• 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

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.

There was one battle. If it makes you feel better to think of it as two attacks that is okay with me. It changes nothing. Or, it makes it worse.

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.

I am not aware of this. Four CIA operators heard the battle and went to the Consulate to render aid. They found Smith, dead, and consulate employees, alive. They did not find Stevens. They were fired upon as they moved from the consulate to the Annex. None of the four were killed.

Do you understand that the Republicans are using Bengazi as a political ploy?
No. This failure is the Regime's failure.

Tell me about how the Republicans got Obama to disappear for eight hours after his Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs told Obama of the attack on his consulate.
Tell me about how the Republicans got Obama to do absolutely nothing to come to the aid of the Abandoned Four?
Tell me about how the Republicans got Obama to send Rice out to lie to the American people about the nature of the attack?
Tell me about how the Republicans got Obama to lie himself over the next three weeks?

If not, then you really don't understand politics at all...especially dirty politics.
I will wait while you describe how the Republicans got the president and his regime to fail and then cover it up.


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?
I can describe what Obama did. He did nothing.
I can describe the other thing he did. He hid for eight hours. He was out of pocket. Unreachable.
He was disinterested. One can tell by his actions.

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.....

McCain is a dottering old fool. I have despised him for more than a decade. What does he have to do with the regime's failure to do the right thing, lie and cover up their actions?
 
As Commander in Chief, that's his job. Do you think he should have just taken the rest of the day off in order to later make the claim that he was there so it wasn't his responsibility? Hiding under the bed when there are Americans being attacked is not Presidential leadership though it could be how Community Organizer might react.

I'm still waiting for you state specifically which actions the President should have taken.

From who? The Libyans knew it was a lie and everyone around the world who has access to these things knew it was a lie. There are many dozens of anti Islamic videos on the internet and still are. But even if it was a video at the bottom of it, that was no excuse to leave the Americans are their own without help. The video nonsense was just trying to shift the blame to someone else away from the White House, and it worked with his believers.

Who? The CIA.
 
If there is an example of any of those attacks involving an eight hour battle we can judge what that president did or failed to do.

I believe the right answer is that none of them involved battles. There is a big difference between a bomb detonating and a battle that lasts for eight hours. This was not an incident. It was a battle.

And your point is that we should be outraged because it was a"Battle," and it lasted "8-hours." The fact they keep attacking us (although the prorated amount of attacks under Obama are way less than under Bush) is not a concern. The time it took in Benghazi, and that RPG's are not "Bombs" does. As I said . . . Kenya, Tanzania, and Benghazi . . . whats the commonality? You and I both know that answer. The difference between me and you? I don't blame Bush for increasing attacks against embassies two-fold in 8-years verse 50-years before he came in office. Cost of doing business when you want to build nations in the middle-east. So . . . how can we blame Obama? Do you think there was a magic button that brought in Seal Team Six in, in 1 . . . or maybe 2 . . . or maybe 3 . . . or maybe 4-hours?

Selective outrage. Be happy this doesn't happen monthly.
 
I'm still waiting for you state specifically which actions the President should have taken.

The Community Organizer in Chief probably has greater access to information than I do but I certainly would have stayed at the station that night and ordered men to the scene as quickly as possible. Would that make sense to you?



Who? The CIA.

The CIA what? Knew it was not the fault of a video? Any non-committed leftist knew it was not a video as there were already hundreds on the Internet and the Libyan government said as much the next day. There was even a discussion on the boards on the subject.

Is it your belief that Obama's hands were tied?
 
Selective outrage. Be happy this doesn't happen monthly.

It could happen monthly and other videos would likely be held responsible.

I doubt the response, apart from the families whose people were killed, is outrage. It's more like disgust.
 
I'm still waiting for you state specifically which actions the President should have taken.



Who? The CIA.

It's interesting that President's Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, Clinton and G.W. Bush were always able to keep a Navy CBG (Carrier Battle Group) and a U.S. Marine BLT (Battalion Landing Team) or a Marine MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) at sea in the Mediterranean Sea 24/7 just for such an emergency as we saw in Benghazi.

Why wasn't there a carrier and a Marine MEU in the Mediterranean on 9-11-12 ? Could it be that there was no money because Obama had already made $500 Billion Dollars in cuts to our military during his first term in the White House ? It seems to be the reason.

The U.S. Navy has five AOR's (Area of Responsibility), The Mediterranean being one of those AOR's and there's suppose to be a CSG (Carrier Strike Group) on station in each of those AOR's. The last I checked was last week and there was only one AOR where there was a carrier on station in it's assigned AOR.

Who's the Commander and Chief ? Who ever he is, he's one Hell of an incompetent Cn'C who's more concerned with gays serving in the military, friendly gender heads and latrines and putting girls on the front lines in combat units than making sure that the Navy is capable of carrying out it's mission.
 
The Community Organizer in Chief probably has greater access to information than I do but I certainly would have stayed at the station that night and ordered men to the scene as quickly as possible. Would that make sense to you?

So you're dodging the question. Other than sitting in a chair in the Situation Room; you haven't named anything the President didn't do.

The CIA what? Knew it was not the fault of a video?

No, the CIA briefed Ambassador Susan Rice and in that briefing she was told that it was a spontaneous event and even Petraeus testified that the CIA received intelligence that indicated it was in response to the video.
 
The Vietnam War was over in 1975, five years before Ronald Reagan took office.
So? The war hawks didn't shrivel up and die after the end of Vietnam. They got tired of Carter's passive ways and found a new schmuck they could manipulate in Reagan.


Which "they" are you referring to?
The NeoCons. All the people at AEI and Heritage and Irving and Bill Kristol, Jean Kirkpatric, James Woolsey, Richard Perle, Scooter Libbey, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, Lynn Cheney, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, John R. Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Daniel Bell, Robert Kaplan, Niall Ferguson, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, .....

Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"...So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. . . . They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil." - Senator Chuck Hagel

The Vietnam War was started by the Democrats and ended by the Republicans.

Now that you've demonstrated your lack of knowledge of side issues such as Abu Ghraib and Vietnam, why not continue your streak with your views on Benghazi, the topic of the thread?
Vietnam was ended by protests from both sides. "Hell no, we won't go."
 
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Firstly, out of context.

Secondly, I didn't say it and I'm not responsible for what other people say, especially the secretary of state.

Thirdly, this is pretty lazily done dude.
 
It's interesting that President's Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H. Bush, Clinton and G.W. Bush were always able to keep a Navy CBG (Carrier Battle Group) and a U.S. Marine BLT (Battalion Landing Team) or a Marine MEU (Marine Expeditionary Unit) at sea in the Mediterranean Sea 24/7 just for such an emergency as we saw in Benghazi. Could it be that there was no money because Obama had already made $500 Billion Dollars in cuts to our military during his first term in the White House ? It seems to be the reason.

Right, because the President decides federal funding. :roll: But, hey, perhaps the hundreds of billions the DOD "loses" every year will find its way out of someone's pocket. BTW - your insinuation is untrue. The USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group was in the Mediterranean at the time and its commanding officer was relieved for disobeying a direct order not to charge into the situation until it could be determined precisely what was happening and what they were up against. His little hero complex would have gotten more than four people killed that night.
 
Last edited:
Right, because the President decides federal funding. :roll: But, hey, perhaps the hundreds of billions the DOD "loses" every year will find its way out of someone's pocket. BTW - your insinuation is untrue. The USS John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group was in the Mediterranean at the time and its commanding officer was relieved for disobeying a direct order not to charge into the situation until it could be determined precisely what was happening and what they were up against. His little hero complex would have gotten more than four people killed that night.

The USS Stennis was in the Pacific on 9-11-12 in transit to it's AOR. The 5th Fleet AOR is not in the Mediterranean. The 6rth Fleet AOR is the Mediterranean. US NAVY - Fleets

>" Research of the Stennis’ location indicates that the aircraft carrier was oceans away from the scene on Sept. 11.

Deploying four months early, the flattop left its home port of Bremerton, Wash., on Aug. 22 and headed south to pick up the San Diego-based cruiser Mobile Bay and two North Island Naval Air Station helicopter squadrons.

The group sailed out of San Diego Bay on Sept. 1.

On Sept. 11, the ships were still in the Pacific, according to a Facebook video of a Sept. 11, 2001, remembrance ceremony held that day in the Stennis hangar bay and a Navy photo of the event.

On Sept. 15, the ship posted a Facebook video in which Gaouette said that the carrier group was in the Pacific, heading toward the Indian Ocean. In late September, the ship stopped in Malaysia. In early October, it performed exercises off Thailand with the aircraft carrier George Washington.

On Oct. 17, the strike group first entered the U. S. Fifth Fleet region, which is the Arabian Sea and surroundings.

A naval official familiar with the area said that only a warship located in the Mediterranean or Red seas might have helped the Americans attacked in Libya. "< Navy denies Stennis leader removed over Libya | UTSanDiego.com
 
It could happen monthly and other videos would likely be held responsible.

I doubt the response, apart from the families whose people were killed, is outrage. It's more like disgust.

Yes . . . you speak for the families. If you are family member excuse my response . . . if not . . . selective outrage.
 
So you're dodging the question. Other than sitting in a chair in the Situation Room; you haven't named anything the President didn't do.

There's no question as to what he didn't do. He didn't try to save the men the Community Organizer in Chief is responsible for.
No, the CIA briefed Ambassador Susan Rice and in that briefing she was told that it was a spontaneous event and even Petraeus testified that the CIA received intelligence that indicated it was in response to the video.

You believe that? Then you will believe anything. Did they who this 'intelligence' was from???
 
There's no question as to what he didn't do. He didn't try to save the men the Community Organizer in Chief is responsible for.

So, once again, you criticize the President without having a clue as to what specific actions he should have taken.


You believe that? Then you will believe anything. Did they who this 'intelligence' was from???

I never said the CIA isn't the most worthless agency in existence.
 
So? Vietnam was ended by protests from both sides. "Hell no, we won't go."

More like we were stabbed in the back by liberals back on the streets in America while we were still on the battlefields of Vietnam.

To be more historically correct, most of the demonstration against the war in Vietnam wasn't really about the war but against the draft. When the draft ended, the demonstrations died out but the war continued for for another two years.

There were the political left activist including the (New Left) in Congress who opposed the war in Vietnam, but they actually opposed the United States winning the war in Vietnam.

Should be noted that when the last American combat forces departed the RVN in 1973, every province with in the RVN was left in control of ARVAN forces. They would lose control of Vietnam when the Democrats in Congress in 1975 cut off all funding to South Vietnam. That's when NVA tanks rolled across the DMZ and it's pretty hard to stop an invading army when ARVAN troops were having their ammunition rationed at three rounds per day.
 
So? The war hawks didn't shrivel up and die after the end of Vietnam. They got tired of Carter's passive ways and found a new schmuck they could manipulate in Reagan.

And what did 'they' manipulate Reagan into doing?
The NeoCons. All the people at AEI and Heritage and Irving and Bill Kristol, Jean Kirkpatric, James Woolsey, Richard Perle, Scooter Libbey, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, Lynn Cheney, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, John R. Bolton, Elliot Abrams, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Daniel Bell, Robert Kaplan, Niall Ferguson, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, .....

And these are the people who 'manipulated' Ronald Reagan? David Frum, among many others on you list, would be surprised to hear that.

"...So why did we invade Iraq? I believe it was the triumph of the so-called neo-conservative ideology, as well as Bush administration arrogance and incompetence that took America into this war of choice. . . . They obviously made a convincing case to a president with very limited national security and foreign policy experience, who keenly felt the burden of leading the nation in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack ever on American soil." - Senator Chuck Hagel

You're a big Chuck Hagel fan, are you?

Vietnam was ended by protests from both sides. "Hell no, we won't go."

The Vietnam War was started by a Democrat President, enlarged by a Democratic President, and ended by a Republican President. That's history and you're stuck with it.
 
So, once again, you criticize the President without having a clue as to what specific actions he should have taken.
I never said the CIA isn't the most worthless agency in existence.

Could you clarify that please?
 
More like we were stabbed in the back by liberals back on the streets in America while we were still on the battlefields of Vietnam.

Apache, don't you realize that this argument was used before, under different context, and it ended up causing a disaster.
 
I remember that argument when they tried to blame the Republicans in Congress. But as usual the left and the White House got caught again.

KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts
Examining the State Department’s misplaced green priorities


>" In a May 3, 2012, email, the State Department denied a request by a group of Special Forces assigned to protect the U.S. embassy in Libya to continue their use of a DC- 3 airplane for security operations throughout the country.

The subject line of the email, on which slain Ambassador Chris Stevens was copied, read: “Termination of Tripoli DC-3 Support.”

Four days later, on May 7, the State Department authorized the U.S. embassy in Vienna to purchase a $108,000 electric vehicle charging station for the embassy motor pool’s new Chevrolet Volts. The purchase was a part of the State Department’s “Energy Efficiency Sweep of Europe” initiative, which included hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on green program expenditures at various U.S. Embassies.

In fact, at a May 10 gala held at the U.S. embassy in Vienna, the ambassador showcased his new Volts and other green investments as part of the U.S. government’s commitment to “climate change solutions.”

The event posting on the embassy website read: “Celebrating the Greening of the Embassy.”

While the embassy in Vienna was going green, the consulate in Benghazi was getting bombed, and little was done to stop it. "<
Read more: KELLY: Libya security cut while Vienna embassy gained Chevy Volts - Washington Times

And heads rolled....
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/u...ls-resign-following-benghazi-report.html?_r=0

Btw, it says here the Chevy Volt gets over a 1,000 miles before needing a recharge and 30 to 50 mpg on gas. Thats not bad. Like any new technology, it's expensive at first. I suspect the horse and buggy crowd thought the Model-T was too expensive as well. But leasing makes the car competitively priced for average drivers....

98 mpge (3.5 kwh/10 miles)
37 mpg Gas
2013 Chevrolet Volt Quick Spin


Awhile back I listened to a group of Marine FA-18 pilots complaining that under the Obama administration they are only able to fly 2 or 3 of the 5 schedual flight training missions because the lack of funding for fuel for there aircradft. While Obama has ordered the Navy to pay $26 per gallon for green fuel to power their ships and aircraft instead of the normal fuel that cost less than $4. per gallon. When you talking about fueling a ship, you not dealing with gallons or even barrels of fuel but tens of hundreds of tons of fuel.

>" The U.S. Navy has started going green under the direction of Obama’s Secretary of the Navy Roy Mabus. They started using a special “green fuel” for their “Great Green Fleet,” which will be tested this month while completing its Rim of the Pacific exercise. Unfortunately, this green project already reflects the worst aspects of the Obama Administration’s green agenda. The fuel being used by the “Great Green Fleet” is colossal waste of taxpayer money.

The standard aviation fuel used by the Navy $3.60 a gallon. The “green fuel,” made from things like algae, chicken fat, and seeds, costs $26 a gallon. Rob Port of Say Anything Blog further highlights the absurdity of the Navy’s “green fuel” project: "< -> U.S. Navy Going Green, Spending Extra 622% to Use Chicken Fat Fuel - Townhall.com Staff

The Navy likes the green fuel. It was an experiment to see if biofuels would operate the war planes and ships in order to help make the US less dependent on foreign oil for our national security. The experiment worked and now they plan to start helping private industry create the fuel so by the end of the decade the green fuel cost will be competitive with oil. I like people who can think ahead.

Defense officials defend Great Green Fleet cost | Reuters


It's funny how we have to put up with the kicking and screaming in order to advance into the 21st century.
 
Last edited:
It's funny how we have to put up with the kicking and screaming in order to advance into the 21st century.

Haha, it's funny you say that. I was walking downstairs to get a beer and I was just thinking the same thing. I am looking forward to the future, because, try as they might, even the republicans cannot stop some of the great infrastructure and technological advances that are headed our way.
 
Apache, don't you realize that this argument was used before, under different context, and it ended up causing a disaster.

So where were you during the Vietnam war ?

I've been involved in a thirty year research project, not on the strategy or tactics or the mistakes made during the Vietnam war but who was responsible for getting America involved in a shooting war in the Republic of Vietnam. All I need just one more big dump by the CIA, the last one being in 2006.

I have about a dozen boxes of research material, interviews, declassified records, interviews of Gen. Giap all in French. Lets just say it wasn't Eisenhower or LBJ. Many of those who were responsible would become some of the biggest anti war activist during the late 60's and early 70's.
 
Btw, it says here the Chevy Volt gets over a 1,000 miles before needing a recharge and 30 to 50 mpg on gas. Thats not bad. Like any new technology, it's expensive at first. I suspect the horse and buggy crowd thought the Model-T was too expensive as well. But leasing makes the car competitively priced for average drivers....

98 mpge (3.5 kwh/10 miles)
37 mpg Gas
.

Did you see that thread down below on the worse cars ever made ?
 
Back
Top Bottom