• 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!

Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Says

Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

so the administration TODAY puts out three most-wanted posters

Why the hell did it take 8 months for this?
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Why the hell did it take 8 months for this?
They had fallen behind the counter at Walmart. The cleaning person found them. They hadn't been picked up because the sequester eliminated the funding for intel photos of Benghazi. The sequester is vewy, vewy specific, and Obama has no latitude in such matters. He's only the president.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

I didn't have to prove anything except that I quoted the OP. That's it. Here's the post. Apparently you didn't see the number four (4) earlier and now you claim you can't read Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The "real proof" is yet to come, yes. But we do know that Please re-read the sentence and get it clear before you respond again.

Laughing, you keep dodging what YOU typed, not what the OP typed, which FYI is the more accurate sentence. YOU said 4 STATE officials, no mention of the CIA.

And I'd say IF there is ANY proof it is yet to come.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

You most certainly did. Try blowing that smoke up someone else's butt.
You keep repeating that lie, and maybe someone will eventually believe it. Anyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size will know I was criticizing the idea we cannot critique a source.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.... everybody in this thread but you is stupid.
No, just the people who clearly don't understand the simple words on the page, and then use their misunderstanding to insult me.

By the way, I can't help but notice you've since backed off your insults, and instead moved to a conspiracy theory. I take it this is your concession where you realized you were wrong about what I said? I would appreciate you showing that ounce of integrity I mentioned.

It's very obvious that you and your ilk don't want to find out who's behind the curtain controlling the conversation.
My ilk? What is my ilk?

We prefer to hold the people responsible for these deaths accountable, including both the ones in Libya and in our government.
The ones in the government weren't responsible for their deaths, they were responsible for the lack of support. So, as I said before, let's figure out why the support wasn't there and fix it.

Why do I have to keep repeating myself for you? If you don't want me to think you lack intelligence, then demonstrate the basic ability to comprehend what you respond to. I don't like dealing with unintelligent people and I prefer not to think of anyone I interact with as unintelligent. But when you consistently demonstrate an inability to comprehend what I've said, what choice do I have?

All I'm asking is this...apologize for your obviously mistaken reaction to what I said and acknowledge I've stated on multiple occasions I believe the focus should be on fixing the process and finding those who were responsible for carrying out the attack. Do this and my opinion of you will increase dramatically, and perhaps then we can have a much better discussion.

Perhaps the shoe you mentioned fits you.
Only if it is a Nike size 12. Any other shoe you provide probably doesn't come close.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

My ilk? What is my ilk?
It has long since ceased having any biological function, but your ilk is located right next to your gizzard. It still determines your political leanings, but that's about all your ilk does these days. My ilk is much busier, and I don't even have a gizzard. Diversity exemplified.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

It's impossible to believe that the spawn of the Chicago democrat political machine would threaten anybody, ever.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

...

I never once said it didn't matter who was responsible for murdering the four Americans, I said we shouldn't worry about who on our side dropped the ball (at this point) and instead focus on the why of how the process failed. ....

Can the "who" and the "why" always be seperated?
e.g. If the "why" is that a decision was made not to send support and not to pursue the perps ... don't you need to know the "who" to determine the legitimacy of the "why"?
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Why the hell did it take 8 months for this?

8 months "is a long time ago".

Hell its archaic, antique, a relative fossill of a issue.

Lol...I love watching liars try to worm their way out of the lies they told to cover up the lie that started this mess.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Can the "who" and the "why" always be seperated?
e.g. If the "why" is that a decision was made not to send support and not to pursue the perps ... don't you need to know the "who" to determine the legitimacy of the "why"?
You're right. Attempting to separate the people responsible from the "process" is an attempt to distract from the obvious. The "process" in any function of government is a wholly human construction directed by humans. We know the order to assist our people in Banghazi was never given. No "process" is involved in that decision.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Can the "who" and the "why" always be seperated?
Yes. The who may be part of the why, but the why is far more critical. But unless it's your contention the who were deliberately wanting Americans to die, I think it's safe to say the problem was more with the process, not the persons.

You're right. Attempting to separate the people responsible from the "process" is an attempt to distract from the obvious.
Completely false.

Let's say the determination was made we could not afford extra security at the compound. Is that a "who" or a why? That's a why. If the request for security didn't get passed up the chain because other intelligence said we had greater need for forces in other places, that's a why, not a who.

Unless you're alleging an intentional act of endangering Americans, the who is separated from the why.

The "process" in any function of government is a wholly human construction directed by humans. We know the order to assist our people in Banghazi was never given.
Yes, but why? What matters more, who is in charge or why they gave the order? Do you really need to know Person A, or do you need to know what we can do to make sure Person A does a better job?

The why is far more important. The "who" is just what Republicans want to use to find more reasons to criticize the Obama administration. The who is political, the why is what's important.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Yes. The who may be part of the why, but the why is far more critical. But unless it's your contention the who were deliberately wanting Americans to die, I think it's safe to say the problem was more with the process, not the persons.

....

Rather than speculate if the "who" is important, how about if you tell us the "why"?
Then we can decide if we need to know the "who".
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

...

Yes, but why? What matters more, who is in charge or why they gave the order? Do you really need to know Person A, or do you need to know what we can do to make sure Person A does a better job?

....

That's just plain silly. You mean you want to know why they gave the order but who gave it needs to be secret?
If you don't know who ordered it how can you find out why it was ordered?
It sounds like your priority is something other than find out the truth.

Man o man are you discombobulated, and I never thought I'd find the perfect opportunity to say that.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Rather than speculate if the "who" is important, how about if you tell us the "why"?
Then we can decide if we need to know the "who".
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

And in her testimony, Clinton said they were already working to meet some of the recommendations presented.

That's just plain silly. You mean you want to know why they gave the order but who gave it needs to be secret?
If you don't know who ordered it how can you find out why it was ordered?
It sounds like your priority is something other than find out the truth.

Man o man are you discombobulated, and I never thought I'd find the perfect opportunity to say that.
:roll:

Yes, if bubbabgone doesn't know every person involved in the security process in the State department, there's no way we'll ever be able to figure out what went wrong. And you called me silly.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

And in her testimony, Clinton said they were already working to meet some of the recommendations presented.

And you accept her testimony as a given?

Yes, if bubbabgone doesn't know every person involved in the security process in the State department, there's no way we'll ever be able to figure out what went wrong. And you called me silly.

Except he never said that so yes, you are silly.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Obama administration officials threatened whistle-blowers on Benghazi, lawyer says | Fox News

for something that, as then secretary of state hillary suggested, doesn't make any difference, there sure is a lot of angst

why all the hiding?

Lawmakers demand access to survivors injured in Benghazi attack | Fox News

some of the benghazi survivors seem to have suffered some severe injuries---news to you

stay tuned:

Rep. Trey Gowdy: Benghazi hearings 'coming quickly' - Washington Times

an awful lot of questions, no?

why all the warnings ignored, why no military response, why the blaming of the video, why the claim that aq was on the run, why has no one been held responsible?

why did the president go to bed?

Sean Smith's mom: Obama didn't follow up on personal promises

and how could anyone in the white house suggest that none of it makes any difference?
That sounds like something Obama would personally dictate. Party line only!
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

And you accept her testimony as a given?
Do you have an evidence to the contrary?

Except he never said that so yes, you are silly.
He did actually, well insinuated it.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

That's just plain silly. You mean you want to know why they gave the order but who gave it needs to be secret?
If you don't know who ordered it how can you find out why it was ordered?
It sounds like your priority is something other than find out the truth.

Man o man are you discombobulated, and I never thought I'd find the perfect opportunity to say that.

Good afternoon, Bubba. :2wave:

:agree: Why the secrecy? Is this a new guessing game for adults to play? This is too important to dance around, since people needlessly died while pleading for assistance! Logic tells us that it had to be someone in authority, unless typists are now responsible for issuing decrees, so the Division Head should be held responsible until we know for sure. As the famous Democrat President Harry Truman announced, "The Buck Stops Here." If the decision came from higher up, as people already suspect, we should know that, too, and the reason why! :inandout:
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Do you have an evidence to the contrary?

The title of the thread is "Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say", suggesting all the evidence is not yet in, that it is being suppressed. Therefore we will have to wait for the hearing to see if we have all the information,. In other words there may be information that supports Clinton, that the attacks were a result of a Youtube cartoon, or it might demonstrate that she is a lying buffoon. We'll have to wait.

He did actually, well insinuated it.

I'm insinuating something right now. Do you know what that might be?
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

The title of the thread is "Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say", suggesting all the evidence is not yet in, that it is being suppressed.
Which has nothing to do with any changes that might have been made since, like Clinton said in the testimony.

I'm insinuating something right now. Do you know what that might be?
That following a thread of conversation is not something which comes easily to you?
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Which has nothing to do with any changes that might have been made since, like Clinton said in the testimony.

Clinton is just one person to testify. Do you believe that the entire truth of what happened hangs on her words? Do you still believe Obama and Clinton when they said it was all the result of a Youtube video?
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Clinton is just one person to testify. Do you believe that the entire truth of what happened hangs on her words?
Again, I'll ask if you have any evidence to the contrary regarding Clinton's testimony in which she said changes were already in the process of being made?
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Let's say the determination was made we could not afford extra security at the compound. Is that a "who" or a why? That's a why. If the request for security didn't get passed up the chain because other intelligence said we had greater need for forces in other places, that's a why, not a who.

Unless you're alleging an intentional act of endangering Americans, the who is separated from the why.

Yes, but why? What matters more, who is in charge or why they gave the order? Do you really need to know Person A, or do you need to know what we can do to make sure Person A does a better job?

The why is far more important. The "who" is just what Republicans want to use to find more reasons to criticize the Obama administration. The who is political, the why is what's important.
BS. Let's say it was this or that. How about we say that it's whatever is the truth, and forget all the speculation. What's there to hide? Somebody didn't give the order to render those folks assistance. Who was it, and why didn't they give it? That's what we need to know. And in case you're in doubt, the president is supposed to be in charge.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

And in her testimony, Clinton said they were already working to meet some of the recommendations presented.


:roll:

Yes, if bubbabgone doesn't know every person involved in the security process in the State department, there's no way we'll ever be able to figure out what went wrong. And you called me silly.

You're tyng yourself in knots to try to say it doesn't matter who was responsible.
Or ... to be more accurate, you feel compelled to shield Hillary or Barack at all costs.

Okay ... So to you it's reasonable that Hillary needed recommendations to help prevent a consulate in a hostile Country from being overrun and the ambassador and others from being killed ... yet she felt she knew enough to repeatedly blame a video for it.

Let's find out why she didn't know what the hell she was doing without being told and why she was confident about the evil video and why she doesn't think it really matters anyway.
There's your whys. What're the answers?

There's lots of other whys but you can start with those.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

What's there to hide?
Exactly. Republicans keep insisting there's a cover-up...of what? What's being covered up? We know 4 Americans are dead. We know there were fundamental flaws in the processes which were supposed to keep them safe. What exactly is being hidden?

Let's quit the political posturing and focus on what's important, which is how to prevent it from happening again. The blame game is a waste of time. If there was someone who clearly violated the rules of their job, then they deserve to be fired. But that's not an issue for the national media, that's an issue for whatever department is responsible for that person. Let's quit wasting time trying to use the deaths of Americans as political fodder for the next election and let's spend the time making sure we do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Who was it, and why didn't they give it? That's what we need to know.
No, you don't. YOU don't need to know that. The people responsible for those who made any potential mistakes need to know. You don't need to know anything.

And in case you're in doubt, the president is supposed to be in charge.
Only if something bad happened. Whenever something good happens, the President had nothing to do with it.

You're tyng yourself in knots to try to say it doesn't matter who was responsible.
I'm not tying anything. :shrug:
Or ... to be more accurate, you feel compelled to shield Hillary or Barack at all costs.
Shield them from what? What exactly are you accusing them of?

Okay ... So to you it's reasonable that Hillary needed recommendations to help prevent a consulate in a hostile Country from being overrun and the ambassador and others from being killed
I think anytime a situation exposes flaws it's reasonable to say the flaws need to be addressed. Are you saying we shouldn't address the flaws, as long as we have a scapegoat?

... yet she felt she knew enough to repeatedly blame a video for it.
:roll:

Seriously, it's time to move on. Everyone knows it was not the video. You're bringing it up shows complete political posturing. Let it go already.

Let's find out why she didn't know what the hell she was doing without being told and why she was confident about the evil video and why she doesn't think it really matters anyway.
There's your whys.
Yes, because THAT'S more important than finding out WHY the process failed the four dead Americans. Let's drop any and all concerns for our other ambassadors and intelligence gatherers and simply engage in a political inquiry which serves no purpose other than trying to gather future votes.

That's what you want. I want to prevent more tragedies and you want to talk about a video. I guess that just shows where our priorities differ.
 
Re: Obama Administration Officials Threatened Whistle-Blowers On Benghazi, Lawyer Say

Exactly. Republicans keep insisting there's a cover-up...of what? What's being covered up?

David Gregory of NBC's 'Meet the Press' asked the same question of John McCain. His answer was -

"Of the information concerning the deaths of four brave Americans," McCain replied. "The information has not been forthcoming. You obviously believe that it has. I know that it hasn't. And I'll be glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered, including 'What did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi?'"

And to leftists, the question is kind of silly in itself....If we knew what was being covered up, there wouldn't be a cover up would there? So the question itself is a silly dodge.

We know 4 Americans are dead. We know there were fundamental flaws in the processes which were supposed to keep them safe. What exactly is being hidden?

There are five basic questions that should be the foundation of any conclusive investigation. Who?, What?, Where?, When?, and Why? So far all we have is the "When?" and you want to brush it off and say it doesn't matter.

Let's quit the political posturing and focus on what's important, which is how to prevent it from happening again.

Oh, NOW you want to focus on preventing it from happening again? So unlike the 6 years of "Bush lied, people died" mantra we heard from your ilk for 6 years straight...Wonder why that is?

The blame game is a waste of time.

No, it is one of the very investigative questions that MUST be answered to reach a reasonable conclusion, and prevent this in the future.

If there was someone who clearly violated the rules of their job, then they deserve to be fired.

Including the President.

But that's not an issue for the national media,...

What? Then you clearly don't want an independent, investigative media serving the people.

that's an issue for whatever department is responsible for that person.

So you agree that a special select committee should be convened?

Let's quit wasting time trying to use the deaths of Americans as political fodder for the next election and let's spend the time making sure we do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Are you kidding here? At every turn this administration concocts crisis built on the deaths of American's to politically get their agenda through without proper scrutiny, or questioning. Now, because it is not only embarrassing, but possibly criminal in its cover up, and lying to the American people during an election, you want to get out that big broom and just brush it under the rug....

NO.

No, you don't. YOU don't need to know that. The people responsible for those who made any potential mistakes need to know. You don't need to know anything.

Our government serves at the consent of the governed....What we should, or should not know is a matter of our representatives in congress.

Only if something bad happened. Whenever something good happens, the President had nothing to do with it.

Oh, Boo, freaking Hoo! This President has unprecedented support from a complicit media. So cry me a river. :roll:

I'm not tying anything.
Shield them from what? What exactly are you accusing them of?

Failing to come to the aid of American's under attack by enemy forces.
Lying about the events of the incident.
Covering up facts to further a political election.
Lying to the American people.
Stonewalling congress.
Collusion
Witness tampering
Abuse of power

For starters.

I think anytime a situation exposes flaws it's reasonable to say the flaws need to be addressed. Are you saying we shouldn't address the flaws, as long as we have a scapegoat?

It isn't about "scapegoating" anyone, it is about accountability, and transparency....When Obama took office in 2009 he promised that his administration would be "the most transparent, the most accountable in American history..." Yeah, not so much eh? :(

Seriously, it's time to move on. Everyone knows it was not the video. You're bringing it up shows complete political posturing. Let it go already.

I believe that the maker of the video is still in Jail, No? pfft....Let it go....:roll: How about you libs stop trying to brush the deaths of 4 brave Americans under the rug like so much debris....It's offensive.

Yes, because THAT'S more important than finding out WHY the process failed the four dead Americans.

I know you're trying to be sarcastic here, but in mockery, comes grains of truth...Because this is exactly what liberals aiding and abetting the President's cover up are doing.

Let's drop any and all concerns for our other ambassadors and intelligence gatherers and simply engage in a political inquiry which serves no purpose other than trying to gather future votes.

It is really funny, because this is the exact line of thinking of hacks like Lawerence O'Donnell on MSNBC are parroting as useful idiots of this administration. And that you, and others come in here and just regurgitate the same line of thinking is an astonishing exercise in recognizing the effects of propaganda.

That's what you want. I want to prevent more tragedies and you want to talk about a video. I guess that just shows where our priorities differ.

How? You can't prevent anything if you don't even want to know the truth....Nah, you're not interested in anything other than covering the lies of this administration.
 
Back
Top Bottom