JMS's Chronology of the Bengazi Raid and "cover-up"

[twa]

Imagine another Blackhawk Down only this time in Benghazi. It is too easy to armchair quarterback this thing from 15,000 miles and 2 months away, but there is no telling what greater havok could have been brought about with a single rpg.

If it was so dangerous why take away his security forces?

It did not suddenly become dangerous,and this could have been much worse w/o a small team's intervention

[JMS]

off topic... self edited.

---------- Post added November-2nd-2012 at 01:38 PM ----------

(You are updating the timeline as things come in?)

I corrected it once, when you pointed out the timeline.. (1) give me a link to that quote saying the security team was pulled... please... (2) also a link to your claim the seals were denied twice, and before getting approval to moved in.

(*) realizing this story changed.. used to be they were denied requests to move in and disobeyed a direct order when they decided to move... I've seen nothing to suggest they were ever stopped from going to the consulate other than the initial 20 minutes when the CIA was trying to figure out what was going on at the consulate a mile away from their annex.

[Special K]

Yes and No... it really depends upon which party is in control.

Banks don't have squadrons to heavy transports to bring generators and other equipment in state. Banks don't have access to 61,000 workforce to be called up and assembled on a moments notice. Banks don't have access to federal disaster logistics paid for and prepared for such contingencies. Banks don't preposition supplies or operate emergency shelters which are pre staged. FEMAs role is to stand between the federal government and the state and assist in tapping federal resources and even advise the governor what federal resources are available. It was set up by Jimmy Carter and was one of the most respected organization in government before it was reorganized, placed under homeland security, and it's budget was severely cut after 911. It lost most of it's experienced people who made the organization such a gem at that time, and thus pretty much **** the bed during hurricane Katrina. It's nice to see it working so well in NJ now.

That's why I asked which administration was in charge when you were there, cause the parties treat FEMA with entirely different funding and expectations.

For much of U.S. history, any federal aid was ad hoc. Congress would pass a law specifying how it would help a particular town or state in the wake of a particular act of God.

As the resources and responsibilities of the federal bureaucracy grew, a hodgepodge of more than 100 agencies and departments acquired responsibility over pieces of disaster

response, from highways to dams to nuclear plants. At the request of the nation’s governors, who’d grown frustrated trying to figure out which office in Washington to call for what,

when faced with natural disasters, President Carter created FEMA in 1979.

To call FEMA inefficient is rather hilarious when considering the alternative which frankly we lived through in the 1960's and 70's.. It's also funny considering the history of the agency

and how respected it was before Katrina.

Well, you have a major disconnect between what FEMA is envisioned to do, and what it actually, realistically does. On the ground. In a disaster.

But since you are able to wikipedia the history of FEMA and post it on here, you're the professional here

[AsburySkinsFan]

If it was so dangerous why take away his security forces?

It did not suddenly become dangerous,and this could have been much worse w/o a small team's intervention

You're talking about the time leading up to the attack, I'm talking about during he attack itself, but I can see where it would serve your agenda well to pretend that they are one in the same.

[JMS]

Imagine another Blackhawk Down only this time in Benghazi. It is too easy to armchair quarterback this thing from 15,000 miles and 2 months away, but there is no telling what greater havok could have been brought about with a single rpg.

I think that's what Penneta was thinking when he the Africom commander and the chairman of the joint chiefs decided against moving in...

But in the latest CIA timeline released yesterday we find out they did deploy a special forces team from Brag, and they also sent a team from Sicily; it's just that neither team got to Benghazi in time to be of any assistance. The Sicilian team arrived the morning after.

I wonder how that jibes with Penneta's statement about deciding not to go in.?

Two relief columns were involved in aiding the consulate. The first from the annex which arrived 25 minutes after the first attack. the second from Tripoli which arrived 2am that evening before the annex was attacked. Both associated with CIA?

Then they have to special forces teams coming in behind them which didn't arrive in time .

---------- Post added November-2nd-2012 at 02:01 PM ----------

Well, you have a major disconnect between what FEMA is envisioned to do, and what it actually, realistically does. On the ground. In a disaster.

But since you are able to wikipedia the history of FEMA and post it on here, you're the professional here

To date the agency has performed 700 rescues and brought 2.5 million liters of water and 1.5 million meals to the area. In New York and New Jersey, 10,979 people have used FEMA shelters. That's right out of

It was a lot more than a bank under Clinton, and it's a lot more than a bank now under Obama. As I said under Clinton FEMA director was a Cabinet level post. It was a lot more than a bank, and it is today a lot more than a bank.

[Thiebear]

Fema / Army Corpe of Engineers / Govenor's work together to asses the situation and come up with the capital to fix it.

The Crisis reaction team in the pentagon keeps all of the Generals / Secretary's in the loop with Top Secret Docs on everything.

I used to run those hallways... it's a big deal under EVERY Presidency.

[JMS]

Fema / Army Corpe of Engineers / Govenor's work together to asses the situation and come up with the capital to fix it.

The Crisis reaction team in the pentagon keeps all of the Generals / Secretary's in the loop with Top Secret Docs on everything.

I used to run those hallways... it's a big deal under EVERY Presidency.

FEMA today interfaces with more than a hundred federal agencies... Yes it's a pretty big deal under every presidency, especially during a disaster... But not nearly as big a deal under every presidency between disasters...

One President had the FEMA director sitting in on his cabinet meetings. and significantly increased it's budget, while appointing a man who had a solid background in disaster relief and state government to be in charge.

I'm not saying he did this for altuistic reasons... I personally think he did it because he saw FEMA's short comings during the previous administration cost the President a second term, and this president was politically pretty savy.

.

A second President reduced FEMA's prominence by removing it from the cabinet, took away it's independence by putting it inside another organization, dramatically cut it's budget and staffing( while increasing the over all

budget significantly for the federal government), and finally appointed a guy to be in charge who's only leadership role was in running a horse show across his entire career.

No not all administrations treat FEMA similarly, nor do they have similar expectations for FEMA's mission during natural disasters. Mitt Romney for example has called for dissolving FEMA, Obama increased FEMA's budget

in a time when his overall federal budget stayed roughly the same.

This ties directly to a neo-con root conservative truism. The federal government can't do anything well, so why bother to appoint competent people and our spending choices don't matter. The facts are with competent leadership FEMA has done pretty well for itself under the leadership of either party when that leadership doesn't set out to have it fail.

[Redskins Diehard]

Imagine another Blackhawk Down only this time in Benghazi. It is too easy to armchair quarterback this thing from 15,000 miles and 2 months away, but there is no telling what greater havok could have been brought about with a single rpg.

So what mistakes do you think were made in Mogadishu that we would have been at risk of repeating there? There are a lot of comparisons that can be made. Most of them that I see that are problematic are concerning the resources that were in place before the action ever was initiated. As Garrison said in the movie...once the first helicopter went down in Mogadishu we lost the initiative. I think the same can be said in Benghazi. Once the first shots were fired the engagement was no longer on our terms. And in my opinion at that point you deal with the possibility of a single RPG. We absolutely don't leave them there to die because we are worried about what may happen to the rescue element.

---------- Post added November-2nd-2012 at 03:55 PM ----------

I'm not saying that the CIA screwed up (or didn't screw up). I'm saying that the fact that covert CIA operation are intertwined in this situation is the reason that information is not coming out as quickly as some people want.

It's not a cover-up of some amorphous wrongdoing by the Administration that is causing any delay, it's the usual "don't expose what our covert ops are doing" secrecy. Fox is essentially demanding that we undercut our covert efforts in the Middle East to satisfy their partisanship.

Or so it appears to me right now.

Well you may be right. But the fact that it is already out. And was out pretty early speaks to how covert this op was. Similar to the covert drone program that nobody knows about.

[AsburySkinsFan]

So what mistakes do you think were made in Mogadishu that we would have been at risk of repeating there? There are a lot of comparisons that can be made. Most of them that I see that are problematic are concerning the resources that were in place before the action ever was initiated. As Garrison said in the movie...once the first helicopter went down in Mogadishu we lost the initiative. I think the same can be said in Benghazi. Once the first shots were fired the engagement was no longer on our terms. And in my opinion at that point you deal with the possibility of a single RPG. We absolutely don't leave them there to die because we are worried about what may happen to the rescue element.

Again, that's easy to say now, we have no idea what information they had on hand in real time.

[Redskins Diehard]

Again, that's easy to say now, we have no idea what information they had on hand in real time.

They new that the consulate was under attack and that Americans were in danger. The RSO made the decision to move to the safe room very early from one of the timelines I saw. At that point, in my opinion at least, our hand has been forced. You commit what you have to rescue those at risk. The monday morning quarterbacking then is to discuss whether or not there should have been more assets in Benghazi, in Tripoli, off the coast, whatever. That was one of the big issues with Mogadishu right? No resources on hand to to execute the mission that needed to be executed. That is why we had to use Pakistani and Malaysian forces to rescue our guys...or try to anyway.

[AsburySkinsFan]

They new that the consulate was under attack and that Americans were in danger. The RSO made the decision to move to the safe room very early from one of the timelines I saw. At that point, in my opinion at least, our hand has been forced. You commit what you have to rescue those at risk. The monday morning quarterbacking then is to discuss whether or not there should have been more assets in Benghazi, in Tripoli, off the coast, whatever. That was one of the big issues with Mogadishu right? No resources on hand to to execute the mission that needed to be executed. That is why we had to use Pakistani and Malaysian forces to rescue our guys...or try to anyway.

Seriously? No matter what you have, you blindly throw it at an unknown situation?! Really? That is a recipe for disaster, and would get MORE people killed, and be a bigger liability.

[btfoom]

Again, that's easy to say now, we have no idea what information they had on hand in real time.

It appears that some folks have information regarding real time information:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/

EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say

By Jennifer Griffin

Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/26/cia-operators-were-denied-request-for-help-during-benghazi-attack-sources-say/#ixzz2B6DO0lkL

If you don't believe/like foxnews, there is this:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/email-alerts-describe-911-benghazi-consulate-assault-unfolding/

Email Alerts Describe 9/11 Benghazi Consulate Assault Unfolding

A series of email alerts sent as Obama administration officials monitored the attack on the U.S consulate in Benghazi last month are the latest to shine light on the chaotic events that culminated in the death of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The names of the individual recipients of the emails, first reported by CBS News but independently obtained by ABC News Tuesday evening, are redacted. A source who requested anonymity said it appears they are sent by the State Department Operations Center to distribution lists and email accounts for the top national security officials at the State Department, Pentagon, the FBI, the White House Situation Room and the office of the Director of National Intelligence.

The first email, with a subject line of “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack,” sent at 4:05 PM about 25 minutes after the attack began, describes an assault on the compound by 20 armed people.<rest at link>

So, there is information out there. The sad part is that this information, along with lots of other information regarding this attack, should have been public weeks ago.

Personally, I agree almost 100% with this Chicago Tribune writer:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-31/news/ct-oped-1101-goldberg-20121101_1_benghazi-october-surprise-mainstream-media

If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?

Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don't think there's a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up). And, collectively, the mainstream media's instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable. <rest at link>

It is a very interesting perspective by a writer who isn't taking shots at either side. He's taking shots at the media in general and how they decide to cover/not cover stories.

[Redskins Diehard]

Seriously? No matter what you have, you blindly throw it at an unknown situation?! Really? That is a recipe for disaster, and would get MORE people killed, and be a bigger liability.

There was UAV coverage. There was reporting from the Consulate in distress. It is not "blindly" throwing anything into an "unknown" situation. Second of all...you have an Ambassador of the United States of America in distress. So yes, you commit resources to securing him. And I am not sure what kind of "liability" you are talking about that would be created. Perhaps you can expound on that

[Predicto]

Personally, I agree almost 100% with this Chicago Tribune writer:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-31/news/ct-oped-1101-goldberg-20121101_1_benghazi-october-surprise-mainstream-media

If you want to understand why conservatives have lost faith in the so-called mainstream media, you need to ponder the question: Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?

Unlike some of my colleagues on the right, I don't think there's a conspiracy at work. Rather, I think journalists tend to act on their instincts (some even brag about this; you could look it up). And, collectively, the mainstream media's instincts run liberal, making groupthink inevitable. <rest at link>

It is a very interesting perspective by a writer who isn't taking shots at either side. He's taking shots at the media in general and how they decide to cover/not cover stories.

"It's a very interesting perspective by a writer who isn't taking shots at either side?"

What the? It's written by Jonah Goldberg. The author of "Liberal Fascism - The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning." The guy who has convinced millions of gullible conservatives that the Nazis were liberals.

That clown is perhaps the most rabidly partisan man in America today.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

"It's a very interesting perspective by a writer who isn't taking shots at either side?"

What the? It's written by Jonah Goldberg. The author of "Liberal Fascism - The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning." The guy who has convinced millions of gullible conservatives that the Nazis were liberals.

That clown is perhaps the most rabidly partisan man in America today.

Not to mention he is Lucianne Goldberg's son, who is as nasty a right-wing operative as this country as ever produced.

[LadySkinsFan]

"Where is the Benghazi feeding frenzy?"

Over on Fox News, all day every day.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There was UAV coverage. There was reporting from the Consulate in distress. It is not "blindly" throwing anything into an "unknown" situation. Second of all...you have an Ambassador of the United States of America in distress. So yes, you commit resources to securing him. And I am not sure what kind of "liability" you are talking about that would be created. Perhaps you can expound on that

Sorry, but I all too clearly remember the disaster that was Blackhawk Down. You want liabilities, try watching blackhawks fall out of the sky when they're sent into an LZ blind.

*edit

Quite frankly the whole conspiracy theory crap has worn out its welcome, the Right is foaming at the mouth at the fantasy that Obama would have sat in the Situation room and watched them die while munching on popcorn. It is utter BS, but they hate him so much that they can't see anything else. To that I ask, where were the Joint Chiefs? Where was the CIA? Where was Sec State? If the Right thinks for a minute that Obama would have called off the dogs while the Joint Chiefs were calling for them to go in then they're in serious need of a frontal lobotomy. If such were the case we'd be seeing resignations across the board right now, but we aren't.

[Thiebear]

JMS: Since you asked for a "reputable" source (I would ask you don't use the Washington Post Opinion pieces though)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57527659/ex-u.s-security-team-leader-in-libya-we-needed-more-not-less-security-staff/

(CBS News) The former head of a Special Forces "Site Security Team" in Libya tells CBS News that in spite of multiple pleas from himself and other U.S. security officials on the ground for "more, not less" security personnel, the State Department removed as many as 34 people from the country in the six months before the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.

Lt. Col. Andy Wood will appear this week at a House Oversight Committee hearing that will examine security decisions leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi.

Speaking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson, Wood said when he found out that his own 16-member team and a six-member State Department elite force were being pulled from Tripoli in August - about a month before the assault in Benghazi - he felt, "like we were being asked to play the piano with two fingers. There was concern amongst the entire embassy staff."

---------- Post added November-2nd-2012 at 06:38 PM ----------

Sorry, but I all too clearly remember the disaster that was Blackhawk Down. You want liabilities, try watching blackhawks fall out of the sky when they're sent into an LZ blind.

*edit

Quite frankly the whole conspiracy theory crap has worn out its welcome, the Right is foaming at the mouth at the fantasy that Obama would have sat in the Situation room and watched them die while munching on popcorn. It is utter BS, but they hate him so much that they can't see anything else. To that I ask, where were the Joint Chiefs? Where was the CIA? Where was Sec State? If the Right thinks for a minute that Obama would have called off the dogs while the Joint Chiefs were calling for them to go in then they're in serious need of a frontal lobotomy. If such were the case we'd be seeing resignations across the board right now, but we aren't.

Black Hawk down also showed that a few US military forces can handle thousands... (lets give our boys credit)

Could we not be sick and tired of something that killed out boys and we haven't had the first real report yet? I mean really.

A 13yr old can decimate the explanations given so far... If they died protecting others they need to be decorated.

Whew, this is a tough website lately to post things...

[Redskins Diehard]

Sorry, but I all too clearly remember the disaster that was Blackhawk Down. You want liabilities, try watching blackhawks fall out of the sky when they're sent into an LZ blind.

*edit

Quite frankly the whole conspiracy theory crap has worn out its welcome, the Right is foaming at the mouth at the fantasy that Obama would have sat in the Situation room and watched them die while munching on popcorn. It is utter BS, but they hate him so much that they can't see anything else. To that I ask, where were the Joint Chiefs? Where was the CIA? Where was Sec State? If the Right thinks for a minute that Obama would have called off the dogs while the Joint Chiefs were calling for them to go in then they're in serious need of a frontal lobotomy. If such were the case we'd be seeing resignations across the board right now, but we aren't.

Wait so you are asserting that Blackhawk helicopters were sent in to "LZ's blind" and THAT is the what was the lesson learned from Mogadishu? That was the disaster? Are you saying that they were shot down as part of a hasty rescue mission? I have had the privilege of sitting in on "lessons learned" multiple times regarding this mission and I have never heard that mentioned. Lots of stuff went wrong. But "blackhawks flying blind into LZ's" has never been brought up.

It seems you are making conflicting arguments here. That it would be unwise to send in a QRF but also that the President wouldn't just watch this happen. My thought is that there really was no plan to respond to this situation. There was no defined QRF and that in all likelihood anything not in Banghazi when it all started would have been of little help in saving the Ambassador. Much like in Mogadishu the resources were not there to respond to the situation.

[Predicto]

It seems you are making conflicting arguments here. That it would be unwise to send in a QRF but also that the President wouldn't just watch this happen. My thought is that there really was no plan to respond to this situation. There was no defined QRF and that in all likelihood anything not in Banghazi when it all started would have been of little help in saving the Ambassador. Much like in Mogadishu the resources were not there to respond to the situation.

If you want to discuss conflicting arguments, the most egregious appear to be coming from those right wing trying to force this undeniably tragic event into a scandal that implicates the White House.

If you have noticed, Fox and the right wing media keep changing the focus of their attacks on this. It stated out as complaining about how the administration was "apologizing" while the attacks happened. Mitt fired that one off before he had any idea what the hell was going on there. Then the focus changed to the Youtube video and whether Obama was blaming American Christians for causing this attack. Then it was a claim that Obama was weak because he didn't attack random Libyan civilians in retaliation. Then it became Obama could have saved the Ambassador with our Team America strike force that was hovering nearby in their invisible spaceship, but Obama preferred to sit in the White House and let the Ambassador die, you know, for kicks.

All of those things are complete bull, which is why they never stick with any one accusation for long. If you change the charges over and over, no one can respond to them coherently, so you can scream "coverup" "scandal" "Benghazi-gate!!!!!" They are flogging this because they have nothing else to work with right now, and they are desperately trying to make something negative , anything, stick to the President before Tuesday. They are trying to fire up their base with the idea that Obama is cowardly, and unamerican, and and anti-Christian, hell, he's probably a murderer, and he certainly cares more about those dirty Arabs than about our brave soldiers.

It's totally disgusting, and if you read the message boards those voters frequent, it appears to be working.

[Redskins Diehard]

If you want to discuss conflicting arguments, the most egregious appear to be coming from those right wing trying to force this undeniably tragic event into a scandal that implicates the White House.

If you have noticed, Fox and the right wing media keep changing the focus of their attacks on this. It stated out as complaining about how the administration was "apologizing" while the attacks happened. Mitt fired that one off before he had any idea what the hell was going on there. Then the focus changed to the Youtube video and whether Obama was blaming American Christians for causing this attack. Then it was a claim that Obama was weak because he didn't attack random Libyan civilians in retaliation. Then it became Obama could have saved the Ambassador with our Team America strike force that was hovering nearby in their invisible spaceship, but Obama preferred to sit in the White House and let the Ambassador die, you know, for kicks.

All of those things are complete bull, which is why they never stick with any one accusation for long. If you change the charges over and over, no one can respond to them coherently, so you can scream "coverup" "scandal" "Benghazi-gate!!!!!" They are flogging this because they have nothing else to work with right now, and they are desperately trying to make something negative , anything, stick to the President before Tuesday. They are trying to fire up their base with the idea that Obama is cowardly, and unamerican, and and anti-Christian, hell, he's probably a murderer, and he certainly cares more about those dirty Arabs than about our brave soldiers.

It's totally disgusting, and if you read the message boards those voters frequent, it appears to be working.

I haven't noticed what Fox is doing and haven't defended a single thing that they have said(unless purely by coincidence). I have said throughout that I don't question what tactical decisions the President(specifically because I would hope that he was not involved whatsoever in a decision to send a QRF). Nor do I think anyone at the "political appointee level" of any organization was involved in the decision of whether or not to send a QRF immediately. I have said that multiple times. The analogy to Gothic Serpent is one that I think doesn't apply all that well and probably one that a hardcore supporter of the President and his party should steer clear of making. ASF made the claim that committing a QRF without knowing the full situation is one I take issue with. And in fact it appears that most that are on the side of defending everything that took place are making an effort to dispute. That there was no order to stand down. That they committed what they could when they could to attempt to secure the Ambassador. I think that is 100% the right decision. And I suspect that the brave men that went to the sound of the guns to try to save him feel the same way. I suspect that the Rangers involved in that rescue attempt in Mogadishu feel the same way for the most part. Hell Shugart and Gordon ASKED to be put in to that position knowing that chances were they weren't coming out alive. Greater love hath no man than this...I will never leave a fallen comrade...Thou I be the lone survivor....these guys live that and thank God they do.

I have a feeling that the drivel that the Sean Hannity's of the world are spewing is exactly that. And it is distracting us from the discussion that really needs to happen.

[Jumbo]

If you want to discuss conflicting arguments, the most egregious appear to be coming from those right wing trying to force this undeniably tragic event into a scandal that implicates the White House.

If you have noticed, Fox and the right wing media keep changing the focus of their attacks on this. <edit details >

It's totally disgusting, and if you read the message boards those voters frequent, it appears to be working.

So far, I see it much the same way as you present. My emphasis is on the tragedy being just that, and having a perpetual willingness to examine all things relevant that could have been done better no matter who looks bad (if anyone does) in the process.

But the way I feel I want to deal with the people you describe at the end there, P, is not with any of the qualities I usually seek to employ. My reaction here forces me to face my dark side.

(none of the above applies to Redskins Diehard, btw, who I read as a poster of intelligence and integrity who gives thought to his positions)

[Predicto]

Hell Shugart and Gordon ASKED to be put in to that position knowing that chances were they weren't coming out alive. Greater love hath no man than this...I will never leave a fallen comrade...Thou I be the lone survivor....these guys live that and thank God they do.

I have a feeling that the drivel that the Sean Hannity's of the world are spewing is exactly that. And it is distracting us from the discussion that really needs to happen.

I agree. I don't know what the right decision was, and those men are 5000 times braver than me, and I'm not a military expert.

But I know a concerted smear job when I see one (not by you of course). This is shameless.

[visionary]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-security-breakdown-in-benghazi/2012/11/02/a34b7dd0-250f-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html

The Post’s View

A security breakdown in Benghazi

NEWS REPORTING about the Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, has moved from the political and mostly pointless issue of when the Obama administration had publicly acknowledged that a terrorist attack had taken place to more essential questions: Why was there a security failure at the consulate, and how did U.S. forces in Libya and outside the country respond to the emergency? The result is a host of unanswered questions.

And then there's uh...this.

Giuliani is just kind of sad these days....

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/02/in-fiery-speech-giuliani-calls-on-obama-to-resign-faults-him-for-libya/

In fiery speech, Giuliani calls on Obama to resign, faults him for Libya

Not long after taking a few seconds of silence for those affected by Superstorm Sandy, Rudy Giuliani began ripping into President Barack Obama on Friday while speaking at major campaign event for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan in Ohio.

The former New York City mayor delivered a series of blistering zingers against the president, rallying the massive crowd with line after line of reasons why Obama should "resign" and faulting him for "incompetence" over the Libya consulate attacks.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Giuliani stopped being relevant when he Bloomberg took over in NYC, now he just sounds like the bitter old hack Trump.