• 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!

Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edited)

Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

First, how do we know what that guy said is true and he had all the information?

...Agreeably we believe that because he was there, he reported only on what he observed, and it has not been in his self-interest (quite the opposite) to tell what he has.
 
Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

First, how do we know what that guy said is true and he had all the information?

we look at the testimony and judge it by it's merits, as we do in any other similar scenario.

Second, people like Fenton are going to automatically assume it's true and attack anything that contradicts it.

So?

The mass "Impeach Obama" crowd on this isn't making it easier to actually get to the bottom.

Yeah, neither is the "he can do no wrong crowd". But so what, partisans exists on all issues. Ignore them and judge the evidence on it's own merits
 
Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

And this is exactly what Maggie was discussing.

We say it here, it comes out there.

Seriously, people are going to think I'm your puppet master if you keep doing this.

I don't think people will come to that conclusion at all.

There are two types of people posting on this thread. People that have listened to the testimony, taken in all of the information objectively and understand what Obama and Secretary Clinton did was unforgivable.

And people who are trying to mitigate their dishonesty and lack of integrity.

Obama and Company, literally creating a Video Narrative out of thin air to cover up for a terrorist attack because it was politically expedient. Lying to these people families and then bullying the whistle blowers and STILL claiming they've done nothing wrong.

Obama is still, after he "wen't to bed" while Americans were being killed by terrorist, claiming he's innocent, that they've done nothing wrong.

I don't know how you were raised, but that's a President, our leader acting like a scum bug. Not a leader, a lying POS, with his lying POS Sec of State.
 
Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

But both sides are going to twist it.

See Fenton, He's 100% impeach Obama on this (which stems from his Absolute Democrat Hatred Syndrome)

Getting the absolute truth on this is going to be nearly impossible in the short term.


Impeachment is for " High Crimes and Misdemeanors ". Now sure, there were crimes committed, ( obstruction, perjury ) but I'm more interested in what kind of sub-human POS looks a parent right in the eyes and then lies to him about the death of his son.

Obama and the Democrats are their own worst enemy, sooner or later they will pay for their lies and incompetence.
 
Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

I have heard some interesting theories as of late that are starting to emerge out of Benghazi....We keep saying that it should be compared to Watergate in it's cover up magnitude. I now disagree, and don't think the President will be impeached over this, but his Presidency will be damaged, and Hillary is toast for 2016.

This is more like Iran Contra in my eyes....Think about it....The CIA changed the talking points right? At least that is the story. My question is why? Petreaus was an honorable man as far as I knew at the time. Why would he lie. One theory is in some 30 or so shoulder fired Surface to air missles that went missing in that region, that the Obama administration supplied the fight against Gaddafi.

I always wondered why in the early reporting of the event, that the timeline included that the attack started after a meeting with the Turkish ambassador, then that fact disappeared, and the talking points shifted to Stevens being there to make the consulate a permanent installation.

I think that the real reason was to retrieve those SAM's and turn them over to the Turks, who in turn would then supply them to rebels in Syria, all under the table....This is just more Fast and Furious....

A mysterious Libyan ship -- reportedly carrying weapons and bound for Syrian rebels -- may have some link to the Sept. 11 terror attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Fox News has learned.
Through shipping records, Fox News has confirmed that the Libyan-flagged vessel Al Entisar, which means "The Victory," was received in the Turkish port of Iskenderun -- 35 miles from the Syrian border -- on Sept. 6, just five days before Ambassador Chris Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed during an extended assault by more than 100 Islamist militants.
On the night of Sept. 11, in what would become his last known public meeting, Stevens met with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin, and escorted him out of the consulate front gate one hour before the assault began at approximately 9:35 p.m. local time.
Although what was discussed at the meeting is not public, a source told Fox News that Stevens was in Benghazi to negotiate a weapons transfer, an effort to get SA-7 missiles out of the hands of Libya-based extremists. And although the negotiation said to have taken place may have had nothing to do with the attack on the consulate later that night or the Libyan mystery ship, it could explain why Stevens was travelling in such a volatile region on the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.


Read more: Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador
 
Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

First, how do we know what that guy said is true and he had all the information?

Because, unlike the president, his story hasn't changed repeatedly since September 11, 2012.

So, I'd ask you the same question about this administration: How can you trust what the Administration is saying given the growing evidence that they were lying all along for political gain? It's seems rather absurd to give them credibility over the whistle blowers at this point.
 
Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

They don't mean anything to you because you have a closed mind. You can't see that both parties are to blame. That Clinton thought there were WMD's, Madeline Albright thought there were WMD's, Sandy Berger thought there were WMD's, Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry thought there were WMD's, Nancy Pelosi thought there were WMD's, Senator Bob Graham thought there were WMD's, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Henry Waxman, Hillary Clinton and countless other Democrats thought there were WMD's.

And further, when the rubber met the road, 111 Democrats voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq.

Nope. You, and others like you, hold firm to your completely baseless belief that President Bush acted autonomously and irrationally.

What a complete waste of political thought.


I actually don't have a closed mind.

Those statements show me nothing I didn't know already. Both republicans and democrats lead us into the war in Iraq. I always knew that. Hillary Clinton voted for the war, and that fact has never escaped me for a long time.

The fact that people said or believed there were WMD and made those statements prior to the war, are meaningless since they made those statements while not promoting the Bush Doctrine or the war.

Let's remember how the debate went prior to invading. There was the glaring fact that other countries outright had WMDs, while others were intent on making them... North Korea and Iran. Why invade Iraq on the suspicion of WMDs when we knew for a fact that Iran was enriching uranium all the way back then?

Look at Iran today. What if we invaded them instead and nipped the problem in the butt?



And then there was a second debate point, so what if Iraq did have WMDs? Is that even a valid reason to strike them, and if so, when should the USA stop waging a war on nations with WMDs? Would Iran be next, would North Korea be next? When would America stop?

Ron Paul was fully against invasion, and I grew to support Paul at the time. If they had WMDs, big freaking deal, we don't police the world and start invading countries for having the same weapons we have. The Bush Admin didn't even have enough evidence that Iraq was a high level threat, let alone more threatening than North Korea was at that time. North Korea was openly making nuclear weapons in front of the world, and talking aggressively to America. That was scary.


The war wasn't internationally accepted, despite the argument of WMDs. Combined that with the fact that people actually believed WMDs were possible is a moot point to me. I sided with Ron Paul and others like him. So what if they have WMDs or they possibly have them, it's not just cause to preemptively strike them and wage an aggressive, international campaign.



So what about your open mindedness? Can you accept people like myself thought the WMDs were moot, because regardless if they existed or not doesn't negate the fact that we don't support the Bush Doctrine? Simply having WMDs doesn't mean you should be invaded and destroyed by American forces. That's not the way our foreign policy worked before the Bush Admin, and that's not the way it continued to work under his Admin.

It just wasn't economically feasible and it was a disaster.




The Bush Doctrine is the Bush legacy, and he stands by it. Even when his library was built, he was still propagating the war in Iraq as the right decision, and claims it like a proud moment of his legacy.



With that being said, you really can't argue that Hillary Clinton, Kerry, Pelosi, or even a lot of people in GOP has any intention of furthering or wanting to build on the Bush Doctrine. Everyone of them is NOT responsible for that doctrine. They are only responsible for voting yes. However, Bush and his admin were the leaders in terms of promoting the Bush Doctrine and pushing for a preemptive strike, specifically because of WMDs.

There is a difference.
 
Last edited:
Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

I don't see an impeachment movement out of this. You have to break the law, not make incredibly stupid and cowardly decisions, and we don't even know that Obama was the one that made the decision. Don't get me wrong, you'll get some who get upset and cry for it, but it's unrealistic so it goes nowhere.

I think this was a way to get Hillary out of it gracefully.
 
Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

Note-2-in-Benghazi-guard-caught-taking-pictures-car-322-300x243.png


Lt. Col Wood was the commander in charge of the American security teams in Libya & he testified:

“I feel duty bound to come forward in order to inform and provide a portion of ground truth information. I feel a sense of honor for those individuals who have died in the service of their country.

I realize much of my work in Libya was entangled in sensitive government work... The killing of a US Ambassador is a rare and extraordinary thing and requires our attention as a people.

As a citizen I made the determination that this outweighs all other interests and will risk whatever circumstances may result from my testimony.”.....snip~

Looks like from the Copy to the Overcite Committee.....Lt Col. Wood, might be coming out as a Whistleblower. Which all I am sure most are aware that he cannot just walk out and take the Stand. There are Protocols.
 
Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

Those statements show me nothing I didn't know already. Both republicans and democrats lead us into the war in Iraq. I always knew that. Hillary Clinton voted for the war, and that fact has never escaped me for a long time.

The fact that people said or believed there were WMD and made those statements prior to the war, are meaningless since they made those statements while not promoting the Bush Doctrine or the war.

...so they later changed their minds when it became politically advantageous to do so? :) Shocking.

Let's remember how the debate went prior to invading. There was the glaring fact that other countries outright had WMDs, while others were intent on making them... North Korea and Iran. Why invade Iraq on the suspicion of WMDs when we knew for a fact that Iran was enriching uranium all the way back then?

North Korea in 2003 hadn't detonated a nuclear weapon - that occurred in the second term of the Bush Presidency largely for the same reason that the Iranians spun their program back up; because the US President was seen as incapable of taking steps to stop them.

Look at Iran today. What if we invaded them instead and nipped the problem in the butt?

It would have been a much bigger mess and you would be even more furious about that than the anti-war folks were about Iraq.

And then there was a second debate point, so what if Iraq did have WMDs? Is that even a valid reason to strike them, and if so, when should the USA stop waging a war on nations with WMDs? Would Iran be next, would North Korea be next? When would America stop?

Well, if by "When would America stop" you mean "securing her interests", then the answer is "never". We're still doing it today (though not very well in some areas).

Iraq was a state sponsor of terror with a history of launching WMD's against his own people and aggressive wars against his neighbors. In the post-9/11 world, having those three factors cojoined was intolerable.

If they had WMDs, big freaking deal, we don't police the world and start invading countries for having the same weapons we have.

The Bush Admin didn't even have enough evidence that Iraq was a high level threat, let alone more threatening than North Korea was at that time.

On the contrary, the Bush administration had loads of evidence of both of those. That is why people who had every political incentive to ferret out falsehood in the Bush Administrations' claims (ie: Democrats), but who had access to the same evidence all came out and made the same claims.

North Korea was openly making nuclear weapons in front of the world, and talking aggressively to America. That was scary.

Meh. Sort of. It was scarier when they started exporting the technology to Syria (and by proxy Iran). However, they weren't doing that in 2003, as the NKorean nuclear test didn't come until 2006.

The war wasn't internationally accepted, despite the argument of WMDs.

On the contrary, the coalition that went into Iraq in 2003 was bigger than the coalition that had gone into Kuwait in 1991. People confused "Germany and France" with "international acceptance".

Combined that with the fact that people actually believed WMDs were possible is a moot point to me. I sided with Ron Paul and others like him. So what if they have WMDs or they possibly have them, it's not just cause to preemptively strike them and wage an aggressive, international campaign.

On the contrary, just as a felon purchasing an automatic weapon and a few tons of low-grade explosive is good reason for a police raid here in the States, someone like Saddam pursuing WMD is good reason for intervention abroad.

So what about your open mindedness? Can you accept people like myself thought the WMDs were moot, because regardless if they existed

I can understand that. I take comfort in the fact that at the time you were a small minority, and worry that more people may be coming to that irresponsible conclusion as a way of avoiding trouble in the short term (and creating more of it in the long term). Iran getting nukes, for example, would not be moot. It would be (in the words of the VP) "a big flippin deal".

or not doesn't negate the fact that we don't support the Bush Doctrine?

I'm not sure what you mean by "the Bush Doctrine". Broadly, the Bush Doctrine was the notion that (as much as we were able) we should make the improvement of human liberty abroad a key component of our foreign policy. You seem to think it has something to do with WMD's.

Simply having WMDs doesn't mean you should be invaded and destroyed by American forces. That's not the way our foreign policy worked before the Bush Admin, and that's not the way it continued to work under his Admin.

It is never the way it worked under his administration. Britain, our closest ally, had WMD's. If, however, you are a psychotic abusive tyrant with a history of WMD employment, connections to terrorism, and attacks on your neighbors, then yes, you shouldn't have access to the worlds' most terrifying weapons.

It just wasn't economically feasible and it was a disaster.

It was mishandled from post invasion through 2006/2007, at which point we began to fight a proper counterinsurgency, and then succeeded, only to have the effort sort of prematurely cut off in 2011, with the result that the country has since deteriorated. It was, however, at all times economically feasible.
 
Back
Top Bottom