Oh, by the way he's not able to use reason and logic..<quoted text>
The real question is: If you consider the attack on Benghazi as a security blunder on the part of Obama, does it rise to the level of 9/11, about which there were many tell-tale signs and forewarnings? And what about the attack in Beruit in 1983? The attack on the U.S. Cole? Pearl Harbor?
We live in a dangerous world and there are always going to be Americans at risk.
And what role did the funding cuts requested by he Republican leadership have on the administration's being able to provide more security in Benghazi without jeopardizing security elsewhere?
And what might enhanced security meant for the secrecy of the covert operations that were under way in Benghazi?
McCain wants to say that the difference between Condi Rice relying on intelligence information in the lead up to Iraq is that other intelligence agencies around he world also believed the nonsense the Bush administration was peddling about Saddam's non-existent WMD PROGRAM.
Does this mean that any statements on security issues heretofore must be based on a consensus of world intelligence agencies, which proved wrong on Iraq and resulted in NOT 4, but in excess of 4 THOUSAND American lives?
The reason McCain and Romney lost to Obama is because both were loose cannons who lose their cool..
His "debate" responce will carefully sidestep the valid point that you're making here...
But you knew that...hahahah