• 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!

Hillary Faints and Sustains Concussion

1) Before the attack, why were requests for increased security ignored?
You failed to address this question Cardinal. Why?

2) During the attack, did Obama really give orders to relieve the consulate and, if so, who failed to carry out those orders?
You failed to address this question Cardinal. Why?

3) After the attack, who gave Susan Rice those ridiculous talking points for the Sunday morning shows?
You failed to address this question Cardinal. Why?

I've addressed these before: bad communication between agencies and departments (sadly, what else is new?), strained resources and bureaucratic red tape. Finally, there was the horrendous confusion in the immediate aftermath of the incident, thus nobody being on the same page within the Obama administration, and the one specific thing I see that Obama can clearly be criticized for.

How many more months of investigation will it take before Obama finds out what he did or failed to do?

Correction, how much more time before all the facts come in? I don't know, and neither do you.

How do you know what did or did not happen as there has been no investigative report?

I base what I say on the timelines that point to widespread communication, resource and bureaucratic problems. These things of course need to be addressed. Once an investigative report is finished we'll know more and what needs to be corrected, but until then all you'll continue to be able to do is imply through asking questions, not because of any facts you have.

FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

I believe...

Irrelevant. You can't start with the motives and build out from there. You have to start with the facts first, not what you want to be true. It didn't work before the election and it won't work now.

If the assets just were not available by now we would have every single detail of how e tried very hard to respond in time. Of course assets were available. They just were not deployed.

Half true. If a country of our capabilities has a problem with strained resources, it's usually because of where they're currently deployed, as this timeline shows.
Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack - CNN.com

You failed to address the systematic lies by this regime. Rice went on five different TV shows to blame a video. Obama blamed a video and had the man arrested and kept in prison through the election.

You see lies because that's what you want to see. I see confusion as is clearly demonstrated by the timeline, which shows ever changing stories from one hour and day to the next, which was caused by everyone in the administration having a different set of facts. If Obama had handled this well he would gotten everyone in his administration on the same page and held a press conference stating, "here's what happened, we don't know a whole lot else, and we'll let you know when more facts come in." Obama has jumped the gun before, unfortunately. Maybe this time he'll finally learn his lesson.

We deserve to know way more about Obama's Benghazi Massacre and the Abandoned Four.

This is the kind of hyperbole that tells me I'm not dealing with someone particularly rational.
 
=Cardinal;1061257795]You have to start with the facts first, not what you want to be true. It didn't work before the election and it won't work now.

And yet that's what Jay Carney, Susan Rice and Barrack Obama did. They claimed to have all the facts in front of them and insisted they were right, squelching any opinions to the contrary.

Anone who follows any of this knew it was BS from day one yet the Obamaniacs followed the Presidents words slavishly, even insisting that the maker of that video be punished for daring to be critical of Islam. They ignored the First Amendment in order to get attention away from themselves and in doing so knew they would get little heat from the MSM and the Kol Aids drinkers as well.

Why this craven lot still gets any respect will puzzle historians for generations to come.
 
I've addressed these before: bad communication between agencies and departments (sadly, what else is new?), strained resources and bureaucratic red tape. Finally, there was the horrendous confusion in the immediate aftermath of the incident, thus nobody being on the same page within the Obama administration, and the one specific thing I see that Obama can clearly be criticized for.



Correction, how much more time before all the facts come in? I don't know, and neither do you.



I base what I say on the timelines that point to widespread communication, resource and bureaucratic problems. These things of course need to be addressed. Once an investigative report is finished we'll know more and what needs to be corrected, but until then all you'll continue to be able to do is imply through asking questions, not because of any facts you have.

FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline



Irrelevant. You can't start with the motives and build out from there. You have to start with the facts first, not what you want to be true. It didn't work before the election and it won't work now.



Half true. If a country of our capabilities has a problem with strained resources, it's usually because of where they're currently deployed, as this timeline shows.
Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack - CNN.com



You see lies because that's what you want to see. I see confusion as is clearly demonstrated by the timeline, which shows ever changing stories from one hour and day to the next, which was caused by everyone in the administration having a different set of facts. If Obama had handled this well he would gotten everyone in his administration on the same page and held a press conference stating, "here's what happened, we don't know a whole lot else, and we'll let you know when more facts come in." Obama has jumped the gun before, unfortunately. Maybe this time he'll finally learn his lesson.



This is the kind of hyperbole that tells me I'm not dealing with someone particularly rational.

Then of course there was Susan Rice and what she admitted to. As well as the Libyan Militias Timeline. Then there are those Cellphones and Video Footage that the Libyans have. Then Panetta, Hams, and Clintons, statements concerning the Consulate itself. Security issues and knowledge that was previously known about the Consulate, as well as what was taking place with the Militias with Libya. Which doesn't even count any AQ tie-ins.

Also there is the one Suspect that Tunisia has. Which we still haven't got to.....yet. Not to mention what I already had stated with the other issue tied to Benghazi.
rolleyes.png
 
I know this sounds far out but lets take Hills fainting spell to the next level. What if some shadowy group under white house control went into a school and shot up a class room full of kids. They get some local misfit kid, put a gun in his hand and shoot him to take the rap. For the next month the massacre is all the media talks about. I'm not saying this happened, just sayin...
 
I know this sounds far out but lets take Hills fainting spell to the next level. What if some shadowy group under white house control went into a school and shot up a class room full of kids. They get some local misfit kid, put a gun in his hand and shoot him to take the rap. For the next month the massacre is all the media talks about. I'm not saying this happened, just sayin...


Ah, the Kennedy single shooter gambit....Well played sir, well played....:mrgreen:
 
I've addressed these before: bad communication between agencies and departments (sadly, what else is new?), strained resources and bureaucratic red tape. Finally, there was the horrendous confusion in the immediate aftermath of the incident, thus nobody being on the same page within the Obama administration, and the one specific thing I see that Obama can clearly be criticized for.
I will break this into smaller chunks to make it easier to follow each thread.
Where did you see evidence of bad communications between agencies? It appears that all relevant agencies were working from the same data at the same time. This is NOT the first time something bad has happened. State, Defense, CIA, NSA, and the White House all had the same information. None of it pointed to a protest over a video.

The president said as soon as he heard he told Defense (Panetta?) to make sure those people were safe. Here is a quote from the president, "“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. "

The president debunks your claim of bad communications. It was clear to him, according to his quote, that he knew Americans were in danger. There were many other indicators, almost immediately, that everyone in WADC, was getting information as the attack was ongoing.

What resources were strained? We had an unarmed drone (Predator?) overhead providing video. Given all that had occurred in Libya I am confidant we had lots of other intelligence gathered before, during, and after the attack.

This attack lasted roughly seven hours. Confusion is for amateurs. It lasts for just a few minutes. Not seven hours.

Your arguments ring hollow. And your link agrees with my assessment.

So what is the regime hiding?
 
Earlier I wrote, "If the assets just were not available by now we would have every single detail of how e tried very hard to respond in time. Of course assets were available. They just were not deployed."

Half true. If a country of our capabilities has a problem with strained resources, it's usually because of where they're currently deployed, as this timeline shows.
Pentagon releases official timeline of Benghazi attack - CNN.com
My first issue is with a timeline that was provided two months after the attack. There is plenty of time to get everyone on the same page in two months.

How come air cover was not provided? There is no explanation. And yet the first jets could have been overhead about two hours after direction to go there.

Why didn't we ask any of our allies for help?

It has been three months. When will we know what Obama did or failed to do?
 
I've addressed these before: bad communication between agencies and departments (sadly, what else is new?), strained resources and bureaucratic red tape. Finally, there was the horrendous confusion in the immediate aftermath of the incident, thus nobody being on the same page within the Obama administration, and the one specific thing I see that Obama can clearly be criticized for.

And after three long months, they still haven't got their story straight? Are you suggesting MAJOR INCOMPETENCE on the part of the Obamabots??
 
Whether or not Hillary is faking this reflects upon the situation badly. No matter how the plinko falls it is going to drawn more attention and skeptisism to bengazi. Can we impeach Obama and emergency vote in a true literal liberal yet? :p
 
Hillary not hospitalized. Tough woman.

Hillary Clinton faints, has concussion - CNN.com

"She is being monitored by doctors and is recovering at home. She was never hospitalized, Reines said...A senior State Department official added that the fainting occurred earlier in the week and the concussion was "not severe."
 
Hillary not hospitalized. Tough woman.

Hillary Clinton faints, has concussion - CNN.com

"She is being monitored by doctors and is recovering at home. She was never hospitalized, Reines said...A senior State Department official added that the fainting occurred earlier in the week and the concussion was "not severe."

A tough woman? Maybe. But the concussion was "not severe".

Nonetheless, if she was injured, I'm sure we all wish her well.
 
A tough woman? Maybe. But the concussion was "not severe".

Nonetheless, if she was injured, I'm sure we all wish her well.
All she needed was just enough to get her out of testifying.
 
All she needed was just enough to get her out of testifying.

I feel the same way, just as she was overseas as the Benghazi scandal was at its height. It seems she waited until it cooled down before returning. But who knows? The left will support and make excuses for her anyway.
 
I feel the same way, just as she was overseas as the Benghazi scandal was at its height. It seems she waited until it cooled down before returning. But who knows? The left will support and make excuses for her anyway.

Thats always to be expected.....but again I doubt she will try to get out of testifying if she want to run in 2016. She is sending two others in her place. Lets hope they get caught up. Moreover I would keep an eye out by IAP on what they catch out of Libya and Benghazi. This way the US media can play catch up when the shiznit hits the fan.
poopfan.gif
 
I can never forgive Hillary for the way **** let Bill treat her like **** after all his affairs....She just opened her mouth and swallowed it strictly for political reasons.....No woman would take what he did.

It's touching to see you so concerned about the welfare of the Clintons. Excuse me while I call BS on your lie!
 
I will break this into smaller chunks to make it easier to follow each thread.
Where did you see evidence of bad communications between agencies? It appears that all relevant agencies were working from the same data at the same time. This is NOT the first time something bad has happened. State, Defense, CIA, NSA, and the White House all had the same information. None of it pointed to a protest over a video.

The bad communication I'm referring to is one agency's inability to communicate its needs to another agency, or, if you like, one agency's inability to appreciate the needs of another agency. One or both of these scenarios is clearly what happened here.

The president said as soon as he heard he told Defense (Panetta?) to make sure those people were safe. Here is a quote from the president, "“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. Number two, we’re going to investigate exactly what happened so that it doesn’t happen again. Number three, find out who did this so we can bring them to justice. And I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number one priority making sure that people were safe. "

The president debunks your claim of bad communications. It was clear to him, according to his quote, that he knew Americans were in danger. There were many other indicators, almost immediately, that everyone in WADC, was getting information as the attack was ongoing.

I don't see how the president debunks my claim at all. He was aware that our personnel were in immediate danger. That was never in question by anybody.

What resources were strained?

They were not well allocated....again.

Given all that had occurred in Libya I am confidant we had lots of other intelligence gathered before, during, and after the attack.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't know and neither do you. I'm also deleting all of your other questions because, as you're a full blown conspiracy theorist, an infinite number of dots are connected and in your mind deserving of consideration. I'm not falling into that rabbit hole as it has not bottom.

This attack lasted roughly seven hours. Confusion is for amateurs. It lasts for just a few minutes. Not seven hours.

But apparently arriving at conclusions before the facts are in is for professionals. The attack according to both timelines lasted for over an hour and a half.

So what is the regime hiding?

What are you hiding?
 
My first issue is with a timeline that was provided two months after the attack. There is plenty of time to get everyone on the same page in two months.

They did get on the same page.

How come air cover was not provided? There is no explanation. And yet the first jets could have been overhead about two hours after direction to go there.

Why didn't we ask any of our allies for help?

It has been three months. When will we know what Obama did or failed to do?

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?

How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

Does God have feet?

How many wars will it take til he knows that too many people have died?

See, I can ask infinite unrelated questions too.
 
Earlier I wrote, "Where did you see evidence of bad communications between agencies? It appears that all relevant agencies were working from the same data at the same time. This is NOT the first time something bad has happened. State, Defense, CIA, NSA, and the White House all had the same information. None of it pointed to a protest over a video.

The bad communication I'm referring to is one agency's inability to communicate its needs to another agency, or, if you like, one agency's inability to appreciate the needs of another agency. One or both of these scenarios is clearly what happened here.

Or we could move on to what is most likely. The inaction points to the president. Defense, apparently, needed the president's permission to provide armed response.

The president said he told everybody to do what was necessary to protect our people. So who did the president fire when no action was taken?

I also wrote, "The president debunks your claim of bad communications. It was clear to him, according to his quote, that he knew Americans were in danger. There were many other indicators, almost immediately, that everyone in WADC, was getting information as the attack was ongoing."

I don't see how the president debunks my claim at all. He was aware that our personnel were in immediate danger. That was never in question by anybody.

Of course it does. There were no bad communications. It was clear to everybody up to and including the president that the consulate was under attack. The president said to act and no one acted. So how many people did the president fire?

I also asked, "What resources were strained?"

They were not well allocated....again.

Given that the president directed everyone to act why did no one act? And who got fired?

I also wrote, "Given all that had occurred in Libya I am confidant we had lots of other intelligence gathered before, during, and after the attack."

Maybe, maybe not.
If not who has been fired for incompetence? It is unbelievable that we did not and do not have substantial intelligence gathering going on against Libya. From my experiences I noted resources nearby that would very likely be gathering information to turn into intelligence.

I don't know and neither do you.
I may have an advantage based on my earlier experiences as an intelligence officer. We were there. We were gathering. We were reporting. I have absolutely no doubts about it. If we were not then who was fired for incompetence?

I also wrote, "This attack lasted roughly seven hours. Confusion is for amateurs. It lasts for just a few minutes. Not seven hours."

But apparently arriving at conclusions before the facts are in is for professionals. The attack according to both timelines lasted for over an hour and a half.

Seven hours. Not 90 minutes. There may have been ten minutes of confusion. There were people in WADC who were on secure and unsecure phones with people in the consulate and annex during the attack. I have stood the watch and know that one's adrenalin can shoot way up when one begins to get the messages that something is happening. This was not a case where an incomplete message came in, then a while later another incomplete message came in and another and another over a period of hours. There were two way comms between the people in WADC and the Consulate in Benghazi.

I'm also deleting all of your other questions because, as you're a full blown conspiracy theorist, an infinite number of dots are connected and in your mind deserving of consideration. I'm not falling into that rabbit hole as it has not bottom.
You are free to participate to whatever level keeps you comfortable.

What are you hiding?
This question is nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Earlier I wrote, "My first issue is with a timeline that was provided two months after the attack. There is plenty of time to get everyone on the same page in two months."
They did get on the same page.

Right. It took them two months to figure out the story they wanted to tell us. Do you see any problem with that? Logs are created as events occur. Why didn't we see a timeline by the end of the next week?
 
Earlier I wrote, "How come air cover was not provided? There is no explanation. And yet the first jets could have been overhead about two hours after direction to go there.

Why didn't we ask any of our allies for help?

It has been three months. When will we know what Obama did or failed to do?"
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop?
How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Does God have feet?
How many wars will it take til he knows that too many people have died?

See, I can ask infinite unrelated questions too.
Maybe you should have just said that you are uncomfortable holding the One accountable for anything?
 
Stay classy.

As the brits say, "Oh for ****'s sake, come off it you miserable ****."

Yes, I made a joke about a woman who had a concussion. Oh. My. Lawd.:shock:
 
Well she did manage to get off a Statement today.....with what the Independent Panel discovered. Looks Like Hillary was Lacking all this time. Do you think she figured out now that Since Security was Was virtually non-existent In Libya. That she is Responsible.

Has anyone questioned her about what she told the Navy Seals Father about locking up the Maker of the Anti Muslim Film. Tell her don't forget all those othe stupid things she let come out of her mouth.
 
As the brits say, "Oh for ****'s sake, come off it you miserable ****."


Yes, I made a joke about a woman who had a concussion. Oh. My. Lawd.:shock:

You made a joke about a woman claiming to have suffered a concussion to avoid testifying before Congress.

It was funny.
 
Back
Top Bottom