation that would reveal itself slowly. He covered all his bases...just like holding up an egg and calling it boneless chicken is misleading, so too is making a reference without openly acknowledging the murder of Americans was a planned attack by a known Terrorist. With that being said, the narrative of the election is still being controlled by the Obama Administration...it should be about the Economy!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  197. Ken Wayne

    Don't give credit to much to Obama, he is not that smart. Axelrod saw the wind at Romney's back, and the bengahzi emails, would sink the already sinking ship of the Obama administration. So they pulled out all stops with ambassador rice to go on 5 sunday talk shows and blame the video, Now, with Halloween coming,it has come back to haunt them and put the final nail in the Obama reelection campaign.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  198. Don

    Good lord. Everyone is so worried about what he knew. Isn't his response more important?Bin Laden sure found out.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  199. Al

    Maybe because the Public wants to know, like yesterday, instead of waiting for the administration to make a thorough report.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:20 pm |
  200. Issac

    Jack. I think you need to ask another question. Why didn't we go rescue our people. Left, Right, Democrat, or Republican. Why didn't President Obama or any of his national security team try to rescue our people with military bases only an hour away in Italy? Were these four Americans not worth it?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  201. Kent - Iowa City, Iowa

    The Fog of War.

    We live in an age were we demand information instantly and aren't willing to wait for facts to be verified by politicians or by the media. We latch on to whatever sensational opinion presents itself and accept it as truth because we have no evidence to verify anything. Only wild speculation and double talk.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  202. r.landschoot

    more and more, it looks like they are being apologist of Islamic ideals. When will people realize Islam is much like other dictatorisl regimes, they want total powe read hsitory Jack, you might learn actual Islamic motives, which is to destroy Ameriica and other religions. But you won't ocala,fl

    October 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  203. Tony

    Why is the media championing the torch and pitchfork mentality over this issue? What the president knew and when isn't as important as the fact that the media should have been investigating this independently and presenting it to us.

    We shouldn't be depending on politicians to tell us the truth, nor should we be so shocked if and when they hold back information. I'm not angry with Obama on this issue, I'm angry with the media for blaming him for the media's failure to do *it's* job.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  204. Guillermo

    Jack, I trust the administration to handle the situation much more than your ability or CNN's to report on a topic that doesn't really matter to the election. Terrible job at making a mountain out of a mole's hill. Time to game the channel to real news. Guillermo

    October 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  205. Billie Shaffer

    anybody who believes a blog on facebook is proof of anything at all is either incredibly naive or abysmally stupid.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  206. Robert

    The funny thing, from a Canadian perspective, is that for whatever reason, Americans believe that they have the absolute right to know everything. Not only was this an obviously fluid situation, but the need for national security in terms of the safety of the US consulates outside of Lybia was paramount. I would never expect from anyone in government, all the facts regarding such a situation to be brought forth immedately, when such information would endanger other Canadians by exposing what worked and what did not in such an attack. The biggest blunder, it appears, was that an ambassador spoke out too early about information that wasn't wasn't confirmed. If you want to lay blame, lay it on the doorstep of the security professionals who failed the President, and not the President himself.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  207. Marsha

    Jack I think a vinn diagram would help you sort it out. We live in a 24 hour news cycle so the odds are high things can change many times before the TRUTH comes to light. I have never seen you bloviate. For a moment I had to check my channel. whew thought I was on Fox for a minute.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:21 pm |
  208. Jim Wassel

    Jack, you ask; "Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?" When does he ever tell us the truth? How many 2008 campaign promises has he broken? And he promised a more "open" government, but we all know what happened there... meetings behind closed doors, secret agendas, etc.. And then he hammers through a health care bill in which most Americans are uninformed of all of the consequences to them.

    But the real reason he lied is because our intelligence services were notified days in advance of the attacks. The Benghazi embassy was begging for more security and Obama and his henchmen ignored it all. So what better way to take the heat off yourself in an election year than to blame a Hollywood movie for the attacks? Our Muslim sympathizer President and his chief liar, Hillary Clinton, conspired to turn the blame off themselves and onto an unsuspecting group of movie actors!.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  209. Terry

    Jack, CNN viewers are sick and tired of your biased questions. I just believe your question is an attempt to incite the president's opponents against him. Otherwise, how on earth are viewers in the position of knowing what was in the president's mind if at all what he told the American people was not the truth?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  210. Paul Pearce

    What difference does it make if it was pre-planned or spontaneous? The security wasn't there because the Congress cut back funding, and four solid Americans were unnecessarily killed!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  211. Debbie

    I think the bigger question is why was this embassy left unsecure after several requests for more security were made and then denied by our state department. It doesn't really matter if there was a terrorist group involved directly or not. The Ambassador knew the situation on the ground was not good and asked for more security. It was denied. And it was NOT denied because the GOP wouldn't fund it. During the hearing, State Dept. Rep. Charlene Lamb was asked if the lack of funds was the reason the extra security was denied. They asked her TWICE. And both times she said "no". Funding was not the reason extra security was denied. The sad truth is that all during Obama's campaign he was spouting "Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive and Al Qaeda is on the run". If you notice, he doesn't say that anymore. If was a screw up BIG TIME. Either he didn't care enough to be involved (he only attended security briefings 38% of the time) or he is too incompetent to act on the intel before hm. Either one of these reasons is enough to deem this president a danger to our own country.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  212. Seth Shotwell

    At what point did the administration or the intelligence community become obligated to publish their real-time intel? I think the mistake for Obama was NOT saying that nobody would say anything publicly about an active investigation ... then carefully release.
    I think it would be a bad idea to demand our secret intel be made public ... that is just plain dumb.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  213. frank

    are serious, now you consider facebook and twitter a reliable source to make a presidential decision. next time we'll launch wars according to facebook and twitter...

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  214. Jeremiah

    The email said the terrorist group posted on facebook & of course as you know, Jack, everything on facebook is always true.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  215. Leo in NC

    Jack, you're beginning to sound like you're on the FoxNews payroll. That question is totally loaded. To ask why the president didn't tell the truth assumes that he did know the truth. There are too many variables surrounding this story to make that assumption. Are we supposed to verify our intelligence via tweets and Facebook posts?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  216. Robert J

    It's pretty obvious Jack. Obama, Clinton, Rice, and Carney are bald-faced liars who really expect to be able to feed the American people any kind of dog food at any time because of a liberal, complicit media.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:22 pm |
  217. RSummerlin

    Because they could not find a way to blame George Bush... duh...

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |

    A second U.S. official added, "There isn't any intelligence that the attackers pre-planned their assault days or weeks in advance." Most of the evidence so far suggests that "the attackers launched their assault opportunistically after they learned about the violence at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo" earlier that day, the official said.

    This is from our Intelligence services and Libyan citizens. You bought a false premise in your question. Are the Libyan witnesses and US Intelligence lying,or on the take,? How absurd. I can only shake my head.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  219. JD, Tucson

    The president could be telling the truth, in that the riots started due to the anti-Islam film but, somehow evolved in this particular case into an attack. Whether this was planned, or whether there were elements in the riot who were manipulating the events is yet to be determined. If you lived in the middle east, which I did, you would understand that most rioting there evolves quickly into a blood bath. The emails that we saw today do not suggest that this has been the organized work of terrorists. There were security loop-holes, that is for sure, but only that much is clear.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  220. Gian

    There is thing called classified information. It's only because the media feels the need to report information in real time as it happens regardless of how it endangers American lives, that we feel the need to have the admin announce there is a terror attack taking place as dozens of protests are taking place at other US embassy. Do you think maybe it wasn't wise to embolden protesters by saying a US embassy has been breached??

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  221. Porter

    As they always say, where there is smoke, there is FIRE! Lack of transparency and outright falsehoods when 4 lives are lost is shameful. The President owes everyone the honest truth and not the campaign version of the 'truth'.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  222. Matt

    It's disconcerting that this guessing game was presented to the American people, primarily because of its potential impact on our response to what could easily have been an evolving attack throughout the region. What if this had been a coordinated attack on other embassies simultaneously?

    More importantly, however, is how two previous attacks on the same compound didn't make them increase security on the ONE day of the year that signifies the radicals' war on America. If we fail to learn lessons from this – and it happens again – it will be unacceptable.

    Matt, Boston

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  223. Daryl

    Jesus Jack, is Dick Cheney your good neighbor? Sure this Bengazi issue is important to the Republicans because they are grasping at any straw in order to elect their village idiot.
    Can't we as Americans just mourn the loss of four of our people and stop this seemingly never ending search for something to blame on Obama?
    Given the cavernous hole GWB left us, you would think there would be more important issues for your airtime.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  224. Greg

    We have to remember that these emails were preliminary and unconfirmed. The group that claimed credit later recanted. The president did the right thing in being cautious and slow in what he reported until that raw intelligence could be confirmed

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  225. Scott Y

    I am a Republican, and even I know you don't automatically trust when a group claims responsibility for something. That is just not proof by itself. Why would you report that if you couldn't verify it? How many groups have ever claimed responsibility for something they didn't do just to get their name on the world stage. I don't blame the white House for not coming out with that information, and I would question anyone who believes you should report first and verify later.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  226. DT - Saint Paul, MN

    I'm actually angry about a real lie. WMD's. Remember that whopper?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  227. Warren in Minnesota

    Jack, your question is flawed in that you have decided that the President did not tell the truth. So give us your unrefutable evidence that allows you to make that statement. Have you ever covered a news story where the facts on day one suggested this, day two brought out a different story, day three changed the situation even more, etc.? If not, you've had a very shallow career. Just look at the Trayvon Martin shooting where, to this day, we still have a changing landscape of what may have actually happened.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  228. Barbara Johnson

    cnn needs to go back to being less in the gop pocket. no one should base anything on claim on the internet. Oh thats whay mitt would and he would act solely on that, facts matter

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  229. Judith Hope

    This is possibly the most unfair accusation I've ever seen in a presidential race. It was clear from the start that events were unfolding quickly on the ground in Bengazi, and circumstances as the administration knew them to be were changing rapidly. President Obama stated emphatically and quickly (the following morning) that terrorism in any form will not be tolerated by this administration. The following day, Ambassador Rice reported THE FACTS AS THEY WERE CONVEYED TO HER BY THE CIA. If the news media and the GOP want to indict any party in this sorry affair, it ought to be the CIA! You must all be terribly hard up for real issues.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  230. Cab

    He's been telling the American people and the world that the alqaeda has been destroyed and things are so much better over there. The attack let American people know the truth and he didn't want that revealed.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  231. Del

    What is your security clearance? Maybe this info is above your pay grade? YOU DON"T GET TO KNOW EVERYTHING FIRST!!!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  232. Al-KC

    Jack who cares? Make a mountain out of a molehill that's all this is. What can you or I do about what happened?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm |
  233. george

    Terrorism is about media coverage. By not saying it was terrorists it doesn't give them any recognition and it makes the terrorists brag about it that much more. Right now anti-terror teams are tracking these guys down since we now know exactly who they are. Always look beyond the obvious and think things through from all viewpoints.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  234. Warren

    ...from Canada
    Why don't you ask why is the Presient beating his kids? You're question is leading and NOT worthy of someone wanting to know the truth. By asking 'What didn't the President tell us the truth' you are starting with the premise that he wasn't being truthful. You, nor I, have any evidence of what the President actually knew or was told. The Secretary of State has said that they cannot rely on Facebook or emails to make their decisions, THEY NEED the facts and evidence.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  235. duvall1962

    Ah, MSM fanatics don't like it when a top story like this is reported in the 'Other News' section buried 8 stories down the listing. Come on CNN, put this story out there in the NEWS where it should be. Stop protecting your man!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  236. Sanon

    Jack, why are you guys making a big deal about some issue that is actually under investigation? I think all this nonsense should stop and give a chance to those working on the investigation.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  237. Dr.Akin

    Jack with due respect. The question poised above from you seemed presumably biased. You vaguely believed that President is guilty and he did not tell the truth. Sometimes what we call truth could be a blatant lie. when the only tools you have in your hand is hammer you only tend to see every problem as a nail.I like your investigative journalism style but on this one you are far way ahead of yourself.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  238. Torsten Rufer

    Jack, wake up! You expect the president of the United States to react to a Facebook post claiming responsibility? Have you arrived at the Honey Boo Boo age, too? What is so horrible about blaming something that couldn't possibly cause any political repercussions against the US (a street mob) while really making sure that we find out what DID HAPPEN?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  239. Carlos Vaxquez

    It is evident that the President is stalling on this and refusing to tell the American people the truth due to the impending election. He owes an explanation to the families of the 4 Americans who were killed, and he owes it to the American people. This would normally be of Watergate proportions if the media would cover it as it should. It will likely cause Obama the election.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  240. Edward Lynn

    So it was the White House that was obfuscating things, you say? Because as your own Candy Crowley correctly stated in the debate she moderated, President Obama referred to this attack as an "act of terror" the very next day. And that's in context, too – he was referring not just generally to attacks, but to that attack – as the full remarks make clear. But the media, yes CNN included, went on and on about the video for the next few weeks anyhow. Now you're going along with the Republicans trying to gin up some kind of "what did the President know and when did he know it" type scandal. But it's clear, the President knew it was an act of terror the next day, when he said so. A better question to ask would be, what did CNN and the rest of the media left, right, and center know, and when did they know it, and why did you and they continue to try and make hay about the video for weeks after the President said in a Rose Garden press conference that it was an act of terror? Quit trying to gin up scandal when you're the ones who made the REAL mistake.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  241. Bartholomeo Gomez

    Obama, Binden and Clinton knew that this was a planned act of terror as it was happening. Are they really going to tell the American people that it took the richest and most power country on earth TEN DAYS to figure this out? I bet that even Cuban intelligence knew exactly what this was within hours of the attack, and their intelligent budget is probably $1000 a year!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  242. jimmy in Weed CA

    Oh, come on Jack ! These things take days, weeks, even months to verify. Remember how long it took to verify the non-existing "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq ? Just because you get a vague email from a purported terrorist group in the Middle East, you don't come right out and report it as truth ! If I believed every email I got, I would have collected $100 gazillion from bankers in Nairobi.....

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  243. The Obvious

    Your question, Jack, is the worst case of pandering I've ever seen from you. It assumes what isn't known? No one knew "the Truth" two hours after the incident. That should be obvious. The state department many reports, which were they to magically know is the true one? That's why they had an investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  244. Stephen

    9 days...Are you crazy? Did you watch the second debate when your own colleague Candy Crowly fact-checked Romneys allegation regarding the President's response the day after the attack. "ACTS OF TERROR".... PLAIN ENGLISH.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  245. Patrick

    Can't peak your head into the window if you don't know what window your peaking your head into. Somethings currently afoot!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  246. Tony

    They put politics before being truthful to the American people. We have our children dying overseas, we expect the truth from our President. And to go on a campaign trip to boot. Of what little respect for those that died.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  247. Terry from the Stater that doe not count my vote NJ

    When someone gets use to lieing then it becomes second nature – no more complicated then that.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  248. Quinton

    Jack why did you just say that it took the administration nine days to refer to what happened in Benghazi as a terrorist act? It's been clearly established that President Obama began immediately referring to the incident as a terrorist act, starting with a press conference in the Rose Garden the very next day. I'm a long time fan and watcher of yours, so please leave thus kind of journalism where it belongs...on Fox News!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  249. Jeff


    You just said that a group claimed responsibility and then the next day denied it. It sounds like bits and pieces of intelligence was coming in, some good and some bad. Why would an administration try covering something knowing the truth was going to come out? I dont buy it. This is just another Republican scare tactic they have been using for 4 yrs.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  250. NateFromIndiana

    Mr Obama is talented, but he isn't a fortune teller, and he doesn't have instant omniscient insight into every part of the world. The thing I saw in the news the most immediately following the Benghazi attack was discussion about the anti-Islamic video, so I find it a little hypocritical for the media to criticize Mr Obama for being distracted by the smoke screen they created.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  251. Tom

    The President called it a terrorist attack on September12 Jack, ask Candy to show you the video!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  252. Joe

    Wow. Bald faced lying, Mr Cafferty? You work for CNN and even Candy Crowley debunked the lie about President Obama supposedly not calling the attack a terror attack. What difference does it make what it was called? It is the soul-less right-wing using the deaths of noble Americans to try to attack another noble American. Your rhetoric is offensive. You do not have access to the CIA information that was given to the President or anyone else at the White House or Pentagon, or other top secret information. Surely you are aware that very often when a crime is committed anywhere, often many groups claim responsibility. President Obama has consistently proven himself to be an honest man of integrity. He would not lie to the American people and the insistence of those who do lie non-stop – the Republicans and Tea Partiers, is degrading to anyone who loves the US.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  253. Ted

    He learned from his mentor, Bill " I did not have sex with that woman " Clinton. LIE LIE LIE.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  254. joe smith

    Jack... the president didn't "lie" to the american people about the attacks. So what if some random group claimed responsibility as a publicity stunt the next day? My grandma could have made that claim to gain some attention, but the truth is that each claim needs to be investigated thoroughly before finger pointing begins. that's responsible politics, not cowboy diplomacy as we witnessed with bush leading to the iraq war.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  255. Jayden

    Where was this type of outrage and any similar demand for George W Bush to take responsibility for the faulty intel that he used to lie to Congress and the American People which got us into a needless war in Iraq? The main reason you will not find me EVER voting for any republican is the fact that they seem to have very short memories when it comes to their own policy failures and inability to take responsibility. Oh....and i am a three tour veteran of Iraq and I am allowed to say every bit of this.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  256. Janet Lee Parker

    04:43 PM ET

    04:43 PM ET

    So he could throw Hillary Clinton under the bus.

    Why didn't President Obama tell the truth about what happened in Benghazi?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  257. Milo

    Initial information in emails and investigative findings are two different things. Obama made one thing clear – he will see to it that we catch the attackers and bring to justice those who killed fellow Americans. That is all the truth I need.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:24 pm |
  258. Bob

    Jack you don't know that the president didn't tell us the truth so don't insinuate that he did. You don't have any more information than the rest of us so hold your opinion until we have all the facts.His Rose gardenspeach the next day called it an act of terror and the video whether you want to believe it or not appears to play some part in this whole thing.
    Lets wait and see what information we get when the investigation is done. You are like a bad prosecutor desperate to get a guilty verdict.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  259. Bob H

    "One government e-mail from the State Department"?
    So Jack, your bank calls you and say we are going to reposses your car. You think your going to make calls to figure out what is going on? I think so. Don't state dumb things when you know better. It takes time to get CORRECT information. Take a chill pill Jack.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  260. Robert Andersen

    What about Romney saying the next day, Obama was supporting the terrorsit
    that attacked the embassy. Republican lies and sick twisted ingonorance is
    over the top. Enough BS already, get to the facts. Here a fact. A war in Iraq
    on a lie a weapons of mass destruction, How about that you idiots.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  261. Linda C

    Obama is a deliberate, rational person who is not going to say anything that may undermine his chances of being re-elected. He would rather lie to Americans and to the parent of the men who were killed than admit that this was a huge political cover-up. If I were the mother of one of those men, hearing this news, after hearing him tell me he was going to give me information as soon as he could, I would slap Obama’s face! Shame on him!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |

    Well Jack, so now you are a proponent of running our foreign policy via twitter. Not too long ago you called people who tweet twits. I wonder what changed? Oh yeah, you don't like Obama. You really are turning into one of THEM – angry white men. Time for the Elephant lapel pin Jack.
    Jeff – Yucca Valley, CA

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  263. Big Bob

    Most of the people defending the administration say that there was silence because all of the facts weren't in yet. Fair enough. But if that was the case, why didn't they just say so? To suggest that a movie caused it right from the get-go is what concerns me. The OIC lobby of the UN is trying to outlaw all dialog on Is-lam so that they can advance their agenda without any hurdles. The president said the future doesn't belong to those who denigrate Is-lam. Coincidence? I think not, Jack.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  264. Chris

    An equally important question would be...why wasn't Fort Hood labeled a terror attack? I am sickened for those families of the fallen soldiers who were assasinated on our own soil...our own army base by an infiltrator. To add insult to injury, they are being denied the basic courtesy of receiving benefits given to those serving their nation. Fort Hood...along with this terror attack in Libya were both labeled as something that they were not... to remove the terrorism title. I would like to say that I am young, tall, thin and gorgeous...but just saying it isn't so! The difference between the two events...is this cover up isn't working...Americans are asking questions and the lies are flowing freely! We knew within 24 hours when those planes hit those buildings that we had been attacked. It is now 6 weeks later...there is no comparing to the information shared between the two. Shame on any American who tries to justify these acts of TERROR against our nation!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  265. Judy O

    Because Obama is human, He wasn't happy about what happened and.....he couldn't do anything to bring back the people who were killed. Politics involved? Of course–that's what our government is all about. The same way politics is involved in hmmm the Cafferty File, CNN reporting, FoxNews reporting, etc.etc. I hope no one is implying that our President wanted such a tragedy to happen. Find out who messed up, hold them accountable and don't let it happen again!!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  266. Debra

    Jack, get a grip. There was (and still is) an information overload. Normally, one does not make a decision as to what actually happened until all of the facts are sorted out. Romney and company have done more damage to this effort.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  267. Kim (Cincinnati, OH)

    So, you are suggesting the government should believe any Joe Schmoe on Facebook who claims responsibility for an attack on our goverment, without a detailed investigation? Like, just peruse Facebook, and report to the American non-corroborated reports? Should they just forward the e-mails they receive to everyone in the nation? Maybe the U.S. government should just post random facts on facebook, without digging to discover the details? Just make a status, Mr. President. Then, I can "like" it and be in the know! Make sure you tag me in the post, so I can receive the alert on my phone though...

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  268. duane st pete florida

    Obama needs to clear the air....he NEEDS to do a press conferance and just get the facts out there....left or right it makes no differance, we are all Americans and we need to know the skinny on what really went down. If mistakes were made, own up to them and move on.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  269. steve

    So he could get relected

    But its a very sad day for the American people to know now that the President and his cronies lie to us about what was known and when it was known in reference to Benghazi.

    He should resign TODAY

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  270. Dave Smith

    Jack why are not you also discussing what the intelligence community was telling the White House in the first instance. Isn't that where the inquiry starts. I didn't hear any of that in your analysis. What does the campaign have to do with the discussion. Whether it was spontaneious or planned, the criticism will be after the fact the President didn't provide sufficient security. Trying to spin the cause for political purposes does not make sense to me

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  271. Pete Helling

    Since when does CNN ask "loaded" questions? (Why do you think the president beats his wife?") if you think the president didn't tell the truth, just say so and leave it at that. And it will be one person's opinion. Yours. Leave the loaded questions to Newsmax and The Daily Caller. What ever happened to being rigorously honest in all our affairs?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  272. Gladtobe Canadian

    Feel sorry for you Jack, trying hard to spin a story for Mitt as if the President knows everything that takes place world wide on an instantaneous basis . .As for Democracy, the USA has a a long way to go to have such a system Just look at how screwed up your election system is . Come here to Canada we will show you how to stage one in a month . Start to finish with a winner announced the same night .

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  273. Mike Wilson

    Jack you should borrow Trump's rug when directing the sideshow of the republican circus. If President Obama had announced that group had claimed responsibility, then changed it the next day when they recanted he would look like a flip-floppper and we all know that's Romney's job.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  274. marty

    Come on, people. The president didn't wait for the facts to come out before saying that it was the video. And he sent out all his surrogates to say the same thing for nine days. He jumped to a conclusion that favored him and his re-election. As to the Repubs cutting the budget, they only control one part of gov't. The Senate also has to vote on this. And the two negotiated a compromise on this issue. Why not blame the Senate that STILL has not submitted a budget for the gov/t? The House has, whether you agree with it or not it's out there. Where is the Senate budget?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:25 pm |
  275. Jim Golden Colorado

    Because he is a thoughtful leader who knows that early reports are not always accurate. I believe the record in total indicates (or at least suggests) that there was conflicting information. He was always clear that his goal was to identify the responsible individuals and/or groups and bring them to justice. Your report is far more misleading than the statements the President or the administration has made (and I'm an independent). The political motivation to characterize this tragedy as an "terrorist act" or a "demonstration" or "caused" by 9/11 or a movie has never been clear to me; it seems that there are pros and cons politically to all of the descriptors.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  276. Don, independent voter

    Come on Jack, you can do better. There's plenty of time to determine the failures associated with this incident unless your intention is to influence the election. A little respect for the office woulkd be nice as well . . . President Obama, not Mr. Obama!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  277. Victoria Rivas

    Well, that's a loaded question. You may as well ask, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It's a question that can only be answered if you believe President Obama lied about what he said to country. I believe that he told the truth as he knew it at the time, just as I believe George Bush really did not have access to the available intelligence that could have prevented the first 9/11 attack. Intelligence is an art not a science, and yes in this case it failed. That does not mean that anyone lied about what they actually knew.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  278. Christine Stenger

    Maybe we can revisit the 2nd Presidential debate when this issue was put to rest in the minds of many.

    Governor Romney challenged President Obama with respect to a delay in his telling the American public the truth about what jhappened in Benghazzi. President Obama's response? "The next day in the Rose Garden I stated that a terrorist group was behind the tragic assualt on the American Embassy and death of four Americans" (my paraphrase). The moderator, Candy Croley, testified to this fact. Period.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  279. rebeinstein

    Wow, I watched you for the first time today and will never again. In your report you illustrated exactly why it behooves the administration to hold off on making definitive comments about what transpires when such an attack occur. Because historically, there are opportunists who claim responsibility and are later discredited. As you said, that's exactly what happened. The convergence of the masses of riots in the middle east with this attack muddied the details and it is obvious that is part of why the attack occurred when it did. It is up to our government to dissect and investigate and determine the nuances of what happened. Given the absolutely derelict effort that was made to investigate 9/11 and that we still await a full investigation, it is asinine for the media to exploit this Libya incident and feign concern for the hasty dissemination of information. The government's duty is to acquire accurate information, not play games with the public via the media. I appreciate Obama's restraint.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  280. Roger

    He told us what he could, when he could. We do not need every detail as soon as it happens. It sounds like you are determined to blame the President for the incident. If that is the case, maybe we should relook at Bush and the 911 attacks. I am thinking Fox might have a place for you!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  281. Tommy

    Jack, you assume the notice 2 hrs after was the truth and all the subsequent data they put out , that by the way was corroborated by the the CIA, was false? What happened to doing an investigation before you release info and have to backtrack? You guys are getting as bad as Fox News!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  282. Lissa

    Very sad (quite worse than sad really)
    Always hiding something aren't you Mr. Obama?
    Passing a bill to see what's in it.
    Excoriating your opponent for not releasing details on his plan, yet you didn't release yours until yesterday.
    Guess what – your plan doesn't add up either...
    You and your administration KNEW that it was a terror attack within hours, yet your mouthpieces said it was because of a video (how is it that a video could do this but emails AND a FB post PLUS the date that it happened on not be considered JUST AS IMPORTANT?)...Now, finally, a MONTH later, the truth is coming out.
    What else have you been hiding sir?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  283. Les

    Do you understand how sound conclusions are reached? Someone claiming responsibility (and retracting it the next day) isn't nearly enough evidence, or of the proper quality, to conclude the attack was organized and executed by terrorists. What exactly is it you want? Do you want an administration that spills out every rumor to the public like gossipy grade schoolers? Or do you want an administration that does proper research and then speaks with knowledge and authority? Sorry, but it appears to me like your cynicism has you choosing the former.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  284. Ken in Chicago

    Look, there were four previous terrorist attacks in Bengahzi in June/July/August. Ambassador Stevens had pointed out in his request for more security that known terrorist groups were flying flags with impunity from some buildings in the city. And despite ther previous attacks and the reports from Stevens detailing how hostile Bengahzi had become, his request for added security was denied. And then to add insult to his death, they floated this story about a movie clip leading to spontaneous attacks. And they did this despite knowing about prior attacks, the flags on buildings, his request for security, and email two hours after the attack claiming responsibility, and the initial reports showing the attackers used RPG's and mortars. And they continued this blatant lie day after day for nine days, why? Because admitting that under Obama terrorists were able to kill a US ambassador and carry out attacks on consulates in three other countries on the same 9/11 anniversary day ... would be admitting his foriegn policies were not working and his carefully crafterd speaking to avoid referring to anything as terrorist related would all crumble to dust. To Obama, his seeking power was far more important than the truth and the death of good man. If nothing else has shown you why this man should not be President, this more than anything highlights how wrong he is for the nation.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  285. Kory Allen

    Because apparently being reelected is more important then the lives of four men. The president chooses to try to look good and lose lives then look bad and Do the tight thing! Meanwhile the perpetrator of the "terrorist" attack is hanging out for weeks doing interviews while the president is playing politics saying we will hunt him down. If newspapers and journalists can find the guy, what took the Obama admin. So long! Oh yah! He was in Vegas or preparing zingers about big bird and bayonets! Slick talk and a TelePrompTer do not excuse incompotence!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  286. Peggy

    Jack, This E-mail is a fraud, and I cannot believe that CNN would not know that. All government e-mails are electronically signed or digitally encrypted. There is not sign of certificates or digital signature on this E-mail. When someone tries to print the e-mail, it will say, "sign by the sender." Whenever a government employee sends an e-mail that contains sensitive info, they have to digitally sign and/or ecrypt that e-mail. Is everyone at CNN on Romney's payroll? It certain appears that way, especially you Jack. Now be certain to pick the worst of all of these on Obama so that you can influence votes toward Romney.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  287. Greg Wallick

    President Obama seems to be pathologically incapable of acknowledging that the Islamic Fundamentalists are conducting a terrorist war with the United States. He and his administration judiciously avoids the use of the word "Terrorist". That combined with his claim that Osama bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run made the admission of a Terrorist attack on our embassy impossible for him or his administration to admit. This is evident as it relates to Benghazi and to the classification of the Ft Hood massacre as work place violence. The essence of rationality is acceptance of the facts. This was Terrorism and was recognizable as Terrorism to any casual observer. You didn't need the CIA or anyone else to figure this one out. Honesty is not the absence of lies, but it telling the whole truth.
    Gregory Wallick
    Major USMC
    Cocoa Beach, Fl

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  288. David Friedman

    Its sad that this is how you have to make a living- taking bits of information and concocting conspiracy theories.
    Time to retire, Pops.......
    (better stop driving as well.....)

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  289. Brenda Cole

    Honestly Jack - and it pains me to say this - politicians have gotten so good at spinning data, twisting truths, and intentionallhy misleading us, that I don't think simply "telling the truth" ever crosses their collective minds anymore.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
  290. Warren

    ...from Canada
    Why don't you ask why is the President beating his kids? You're question is leading and NOT worthy of someone wanting to know the truth. By asking 'Why didn't the President tell us the truth' you are starting with the premise that he wasn't being truthful. You, nor I, have any evidence of what the President actually knew or was told. The Secretary of State has said that they cannot rely on Facebook or emails to make their decisions, THEY NEED the facts and evidence.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  291. Milton

    It is refreshing to hear this discussion on CNN, the president has mislead the American people for his own political advantages. The president needs to step up and tell the American people exactly what happened.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  292. Walter

    Jack, terrorist attacks occur unexpectedly, and often the details of such attacks are convoluted at first as multiple sources mix facts with subjective opinions. On 9/11, how soon was it before the details of the attacks were known? Oh that's right, they didn't even establish the 9/11 commission until 442 days after the attacks.. with the report not being disclosed until nearly 3 years after the attacks.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  293. Becky- NC

    Well Jack congratulations. You just endorsed Romney. The President said the day after in the Rose Room that it was an act of terrorism. This has been covered more than anything in recent history. While I mourn for the death of those 4 Americans, why do you not consider those killed in Iraq in the war that was based on erroneous information. You would think this had happened in our back yard. No mention of Romney's taking advantage of it for political purpose. Why is everyone so surprised that we are in a battle of terrorists that is not confined to Iraq and Afghanistan. I much prefer a President that gets all the facts and looks out for the welfare on those still on the ground. Do you really think if Chris Stevens thought it was so dangerous in Benghazi that he would have gone there that particular time?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  294. Steven J. Bissell

    When you say "They still refuse to accept responsibility for misleading the American people." and "we" and "us" you really mean the media. You are upset because the Administration did not give details about a security investigation to the media before it was completed. I'm the "American People" and I'm not upset nor do I feel misled. All to often the media wants information immediately, that's the nature of your business, but the "American People" are not tied to a news cycle and most of us are perfectly happy to wait until the investigation is completed. If this media created ruggedychug does impact the election it is because of the bad coverage by the media, not because it deserves to do so.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  295. Tuned in Surfer

    Like MLK said, judge a man by his character. How much Kool-Aid do you have to drink to be able to deny Obama's willingness to throw the American people to the Jihadist wolves if it serves his own self interest.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  296. northernvirginiarealestatenews

    Simple, his message is forward. So let's march forward no matter how many screw ups we have to sweep under the rug until after the election. But the bigger question is, why is the media not demanding that the administration answers why is a Facebook/Twitter message claiming responsibility for the attack not credible, but a YouTube video was?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  297. Mike

    Who cares? Republicans are manufacturing a crisis (something they like to do). Sometimes, it is judicious to wait until intelligence reports are confirmed before coming out publicly with a statement (something Republicans don't like to do – remember WMD?)

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  298. Scott

    You are wrong Jack, Obama told Steve Kroft of CBS he thought it was a terrorist attack on Sept. 12th, the day after the attack. This was the same day he discussed acts of terror on the Rose Garden. Petaluma, CA

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  299. Fred

    Jack, if I didn;t know any better, I would swear I was watching Fox–How do you come up with these questions. Why don't you tell us how you really feel about President Obama–be real man!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  300. Gerald

    The president lied and tried to cover up a terrorist attack during an election year for political gain. He then had the nerve to threaten his opponent who asked obvious questions. Your news outlet didn't help as you bought the white house lies hook line and sinker with no validation. In fact, your organization even criticized Romney for doing the right thing and telling us the truth. Shame on CNN and Obama....I hope he loses the election over this.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  301. Julie Presnell

    Are you serious? Do really think the public needs to know every piece of national security intel until it is confirmed? It would be totally irresponsible for the President of the United States to make a statement about a crisis until it was legit. I am glad the Kennedy's didn't tell us what really was going on during the Cuban missle crisis, imagine the total chaos. They gave the answers when it was safe to do so and when we needed to know. Please....I am glad we have a President that would wait until ALL the answers were in to give a statement.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  302. Sally

    The president could not have been able to sent security within 2 hrs, but he should have announced that it was an impromptu attack. The republicans were looking for ways to focus on Obama so as to avoid the conversation on how pregnancy due to rape is god sent

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  303. Mike

    This whole thing is making me sick. Bin Laden is Dead, GM is alive, Al Qeada is on the run. Sorry, Mr. President, but the
    American people can see through your rhetoric. You put politics first.

    I applaud you for killing Obama. BUT, BUT your constant Spiking of the football has angered this Fanatics even more.
    And then when the 3 AM phone came into the Situation Room as we all now know, you FUMBLED the the football

    Mr. President, get your story straight , man up, and move on. You have already lost my vote

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |

    You can't blame the President and his Administration. Lying is always the first go-to tactic of him and his party. It is pure reflex and not controllable, and they love to grin widely as they practice it.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:27 pm |
  305. Rhonda

    The administration barely had enough time to look into the matter before the Republicans began trying to use this tragedy as a political football (that foreign incident Romney had been waiting on according to his undercover 47% video). Why don't you ask the opportunists in the Republican party how many more CIA and other intelligence people they are planning to throw under the bus to score a point?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  306. Richard DSouza

    Because he cannot be seen as a president who refused the request for more security and then the attack happens. What do you expect country first or election ? I am so proud to see that CNN is covering this issue, because I have been turned away lately because of the bias.this is the most important issue because it shows character. If this admin. Can lie about this issue then what else they can lie about

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  307. Vlad New Jersey

    CNN should dig little more about Obama, not just blast Romney and go after him for every sinle thing.
    Obama did not tell the true to American people and he is asking for 4 more years of trust
    No way!
    This Bangazy story is BIG thing for us!

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  308. Dave

    It's simple. For months B.O. has been touting the demise of Al Qaida by his administration's skillful foreign policy and with the use of drones. This implies that terrorism is under control and Americans can consider the world safe for them. When this facade is brought down by the attacks, B.O. couldn't say "whoops, I guess we were wrong." He had to throw up a red herring – the youtube video. "That's whose fault it was, not mine." Four dead because of arrogance.... nice Obama.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  309. Robert

    I understand CNN must placate their overwhelming numbers of Republican viewers but continuing this over politicized terror event in Libya has reached the ridiculous level. For the next 13 days Republican media pundits will be turning up documents to smear the President.. Who cares about the definition of the attackers on day one.. There is no way the Federal government is going to take action on a Facebook comment… After November 6th this entire issue will be moot because the GOP won’t need it any longer.

    Louisville, KY

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  310. Heather

    Why doesn't everyone just WAIT for the investigation to finish before making assumptions, suppositions, and allegations regarding who knew what when................Hey, if my American friends are not willing to accept President Obama for a 2nd term...........PLEASE LET US HAVE HIM – would love to have his leadership skills to run our Country!!!! Check out his Canadian approval polls.........PS – Watched you every day for years, Jack – 1st time I've felt compelled to write.........Love your show.........................

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  311. Steve, independent voter

    Jack, it's called "fog of war". Sometimes the initial reports contradict each other. For instance, Gov Romney fired the first political shot within hours of the event, condemning the content of a State Dept release that , oh, actually was released prior to the event! And we invaded Iraq and spent billions and lives seeking WMDs, that, oh, never existed. This Republican red herring issue is doing nothing to convince me to bring my vote back into the Republican fold. Let's move on to real issues.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  312. Marty

    In this era of instant news I think that the President responded to what they thought at the particular time. A facebook post that was posted and retracted the next day by the same people who posted it is not what I would consider FACT to the President. Bad intelligence happens quite often,look to the original 9-11 ...look to Iraq weapons of mass destruction if you want to talk about being lied to. Politics? Does anyone actually think that Obama would intentionally mislead the American people when he knew it would be investigated and the truth would come out?.. I think that there was a lot of different messages being dropped into the presidents hands and his people made the wrong conclusion too fast...was it to gain something?I think not..4 people died and yes that is tragic..But lok at what bad intelligence cost our men and Women who went to Iraq because of bad intelligence...Look at the good intelligence that was ignored regarding the REAL 9-11, we are talking thousands of people,s lives Americans as well as many innocent Iraqis as well

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  313. Guy Smiley

    You are forgetting that there were no demonstrations, planned or spontaneous happening either during the attack.

    The White House spin had a random crowd rioting, many of whom just happened to have RPGs, truck mounted mortors and heavy weapons.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  314. Connie-California

    You should know better as a journalist and be able to fact check this...Obama stated the next morning in the Rose Garden on September 12 - :

    "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."

    AND September 12 - Obama, at a campaign event in Las Vegas, again uses the "act of terror" line:

    "No act of terror will dim the light of the values that we proudly shine on the rest of the world, and no act of violence will shake the resolve of the United States of America."

    He repeats the line again the next day in Golden, Colorado. "I want people around the world to hear me: To all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished."

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  315. Ashley

    Reckless and irresponsible behavior on the part of Jack Cafferty. Are you trying to get hired by FoxNews? I expect a higher degree of journalism from CNN, not spinning a tragedy into political points for Team Romney. Calling the President a liar is a big deal Mr. Cafferty. The entire region was on edge do to that video whether you would like to acknowledge that or not. It's called, context. A group making a statement on Facebook is fluid intelligence. Not the verdict on a sensitive event. Did you miss the part about calling for a similar attack on Tripoli? Just maybe the USA wanted to be cautious during a crisis.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  316. Leah expat in BC

    Just throwing it out there; could it have been a matter of protecting their sources? Seems like they should know that it is the cover up that gets you in trouble. So is telling the public everything you know about something like Benghazi necessarily the the "right thing to do"?

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  317. NurseLisa in CT

    Jack – even Candy said he had confirmed it was an act of terror in the Rose garden the day after the attack. It is very likely that there are STILL several versions of what occurred and no survivors means we don't have credible first hand accounts. There are conflicting reports of requests for more security – when they were sent, who got them, which sites were most at risk; and many conflicting reports over what happened too – something Mitt wasted no time trying to politicize. And every American and every site on home soil or abroad is potentially at risk on 9/11 because of the magnified message it sends. While our ambassadors clearly understand the risks they accept to do their jobs on foreign soil often in areas of turmoil, we still pretend to believe we're all safe so we can live our lives. Our enemies don't take days off, don't tell the truth, and couldn't care less if we think our right to free speech gives us a pass. Jack – I'm disappointed in your article's tone and still believing in the truth coming to light once they can share it confidently.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |
  318. Cris Mendoza

    Its a good thing that Obama is a Democrat, had he been a Republican we would be discussing impeachment already. I voted for Obama and no matter what he does the media will cover for him. So he will be ok as long we have Rachel Meddow and Chris Matthew we will be ok.

    October 24, 2012 at 5:28 pm |