• 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

... I don't buy the extramarital affair thing at all. It is highly convenient that it should happen in wake of Benghazi.

<< sigh >> - um yes, very convenient
They will obviously stoop to any contrivance to ensure that conspiracy theorists can debate for years to come. I can't wait for the books
 
<< sigh >> - um yes, very convenient
They will obviously stoop to any contrivance to ensure that conspiracy theorists can debate for years to come. I can't wait for the books

You can put your trust in government all you want...I'll stay skeptical
 
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.

I agree that it was an act of terror either way, which is exactly how Obama described it in his first address on the subject. Can you say that louder, Candy?
 
From Ralph Peters:

Ralph Peters - New York Post Columnist - NYPOST.com

* That intelligence professionals watching the Benghazi attack in real time and reading flash messages from the scene weren’t sure an obvious terrorist attack was a terrorist attack. A Cub Scout watching that strike go down would have recognized a planned terror operation.

* That, even now, the attack somehow, magically, might have been partly about that discredited video, after all, since the first phase was sloppier than the crisper second phase. Jeez. It’s obvious the terrorists did what any seasoned commander would do: Used the B-team as bait at the consulate, reserving the A-team to spring the trap on the CIA facility.

* That it was purely coincidental the attack occurred on the 11th anniversary of 9/11.

* That doctoring the early CIA analysis to eliminate any mention of terrorism was purely a bureaucratic quirk (having coped with the interagency process, I assure you it would be easy to identify who neutered the analysis — if the White House wanted to).

* That Obama pal and UN Ambassador Susan Rice is so naïve that, after reading the classified analysis blaming a terrorist operation, she found the unclassified, castrated analysis more convincing than common sense.

* That Rice was the logical choice to dispatch to five Sunday talk shows to blame the video for the violence, even though our president himself stated in last week’s press conference that Rice had nothing to do with Benghazi. (We were also treated to another of Obama’s now-routine how-dare-you-question-me hissy fits as he defended Rice with far greater vigor than he defended our team in Benghazi.)

* That it was another bureaucratic coincidence that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper wasn’t told about CIA chief David Petraeus’s new exercise routine until late on Election Day — even though Clapper was the one person in the entire government with an obvious need to know.

* That despite the general’s Friday testimony under oath on the Hill that the CIA’s analysis identified the Benghazi attack as an act of terror involving al Qaeda affiliates from the start, the available evidence somehow supported the video-did-it narrative, after all.

* That the president personally did all he could to help our personnel in Benghazi, even though the White House can offer no evidence of it.

* That there was no reason to be concerned about security in Benghazi, even though incidents and requests for better protection had stacked up for months.

* That four Americans dead as a result of a planned act of terror on another Sept. 11, just isn’t that big a deal and we need to move on.
 
I don't know, but sometimes I really have to wonder about the future of this nation based on how complicated and confusing something so simple becomes based on partisan Jockeying for position. For the life of me, I can think of only one way President Obama benefited by claiming a video sparked the attack in Libya . . . and from what I understand, David Petraeus testified that benefit was to keep those responsible for the attack unaware that the intelligence community was on to them. The damage done to this investigation will never be fully known, unless in the near future a drone attack kills those who participated and organized the attack. Perhaps then everything would come out. None-the-less, electoral politics took precedence over the intelligence community and our fight against the people who want to hurt us.

Seriously, and believe me, I am not blaming G. W. Bush, but I can imagine how the Bush Administration would have handled the attack had it occurred just prior to the election of 2004. It would have been used as a commercial for his re-election . . . We would have been told to be very, very scared from the evil doers. That attack could have been manipulated for Obama's political gain had he wanted to. In a battle of good vs. evil we all know it isn't smart to switch horses in the middle of the fight. I seriously believe when everything comes out in the wash, the folks determined to see a conspiracy are going to end up with egg on their face once again.

Lastly, from everything I have read about Ambassador Stevens, the lack of security was in part due to his own views on how he was accepted by the Libyan people he loved. False sense of security no doubt. However, based on all that has been written about him, I am pretty sure he would be blaming himself had he survived. Sometimes it's a simple as simple can be . . . no conspiracy, no man behind the curtain. There is a reason why the Petraeus testimony was held behind closed doors. There is a reason why goal posts are starting to move and GOP descriptions of testimony have softened past stances. My two cents.
 
don't know, but sometimes I really have to wonder about the future of this nation based on how complicated and confusing something so simple becomes based on partisan Jockeying for position. For the life of me, I can think of only one way President Obama benefited by claiming a video sparked the attack in Libya . . . and from what I understand, David Petraeus testified that benefit was to keep those responsible for the attack unaware that the intelligence community was on to them. The damage done to this investigation will never be fully known, unless in the near future a drone attack kills those who participated and organized the attack. Perhaps then everything would come out. None-the-less, electoral politics took precedence over the intelligence community and our fight against the people who want to hurt us.

Yea sending a UN Ambassador out there to LIE about it was "covering up an investigation on who was behind it" when we KNEW who was behind it within hours. The people responsible for it told the entire world. Obama was trying to save his pathetic keester to get re-elected at all costs. He lied to the Public to get re-elected. The "Osama died. Al Qaeda is on the run" talking point was put into serious question with a planned terrorist attack that killed a US Ambassador. The first to die in the line of duty since Carter.

Obama lied. Americans died.
 
Every single person who has twisted a terrorist attack and national tragedy into a partisian finger-pointing match has earned my disgust. There was a time when we were Americans first. That time has clearly passed.

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. :2mad:
 
Yea sending a UN Ambassador out there to LIE about it was "covering up an investigation on who was behind it" when we KNEW who was behind it within hours. The people responsible for it told the entire world. Obama was trying to save his pathetic keester to get re-elected at all costs. He lied to the Public to get re-elected. The "Osama died. Al Qaeda is on the run" talking point was put into serious question with a planned terrorist attack that killed a US Ambassador. The first to die in the line of duty since Carter.

Obama lied. Americans died.

Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how this so-called lie benefitted him since Romney and the rest of the GOP/Tea Party were all over it within minutes? Just because Al Queda is on the run; does that mean they no longer have the capacity to do harm? I acknowledge your position, and I acknowledge you really believe something nefarious was going on . . . I personally have a much different opinion. I will remain attentive to the subject at hand and make further comment after we actually find out what happened behind closed doors (the hearings). I believe Petraeus when he says he did not want to tip those guilty for the attack off.
 
It only makes sense that if the Obama administration has nothing to hide and they know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are perfectly innocent in this ordeal that they will adhere to a speedy hearing, allow all the questions to be asked and all the people who need to testify do so. We live in America people. Yes, people have a right to question the acts and words of the president and his administration. No one should look down on that, this is part of our freedoms in America. If he and his administration are innocent then it will be shown, just like in any other court of justice in our country. No one actually knows the answer, so there shouldn't be an issue with what is going on.
 
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.

Another rather telling notion is... Reagan's Secretary of State George P. Shultz... How many dems or Repubs for that matter (seeing how they are sooooo concerned about such foreign issues like this) asked for an investigation and resignation of him after 241 U.S. servicemen where killed in that bombing?

Disgusting politics being played where just a few Republican's in office right now are being mouthpeices for Fox News' bullcrap fake outrage on Fox News' fake conspiracy.
 
Every single person who has twisted a terrorist attack and national tragedy into a partisian finger-pointing match has earned my disgust. There was a time when we were Americans first. That time has clearly passed.

Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. :2mad:

When hundreds of Americans die (beirut) under a Repub prez... the country unites.
When thousands of Americans die (9/11) under a Repub prez... the country unites.
When four Americans die (Benghazi) under a Dem prez... the country splits and it's investigation time.

I wonder why that is?
 
Obama has decided to pardon a turkey. Question: what did that turkey know about Benghazi?

--Steven Colbert
 
I would dispute that Petraeus didn't fall over his sword. :lol:

You would dispute if the sky were blue, so what else is new?
 
When hundreds of Americans die (beirut) under a Repub prez... the country unites.
When thousands of Americans die (9/11) under a Repub prez... the country unites.
When four Americans die (Benghazi) under a Dem prez... the country splits and it's investigation time.

I wonder why that is?

Reagan and Bush didn't lie or fail to tell the American people the truth. YOUR man **** it up, and still has responded to the men who attacked our people.
 
Reagan and Bush didn't lie or fail to tell the American people the truth. YOUR man **** it up,

*cough*

Iran Contra

*cough*

HIGH Treason subversion of law

*cough*​


Sorry... Bad tickle in my throat. Didn't quite catch that. Now... I caught your rambling of a conpiracy theory that you fabricated but what was that you were you saying about not lying to the people?

American said:
and still has responded to the men who attacked our people.

*cough*

Beirut... cut and run

*cough*​


Man.. there's that tickle again.
 
*cough*

Iran Contra

*cough*

HIGH Treason subversion of law

*cough*​


Sorry... Bad tickle in my throat. Didn't quite catch that. Now... I caught your rambling of a conpiracy theory that you fabricated but what was that you were you saying about not lying to the people?



*cough*

Beirut... cut and run

*cough*​


Man.. there's that tickle again.

Why don't you cut the bull****, no one died in Iran Contra and it wasn't Reagan that did the lying. Beirut was a mistake where Reagan allowed UN command of our troops and they got killed because UN command would allow them to have loaded weapons. He never lied about that, like you are.
 
You would dispute if the sky were blue, so what else is new?

And you would sufficate yourself if you knew Liberals breathed in air just to do something opposite.
 
Back
Top Bottom