• 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

Grant said:
Not a bad guess. But whatever he was doing it wasn't saving American lives.
Click to expand...

What are your expectations of a President while a consulate more than 6,000 miles away is under attack? What specific actions do you think the President should take?
 
Grant said:
Great conspiracy theory, Bonzai. I'll bet you have a lot more too. Am I right?
Click to expand...

My favorite "revelations" from Fox are the one's that failed to launch, like Gibson Guitars................
 
Napoleon said:
What are your expectations of a President while a consulate more than 6,000 miles away is under attack? What specific actions do you think the President should take?
Click to expand...

You think distance is a problem? FDR just kept up with his rest while waiting for the homing pigeons to bring word?
 
nota bene said:
You think distance is a problem? FDR just kept up with his rest while waiting for the homing pigeons to bring word?
Click to expand...

You're welcome to answer those questions yourself. BTW - I'd consider a World War to require more involvement than an attack on a consulate in Libya.
 
Napoleon said:
What are your expectations of a President while a consulate more than 6,000 miles away is under attack? What specific actions do you think the President should take?
Click to expand...

Proper Planning Prevents Particularly Poor Performance.

I was unaware that US security policy was based upon distance from DC.

Less mileage is good, more mileage is bad?

Really!?
 
Napoleon said:
Distance ALWAYS has negative impacts on response time. Would you care to answer those questions?
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Partial quote to avoid issues.

I don't waste time with avoiders like you.
 
Napoleon said:
You're welcome to answer those questions yourself. BTW - I'd consider a World War to require more involvement than an attack on a consulate in Libya.
Click to expand...

Umm, you're moving the goalposts. What you said was, "What are your expectations of a President while a consulate more than 6,000 miles away is under attack? What specific actions do you think the President should take?"

You seem to think that mileage is a problem for Presidents, but in addition to homing pigeons, they also have encrypted messages and phones too. What I mean is that even before you were born, Presidents faced logistical communication problems...and seemed to remain informed. The current President had communication advantages not even dreamed of in the 1940's...so why wasn't in the "situation room"?
 
nota bene said:
Umm, you're moving the goalposts. What you said was, "What are your expectations of a President while a consulate more than 6,000 miles away is under attack? What specific actions do you think the President should take?" You seem to think that mileage is a problem for Presidents, but in addition to homing pigeons, they also have encrypted messages and phones too. What I mean is that even before you were born, Presidents faced logistical communication problems...and seemed to remain informed. The current President had communication advantages not even dreamed of in the 1940's...so why wasn't in the "situation room"?
Click to expand...

I'm not moving the goalposts. You are avoiding the question. So, again, what precisely are your expectations? What specific actions do you believe the President should have taken. I'm sick of seeing people whine about it without saying specifically what they think he should have done. Aside from planting his ass in a chair in the Situation room; what specific actions do you think he should have taken?
 
Grant said:
Really? Are the numbers already in?

Share please.
Click to expand...
This thread is about Benghazi not Solandra, remember? :naughty

Good point.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I thought so, too.

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?.
Click to expand...
Plotting to take over the world, I imagine.

Americans are under attack 24/7 in Afganistan. Where's your bleeding heart for them?

But of course he did give a different story as well.
Click to expand...
Of course.

Do you still believe it was the fault of the Internet guy too?
Click to expand...
I think it was a terrorist attack, but it could have been inspired by the video tape and/or the anniversary of 9/11. Who knows, really? I'll wait for the movie. lol
 
Napoleon said:
I'm not moving the goalposts. You are avoiding the question. So, again, what precisely are your expectations? What specific actions do you believe the President should have taken. I'm sick of seeing people whine about it without saying specifically what they think he should have done. Aside from planting his ass in a chair in the Situation room; what specific actions do you think he should have taken?
Click to expand...

Well, let's begin with the President's planting his ass in a chair. He did not.

What could the President have done? First, he could have decided to engage once he was informed. And then he could've phoned Sec/State to make sure she was on top of the situation and reporting to him.

But okay, he didn't. He dropped the ball. I'll give him grace and assume that he had confidence that his Sec/State was handling this.

Now YOU explain why Ambassador Rice was trotted out to all five Sunday poli-talk shows to disseminate a damage-control LIE that was known to be a lie from 9-11 on. You think Rice just went rogue?
 
nota bene said:
Well, let's begin with the President's planting his ass in a chair. He did not. What could the President have done? First, he could have decided to engage once he was informed. And then he could've phoned Sec/State to make sure she was on top of the situation and reporting to him.
Click to expand...

So you want the President to sit in a chair for hours and micromanage his staff? That about sum it up?

nota bene said:
Now YOU explain why Ambassador Rice was trotted out to all five Sunday poli-talk shows to disseminate a damage-control LIE that was known to be a lie from 9-11 on. You think Rice just went rogue?
Click to expand...

That was the assessment.
 
Grant said:
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
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion, it is tainted by you consistant hatred of the President, but you are welcome to it anyway.
That opinion is thankfully not shared by the rest of America which not only re-elected Obama but continue to show their confidence his leadership in every major poll. That must really hurt.
A President can't be everywhere at once but there is no doubt that someone let him down. I do find it interesting that the CIA was responsible for security and Petreas bailed soon after the incident.
I have not trusted the CIA for a long long time, their terrible bungling of the Iraqi intelligence was just the icing on the cake. I knew it was time to throw them all out and start over after 911 but all they got were medals and raises.
 
Napoleon said:
So you want the President to sit in a chair for hours and micromanage his staff? That about sum it up?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure you and I have differing definitions on "micro-management." I don't think that monitoring an international situation during which a United States Ambassador was captured and killed is "micro-managing."

Just FYI, the last time an Ambassador was killed like this was over 30 years ago. This wasn't just another day at the office for the President.
 
nota bene said:
Umm, you're moving the goalposts. What you said was, "What are your expectations of a President while a consulate more than 6,000 miles away is under attack? What specific actions do you think the President should take?"

You seem to think that mileage is a problem for Presidents, but in addition to homing pigeons, they also have encrypted messages and phones too. What I mean is that even before you were born, Presidents faced logistical communication problems...and seemed to remain informed. The current President had communication advantages not even dreamed of in the 1940's...so why wasn't in the "situation room"?
Click to expand...
Well, he is right. Obama was 6,000 miles away and the nearest air support to Benghazi was over two hours away. It took the six man Navy Seal team with an armored vehicle hours to get there.

"Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."
Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi | The Weekly Standard

Of course, McCain the hero would have shut down the government and sent 50,000 troops to Libya in fifteen minutes, right? So after giving a direct order to Panetta to do what he could to help the personel at the consolate, what else would you have had Obama do that night that would have made a difference?
 
Moot said:
Well, he is right. Obama was 6,000 miles away and the nearest air support to Benghazi was over two hours away. It took the six man Navy Seal team with an armored vehicle hours to get there.

"Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."
Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi | The Weekly Standard

Of course, McCain the hero would have shut down the government and sent 50,000 troops to Libya in fifteen minutes, right? So after giving a direct order to Panetta to do what he could to help the personel at the consolate, what else would you have had Obama do that night that would have made a difference?
Click to expand...

Your hyperbole doesn't move me. But clue in--the President of the United States has multiple options. Obama didn't do ****. That was the option he chose.
 
Moot said:
Of course, McCain the hero would have shut down the government and sent 50,000 troops to Libya in fifteen minutes, right? So after giving a direct order to Panetta to do what he could to help the personel at the consolate, what else would you have had Obama do that night that would have made a difference?
Click to expand...

Indeed. Lets hear the maverick explain what he would have done differently. No hindsight allowed.

nota bene said:
But clue in--the President of the United States has multiple options.
Click to expand...

Such as?
 
nota bene said:
Your hyperbole doesn't move me. But clue in--the President of the United States has multiple options. Obama didn't do ****. That was the option he chose.
Click to expand...

There was nothing he could do. By the time he was briefed about the attack it was over. Bush had the same problem with 9/11 where the whole country knew about the attacks before he did and for hours afterwards he still didn't know what was really going on because the communication system wasn't working on Airforce One. Worse yet, it's possible that he was a target for assassination and he didn't have a jet escort while he flying around in circles over the country. Is that what you wanted Obama to do, run around circles like a chicken with his head cut off? Would that have made you feel better?
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
Indeed, "I take responsibility" would be quite a shocker to the GOP base who wear their personal responsibility on their sleeves.


October 16, 2012

"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."....read
Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security - CNN.com
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that saying one takes responsibility and then not expecting to be any consequences.....that usually is worn on Democrats Sleeves. Just as Clinton has demonstrated as well as Obama.
 
iguanaman said:
They are well on their way to permanent status as a minority party and their obstruction is a big reason. Since when is the people's will tyranny?
Click to expand...

That would be 30 Republican states vs 20 Liberal.....but do tell us how that equals the minority.
 
iguanaman said:
Thanks for your opinion, it is tainted by you consistant hatred of the President, but you are welcome to it anyway.
That opinion is thankfully not shared by the rest of America which not only re-elected Obama but continue to show their confidence his leadership in every major poll. That must really hurt.
A President can't be everywhere at once but there is no doubt that someone let him down. I do find it interesting that the CIA was responsible for security and Petreas bailed soon after the incident.
I have not trusted the CIA for a long long time, their terrible bungling of the Iraqi intelligence was just the icing on the cake. I knew it was time to throw them all out and start over after 911 but all they got were medals and raises.
Click to expand...

Got a link that stated that the CIA was there for security? Seems throughout two Investigations there is not one report that states the CIS had security.
 
Moot said:
Well, he is right. Obama was 6,000 miles away and the nearest air support to Benghazi was over two hours away. It took the six man Navy Seal team with an armored vehicle hours to get there.

"Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."
Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi | The Weekly Standard

Of course, McCain the hero would have shut down the government and sent 50,000 troops to Libya in fifteen minutes, right? So after giving a direct order to Panetta to do what he could to help the personel at the consolate, what else would you have had Obama do that night that would have made a difference?
Click to expand...


Seem Christol didn't mention anything about McCain did he. But he did bring up some quite noticeable issues for Panetta.....huh?

As Bill Kristol wrote in the month after the attack, "Panetta's position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether it's too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country's air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn't raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it's beyond inconceivable he didn't then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon.".....snip~
 
nota bene said:
Your hyperbole doesn't move me. But clue in--the President of the United States has multiple options. Obama didn't do ****. That was the option he chose.
Click to expand...

"While Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national security staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief the president for the call, monitor it, and provide an immediate read-out to the media. I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he were told that Americans were under attack as the president chatted. But for President Obama, a politically useful telephone call—and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call—came first.".....snip~

Yeah.....like getting on the Phone with Netanyahu for an hour. Note the set up for the call.
 
Wow, a thread of your own, eh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom