We have just learned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has claimed full responsibility for any failure to secure our people and our Consulate in Benghazi prior to the attack of September 11, 2012. This is a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever.

However, we must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador. If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed. But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there.

Furthermore, there is the separate issue of the insistence by members of the Administration, including the President himself, that the attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack. The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did.

The second floor of the shopping center is home to campaign headquarters for General John Douglass, the Democrat running for the fifth district Congressional seat. His campaign had this to say about the sign complaints:

"It must be a slow news days to do a story on Douglass's Help Virginia Families signs that have attracted our supporters to surrounding businesses. We encourage others to appeal to all voters by allowing signs on both sides."

But small business owners say it's not about politics, it's about their bottom line. And contrary to Douglass' campaign message, Crews says those signs are definitely not attracting new customers.

"Customers have said they will not shop here as long as the signs are out there and they wont shop here in the future knowing that we, as a shopping center, are supporting that political candidate-even though it's not 'we' as a shopping center, it's one tenant," Crews said.

The landlord of the shopping center has heard similar complaints from other store owners, so a new rule is in place for the building tenants. The Douglass campaign can only put up signs for Douglass, not his party running mates.

The campaign has already taken down large signs in front of the building, with President Barack Obama's name, but say they plan to replace it with a similar size sign with Douglass' name.