• 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!

Threats Against Benghazi Whistleblowers Alleged [W:345/361]

Helix said:
as i said, if it turns out to be a watergate style coverup that brings down the administration, i'll admit that i was wrong.

now,

where was Fox's saturation coverage of other embassy attacks, and where were the congressional investigations concerning those attacks? there were 12 attacks between 2001 and 2008, and 50 people were killed. if this isn't a politically motivated investigation, then perhaps you can show me similar coverage and scrutiny of the other embassy attacks.
Click to expand...

Who cares? This is not about Fox.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Guess what, this is your proof that the President is not Batman or Superman, or any other superhero fantasy.
Click to expand...

Dude. He took a nap and then went to Vegas. You don't have to be Superman to get more involved than that.
 
mac said:
Who cares? This is not about Fox.
Click to expand...

so there was no saturation coverage of the attacks between 2002 and 2008, and there were no congressional investigations to reveal our government's response to these 12 attacks? i find that curious. don't we deserve to know what happened? how can i know for sure that the government didn't cover up some mistake? that's a lot of embassy attacks.
 
Helix said:
so there was no saturation coverage of the attacks between 2002 and 2008, and there were no congressional investigations to reveal our government's response to these 12 attacks? i find that curious. don't we deserve to know what happened? how can i know for sure that the government didn't cover up some mistake? that's a lot of embassy attacks.
Click to expand...

Then call your Senator and get them investigated. Regardless, they don't change the facts surrounding Benghazi or the cover-up assisted by the media. Whether or not Fox had a motive in covering it or not, it happened.

Now, why not just face the music and stop trying to divert or shift blame?
 
Helix said:
as i said, if it turns out to be a watergate style coverup that brings down the administration, i'll admit that i was wrong.

now,

where was Fox's saturation coverage of other embassy attacks, and where were the congressional investigations concerning those attacks? there were 12 attacks between 2001 and 2008, and 50 people were killed. if this isn't a politically motivated investigation, then perhaps you can show me similar coverage and scrutiny of the other embassy attacks.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference. In the other attacks, everyone came out and admitted right off the bat they were terrorist attacks. This one was blamed on protesters and a video when supposedly, alleged everyone knew it was a terrorist attack and may have lied to the American People. If everyone knew it was a terrorist attack, for the life of me I see not benefit what so ever in trying to cover that up or lie about. It makes no sense to me. I bought the protest and video, now I think the Obama administration lied about that. I keep asking myself why, as I see no benefit in not saying it was a terrorist attack when it was. But I can live with being lied to about this, politicians lie all the time. His stock will drop with me, but that is about all.

On the rescue, whether or not President Obama put a stop to it really doesn’t bother me. There are only so many options and he may have decided all options were losers. But what would really bother me is the President or someone coerced/threaten some witnesses not to testify and not to tell the truth. In my book this would be unpardonable.

I still do not see what would be gained by saying terrorist didn’t do it. That has me flummox.
 
mac said:
Then call your Senator and get them investigated. Regardless, they don't change the facts surrounding Benghazi or the cover-up assisted by the media. Whether or not Fox had a motive in covering it or not, it happened.

Now, why not just face the music and stop trying to divert or shift blame?
Click to expand...

face the music? ok. if Obama is the scheming, Nixonian devil that fox entertainment claims, i hope that he is held accountable. and as i said in my previous post, if the administration is brought down for a watergate style coverup, i'll come back to this thread and admit to the that i was wrong.

i find it unfortunate that either side uses tragedy to promote a political agenda. the left did it with Sandy Hook, and the right has done the same with Benghazi. it's disgusting.
 
mac said:
Dude. He took a nap and then went to Vegas. You don't have to be Superman to get more involved than that.
Click to expand...
I'm still waiting for the punchline....what was he, or Sec of State Clinton supposed to do when these 150 assault troops hit a lightly fortified compound that wasn't even an embassy but a welcoming center:

The compound would be rechristened "an American Space," and it would offer English lessons and Internet access and show films and stock a library. The United States would provide some computers, books, and the rest of the materials and support—but it would be owned and operated by locals. "An American Space," Stevens planned to say, "is a living example of the kind of partnership between our two countries which we hope to inspire."

Read More Sean Flynn straightens out the story of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens's last days in Libya: Newsmakers: GQ


Was he or Clinton supposed to beam over in the transporter and break out the force field...because we have those, you know.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
I'm still waiting for the punchline....what was he, or Sec of State Clinton supposed to do when these 150 assault troops hit a lightly fortified compound that wasn't even an embassy but a welcoming center:
Click to expand...

First, Clinton could have authorized the increased security requested ahead of time. Second, they could have authorized the Special Forces personnel in Tripoli at the time to go in rather than stand down. (yes that did happen), Third, they could have been honest about it rather than attempt a cover up.

Any more questions?
 
Helix said:
face the music? ok. if Obama is the scheming, Nixonian devil that fox entertainment claims, i hope that he is held accountable. and as i said in my previous post, if the administration is brought down for a watergate style coverup, i'll come back to this thread and admit to the that i was wrong.

i find it unfortunate that either side uses tragedy to promote a political agenda. the left did it with Sandy Hook, and the right has done the same with Benghazi. it's disgusting.
Click to expand...

Disgusting as it is, it happened. Today's testimony by eye-witness involved personnel shows that.
 
mac said:
First, Clinton could have authorized the increased security requested ahead of time. Second, they could have authorized the Special Forces personnel in Tripoli at the time to go in rather than stand down. (yes that did happen), Third, they could have been honest about it rather than attempt a cover up.

Any more questions?
Click to expand...
Um, Stevens was planning on being at this compound for 5 days, Clinton was not involved in any of the security details, Tripoli is hours away and Stevens compound attack was a hit and run operation lasting less than an hour, don't confuse it with the attack on the CIA compound.
The President and the Sec of State described it the very next day as an attack by militants.

You still have not described anything the WH should have done to stop a sneak attack half a world away on a compound that Stevens was visiting.

I know you guys think this is your 9-11 or watergate....but it isn't. Now take Stevens off the cross cross and let him rest in peace....unless you think your monday morning quarterbacking justifies it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Clinton was not involved in any of the security details
Click to expand...

Proven false. Repeatedly.

Tripoli is hours away and Stevens compound attack was a hit and run operation lasting less than an hour, don't confuse it with the attack on the CIA compound.
Click to expand...

Steven's condition was unknown at the time the troops were told to stand down. Excuse is moot.

"In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attack, said he was frustrated when the military turned down his request for a Special Operations team to be deployed from Tripoli to the Benghazi consulate, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and the others were holed up and under assault."

Just so you know, had the Special forces boarded the waiting Libyan C-130 in Tripoli, they would have been in Benghazi in less than an hour.

The President and the Sec of State described it the very next day as an attack by militants.
Click to expand...

No, they did not.

You still have not described anything the WH should have done to stop a sneak attack half a world away on a compound that Stevens was visiting.
Click to expand...

Given the events that were transpiring, no American official should have been in place without the requisite security. That is full on in the lap of both the Secretary and the WH.

I know you guys think this is your 9-11 or watergate....but it isn't. Now take Stevens off the cross cross and let him rest in peace....unless you think your monday morning quarterbacking justifies it.
Click to expand...

Really...I think even you know that this was an abysmal failure conducted by inept officials.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Proven false. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...
BS.



Steven's condition was unknown at the time the troops were told to stand down. Excuse is moot.

"In testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Gregory Hicks, the deputy chief of mission in Libya at the time of the attack, said he was frustrated when the military turned down his request for a Special Operations team to be deployed from Tripoli to the Benghazi consulate, where Ambassador Chris Stevens and the others were holed up and under assault."

Just so you know, had the Special forces boarded the waiting Libyan C-130 in Tripoli, they would have been in Benghazi in less than an hour.
Click to expand...
Dude, he died from breathing too much smoke, how were troops hours away in Tripoli going to prevent his breathing smoke in a hit and run attack?



No, they did not.
Click to expand...
Yes they did.



Given the events that were transpiring, no American official should have been in place without the requisite security. That is full on in the lap of both the Secretary and the WH.
Click to expand...
"events transpiring", ffs, so you had better insight than Stevens? What's next, you got some Triple Crown insights, Dan Marino?



Really...I think even you know that this was an abysmal failure conducted by inept officials.
Click to expand...
So you are calling Stevens an "inept official"?
He went from martyr to bum in one post.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
BS.
Click to expand...

It's been repeatedly testified before congress that the Secretary denied requests. A written denial of the request with her signature on it has been produced.

"However, the House report published today provides evidence that suggests Sec. Clinton was in fact aware of security requests from Libya. On March 28, 2012 Ambassador Gene Cretz sent a cable to Secretary Clinton requesting “continued deployment of both Mobile Security Detachment (MSD) teams, or at least additional DS agents to replace them, as well as the full five DS agents which the December 2011 memorandum claimed would be stationed in Benghazi.” DS stands for Diplomatic Security.

According to the report, a response cable signed by Sec. Clinton on April 19, 2012 “acknowledges Ambassador Cretz’s request for additional security but instead articulates a plan to scale back security.” The same cable recommended a “joint reassessment of the number of DS agents requested for Benghazi.” It was clear to at least one diplomatic staffer in Tripoli what reassessment meant, “looks like no movement on the full complement of [five DS] personnel for Benghazi, but rather a reassessment to bring the numbers lower.”

http://rickgreen.com/2013/04/25/house-republicans-sec-clinton-denied-request-for-additional-security-in-libya/

Dude, he died from breathing too much smoke, how were troops hours away in Tripoli going to prevent his breathing smoke in a hit and run attack?
Click to expand...

Not hours, less than 1 hour.

http://www.howmanyhours.com/flight_time/tripoli,-libya/benghazi,-libya.php

Yes they did.
Click to expand...

No, they did not. Further, they blamed it as a response to a video for days afterward.

"events transpiring", ffs, so you had better insight than Stevens? What's next, you got some Triple Crown insights, Dan Marino?
Click to expand...

No, Stevens requested additional security based on the bombings and attacks on several other countries' diplomatic missions, not to mention the previous attacks on the Benghazi site. Perhaps you should become familiar with more than just the talking points.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/terrorism/261839-timeline-of-libya-attack-reveals-administration-contradictions-

So you are calling Stevens an "inept official"?
He went from martyr to bum in one post.
Click to expand...

No, Clinton and the WH staff. Nice try, though.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
It's been repeatedly testified before congress that the Secretary denied requests. A written denial of the request with her signature on it has been produced.
Click to expand...
BS, every document coming from the SOS office has her name on it, she did not "sign" off on anything related to this. Stop watching Fox, Fox kills brain cells.



Not hours, less than 1 hour.

Flying time between Tripoli, Libya and Benghazi, Libya
Click to expand...
LOL! 49 minutes flight time....from airport to airport. Hint: The compound Stevens was at...was not at the airport.....and the troops were not located at the Tripoli airport.

It took Doherty hours to get to the CIA compound from Tripoli:
The team, which included 2 active duty JSOC operators and five CIA personnel, had commandeered a small jet in Tripoli by paying the pilots $30,000 and forcing them to fly the team to Benghazi.[18]:43 After being held up at the airport for a few hours, the Libyan forces and newly arrived Americans went to the CIA annex at about 5:00am to assist in transporting approximately 32 Americans at the annex back to the airport for evacuation.



No, they did not. Further, they blamed it as a response to a video for days afterward.
Click to expand...
You are wrong, the very next day both Obama and Clinton stated:


On September 12 U.S. President Barack Obama condemned "this outrageous attack" on U.S. diplomatic facilities[142] and stated that "ince our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others."[142] After referring to "the 9/11 attacks," "troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan", and "then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi"[142] the President urged, "As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it."[142] He then went on to say, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."[142]

After the attack, Obama ordered that security be increased at all such facilities worldwide.[9] A 50-member Marine FAST team was sent to Libya to "bolster security."[143] It was announced that the FBI would investigate the possibility of the attack being planned.[144] U.S. officials said surveillance over Libya would increase, including the use of unmanned drones, to "hunt for the attackers."[144]

Secretary of State Clinton also made a statement on September 12, describing the perpetrators as "heavily armed militants" and "a small and savage group – not the people or government of Libya.


No, Stevens requested additional security based on the bombings and attacks on several other countries' diplomatic missions, not to mention the previous attacks on the Benghazi site. Perhaps you should become familiar with more than just the talking points.

Timeline of Libya consulate attack reveals administration contradictions - The Hill's Global Affairs
Click to expand...
Um, your link does not support your claim that Stevens requested increased sequrity at Benghazi.

Did you read it?



No, Clinton and the WH staff. Nice try, though.
Click to expand...
Uh, Clinton works at the SoS offices....duh.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Did I say it was "his fault"? No. Every Ambassador knows the dangers, especially one who had served multiple years in Libya.This is your argument, that the administration left him for dead? He was abandoned, no rescue teams were sent? You have absolutely no idea what happened.


Again, what was he supposed to do, exactly? Should he have been on those runs in the Libyan countryside with Stevens? Should he had been there with oxygen in the compound when Stevens was trapped and the place was on fire?

Proof of what, Batman fan?
Click to expand...

Oh, so you are not blaming Stevens when saying he knew this risks? I guess you are then just stating the obvious, LOL.

What was he supposed to do? Are you kidding? Be a President, be a leader, take action, like the brave spec ops guys that went charging in, against orders. No, he did nothing. In your mind, that's all he could do.

Funny, coming from a guy with the name "Gimmesometruth", you want anything but the truth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!;)
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, so you are not blaming Stevens when saying he knew this risks? I guess you are then just stating the obvious, LOL.
Click to expand...
It should be obvious, but for some it isn't, so when someone states the obvious, the response is "you are blaming him".

What was he supposed to do? Are you kidding? Be a President, be a leader, take action, like the brave spec ops guys that went charging in, against orders. No, he did nothing. In your mind, that's all he could do.
Click to expand...
So you expected the POTUS to "rush in like them"...ffs...QUICK ROBIN>>>TO THE BATMOBILE!!!

Funny, coming from a guy with the name "Gimmesometruth", you want anything but the truth. YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!;)
Click to expand...
If you produced ANY truths, you could test this theory....
 
This is making liberals look absolutely horrible.

Their integrity is on trial, and they still insist on arguing that the sky isn't blue.

This is the definition of a cover-up? A video caused this attack? Really, libs?

Remind me to never loan you money. Pathetic.
 
Erod said:
This is making liberals look absolutely horrible.

Their integrity is on trial, and they still insist on arguing that the sky isn't blue.

This is the definition of a cover-up? A video caused this attack? Really, libs?

Remind me to never loan you money. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

The CIA gave that cover story to try and protect their operation in Benghazi and you should know that by now. If you have a beef with the CIA say so. God knows how perfect they have been his last decade. That phony story would hardly rate in the top 10 of their dumbass ideas.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
It should be obvious, but for some it isn't, so when someone states the obvious, the response is "you are blaming him".

So you expected the POTUS to "rush in like them"...
Click to expand...

Gee, I didn't expect to have to spell it out to you, but it seems you are willfully getting it wrong. I know, it's a common liberal strategy. Mislead, stray away from the argument, get as far as you can from the topic (claiming that anyone would expect Obama to rush in, from Washington no less, LOL). Oh, and don't forget to devote your attention to an avatar, as that is an important part of your argument. What else? Maybe you should throw some attention at the font I'm using, that strays pretty far.

Here's a little hint, since you had such a hard time on your own... spec ops guys have a job that they do, and the president has a different job from them that he is supposed to do. One did their job (above and beyond), the other didn't (apparently took a little nap, instead).
 
Erod said:
This is making liberals look absolutely horrible.

Their integrity is on trial, and they still insist on arguing that the sky isn't blue.

This is the definition of a cover-up? A video caused this attack? Really, libs?

Remind me to never loan you money. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
Pathetic is that this is what the GOP considers a "cover-up". Obama and Clinton on the day following the attack call it terror from militants....but somehow something is being "covered-up".

The GOP has tried to to make Obama the fall guy for an economy that collapsed during Bush, now they fear Clinton so much that they think this will stick to her.

Pathetic, indeed.
 
Erod said:
This is making liberals look absolutely horrible.

Their integrity is on trial, and they still insist on arguing that the sky isn't blue.

This is the definition of a cover-up? A video caused this attack? Really, libs?

Remind me to never loan you money. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Don't forget, we are still waiting for our president to say something. The guy has been utterly silent on Benghazi.

Can the press please ask him if he still believes it was caused by a video?

Or, does he realize that people with first hand knowledge have shown him and Hillary to be lying about Benghazi?

She knew a lot more than she let on when she got up there and lied in front of Congress.

But hey, what does it matter, they're dead. To paraphrase her thighness.
 
Anthony60 said:
Don't forget, we are still waiting for our president to say something. The guy has been utterly silent on Benghazi.

Can the press please ask him if he still believes it was caused by a video?

Or, does he realize that people with first hand knowledge have shown him and Hillary to be lying about Benghazi?

She knew a lot more than she let on when she got up there and lied in front of Congress.

But hey, what does it matter, they're dead. To paraphrase her thighness.
Click to expand...


The Right is wasting it's time-----------They aren't going to impeach Obama and Hillary is so old she's ready to be put out to pasture, not be a potential candidate for anything........................
 
Anthony60 said:
Gee, I didn't expect to have to spell it out to you, but it seems you are willfully getting it wrong. I know, it's a common liberal strategy. Mislead, stray away from the argument, get as far as you can from the topic (claiming that anyone would expect Obama to rush in, from Washington no less, LOL). Oh, and don't forget to devote your attention to an avatar, as that is an important part of your argument. What else? Maybe you should throw some attention at the font I'm using, that strays pretty far.

Here's a little hint, since you had such a hard time on your own... spec ops guys have a job that they do, and the president has a different job from them that he is supposed to do. One did their job (above and beyond), the other didn't (apparently took a little nap, instead).
Click to expand...
If you have an "argument" that the President "napped", show it. If this is relevant, that he was derelict in duty, show what you have.

If you have nothing, then what you say about "misleading" is ironic.
 
Anthony60 said:
Don't forget, we are still waiting for our president to say something. The guy has been utterly silent on Benghazi.

Can the press please ask him if he still believes it was caused by a video?

Or, does he realize that people with first hand knowledge have shown him and Hillary to be lying about Benghazi?

She knew a lot more than she let on when she got up there and lied in front of Congress.

But hey, what does it matter, they're dead. To paraphrase her thighness.
Click to expand...
Absolute lies, topped of with misogyny.

Nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom