• 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!

Hill lawmakers spar over Rice’s remarks, involvement in Libya aftermath

American

American

Trump Grump Whisperer
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
96,085
Reaction score
33,411
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hill lawmakers spar over Rice

Capitol Hill lawmakers disagreed Sunday on the importance of U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice’s role in the aftermath of the fatal Libya attacks, with independent Sen. Joe Lieberman arguing Republicans are taking a short-sighted approach by focusing on her public explanation of events.
Rice said publicly five days after the Sept. 11 attacks on two U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya, that the strikes were “spontaneous” and sparked by outrage over an anti-Islamic film.
Evidence including Capitol Hill testimony last week by former CIA Director David Petraeus showed that U.S. officials knew almost immediately that terrorist-related groups were involved.
“Nobody could deny … it was a terrorist attack,” Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "But I think we are focusing on questions that are ... not the most significant. Of course, there was a terrorist attack.”

“Nobody could deny … it was a terrorist attack,” Lieberman said on "Fox News Sunday." "But I think we are focusing on questions that are ... not the most significant. Of course, there was a terrorist attack.”
Lieberman, I-Connecticut, said the more important questions are why amid intelligence showing Al Qaeda other militant or terror-related groups coming into eastern Libya did the United States leave State Department personnel there without security. And why didn’t the Defense Department have nearby resources to come to their defense.
“I mean, long run, those are the critical questions.," he said.
Click to expand...
Things still aren't adding up on the Benghazi story. Someone is lying about the talking points that were given out, and where the scrubbing happened.
 
American said:
Hill lawmakers spar over Rice


Things still aren't adding up on the Benghazi story. Someone is lying about the talking points that were given out, and where the scrubbing happened.
Click to expand...

I agree that the "cover up", twisting of facts, scrubbing/editing or "politization" (is that even a word?) of announcing the event is a relatively minor issue, when compared to who ordered the security to be reduced (and why), who denied the requests for more security (and why), perhaps the most important, during the lengthy attacks (at multiple locations) why was no U.S. help dispatched (and why) and, even after the attacks, why was no immediate investigation team sent to "get the facts" (and who condoned that). When the press is able to immediately "investigate" afterwards, on scene, but the CIA/FBI/military are calimed to be unable to "safely" do so - something is very, very wrong.
 
They'll have at it on the Hill, but it'll mostly be the same old partisan crap.
 
American said:
Hill lawmakers spar over Rice

Things still aren't adding up on the Benghazi story. Someone is lying about the talking points that were given out, and where the scrubbing happened.
Click to expand...

Well, the truth is now out. The talking points Rice got were incomplete. What isn't clear to me is whether or not the CIA's report included blaming that video. Where did that information come from? (I'm suspecting it was in the CIA report to the extent that the video was used as an excuse for rallying the troops to attack.)

At any rate, what's the difference? The important question, as TTW says, is who made the decision not to send effective help immediately? It would seem to me that our paltry response to this attack has made Americans more vulnerable all over the world.
 
Who changed the CIA report, what was obama's role in this, what did he know and when did he know it? After we know these three things we need to know what obama did to cover these things up, yes this is "Benghazi gate".
 
MaggieD said:
It would seem to me that our paltry response to this attack has made Americans more vulnerable all over the world.
Click to expand...

In this I can agree with. From the start, whether the video sparked it or not (which we now know it didn't), it was still a terrorist attack. The problem I have with this administration was that it focused on the video. The video itself is covered under freedom of speech in our country. The person that made it violated his parole and was rightfully punished for breaking his parole, however, the video itself is not the issue that should have been the focus. I don't like the video and I think it is ****, but I agree with the protection that a video like that should be able to be made.

The actions of those terrorists and those that supported their actions should be completely condemned and THAT is what the focus should have been on. The only mention of the video should have been used to condemn the actions of the terrorists by showing that the video is freedom of speech.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Who changed the CIA report, what was obama's role in this, what did he know and when did he know it? After we know these three things we need to know what obama did to cover these things up, yes this is "Benghazi gate".
Click to expand...

What amazes me is the right is not concerned with bringing the terrorists to justice that did the killing, but are more interested in burning Obama at the stake.

Here's a hint, the reason we have 4 dead Americans is because terrorists killed them. THOSE are the people who we should be focusing going after.
 
What seems clear is that Rice was given certain talking points, supported by the intelligence community. This certainly was not all that was known at the time. It did represent as much info as the intelligent community wanted public at that time. There is no evidence that Rice knew more, or was authorized to say more, than she did on that Sunday. So I think the Rice issue is dead, or it shouold be.

What also seems clear is that there was some kind of breakdown. Whether it was in communications, timing, response (or lack thereof) we do not yet know. We must let the committee do it's work. Listening to people trying to make political points without all the information is pointless and is not helping. As a matter of fact it is mking people look foolish. Those who postulated that the Petraeus scandal was designed to prevent him from testifying, McCain calling out Rice all last week, including at the time when new evidence was being presented, made him look like a dolt. McCain is widely respected, but this week he damaged his brand.

Lets wait till we have the findings and go from there. I am sure at that time there will be an opportunity to make political points.
 
TheNextEra said:
What amazes me is the right is not concerned with bringing the terrorists to justice that did the killing, but are more interested in burning Obama at the stake.

Here's a hint, the reason we have 4 dead Americans is because terrorists killed them. THOSE are the people who we should be focusing going after.
Click to expand...

I am interested in how this happened. Why was their such a lack of security and when the attack began why wasn't help sent.We need to find those responsible and fire them before they can exercise their extreme lack of judgment again. Bringing the attackers to justice is great but it's like the old adage of shutting the barn door after the horse is out.
 
TheNextEra said:
In this I can agree with. From the start, whether the video sparked it or not (which we now know it didn't), it was still a terrorist attack. The problem I have with this administration was that it focused on the video. The video itself is covered under freedom of speech in our country. The person that made it violated his parole and was rightfully punished for breaking his parole, however, the video itself is not the issue that should have been the focus. I don't like the video and I think it is ****, but I agree with the protection that a video like that should be able to be made.

The actions of those terrorists and those that supported their actions should be completely condemned and THAT is what the focus should have been on. The only mention of the video should have been used to condemn the actions of the terrorists by showing that the video is freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

To me this is the real issue; do we now know that the "terrorists" involved included members of (or closely tied to) the very "interim gov't" of Libya that we fund/support? Reports of "police officials" taking photographs inside the "compound" were reported earlier the day of the attack. I feel that this is more likely why the "hold those responsible accountable" part was/is being delyed. What better reason (excuse) for delay than having months of "hearings" on side issues. Yes they can!
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Bringing the attackers to justice is great but it's like the old adage of shutting the barn door after the horse is out.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure it will be great satisfaction to their families to know their attackers are free and can continue their work. But hey, as long as it hurts Obama is the main thing right? :roll:

And no, I'm not against any investigation, but the main focus should be to bring to justice those that did the actual killing.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
To me this is the real issue; do we now know that the "terrorists" involved included members of (or closely tied to) the very "interim gov't" of Libya that we fund/support? Reports of "police officials" taking photographs inside the "compound" were reported earlier the day of the attack. I feel that this is more likely why the "hold those responsible accountable" part was/is being delyed. What better reason (excuse) for delay than having months of "hearings" on side issues. Yes they can!
Click to expand...

The immediate response to something like this should have been the complete withdraw of any Americans in the country, shutting down and leaving the embassies, and cutting of any financial aid to such countries that have proven they cannot protect our citizens when in their country.

The sickening part is there was a bill that was killed by the GOP that would withdraw financial aid from countries that were hostile to the U.S.
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, I'm sure it will be great satisfaction to their families to know their attackers are free and can continue their work. But hey, as long as it hurts Obama is the main thing right? :roll:

And no, I'm not against any investigation, but the main focus should be to bring to justice those that did the actual killing.
Click to expand...

You do realize we can go after the attackers AND find out who dropped the ball at the same time don't you?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You do realize we can go after the attackers AND find out who dropped the ball at the same time don't you?
Click to expand...

Tell me what the main focus is from the right. Getting the attackers or getting Obama? The answer is getting Obama. Sickening.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Who changed the CIA report, what was obama's role in this, what did he know and when did he know it? After we know these three things we need to know what obama did to cover these things up, yes this is "Benghazi gate".
Click to expand...

Benghazi gate? Really? The President and his administration might not have told the American public the truth? Stop the presses! If the administration has a reason for misleading us, say like they don't want the terrorist to know what we know, then I am okay with that.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Benghazi gate? Really? The President and his administration might not have told the American public the truth? Stop the presses! If the administration has a reason for misleading us, say like they don't want the terrorist to know what we know, then I am okay with that.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Really? Watergate was the cover-up of massive illegal acts. There's quite a difference. There's plenty of machismo "gotcha" goin' on here. Again.
 
rjay said:
What seems clear is that Rice was given certain talking points, supported by the intelligence community. This certainly was not all that was known at the time. It did represent as much info as the intelligent community wanted public at that time. There is no evidence that Rice knew more, or was authorized to say more, than she did on that Sunday. So I think the Rice issue is dead, or it shouold be.

What also seems clear is that there was some kind of breakdown. Whether it was in communications, timing, response (or lack thereof) we do not yet know. We must let the committee do it's work. Listening to people trying to make political points without all the information is pointless and is not helping. As a matter of fact it is mking people look foolish. Those who postulated that the Petraeus scandal was designed to prevent him from testifying, McCain calling out Rice all last week, including at the time when new evidence was being presented, made him look like a dolt. McCain is widely respected, but this week he damaged his brand.

Lets wait till we have the findings and go from there. I am sure at that time there will be an opportunity to make political points.
Click to expand...

Rice is the most predominant because she went on four shows and gave a UN briefing, but Hillary Clinton also made a statement that included making excuses about the video. To me that's almost worse, because Sec State is considered the preeminent cabinet position, because she sits right next to the President. There is no way that she went on TV and Obama didn't know what she was going to say. So there two key aspects to this catastrophe, 1) the total communication cluster-****, and 2) the lack of a decisive response to the violence perpetrated upon our Ambassador to Libya. In fact there has been no response to this day.
 
Last edited:
Chaddelamancha said:
Benghazi gate? Really? The President and his administration might not have told the American public the truth? Stop the presses! If the administration has a reason for misleading us, say like they don't want the terrorist to know what we know, then I am okay with that.
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a grand cover up. What I think has happened is there were multiple failures that when added up, led to weaknesses in security. It will take time to figure out those exact failures and whom was at fault for them. I don't believe there is just ONE person responsible for the entire thing.

The blood-lust by some to have Obama burned at the stake isn't helping a proper investigation though IMO.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Benghazi gate? Really? The President and his administration might not have told the American public the truth? Stop the presses! If the administration has a reason for misleading us, say like they don't want the terrorist to know what we know, then I am okay with that.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion the president saying it was about a you tube movie and was not terrorism made the terrorist relax, go home and watch TV huh. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the election and the DNC convention where obama said he had decimated Alquiada huh and there is the little thing obama said in the debates when he claimed the day after the attack that he stated it was terrorism. Nice try bud, LMAO
 
TheNextEra said:
In this I can agree with. From the start, whether the video sparked it or not (which we now know it didn't)
Click to expand...

I don't think it's accurate to say that we know the video didn't spark it. What we know is that there wasn't a street protest over the video, which is not the same thing as saying that the video didn't incite the attackers. There have been reports that the attack was hastily arranged in a matter of days and that the attackers were angry about the video.
 
MaggieD said:
I agree with you. Really? Watergate was the cover-up of massive illegal acts. There's quite a difference. There's plenty of machismo "gotcha" goin' on here. Again.
Click to expand...

What is worse, a political break this incredible lack of competence in the obama administration that got 4 Americans killed and we don't know if anything illegal happened in the ensuing cover up until we investigate. Where there is a cover up there is generally illegalities.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
What is worse, a political break this incredible lack of competence in the obama administration that got 4 Americans killed and we don't know if anything illegal happened in the ensuing cover up until we investigate. Where there is a cover up there is generally illegalities.
Click to expand...

I just wonder how everyone seems to jump straight to Obama. How come none of this outrage is directed at Hillary? No one is calling for her to resign, or to be fired. She was delegated the responsibilities for the security of our consulates and has admitted failure, yet you are still calling for Obama's impeachment. This is why it is so easy to dismiss your conspiracy theory, you CLEARLY have an agenda. That agenda seems to have blinded your ability to rationalize the situation.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think it's accurate to say that we know the video didn't spark it. What we know is that there wasn't a street protest over the video, which is not the same thing as saying that the video didn't incite the attackers. There have been reports that the attack was hastily arranged in a matter of days and that the attackers were angry about the video.
Click to expand...

My whole point is that regardless of whether the video sparked it or not, it was a terrorist attack. I don't care if the video had Mohammed ****ing a cow, that doesn't give anyone the right to kill another person over it. The president should have announced that it was a terrorist attack (because that is what it was) and that we would focus on bringing those to justice that did the killing. Instead it did seem the president was apologizing over the video.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I just wonder how everyone seems to jump straight to Obama. How come none of this outrage is directed at Hillary? No one is calling for her to resign, or to be fired. She was delegated the responsibilities for the security of our consulates and has admitted failure, yet you are still calling for Obama's impeachment. This is why it is so easy to dismiss your conspiracy theory, you CLEARLY have an agenda. That agenda seems to have blinded your ability to rationalize the situation.
Click to expand...

That is a fair point, Hillary is definitely in the loop here but the buck stops in the white house, the oval office to be precise.
 
I don't think going after Rice is very smart because she was just the one thrown out on the shows. I believe the truth lies somewhere from the White House to General Patreas. I don't buy the extramarital affair thing at all. It is highly convenient that it should happen in wake of Benghazi. I believe Republicans are attacking Rice so that Obama will choose Kerry as the Secretary of State and be able to get a Senate seat with Scott Brown. It is political strategy by the GOP.

The truth will probably never be known. Our government is highly secretive now and have been for many years. They will cover it up and some false story will be given to the public. We can demand answers all we want, but our government doesn't give 2 cents what we demand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom