• 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!

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war[W:292]

MMC said:
;)


The release of a majority report from the House Intelligence Committee investigation into Benghazi, started long before Speaker John Boehner finally called a Select Committee for a comprehensive investigation, provided the media with grist for their narrative that the entire scandal was nothing more than GOP paranoia. It became almost immediately clear that the media hadn’t actually bothered to read the report, as Mollie Hemingway deduced at The Federalist, as the report actually substantiated a number of criticisms of the Obama administration, the CIA and State Department in particular. Noah wrote shortly afterward that any sense of vindication claimed from the substance of the report founders on the clear conclusion that State under Hillary Clinton utterly failed to provide adequate security for a dangerous location, and that the US government under Barack Obama was shockingly unprepared for hostile action on the anniversary of 9/11. “Some victory,” Noah concluded.

All of the above analysis is based on a straightforward acceptance of the HIC report, though. Stephen Hayes takes a much closer and critical look at the document for The Weekly Standard, and finds huge holes in the work — and blames it on the outgoing chair of the committee, Mike Rogers:


The revelations even roused the establishment media from their Benghazi torpor and generated extraordinarily hostile questioning of White House press secretary Jay Carney by reporters who had trusted his claims of administration noninvolvement. None of this convinced Rogers to make Benghazi a priority—a fact that frustrated many of the committee’s members. Boehner received a steady stream of visits and phone calls from House members who complained that Rogers wasn’t doing his job. In all, seven members of the intelligence committee took their concerns directly to the speaker or his top aides......snip~


About that House Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi, Part III … « Hot Air


Click to expand...

Oh man a conservative political blog and Lindsay Ghram dont like the findings! 8 investigation. Maybe the 9th will get em right Ghram?
 
matchlight said:
The weakness of this president's response also has a lot to do with making them look like winners. An average of seven airstrikes a day is not going to accomplish much--and this lack of seriousness by President Limpwrist makes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar even less willing to stick their necks out. They were only making a few pinprick air attacks here and there to begin with, and even then only against ISIS, and not the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria that they side with.

Jordan is only doing as much as it is the past few days because of the disclosure of the gruesome murder of its pilot. But its situation is too precarious to allow it to lead the charge for very long. A good part of Jordan's population sympathizes with the jihadists, and the influx of refugees has made it harder for King Abdullah to govern. Worse, thousands of Jordanians have gone into Syria to fight with the jihadists, and some of them are sure to return to operate inside Jordan.

The U.S. cannot lead this fight from behind, and this sorry excuse for a president is endangering our national security by trying. A half-hearted effort that lets these people continue to have a safe haven is asking for another attack on U.S. soil, possibly even worse than 9/11.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you doing here posting on a Forum? You need to get out there and fight those SOB's
 
MMC said:
Then why did many of those that Were on that Committee......come and point out to the Camera that McKeon was not handling the investigation as he should have? Why did they dispute his findings? Also why did those on the Senate Committee point out some facts that McKeon missed yet was proven to be true later.
Click to expand...

Probably for the same reasons that despite the fact that 70% of Americans for sometime now no longer believe the Warren Commissions conclusions, yet it remains Americas official story, lol.
 
matchlight said:
The weakness of this president's response also has a lot to do with making them look like winners. An average of seven airstrikes a day is not going to accomplish much--and this lack of seriousness by President Limpwrist makes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar even less willing to stick their necks out. They were only making a few pinprick air attacks here and there to begin with, and even then only against ISIS, and not the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria that they side with.

Jordan is only doing as much as it is the past few days because of the disclosure of the gruesome murder of its pilot. But its situation is too precarious to allow it to lead the charge for very long. A good part of Jordan's population sympathizes with the jihadists, and the influx of refugees has made it harder for King Abdullah to govern. Worse, thousands of Jordanians have gone into Syria to fight with the jihadists, and some of them are sure to return to operate inside Jordan.

The U.S. cannot lead this fight from behind, and this sorry excuse for a president is endangering our national security by trying. A half-hearted effort that lets these people continue to have a safe haven is asking for another attack on U.S. soil, possibly even worse than 9/11.
Click to expand...

Saudi Arabia, the country with the worlds fourth largest military, the country that has sponsored terrorism for decades, the country who supplied 15 of the 9/11 attackers and financed the operation. Thankfully, Obama hasn't committed us more than he has already.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Oh man a conservative political blog and Lindsay Ghram dont like the findings! 8 investigation. Maybe the 9th will get em right Ghram?
Click to expand...

Oh man, :shock: don't let those little blue highlighted words fool you. They are known as links to the direct sources. I wouldn't want to be accused of taking advantage of ya now. :mrgreen:

Oh btw.....was CNN a good enough camera for you? :lol:
 
MMC said:
Oh man, :shock: don't let those little blue highlighted words fool you. They are known as links to the direct sources. I wouldn't want to be accused of taking advantage of ya now. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Yea to twitter, and other conservative news sites like The Weekly Standard, and other pieces from HotAir..
 
pbrauer said:
What the hell are you doing here posting on a Forum? You need to get out there and fight those SOB's
Click to expand...

There's no need to ask what you are doing here. Anyone can see where your sympathies lie.
 
Montecresto said:
Saudi Arabia, the country with the worlds fourth largest military
Click to expand...

That is an extremely misleading assertion. I am not misled by it, and neither should anyone else be. I am happy to see you show your credibility to everyone reading this thread.

the country who supplied 15 of the 9/11 attackers and financed the operation.
Click to expand...

Did you learn that from a Michael Moore movie, or Mother Jones? You don't have the vaguest notion what nationality those hijackers were, and neither does anyone else. Do you really imagine Al Qaeda did not have experts who supported its operations with all sorts of forged documents? It had two cells just in Spain that specialized in doing exactly that. And your assertion that Saudi Arabia financed the 9/11 attacks is a pipe dream, with no reliable evidence whatever to support it.

Thankfully, Obama hasn't committed us more than he has already.
Click to expand...

Having seen you run the U.S. down repeatedly on several threads here, I can easily believe you're thankful the lying, un-American Red who is disgracing the White House is not doing more against this country's Islamic jihadist enemies.
 
MMC said:
Which then takes you directly to the House Intel Report. Imagine that.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt .Takes you to some piece written by two people with no sources. The HotAir sources link the report itself. But then they go on to repeat other opinon pieces and cite those.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
No it doesnt .Takes you to some piece written by two people with no sources. The HotAir sources link the report itself. But then they go on to repeat other opinon pieces and cite those.
Click to expand...

Then what is this link from the AP doing on the second Hot Air Piece? Must be a reason why the Articles are connected huh?

House intel panel debunks many Benghazi theories

Truly you just don't know what you are talking about when it comes to media sources TDS.

Do you always make **** up on the fly hoping it won't get shown for whats real?
 
MMC said:
Then what is this link from the AP doing on the second Hot Air Piece? Must be a reason why the Articles are connected huh?

House intel panel debunks many Benghazi theories
Click to expand...

Oh wow a source cites an opinion of another source (another article from the same media outlet), that cites a source. Imagine that!
Truly you just don't know what you are talking about when it comes to media sources TDS.
Click to expand...
:lamo
Coming from the guy who frequents the "WashingtonTimes", "Townhall", and the "Weekly Standard" I'll take your attack as a compliment.

Do you always make **** up on the fly hoping it won't get shown for whats real?
Click to expand...
Where did I "make **** up on the fly"? And what did you "shoot down"?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Oh wow a source cites an opinion of another source (another article from the same media outlet), that cites a source. Imagine that!

:lamo
Coming from the guy who frequents the "WashingtonTimes", "Townhall", and the "Weekly Standard" I'll take your attack as a compliment.


Where did I "make **** up on the fly"? And what did you "shoot down"?
Click to expand...




To bad your false characterization doesn't add up......considering I use ABC, CBS, and NBC. As well overseas sources, As well as just about anyone in Print, that is anyone.


You just said there wasn't any links that it takes you to two people with no source. Your Post 186. Did you forget what you said already? I just showed you, where you made **** up on the fly. The Hot Air piece goes to another Hot Air piece since the issue is related and directly to the AP.

So your BS was shot down. That's where you are at. Not knowing what you were talking about. It is all Right here to see. So its not like you thought.....nor is it like you said at all. That's just the reality of things.
 
matchlight said:
That is an extremely misleading assertion. I am not misled by it, and neither should anyone else be. I am happy to see you show your credibility to everyone reading this thread.



Did you learn that from a Michael Moore movie, or Mother Jones? You don't have the vaguest notion what nationality those hijackers were, and neither does anyone else. Do you really imagine Al Qaeda did not have experts who supported its operations with all sorts of forged documents? It had two cells just in Spain that specialized in doing exactly that. And your assertion that Saudi Arabia financed the 9/11 attacks is a pipe dream, with no reliable evidence whatever to support it.



Having seen you run the U.S. down repeatedly on several threads here, I can easily believe you're thankful the lying, un-American Red who is disgracing the White House is not doing more against this country's Islamic jihadist enemies.
Click to expand...

Ok match, other than the US, China and Russia, who's spending more on their military in the world than SA. And tell me exactly why, if they wanted to, they couldn't extinguish the Islamic State straightaway?? Huh?
 
matchlight said:
That is an extremely misleading assertion. I am not misled by it, and neither should anyone else be. I am happy to see you show your credibility to everyone reading this thread.



Did you learn that from a Michael Moore movie, or Mother Jones? You don't have the vaguest notion what nationality those hijackers were, and neither does anyone else. Do you really imagine Al Qaeda did not have experts who supported its operations with all sorts of forged documents? It had two cells just in Spain that specialized in doing exactly that. And your assertion that Saudi Arabia financed the 9/11 attacks is a pipe dream, with no reliable evidence whatever to support it.



Having seen you run the U.S. down repeatedly on several threads here, I can easily believe you're thankful the lying, un-American Red who is disgracing the White House is not doing more against this country's Islamic jihadist enemies.
Click to expand...

Neither of those sources, but the head of the investigative team that has seen the yet classified 28 pages of the 9/11 report.

Mr. Lynch and his allies have been joined by former Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee was a leader of the inquiry. He has called for the release of the report’s Part 4, which dealt with Saudi Arabia, since President George W. Bush ordered it classified when the rest of the report was released in December 2002.

Mr. Graham has repeatedly said it shows that Saudi Arabia was complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks. “The 28 pages primarily relate to who financed 9/11, and they point a very strong finger at Saudi Arabia as being the principal financier,” Mr. Graham said last month as he pressed for the pages to be made public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/u...new-light-on-secret-pages-of-9-11-report.html
 
matchlight said:
That is an extremely misleading assertion. I am not misled by it, and neither should anyone else be. I am happy to see you show your credibility to everyone reading this thread.



Did you learn that from a Michael Moore movie, or Mother Jones? You don't have the vaguest notion what nationality those hijackers were, and neither does anyone else. Do you really imagine Al Qaeda did not have experts who supported its operations with all sorts of forged documents? It had two cells just in Spain that specialized in doing exactly that. And your assertion that Saudi Arabia financed the 9/11 attacks is a pipe dream, with no reliable evidence whatever to support it.



Having seen you run the U.S. down repeatedly on several threads here, I can easily believe you're thankful the lying, un-American Red who is disgracing the White House is not doing more against this country's Islamic jihadist enemies.
Click to expand...

Having seen you run down the president as you have your entire history here, a bit hypocritical of you to complain as you do. You think your some American patriot or something match, hmmm?
 
Montecresto said:
That is totally true, not unlike the evidence that exists that Bush lied about Iraq from day one. Now, the question is, what the **** are we going to do about our leaders that keep doing this to us, and those poor citizens of the Middle East that are victimised by it???? Keep pretending that only the other party does it?
Click to expand...

I agree, we have to hold everyone accountable!


Now, I said I was going to post MSM information saying that the Obama administration was lying about Libya since day one. Here it is.

1. The White House was saying that Gaddafi was bombing/raping civilians, which played a major catalyst as to why we went in. This is false.

Mr. Invisible said:
I would say that an intervention in Syria is possible. However, I would like to say that there is a lot of going on in regards to Syria.

In regards to Libya, there was no investigation into if the accusations against Gaddafi even held any weight. For example:

"Human rights organisations have cast doubt on claims of mass rape and other abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, which have been widely used to justify Nato's war in Libya." (Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent)

"Still, the rebels have offered their own far-fetched claims, like mass rapes by loyalist troops issued tablets of Viagra. Although the rebels have not offered credible proof, that claim is nonetheless the basis of an investigation by the International Criminal Court." (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/24/world/africa/24fog.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all)​
Click to expand...


See this as well:

Mr. Invisible said:
Actually

Q: Do you see any evidence that he [Gaddafi] actually has fired on his own people from the air? There were reports of it, but do you have independent confirmation? If so, to what extent?

SEC. GATES: We’ve seen the press reports, but we have no confirmation of that.

ADM. MULLEN: That’s correct. We’ve seen no confirmation whatsoever.​

Source: Defense.gov News Transcript: DOD News Briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the Pentagon

Look here as well: Russia Intel Satelite shows Gaddafi Did NOT Attack His People - YouTube
Click to expand...

2. Obama said that due to the limited nature of our engagement in Libya, he didn't need Congressional approval. This is actually false.

Obama actually violated the War Powers Act as

Mr. Invisible said:
he War Powers Act does allow for the President to use force without Congressional authorization for 90 days, but only in certain circumstances.



  • 1. A declaration of war

    2. A specific statutory authorization

    3. A national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
(Avalon Project - War Powers Resolution)

"Specific statutory authorization” in this case means Congressional approval, as the root word, statute, is defined as “a law enacted by the legislative branch of a government.” (Statute - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
Click to expand...

In addition to this, he alleged that he was protecting civilians when the true goal of the operation was to overthrow Gaddafi.

Mr. Invisible said:
Enforcing a no fly zone my ass. The main goal was to overthrow Gaddafi. The UN Security Council Resolution clearly stated (ODS HOME PAGE) for UN members "to take all necessary measures [...] to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."

Obama, Sarkozy, and Cameron even admitted it (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/opinion/15iht-edlibya15.html) when they said "Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power." (emphasis added)
Click to expand...


So yeah, we have been lied to about Libya since day one.​
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I agree, we have to hold everyone accountable!


Now, I said I was going to post MSM information saying that the Obama administration was lying about Libya since day one. Here it is.

1. The White House was saying that Gaddafi was bombing/raping civilians, which played a major catalyst as to why we went in. This is false.



See this as well:



2. Obama said that due to the limited nature of our engagement in Libya, he didn't need Congressional approval. This is actually false.

Obama actually violated the War Powers Act as



In addition to this, he alleged that he was protecting civilians when the true goal of the operation was to overthrow Gaddafi.




So yeah, we have been lied to about Libya since day one.
Click to expand...

Indubitably, which is precisely why both Russia and China vetoed all US attempts to secure a resolution for force in Syria, they didn't want a redux of Libya.
 
Montecresto said:
Having seen you run down the president as you have your entire history here, a bit hypocritical of you to complain as you do. You think your some American patriot or something match, hmmm?
Click to expand...

The notion that a person's criticism of a president of the United States is evidence of that person's dislike of the United States itself is ludicrous. Do you imagine Barack Obama is some kind of emperor we all must bow down to? It's exactly because I and millions of other Americans love this country that we hate to see a damned statist liar who has disdain for everything about it, and who does not wish it well, disgracing the White House. It's easy to understand why statists who share Obama's distaste for this country and his readiness to appease its enemies think so well of him.
 
MMC said:
Yeah, she got tricked by the French and she was listening to Susan Rice her Ambassador in the UN. This is what people have been saying with going after Hillary. Not just due to her Incompetence with Benghazi. But her real screw up with Libya and the how she got BO peep to tag along.
Click to expand...

If she lied to get us into a war, thats extraordinary news. I guess we shall see.
 
MMC said:
Uhhh.....it took action from a UN Ambassador and a Sec. of State to get the ball rolling and get the US involved.

Oh you must have forgot the bill Dick Durbin pressed forward to get more arms to the Ukrainians and get them more aid. As usual only looking at the Republicans.....while feigning concern about a hack show.

Looks like you are more concerned about Hillary than finding out about any truth.
Click to expand...

This thread delivers in the lefty replies. Im loving it.
 
US Conservative said:
Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.

The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.


Read more: Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

More here... http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/621724

A few interesting points here... It suggests that Hillary was relying on false intelligence to go into Libya. Hillary was apparently pushing the genocide angle, is Kucinich lying?

In any case, its interesting what parallels between the lefts arguments on Iraq and going into Libya are...
Click to expand...

The Main Stream Media won't touch it, and with a Nation full of Grubercrats, this will be a non-issue. The Media has having Hillary's Crown sized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom