• 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!

Benghazi Bombshell Drops On Obama, Hillary

captainawesome said:
Ok other places were attacked too.
Click to expand...

Exactly it was the Also the Anniversary of 911.....23 Muslims Countries Rose up and rioted our embassies, military installations, overseas schools and businesses. All started by an Sunni Egyptian Cleric who used Social Media.

Any reason why Team Obama didn't Tell Morsi that we wanted the Sunni Cleric brought in for Questioning? He was cause of the Riot in at the Embassy in Egypt Directly.
 
Quik said:
Irrelevant. So what if Gaddafi was bombing Al Qaeda terrorists? What does that have to do with us involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern war with no benefit to our country?
Click to expand...

Libya is in North Africa, not the Middle East. Bush's administration wanted to **** all over geography for political purposes, but I'm of the belief that we shouldn't follow suit.
 
Thanks hell I am lucky I can remeber my way to work...
APACHERAT said:
Not ever being a pencil pusher I had to look it up.

When signing another persons signature right below the signature you forged you add in UPPER CASE the initials of the persons name your signing for and then in lower case you type your initials.
Respectfully,

ROBERT R. SMITH

RRS/jwc

Notice the initals RRS is for the signer and jwc in lower case is the preparer.
Click to expand...
 
Fox news sometimes gets a few things right, Media Matters just points out all the rest.
APACHERAT said:
Not being a socialist or a radical leftist I usually ignore Media Matters. So I never went to the link.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, no big deal. one of our ambassadors gets killed.

Hillary receives way too many emails to have a clue about that. One wonders how you get in touch with her? I guess it's Stephens fault for using email, since he would obviously know that she would never see it, as we all know now.

I also wonder why Stephens, fearing for his security (and life), would use a method to communicate his concerns that he knew would never reach her? I mean, if it's me, I'm going above and beyond to make sure this concern is heard.

Is that what we are to believe?
 
He was doing his duty. No one has ever said it is not a big deal. He sounds like he was a good man doing his duty for his cournty. damn shame fox politicized it in this way.
Anthony60 said:
Yeah, no big deal. one of our ambassadors gets killed.

Hillary receives way too many emails to have a clue about that. One wonders how you get in touch with her? I guess it's Stephens fault for using email, since he would obviously know that she would never see it, as we all know now.

I also wonder why Stephens, fearing for his security (and life), would use a method to communicate his concerns that he knew would never reach her? I mean, if it's me, I'm going above and beyond to make sure this concern is heard.

Is that what we are to believe?
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Fox news sometimes gets a few things right, Media Matters just points out all the rest.
Click to expand...

Yeah like CNN and MSNBC gets something Right once in a Blue Moon as well. Thats why Townhall and Hot Air is around to Put Media Matters back in check with reality. :lol:
 
Quik said:
The only "bombshell" about Benghazi that dumb Americans are too stupid to understand is that if we didn't bomb Libya in the first place there wouldn't have been a Benghazi incident.
Click to expand...

But the Libya & Egypt adventures worked out so well for us ...

sarcasm 2.jpg
 
Tucker Case said:
Libya is in North Africa, not the Middle East. Bush's administration wanted to **** all over geography for political purposes, but I'm of the belief that we shouldn't follow suit.
Click to expand...

Whatever, point stands.
 
Hilary is responsible but not for the reason that dumb Republicans think.

The reason she is responsible is because of her responsibility for the bombing of Libya in the first place, which means she is responsible for the (lack of) security situation.
 
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

And this:

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.

Nato leaders, opposition groups and the media have produced a stream of stories since the start of the insurrection on 15 February, claiming the Gaddafi regime has ordered mass rapes, used foreign mercenaries and employed helicopters against civilian protesters.

An investigation by Amnesty International has failed to find evidence for these human rights violations and in many cases has discredited or cast doubt on them. It also found indications that on several occasions the rebels in Benghazi appeared to have knowingly made false claims or manufactured evidence.​

Source: Amnesty questions claim that Gaddafi ordered rape as weapon of war - Africa - World - The Independent

I don't like Gaddafi, but if we are gonna slam him on something, let's slam him on things that are the truth such as his human rights abuses (Factbox: Gaddafi rule marked by abuses, rights groups say | Reuters)
Click to expand...

There is plenty of evidence of Gaddafi bombin' his own people. He also used cluster bombs and ground to ground missiles.

Why do you think a no-fly zone was initiated? Just to make it look like he was using the airforce? I remember 6 days, while I was in the Kenya, while he obliterated civilians with the airforce before the no-fly was enacted.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
perhaps Hillary should have put a stop to everyone using her signature. Wouldn't that have been the smart thing to do?

It means her signature has no value whatsoever, and she freely admits it on order to get out of a scrape.
Click to expand...

I still haven't seen anywhere if it is actually her signature, or of it's like a stamp or a scan of her signature just for official purposes. I agree with you in general though that there needs to be a system in place to where we can know what they knew when they knew it. Regardless, I was just giving the reason that we can't jump to the automatic conclusion that some are leaping to in this thread.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I still haven't seen anywhere if it is actually her signature, or of it's like a stamp or a scan of her signature just for official purposes. I agree with you in general though that there needs to be a system in place to where we can know what they knew when they knew it. Regardless, I was just giving the reason that we can't jump to the automatic conclusion that some are leaping to in this thread.
Click to expand...
this is just one of the methods to maintain plausible deniability
doesn't matter the party of the practitioner
 
ecofarm said:
There is plenty of evidence of Gaddafi bombin' his own people. He also used cluster bombs and ground to ground missiles.

Why do you think a no-fly zone was initiated? Just to make it look like he was using the airforce? I remember 6 days, while I was in the Kenya, while he obliterated civilians with the airforce before the no-fly was enacted.
Click to expand...

Can I see that evidence if at all possible? As well as the ground missiles?
 
justabubba said:
you would then prefer to a world where gaddafi and mubarak again ruled
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Of course. Khaddafi was being kept in his box and Mubarek was no danger to anyone outside Egypt.
Not only did we help install radical muslim control but we're paying to keep them there.
Yeah ... it was better before.
 
roughdraft274 said:
I still haven't seen anywhere if it is actually her signature, or of it's like a stamp or a scan of her signature just for official purposes. I agree with you in general though that there needs to be a system in place to where we can know what they knew when they knew it. Regardless, I was just giving the reason that we can't jump to the automatic conclusion that some are leaping to in this thread.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well I haven't seen those Committees release any of those documents out to the public. Plus Issa already told CIA to get their Lawyers ready. Now that's a Separate Committee. Not to mention this does not take away the blame that even for the fiscal year with the budget Obama had set up for Overseas protections was reduced. That was validated by Politifact when they said the Republicans cut funding for Security. Which was nothing but a deflection by the Democrats as they voted to cut the security too.

So both Obama and Hillary knew security was being cut. Which was before the first attack in March on the consulate. then Security was reduced again after that attack. Which none can say Hillary did not know.
 
Quik said:
Hilary is responsible but not for the reason that dumb Republicans think.

The reason she is responsible is because of her responsibility for the bombing of Libya in the first place, which means she is responsible for the (lack of) security situation.
Click to expand...

See, you've got it wrong. We were told right away that this was due to a YouTube video. They wouldn't lie about this.
 
MMC said:
Well, for one Hillary cannot state under Oath that she had no knowledge of any Specific security requests and then Later testify that she receives 1000 of requests and pieces of mail that come across her desk. Moreover she has a budget that she has to go thru and in this case was keenly aware that she had signed off on lessening security for that Specific Consulate.
Click to expand...

As far as I know she said she wasn't aware of a request from that embassy for increased security. That is not the same thing as her knowing that the budget had been cut on embassy security in general. One request came from other sections of government, decreasing the budget and lessening security (something very popular amongst Republicans before the attack occurred) and another cam from the actual embassy. It seems like you are talking about them together and confusing the issue.

MMC said:
-Reductions of security levels prior to the attacks in Benghazi were approved at the highest levels of the State Department, up to and including Secretary Clinton. This fact contradicts her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on January 23, 2013.
Click to expand...

I'll get to the rest of your comment, but I wanted to find out what you meant by this part.

Can you point me to where she claimed that she was unaware of the reduction of security levels? I haven't heard this before. I believe she said she was unaware of the embassies request for added security, and I'm fairly sure she did not say that she was unaware of any reductions in security. Again, I think you are confusing the requests for reduction with the requests from the embassy for added security.
 
justabubba said:
you would then prefer to a world where gaddafi and mubarak again ruled
Click to expand...

Mubaraks existence was dependent upon us in the first place. And yes, the world was much better off with Gaddafi in power.
 
MMC said:
Yeah, well I haven't seen those Committees release any of those documents out to the public. Plus Issa already told CIA to get their Lawyers ready. Now that's a Separate Committee. Not to mention this does not take away the blame that even for the fiscal year with the budget Obama had set up for Overseas protections was reduced. That was validated by Politifact when they said the Republicans cut funding for Security. Which was nothing but a deflection by the Democrats as they voted to cut the security too.

So both Obama and Hillary knew security was being cut. Which was before the first attack in March on the consulate. then Security was reduced again after that attack. Which none can say Hillary did not know.
Click to expand...

Again, who is arguing that Clinton knew nothing about the reduction in security? Where has she ever said that? You have a very good point if she did say that, but I can't find any where where she actually said that.
 
MMC said:
Seems Hot Air and CBS did.

CBS News ticks down the three major findings of House Republicans' interim report (numerals mine):

(1) The committees' Republicans conclude that Clinton approved security reductions at the consulate, pointing to evidence such as an April 2012 State Department cable bearing her signature. The cable was a formal request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security. In her testimony before Congress in January, Clinton said, "With specific security requests they didn't come to me. I had no knowledge of them."

(2) The interim report also charges that White House and senior State Department officials attempted to protect the State Department from criticism by altering accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community. For instance, the report says that, after a Sept. 15, 2012 meeting, administration officials removed references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists.

(3) The report also contradicts administration claims that the talking points were changed to protect classified information. None of the email exchanges reviewed ever mentioned a concern about classified information, according to the report.
Click to expand...

Its seems as though this information didn't refute anything my link had and I note you didn't supply a link to the CBS Report, is the something in that report you don't want seen?
 
roughdraft274 said:
As far as I know she said she wasn't aware of a request from that embassy for increased security. That is not the same thing as her knowing that the budget had been cut on embassy security in general. One request came from other sections of government, decreasing the budget and lessening security (something very popular amongst Republicans before the attack occurred) and another cam from the actual embassy. It seems like you are talking about them together and confusing the issue.

I'll get to the rest of your comment, but I wanted to find out what you meant by this part.

Can you point me to where she claimed that she was unaware of the reduction of security levels? I haven't heard this before. I believe she said she was unaware of the embassies request for added security, and I'm fairly sure she did not say that she was unaware of any reductions in security. Again, I think you are confusing the requests for reduction with the requests from the embassy for added security.
Click to expand...


They stated there was a reduction in security from March to the Dec attack. That was the finding of separate committees. Also we know the Commander of the 17th brigade in Libya Providing Security for that Region of Libyan and Benghazi warned Clinton's People 3 days in Advance that things were to dangerous to conduct foreign business in Benghazi. That they felt there was not enough Security.

The report established that the attack on the US mission on 11 September 2012 involved "arson, small arms and machine gun fire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars."

"Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," the report found.

State department budget shortfalls were one obstacle to reinforcing security at diplomatic outposts worldwide, the report said.

She was replying to the first question from a Republican. A moment four months in coming.

Senator Corker says, "to my knowledge, no one was held accountable." "These officials [on the ground in Benghazi] were screaming out for more security," he says.

He asks Clinton to mention one reform that would have fixed the lack of communication about the security situation in Benghazi.

"The specific security requests" on Benghazi were handled by security professionals, Clinton says, and she never reviewed them.
She was replying to the first question from a Republican. A moment four months in coming.

Clinton replies that the two have a "simple disagreement." She says the state department followed protocol in handling an unfolding security crisis.

Then she turns the conversation to budget issues. She says Congressional holds had been placed on money for the mission in Libya. "We have got to get our act together between the administration and Congress... we have to work together," she says.

Hillary Clinton is about to appear before a House committee to continue her testimony on the Benghazi attack and US anti-terror strategy in the region.

Michael T. McCaul of Texas is grilling Clinton about why she didn't know about cables from Libya asking for additional security for the Benghazi mission.

"Was this cable a surprise to you?" he says. "When you have a US ambassador personally warning [about security]?"

Clinton says there are 1.43m cables that come to the state department every year "and they're all addressed to me."

McCaul: "This cable went unnoticed by your office, and that's the bottom line.".....snip~

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/23/clinton-testifies-congress-benghazi-live

The UK's Guardian Play by play of Clinton's hearings and by Time and response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom