• 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!

McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

Indeed, "I take responsibility" would be quite a shocker to the GOP base who wear their personal responsibility on their sleeves.

Perhaps she could elaborate on just where she erred in her responsibilities, as well as explaining the role of the Commander in Chief in all of this.
 
No, what is really tragic is that four Americans died fighting for their lives and when questions are raised as to what happened it is called trying "to score political points".

Obama supporters must have the curiosity of a toadstool.

Where were you when the last President sent over 4000 Americans to their death in Iraq under false pretenses. The hypocracy is astounding
 
Where were you when the last President sent over 4000 Americans to their death in Iraq under false pretenses. The hypocracy is astounding
I was in Costa Rica.

But what has this to do with the thread?
 
Where were you when the last President sent over 4000 Americans to their death in Iraq under false pretenses. The hypocracy is astounding

The topic is Benghazi.
 
No battle is continuous. They ebb and flow.

I believe it is a lie that the the president did not know until after the battle was over. Based on when the SECDEF was meeting with Obama he most likely knew the consulate was under attack around the half hour mark. The battle lasted nearly eight hours.
There were two attacks and they were hours apart. The first attack was on the consulate compound and confusion arose when no could find or contact Amb. Stevens. Why? Because he was already dead. They couldn't see that with the drone.

Later a contingency team in an armored vehicle was sent in to evacuate remaining personal at the compound came under attack. A couple of Navy Seals were killed in the effort but they got everyone evacuated ...including the dead.

If Obama really gave the orders he is claiming to have made then why did Panetta keep his job? He should have been fired the very next day. Perhaps the president wad daydreaming about flying to a fundraiser the next day. He was detached, disinterested, cold to the murders of Americans. At the time he was told his Ambassador was missing. He didn't care. He went missing for the next eight hours.
Why did half of the Bush administration and the Pentagon keep their jobs after 9/11? What a mess that was.....

Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's Actions on 9/11

Shortley after the attacks, Bush was flying around in circles over the country for hours without a jet escort and no communication and while there was still possible hijacked planes in the air and after Cheney had given orders to shoot down aircraft without Bush's authority. Can you imagine what would have happened if Air force One had been shot down over US soil by our own military under orders from Cheney?

I understand the cover up. I understand the lies. I understand the politics. The president did not want to be involved just in case it did not go well. So he abandoned four Americans to their deaths so his chances of re-election would remain strong.

I do not understand why you would repeat their lies. Obama's failure to render defense aid to Americans in battle is unrelated to the very timy cuts coming on March first unless the incredibly feckless Boehner capitulates once again.

I even understand why the weak-minded and gullible fall for the fear mongering.
Do you understand that the Republicans are using Bengazi as a political ploy? If not, then you really don't understand politics at all...especially dirty politics. Or maybe you do, since you insist on lying about Obama's feelings, motives and actions. Are you somehow privy to Obama's thoughts and actions 24/7? If so, then why aren't you testifying before congress?

It seems the only reason we're even having this discussion is because McCain refuses to take personal responsibility for missing a two hour briefing at the Whitehouse about Benghazi, and to cover up his embarrassment he then called for a special committee to investigate what he could have learned in two hours if he had only attended the briefing.....


"...Brian Rogers, a spokesman for McCain, said the senator missed the briefing due to a “scheduling error.” Rogers declined to comment when The Huffington Post asked for a reaction to comments from Collins and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that a special committee for Benghazi is unnecessary, or if McCain has spoken with Collins since the briefing.....read.."
John McCain Gets Angry Over Questions About Missed Benghazi Briefing

"Friends of Hamas" can tell you just how bad the quality of information and communication really is in D.C. these days....especially among Republicans.
 
Last edited:
Sure am glad we didn't elect McCain who was fine with military troops being in Iraq for the next 100 years!

"U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today issued the following statement regarding President Obama’s decision to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by the end of this year:

“Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world. I respectfully disagree with the President: this decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

During the Iraq Insurrection, we killed 6,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.

When President G.W. Bush left office there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Guess what ?, Al Qaeda is back in Iraq today.
 
Perhaps she could elaborate on just where she erred in her responsibilities, as well as explaining the role of the Commander in Chief in all of this.
She did that during the hearing and if I recall she said that congress had underfunded the State Department and refused to fund for more security at the embassies.

Short of giving a direct order to do everything possible to help the personell under attack at Benghazi, what else would you have the president do?
 
Delegation is fine for many things. I do not think it is ever acceptable to have one brief conversation about this battle and then move on to prepare for a fund raiser.
It might surprise you to know that a lot of people are capable of multi-tasking. Once Obama gave a direct order to Panetta, he had every right to assume it would be carried out. At that point, Panetta was responsible.

My question is, where was the CIA during all this? Oh thats right, General Patreus was having an affair with a subordinate.


We may not make it to 2016.

The fight belongs to the States now.
I don't trust the states, either.
 
There were two attacks and they were hours apart. The first attack was on the consulate compound and confusion arose when no could find or contact Amb. Stevens. Why? Because he was already dead. They couldn't see that with the drone.

Later a contingency team in an armored vehicle was sent in to evacuate remaining personal at the compound came under attack. A couple of Navy Seals were killed in the effort but they got everyone evacuated ...including the dead.

Why did half of the Bush administration and the Pentagon keep their jobs after 9/11? What a mess that was.....

Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's Actions on 9/11

Shortley after the attacks, Bush was flying around in circles over the country for hours without a jet escort and no communication and while there was still possible hijacked planes in the air and after Cheney had given orders to shoot down aircraft without Bush's authority. Can you imagine what would have happened if Air force One had been shot down over US soil by our own military under orders from Cheney?

Do you understand that the Republicans are using Bengazi as a political ploy? If not, then you really don't understand politics at all...especially dirty politics. Or maybe you do, since you insist on lying about Obama's feelings, motives and actions. Are you somehow privy to Obama's thoughts and actions 24/7? If so, then why aren't you testifying before congress?

It seems the only reason we're even having this discussion is because McCain refuses to take personal responsibility for missing a two hour briefing at the Whitehouse about Benghazi, and to cover up his embarrassment he then called for a special committee to investigate what he could have learned in two hours if he had only attended the briefing.....


"...Brian Rogers, a spokesman for McCain, said the senator missed the briefing due to a “scheduling error.” Rogers declined to comment when The Huffington Post asked for a reaction to comments from Collins and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that a special committee for Benghazi is unnecessary, or if McCain has spoken with Collins since the briefing.....read.."
John McCain Gets Angry Over Questions About Missed Benghazi Briefing

"Friends of Hamas" can tell you just how bad the quality of information and communication really is in D.C. these days....especially among Republicans.

More wattabout Bush! It never gets old for some.
 
She did that during the hearing and if I recall she said that congress had underfunded the State Department and refused to fund for more security at the embassies.

Short of giving a direct order to do everything possible to help the personell under attack at Benghazi, what else would you have the president do?

So it wasn't her fault after all. huh? Instead it was 'underfunding'. Perhaps she and Obama should have considered the safety of their fellow Americans before jetting around the world or wasting tax dollars on companies like Solyndra.

The President should have done everything possible to save those men and stayed on the job until it was certain he did all he could do. He abdicated his responsibility
 
During the Iraq Insurrection, we killed 6,000 Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq.

When President G.W. Bush left office there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Guess what ?, Al Qaeda is back in Iraq today.
There wasn't any Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush invaded in 2003, either. In fact, was the 2003 invasion and Abu Graib that helped to swell the ranks of Al Qaeda and recruit young muslim men from all over the world to fight against the US in Iraq. So I find it hard to believe there wasn't any Al Qaeda in Iraq when Bush left office.
 
More wattabout Bush! It never gets old for some.

I think its a valid comparison. Republicans won't be satisfied without a severed head to parade around on a pike all because of a comparatively minor incident at a consulate in Libya. Where was this zeal when their man and his people were exposed as so incompetent and negligent that we were unable to defend the nation while 19 men armed with nothing but box cutters humbled the mighty military juggernaut?
 
Last edited:
I think its a valid comparison. Republicans won't be satisfied without a severed head to parade around on a pike all because of a comparatively minor incident at a consulate in Libya. Where was this zeal when their man and his people were exposed as so incompetent and negligent that we were unable to defend the nation while it was under attack?

It's a common deflection. No matter the thread topic it always comes back to whatabout Bush. It's been discussed ad nauseum over the years but if you genuinely feel the need to discuss George Bush just start a thread on the subject, not hijack other threads.
 
It's a common deflection. No matter the thread topic it always comes back to whatabout Bush. It's been discussed ad nauseum over the years but if you genuinely feel the need to discuss George Bush just start a thread on the subject, not hijack other threads.

Sorry, you guys don't get off that easy. The hypocrisy cries out for mention.
 
There wasn't any Al Qaeda in Iraq before Bush invaded in 2003, either. In fact, was the 2003 invasion and Abu Graib that helped to swell the ranks of Al Qaeda and recruit young muslim men from all over the world to fight against the US in Iraq. So I find it hard to believe there wasn't any Al Qaeda in Iraq when Bush left office.

Ah yes, who can ever forget the invasion of Abu Graib and all those idealistic young men arriving from all over the world to defend it.
 
Sorry, you guys don't get off that easy. The hypocrisy cries out for mention.

Oh another one who wants to discuss George Bush, huh? Why not start a thread? You do know this is about Benghazi, right?
 
Sorry, you guys don't get off that easy. The hypocrisy cries out for mention.

This thread is about Benghazi, not Bush. Some of us would like to stick to the topic.
 
So it wasn't her fault after all. huh? Instead it was 'underfunding'. Perhaps she and Obama should have considered the safety of their fellow Americans before jetting around the world or wasting tax dollars on companies like Solyndra.

The President should have done everything possible to save those men and stayed on the job until it was certain he did all he could do. He abdicated his responsibility
The GOP political witchhunt over Benghazi is costing taxpayers a lot more money than Solyndra ever did.

Abraham Lincoln built and financed a railroad during the middle of the Civil War and the Congress was still passing legislation just as if nothing was happening. It was just business as usual, minus a few southern congressmen.

I see no reason why Obama would need to sit there and wait once he was briefed and the orders were given. Any further updates could be relayed to him via modern communications and technology. Personally, I prefer a president who can do more than just one thing at a time.
 
The "Benghazi" incident would have legs if there was a reason for it: Instead, all we have is charges of massive coverup and conspiracy--------------But to do what ?...........................John McCain just looks like he's catering to the Fox News "believers"............
 
It's a common deflection. No matter the thread topic it always comes back to whatabout Bush. It's been discussed ad nauseum over the years but if you genuinely feel the need to discuss George Bush just start a thread on the subject, not hijack other threads.
How is it possible to forget Bush when we'll paying the debt for Iraq for decades to come?
 
The GOP political witchhunt over Benghazi is costing taxpayers a lot more money than Solyndra ever did.

Really? Are the numbers already in?

Share please.
Abraham Lincoln built and financed a railroad during the middle of the Civil War and the Congress was still passing legislation just as if nothing was happening. It was just business as usual, minus a few southern congressmen.

Good point.
I see no reason why Obama would need to sit there and wait once he was briefed and the orders were given. Any further updates could be relayed to him via modern communications and technology. Personally, I prefer a president who can do more than just one thing at a time.

No, I understand you can see no reason why he should stick around when Americana are under attack. Any idea what he might have been doing instead?.

But of course he did give a different story as well.

Do you still believe it was the fault of the Internet guy too?
 
How is it possible to forget Bush when we'll paying the debt for Iraq for decades to come?

Well if it's Iraq you want to discuss start a thread on the subject. This is about a different President and a different country.
 
No, I understand you can see no reason why he should stick around when Americana are under attack. Any idea what he might have been doing instead?

Reading "My Pet Goat" perhaps?
 
The "Benghazi" incident would have legs if there was a reason for it: Instead, all we have is charges of massive coverup and conspiracy--------------But to do what ?...........................John McCain just looks like he's catering to the Fox News "believers"............

Great conspiracy theory, Bonzai. I'll bet you have a lot more too. Am I right?
 
Back
Top Bottom