• 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!

Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

True. He doesn't know much about anything his administration does. According to Obama in his recent OReilly interview, just a few boneheads ruined entire agencies and a significant piece of foreign policy. Who knows how bad it could've been if a few more boneheads were around? So Obama has done us a favor by limiting the number of boneheads in his administration to a select few. Thanks, Obama.
yes. That seems to play better for political deflection. Our society (USA) prefers a "bonehead" administration to an untruthful governance.

Dissembling is fine, as long as it isn't a direct lie. Incompetence is assumed, no one gets upset that both Congress, and POTUS are essentially dysfunctional.
 
yes. That seems to play better for political deflection. Our society (USA) prefers a "bonehead" administration to an untruthful governance.

Dissembling is fine, as long as it isn't a direct lie. Incompetence is assumed, no one gets upset that both Congress, and POTUS are essentially dysfunctional.

The implication is that had Obama known some of these "unknown" things, things would be different. Nothing has surfaced to indicate that things would indeed be any different than they were, though. The administration was aware that security was non-existent at Benghazi. The administration was aware of the IRS targeting. The administration was aware that they'd lost track of the weapons in Fast and Furious. There's a long list. To indicate that Obama would've done things differently flies in the face of the fact that he didn't do anything differently. If there are boneheads involved, they would include Clinton, Holder, Obama's own WH counsel, Sebellius and so on. Hardly low level people reporting to the janitor.
 
Again, doesn't matter at all.

It seems to have mattered to many, especially the victims and their families.

You have bought into Hillary Clinton's line it seems. All you good little leftists deserve a pat on the head.
 
I don't have a lot to say about the report.

I am curious about the claim that the U.S. destroyed Libya based upon lies or something. Specifically it seems as if the argument is being made that Obama is responsible for Libya.

Is that the case?
 
True. He doesn't know much about anything his administration does. According to Obama in his recent OReilly interview, just a few boneheads ruined entire agencies and a significant piece of foreign policy. Who knows how bad it could've been if a few more boneheads were around? So Obama has done us a favor by limiting the number of boneheads in his administration to a select few. Thanks, Obama.

And I guess he is an idiot because he likely has no idea how his attempts to defend his administration add up to a fantastic argument against big government anything.
 
I understand that the buck stops with the President. Realistically however it's simply not possible for him to know specifically everything about embassy/consulate security issues in individual nations as well as understand the contents of all the State Department requests and the outcomes of those requests is simply ludicrous.

Just as ludicrous as the whole "Navy Seals were pleading for help and Obama ignored them" crap.

Just as ludicrous as saying GWB specifically ignored the threat from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He didn't. Rice certainly did. I don't think GWB ever got properly briefed on the situation. It was a case of people who worked for him not agreeing with the people working in the counter terrorism and intelligence field. 9/11 could have been prevented. But just because it happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean Bush somehow caused it or is even remotely responsible for it.

Did it happen on his watch? Yes. Certainly somebody did not recognize the gravity and timeliness of the situation. Somebody, several somebodies, should have known better.

Terrible situation. Hyper partisan amping up of the facts don't do anything worthwhile.
 
It seems to have mattered to many, especially the victims and their families.

You have bought into Hillary Clinton's line it seems. All you good little leftists deserve a pat on the head.

No, and you don't seem to understand what's being said. I can type slower if it helps.
 
Ahhh I thought the argument was being made in a different context. I've read all of this before. I agree with folks from both sides on certain points. Meh. Anyway...
I don't know what other contexts exist. Some focus on the 9-11 attack on Bengazi ; other like myself focus on the entire war as jumping the shark to regime change.

I suppose there are those who actually think the Libyan war was a good idea/outcome.
 
I don't know what other contexts exist. Some focus on the 9-11 attack on Bengazi ; other like myself focus on the entire war as jumping the shark to regime change.

I suppose there are those who actually think the Libyan war was a good idea/outcome.

Not for Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods it wasn't.
 
I don't have a lot to say about the report.

I am curious about the claim that the U.S. destroyed Libya based upon lies or something. Specifically it seems as if the argument is being made that Obama is responsible for Libya.

Is that the case?

Yes that is largely the case, although there's blame enough for other Western countries, especially France. Bottom line being, 1973 authorized the use of force to protect civilians, and said nothing about removing the Libyan government, and, Russia was a keen observer including by satellite, and vocal from the beginning that the cruise missiles flying from US ships were hitting targets consistent with "regime change"! And this is the STATED reason that when attention moved on to Syria, both China and Russia consistently vetoed all attempts by the US to secure a resolution for the use of force there. Because as Bush tried but failed to articulate, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".
 
I quoted a French leader who had also agreed that Saddam had WMD.. There is a difference.

You aren't American, correct?

The French agreed that Saddam had at some point had WMD. However pointed out that Hans Blix's report made an attack/invasion of Iraq unnecessary, at least at the time that George Bush was feigning that we must hurry for he's 6 months away from delivering a mushroom cloud over a US city. And my citizenship has what to do with this conversation?
 
how in the heck could Saddam have gotten a nuclear detonation on the North American continent? "Imminent and grave" is ridiculous.

It was always ridiculous, and even embarrassing. But Bush was desperate for his LONG anticipated war with Iraq, and even (as quoted earlier) France just 30 days before the attack was saying, no, "the Blix report". But when the Bush administration was asking if we had to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city, Americans listened! Fear sells.
 
Perhaps, but we're not occupying Libya.

Only because it wasn't deemed necessary. Not because one regime (I mean of course administration) is more benevolent than the other.
 
No, it's not the only difference. Neither is good, but they are not the same.

Well sure, huge differences could of course be pointed out between Libya and Iraq. But the similarities are what's important, and at topic.
 
Only because it wasn't deemed necessary. Not because one regime (I mean of course administration) is more benevolent than the other.

Iraq wasn't necessary, so that is a difference in how they handle what isn't necessary. I haven't called Obama's administration benevolent. Just not as bad as Bush's was. There is much I disagree with Obama on. I just won't pretend he has done as poorly as Bush on these things.
 
I understand that the buck stops with the President. Realistically however it's simply not possible for him to know specifically everything about embassy/consulate security issues in individual nations as well as understand the contents of all the State Department requests and the outcomes of those requests is simply ludicrous.

Just as ludicrous as the whole "Navy Seals were pleading for help and Obama ignored them" crap.

Just as ludicrous as saying GWB specifically ignored the threat from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He didn't. Rice certainly did. I don't think GWB ever got properly briefed on the situation. It was a case of people who worked for him not agreeing with the people working in the counter terrorism and intelligence field. 9/11 could have been prevented. But just because it happened on Bush's watch doesn't mean Bush somehow caused it or is even remotely responsible for it.

Did it happen on his watch? Yes. Certainly somebody did not recognize the gravity and timeliness of the situation. Somebody, several somebodies, should have known better.

Terrible situation. Hyper partisan amping up of the facts don't do anything worthwhile.

Wow! So, we should just ignore it, and pretend that everything possible was done right? We should be content that some poor schmuck that made a stupid video years ago was thrown into jail to further a lie? We should be content with our leaders openly lying to our face?

What did the President know? When did he know it? and What did he instruct be done about it? These are questions that EVERY american should want to know.
 
Well sure, huge differences could of course be pointed out between Libya and Iraq. But the similarities are what's important, and at topic.

I don't think so. I believe the differences matter.
 
Iraq wasn't necessary, so that is a difference in how they handle what isn't necessary. I haven't called Obama's administration benevolent. Just not as bad as Bush's was. There is much I disagree with Obama on. I just won't pretend he has done as poorly as Bush on these things.

Was Lybia necessary?
 
Yes that is largely the case, although there's blame enough for other Western countries, especially France. Bottom line being, 1973 authorized the use of force to protect civilians, and said nothing about removing the Libyan government, and, Russia was a keen observer including by satellite, and vocal from the beginning that the cruise missiles flying from US ships were hitting targets consistent with "regime change"! And this is the STATED reason that when attention moved on to Syria, both China and Russia consistently vetoed all attempts by the US to secure a resolution for the use of force there. Because as Bush tried but failed to articulate, "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

very good point. "degrading" Assad, as Obama was proposing, was a bad idea - but China and Russia did properly point to the regime change in Libya as a reason not to trust the US.
Granted it was more then the US in Libya, but the US did command and control and fired the most missiles, most sorties.
 
Was Lybia necessary?

More than Iraq was, and not really just a US effort. No coalition of the willing. But not something I supported.
 
Back
Top Bottom