Lisa Benson by Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson

Comments (22) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    The more that comes out, the deeper the hole.

    Even many Dems are calling this a huge cover-up.

  2. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago

    Benghazi: 4 unfortunate dead Americans.

    Iraq: over 5,000 unfortunate dead Americans, and a few hundred thuosand dead civilian Iaqis.

    No comparison, nope.

  3. PianoGuy24

    PianoGuy24 GoComics PRO Member said, over 3 years ago


    So, drtoutma, JUST because it’s ONLY 4 dead Americans, Obama should be let off the hook? Tell me, how MANY should be dead before he’s held accountable???

  4. Robert Landers

    Robert Landers said, over 3 years ago


    Is former President Bush on the hook for the deaths because of Iraq? Well, I guess you could say that he was punished by his own party in not even being able to go to the Republican Convention!

  5. Tue Elung-Jensen

    Tue Elung-Jensen said, over 3 years ago


    So Obama should be trialed for that one case – what about all the cases that happened under Bush, and I´m not talking about the war. But similar cases to Benghazi, and why hasn´t there been an uproar over them?

  6. Kylie2112

    Kylie2112 said, over 3 years ago

    The dozen or so American embassy.consulate attacks from 2001-2008 that no one really cared about?

  7. Ottodesu

    Ottodesu said, over 3 years ago

    I am really not wanting to be inflammatory, but I really don’t get this issue. It just doesn’t rate any mention at all outside of the USA.
    OK, let’s say that your current President was utterly incompetent in this matter and it has led to four deaths. That truly is bad.
    But how does that compare to the previous President that invaded a country that was not even a threat to the USA lost a few thousand USA lives (and twenty to fifty lives for each one of those in Iraq) and darn near bankrupted your country in the process.
    You may say you need to move on, it’s a different President, but based on this standard, the previous one is accountable for his actions.
    What is a reasonable way to deal with your previous President? Serious question.

  8. Respectful Troll

    Respectful Troll said, over 3 years ago

    Despite the efforts of folks to quantify the ‘value’ of Benghazi under Obama vs. Iraq/Afghanistan under the Bush administration it is the lessons learned that matter, not whose “fault” it is except to make sure those faults are not duplicated. I first heard about the “whistleblowers” during the President’s last news conference and look forward to seeing if he keeps his promise to look into the issue. There is a great deal of misdirection and deceit in the partisan parties and media and too many people who won’t believe the truth even when it is obvious. If there are witnesses, they need to speak and be heard to prevent events like this in the future. Sadly, one groups ‘whistle blower" is another group’s ‘traitor’ and too often, people who come forward to warn about abuse, fraud, even crimes end up being punished themselves despite the whistle blower protection act.
    Both parties bear responsibility for what happened in Benghazi and in Iraq. In the former, Republican congressman Issa’s committee failed to release funds to enhance security in a timely manner and in the latter, the Democrats gave power to Bush/Cheney to go to war without setting more stringent conditions for doing so. Negligence on both parts, criminal negligence? perhaps.
    But isn’t it also criminal negligence for law makers to neglect their legislative duties in their efforts to make their opponents look bad for the next set of elections?
    I hope Mr. Obama will quickly resolve the issues brought forth in this cartoon, and will more quickly resolve the problems preventing veterans from getting their benefits in a timely manner.

  9. DGF999

    DGF999 said, over 3 years ago

    What did Obama do during the Benghazi attacks? He went to bed, then got up the next morning to attend a fund-raiser in Las Vegas…

  10. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, over 3 years ago

    You can compare it this way:

    The 5k troops are a combined casualty list in two countries covering over 12 years of war of an all-volunteer force that their vocation is to kill or be killed. We enlist knowing that we could very well meet our end on foreign soil. Not only that, but nearly all of the civilians were killed by insurgents and other militants. They blew up their people while trying to kill ours. They considered it an “acceptable loss,” because the insurgents were primarily Syrian and Iranian. At the end of the day, however, it was not Bush or anyone in his cabinet that turned a deaf ear to the calls for help from his troops. We were well-funded and well-supplied in our engagements.

    Now look at Benghazi. Yes, 4 Americans killed, one of which was a civilian (aka non-combatant). But those 4 Americans called for help 3 times over the course of 7 hours, when there was help an hour away or less. They were abandoned. That is specifically why this is an issue. And then, to cover their asses, the WH and their spin room tried to turn it around and point fingers at everyone else, instead of accepting responsibility for their actions. This tragedy could have been avoided, and pointing at Bush to excuse these actions is morally bankrupt.

  11. cjr53

    cjr53 said, over 3 years ago

    “Deaths: Watergate 0……Benghazi 4”

    Watergate; Nixon ordered the break in for personal gain. He’s a criminal. Benghazi; foreign nationals attacked Americans while there was a riot going on nearby. Obama found out about it after is was done. The ambassador chose to go to Benghazi against better advice.

  12. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 3 years ago

    With at least five attacks occurring on foreign assets in Libya in the five months prior to the attack on Benghazi, it strikes me as distinctly odd that a request for additional security for the ambassador was denied. The increase in expense of supplying the ambassador with a reinforced squad of Marines and necessary equipment from the battalion landing team afloat with the Navy in the Mediterranean would have been minuscule. Our government seems to have had no problem in sending a contingent of Marines into Libya immediately after the attack. The attack needs to be investigated if for no other reason than to set broad guidelines to prevent another occurrence of something that might have been easily avoidable.

  13. Bruce4671

    Bruce4671 said, over 3 years ago

    Of the above comments, Wraithkin seems to hit my thoughts as well. Kylie2112 and Tue Elung-Jensen wonder why the “dozens” of attacks under Bush are not as controversial. Well, here is one list of those “11” attacks (there may be more I don’t know)

    Notice the methods used. In 3 cases, it was “a (as in one) suicide bomber” , then 3 “vehicle” bombs and another that did not go off, 3 where a “militant group” attacked, a motor attack and an RPG attack.

    None of the attacks were “sustained” and none where “re-engaged” after a substantial lull in contact.

    If you really want to look at the time line of terrorist activities read this:

    So the attacks on the US and the US Interest in the world are on going. And have been for decades. That is not the issue with Obama. The issue is that he did NOTHING to protect the 4 dead when he had means and opportunity to do so. He preferred to get his beauty sleep in advance of his campaign trip instead, leaving the State Department to deal with the fallout with NO leadership on his part.

  14. pirate227

    pirate227 said, over 3 years ago

    There’s no there there but:

  15. ConserveGov

    ConserveGov said, over 3 years ago

    Well said.

    Of course Bush has nothing to do with Benghazi, but the majority of libs on here will never criticize O no matter how bad things get.

    So they bring up a prez from 5 years ago or just blame congress for all his failures.

    Very childish.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (7).