• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

He Knew [W:610]

I think a lot of people underestimate the sheer ignorance of our so-called leaders. They SHOULD have known, but it is likely they didn't. We should have known about 9/11, and Pearl Harbor before they happened but that is the power of ignorance. I don't think they had a clue about what exactly was going to happen and had a bit of intelligence of possible terror cells in Benghazi. However, the ignorance of them all is simple amazing. Don't think things would get better under a Romney administration either because it won't.
 
Republic Now! said:
So, where are these news sources getting this "it was a spontaneous attack" stuff? It seems to me like we literally have two different stories floating around about what happened. It can't BOTH be a spontaneous attack from a protest of a youtube video AND a planned attack by a terrorist organization.
Click to expand...

Not only that but we now know Stevens could have been saved.. who knows for how long he was pinned down.. a fly over could have scattered the terrrorists..

and Obama went toi the UN and blamed a fake video to coverup this up......Obama is COOKED
 
Travis007 said:
There was nothing to investigate.. is that not crystal clear... ?

Obama allowed the embasador to die, when he could have sent in forces..
Click to expand...

That has to do with how information is processed. Someone cited George W. Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11 as an example.

Not only that but we now know Stevens could have been saved.. who knows for how long he was pinned down.. a fly over could have scattered the terrrorists..

and Obama went toi the UN and blamed a fake video to coverup this up......Obama is COOKED
Click to expand...

This debate seems pointless.
 
That's malarky.

God help us all.

rocket88 said:
Only to hyper-partisan Republicans who really believe that Nixon wasn't a crook.

If it doesn't decide the election, just remember that you brought President Biden on yourselves.
Click to expand...
 
AreteCourage said:
I think a lot of people underestimate the sheer ignorance of our so-called leaders. They SHOULD have known, but it is likely they didn't. We should have known about 9/11, and Pearl Harbor before they happened but that is the power of ignorance. I don't think they had a clue about what exactly was going to happen and had a bit of intelligence of possible terror cells in Benghazi. However, the ignorance of them all is simple amazing. Don't think things would get better under a Romney administration either because it won't.
Click to expand...

I don't think Romney is dumb enough to not protect our diplomats in a nation as volatile as Libya.
 
Peter Grimm said:
If re-elected, there is a good chance he will be impeached for this.
Click to expand...

Nope, but keeping him off message between now and Nov. 6 may be the real consequence he suffers, rendering the impeachment thing moot.
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
I don't think Romney is dumb enough to not protect our diplomats in a nation as volatile as Libya.
Click to expand...

Then you underestimate his ignorance as much as others did for Obama.
 
Morality Games said:
That has to do with how information is processed. Someone cited George W. Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11 as an example.



This debate seems pointless.
Click to expand...

Thats right you cant debate the facts... GWB had no idea about 9/11, he had no credible reports of the attack NOBODY DID... not only that but GWB didnt have the HSD that he created after.. Clinton failed to build it after the first WTC attack

that has nothing to do with Benghazi.. we had been attacked twice and Steven had asked for more security..

Your ignorant comparison is PURE FAIL..
 
Last edited:
This is front-page news everywhere. CNN, MSNBC, the works.

Erod said:
Other than Fox, how much coverage will this get?

And he chose a low-rent video producer to blame this on?

Blatant coverup that makes Watergate look like an untied shoe.
Click to expand...
 
Morality Games said:
That has to do with how information is processed. Someone cited George W. Bush's foreknowledge of 9/11 as an example.



This debate seems pointless.
Click to expand...

Yes it does seem pointless, People died and Obama lied. All to coverup his gross negligence and incompetence.
 
AreteCourage said:
Then you underestimate his ignorance as much as others did for Obama.
Click to expand...

I don't think an ignorant person could accomplish what Romney has. Obama was under pressure from Islamists to trust them with the security of our diplomats. Obama gambled with American lives and lost. Romney doesn't gamble with American lives.
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
Wasn't George Bush the one who started the crap about some movie?
Click to expand...

I heard Bush made the youtube Mohammad video. He's actively sabotaging Obama!
 
ecofarm said:
I heard Bush made the youtube Mohammad video. He's actively sabotaging Obama!
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I heard. Bush financed the video. Yeah, that's what I heard.
 
Dear God, no. Please, no. Anybody but this guy. Please don't put this guy in charge of our nuclear arsenal. Holy Mary mother of God, no!

joe_biden41.jpg


MALARKY!
 
Last edited:
Travis007 said:
Thats right youc ant debate the facts... GWB had no idea about 9/11, he had no credible reports of the attack NOBODY DID... not only that but GWB didnt have the HSD that he created after.. Clinton failed to build it after the first WTC attack

that has nothign to do with Benghazi.. we had been attacked twice and Steven ahd asked for more security..

Your igornat comparison is PURE FAIL..
Click to expand...

Your lack of moderation and unwillingness to engage in substantial evaluation of the capabilities and responsibilities of the President destroys the purpose of debate.

I started with an elaborate way of reasoning out the issue, but let's try a common sense approach.

If Obama had a decisive and compelling reason to believe the information of an attack was consistent and good, then why wouldn't have have sent in the troops? It would cost him nothing to do so and could only help both the United States's diplomatic and military goals and his personal chances of re-election.

We are led to conclude that either there wasn't decisive and compelling reason to believe an attack was inevitable, or that Obama allowed the attack to happen specifically so he could have it loom over him in the election for some reason.
 
ecofarm said:
I heard Bush made the youtube Mohammad video. He's actively sabotaging Obama!
Click to expand...

Might want to pick someone else. Nobody would ever believe Bush would even know how to turn a computer on, let alone make a tube vid
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
I don't think an ignorant person could accomplish what Romney has. Obama was under pressure from Islamists to trust them with the security of our diplomats. Obama gambled with American lives and lost. Romney doesn't gamble with American lives.
Click to expand...

You don't know that. Romney has never been in the White House. He has changed position so many times on foreign policy that we simply don't know what he will do. Your spitting out nonsense rhetoric and need to really use some critical thinking skills. Romney has pandered to the far right and now the center....he has no real plan and shows ignorance all the time.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not exonerating Obama at all, but to sit there and say Romney would be much better is a flat out lie.
 
I've read all the posts. It's a flock of birds, a school of fish, a herd of cows, a CONGRESS of baboons, and what is a forum of morons? Must be a cluster!
 
Morality Games said:
Your lack of moderation and unwillingness to engage in substantial evaluation of the capabilities and responsibilities of the President destroys the purpose of debate.

I started with an elaborate way of reasoning out the issue, but let's try a common sense approach.

If Obama had a decisive and compelling reason to believe the information of an attack was consistent and good, then why wouldn't have have sent in the troops? It would cost him nothing to do so and could only help both the United States's diplomatic and military goals and his personal chances of re-election.

We are led to believe that either there wasn't decisive and compelling reason to believe an attack was inevitable, or that Obama allowed the attack to happen specifically so he could have it loom over him in the election for some reason.
Click to expand...

My God.. do you know who Obama is?... Obama is staking his presiency on that he got UBL.. ( when he voted against everything that we needed to get UBL).. so he was VESTED in this fake narrative that "AQ has been destroyed by Obama" so he could not have this happen.. he could not have AQ ruin his narrative.. so it was lied about.. Obam lied.. he said it was "spontaneous over a fake internest video mocking Mohumud"...went as frar as to apologize over a fake video over and over and go to the UN and apologise..

Steven may have died because Obama didnt want to use the term Terrorism.. Obam WENT TO BED THAT NIGHT.. without knowing Stevens status.. he was more worried about going to Vegas to campaign...ITS ALL ABOUT OBAMA

what part of this arent you getting?
 
Last edited:
Fisher said:
Might want to pick someone else. Nobody would ever believe Bush would even know how to turn a computer on, let alone make a tube vid
Click to expand...

News flash... GWB flew planes for the National Guard..he was a pilot.. he is not stupid.

Obama cant even make a paper airplane..
 
Travis007 said:
My God.. do you know who Obama is?... Obama is staking his presiency on that he got UBL.. ( when he voted agisnt everything that we needed to get UBL).. so he was VESTED in this fake narrative that "AQ has been destoryed by Obama" so he could not have this happen.. he could not have AQ ruin his narractive.. so it was lied about.. Obam lied.. he said it was "spontaneous over a fake internest video mocking Mohumud"...

Steven may have died because Obama didnt want to use the term Terrorism.. Obam WENT TO BED THAT NIGHT.. withoutt knowing Stevens status.. he was more woried about goign toVgeas to campaign...ITS ALL ABOUT OBAMA

wht part of this arent you getting?
Click to expand...

That's a shaky appeal to pathos at best. Actually, it is absurd. The odds that Obama would allow a US Ambassador to die because "he didn't want to use the word terrorism" are astronomically low.

Purely from a perspective of self-interest (this is assuming that Obama has absolutely no other concern than re-election), a US Ambassador dying in his tenure can only be bad for Obama, regardless of any mitigating factors.

You can't spin turn that public perception war into a positive in anyway whatsoever.
 
Travis007 said:
News flash... GWB flew planes for the Nationa Guard..

Obama cant even make a paper airplane..
Click to expand...

News flash: terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center on GWB's watch one week after Bush had his first briefing on al Qaeda -- and EIGHT MONTHS after the briefing was urgently requested.

Keep ****ing the Libya chicken kids. It's a non-issue.
 
AdamT said:
News flash: terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center on GWB's watch one week after Bush had his first briefing on al Qaeda -- and EIGHT MONTHS after the briefing was urgently requested.

Keep ****ing the Libya chicken kids. It's a non-issue.
Click to expand...

yea sure... like your posts have any credibility left..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom