• 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]

So in your opinion.....it doesn't matter that Team Obama denied this was even a terrorist attack from the beginning. But then later on stated it was. Course then the 23 Muslim Countries rising up and rioting us on the Anniversary of 911. Wasn't organized either?

Now we have the Boston Bombing and Right away this Administration is out on Front Street saying this has nothing to do with Foreign involvement. That these are some local guys. Yet once again we are now finding out. That team Obama was again wrong.

if you're asking my opinion, i think that the administration chooses its words carefully and runs with talking points, like pretty much every other administration. the initial information is almost always incomplete, and politicians usually hedge their bets until they know for sure. in this case, the initial theory was wrong.
 
Most likely the administration's incompetence and lies.



For things as nebulous as "incompetence" and "lies", I'd have to see an expose to even pay attention to such ideas. "Whistleblowers" under those supposed conditions is so over the top its like claiming the world is ending when the sun is just setting....................
 
if you're asking my opinion, i think that the administration chooses its words carefully and runs with talking points, like pretty much every other administration. the initial information is almost always incomplete, and politicians usually hedge their bets until they know for sure. in this case, the initial theory was wrong.

So are you saying that Team Obama did so just because other Administrations had done so in the Past? So in the Right hedging their bets, do you think that such is due to all the other Foreign News Services that reported events, timelines and what Team Obama has said and done.

Wherein Team Obama can't hide behind the US MSM and get no backing from them. Kinda hard to call the Rest of the World liars.....isn't it? So being even politically correct.....and not using the term liars. Do you think they can deny what all else are saying.....despite Team Obama not being able to discredit those Foreign News Sources.
 
Last edited:
So are you saying that Team Obama did so just because other Administrations had done so in the Past? So in the Right hedging their bets, do you think that such is due to all the other Foreign News Services that reported events, timelines and what Team Obama has said and done.

Wherein Team Obama can't hide behind the US MSM and get no backing from them. Kinda hard to call the Rest of the World liars.....isn't it?

if there are legitimate foreign news services promoting Benghazi as a watergate-style coverup, i'm unaware of them.
 
if there are legitimate foreign news services promoting Benghazi as a watergate-style coverup, i'm unaware of them.

Why would they use the term Cover up? How about Local Libyan news that reported incidents that were in direct opposition to what team Obama had stated. Now who was looking to change the Story? Do you think when there are several News agencies that report the same issue to be news. That it is a Watergate Style Cover-up. How about just the basic fact.....that what they all were reporting was the truth. But that one grouping of a media outlet was only reporting with fervor that it was just Fox News leading a conspiracy because they are against Obama.

Lets See the Asian Times, Al, Jazerra, UK News Sources, Press TV, just to name a few. All reported what the Libyans Stated. Then our News media reported on what the Libyans Stated. Yet Team Obama's White House Press and those on the left say this is just a conspiracy. Despite the flip flops by team Obama over the issue. Despite being incompetent, negligent, and flip-flopping with their own words out of their mouths. :roll:
 
Why would they use the term Cover up? How about Local Libyan news that reported incidents that were in direct opposition to what team Obama had stated. Now who was looking to change the Story? Do you think when there are several News agencies that report the same issue to be news. That it is a Watergate Style Cover-up. How about just the basic fact.....that what they all were reporting was the truth. But that one grouping of a media outlet was only reporting with fervor that it was just Fox News leading a conspiracy because they are against Obama.

Lets See the Asian Times, Al, Jazerra, UK News Sources, Press TV, just to name a few. All reported what the Libyans Stated. Then our News media reported on what the Libyans Stated. Yet Team Obama's White House Press and those on the left say this is just a conspiracy. Despite the flip flops by team Obama over the issue. Despite being incompetent, negligent, and flip-flopping with their own words out of their mouths. :roll:

so legitimate global news networks are running with the theory that this is a watergate-style coverup which reaches all the way to the top? if the preponderance of the evidence shows that this is a criminal coverup, i'll be the first to return to this thread and admit that i was incorrect.
 
so legitimate global news networks are running with the theory that this is a watergate-style coverup which reaches all the way to the top? if the preponderance of the evidence shows that this is a criminal coverup, i'll be the first to return to this thread and admit that i was incorrect.

Again, how do you equate cover up for screw ups and then cover up due to Team Obama flip-flopping from what they stated out of their own mouths? How do you get cover up when no one has been brought to justice over the matter? That is not what was stated to you and you know it.

Do you think blatant negligence and incompetency when committed.....is an offense to be held accountable for?
 
Helix said:
so legitimate global news networks are running with the theory that this is a watergate-style coverup which reaches all the way to the top? if the preponderance of the evidence shows that this is a criminal coverup, i'll be the first to return to this thread and admit that i was incorrect.

Again, how do you equate cover up for screw ups and then cover up due to Team Obama flip-flopping from what they stated out of their own mouths? How do you get cover up when no one has been brought to justice over the matter? That is not what was stated to you and you know it.

Do you think blatant negligence and incompetency when committed.....is an offense to be held accountable for?

i'll take that as a no.

i will concede that we should have never maintained a presence in a profoundly unstable Libya. unfortunately, interventionism has become the default. i hope to see this trend reversed during my lifetime.
 
Again, how do you equate cover up for screw ups and then cover up due to Team Obama flip-flopping from what they stated out of their own mouths? How do you get cover up when no one has been brought to justice over the matter? That is not what was stated to you and you know it.

Do you think blatant negligence and incompetency when committed.....is an offense to be held accountable for?



Alot of people view "Benghazi" as 1) A question of what was the guy thinking when he went to Tripoli in the first place, and 2) How odd to see the Right coming to the supposed aid of a known sodomite...................................
 
i'll take that as a no.

i will concede that we should have never maintained a presence in a profoundly unstable Libya. unfortunately, interventionism has become the default. i hope to see this trend reversed during my lifetime.

Well, I would take it as an answer that applies to a statement that does not compute nor even come into play. Especially when information and evidence has to be pulled from the White House like a Dentist pulling teeth the Old Fashioned Way. Even to get documents.

Perhaps you should have considered those Emails that Team Obama forgot about. Which had lead to the discovery of documents, and the names of those that were all in on the communications.....huh?

Saying we should have never been there from the get go.....while in itself may be true. This does not change up that fact about Negligence and Incompetency, nor the fact that none has been brought to justice over this matter.
 
Alot of people view "Benghazi" as 1) A question of what was the guy thinking when he went to Tripoli in the first place, and 2) How odd to see the Right coming to the supposed aid of a known sodomite...................................

Now, how would the Right be coming to the Aid of a known Sodomite as you say.....by bringing up Team Obama's Negligence and Sheer Incompetency?
 
While I certainly question the motives of some on the right who won’t drop Benghazi, I am still glad they are hammering on it. And if there are firsthand witnesses who wish to testify before Congress who are being prevented by the Administration, then that should also be addressed.

I don’t think people who want that are conspiracy theorists. That could have VERY easily been me in Benghazi so I realize I am not exactly impartial on this.
 
While I certainly question the motives of some on the right who won’t drop Benghazi, I am still glad they are hammering on it. And if there are firsthand witnesses who wish to testify before Congress who are being prevented by the Administration, then that should also be addressed.

I don’t think people who want that are conspiracy theorists. That could have VERY easily been me in Benghazi so I realize I am not exactly impartial on this.



I would say that any homosexual who accepts a job in the Middle East needs to be committed. But then that's just my opinion......................
 
While I certainly question the motives of some on the right who won’t drop Benghazi, I am still glad they are hammering on it. And if there are firsthand witnesses who wish to testify before Congress who are being prevented by the Administration, then that should also be addressed.

I don’t think people who want that are conspiracy theorists. That could have VERY easily been me in Benghazi so I realize I am not exactly impartial on this.


Heya Sarcogito.
yo2.gif
If working for the State Dept and members of Congress ask for volunteer testimony. Can those in the Dept just volunteer to testify? Do they sign any documents concerning legal liabilities?
 
Heya Sarcogito.
yo2.gif
If working for the State Dept and members of Congress ask for volunteer testimony. Can those in the Dept just volunteer to testify? Do they sign any documents concerning legal liabilities?

I personally am not State Department, I am a military attaché, though in my line of work I work with more State Department people than DoD. But yes, all of us with clearances sign non-disclosure agreements.

In fact, I am looking at a non-disclosure agreement right now. Let’s see, it prohibits the UNAUTHORIZED disclosure of classified information and unclassified information that is under the process of classification determination. Before one can disclose such information they must verify the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it. It states one can be terminated, or under certain cases, face criminal prosecution for breaking the agreement.

So obviously a problem arises when one branch of the government requests the information and another branch says no. Practically speaking, we are employees of the Executive Branch and it is the Executive Branch that grants, and can take, our security clearances. Thus it is the Executive Branch that hold sway over our careers. So unless the Judiciary steps in to break the stalemate, the prudent thing is to follow the instructions of the Executive Branch. That said, I respect those who disobey orders on moral grounds, they just have to be willing to face the consequences, and in this case it could mean getting fired or at least doing damage to their careers. I can't imagine they would face criminal charges for cooperating with Congress. Too much bad press.
 
I personally am not State Department, I am a military attaché, though in my line of work I work with more State Department people than DoD. But yes, all of us with clearances sign non-disclosure agreements.

In fact, I am looking at a non-disclosure agreement right now. Let’s see, it prohibits the UNAUTHORIZED disclosure of classified information and unclassified information that is under the process of classification determination. Before one can disclose such information they must verify the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it. It states one can be terminated, or under certain cases, face criminal prosecution for breaking the agreement.

So obviously a problem arises when one branch of the government requests the information and another branch says no. Practically speaking, we are employees of the Executive Branch and it is the Executive Branch that grants, and can take, our security clearances. Thus it is the Executive Branch that hold sway over our careers. So unless the Judiciary steps in to break the stalemate, the prudent thing is to follow the instructions of the Executive Branch. That said, I respect those who disobey orders on moral grounds, they just have to be willing to face the consequences, and in this case it could mean getting fired or at least doing damage to their careers. I can't imagine they would face criminal charges for cooperating with Congress. Too much bad press.

Yeah.....I kinda figured that was worded in such a way. So there goes the theory that someone on the spur of the moment would jump up and testify without knowing their legal ramifications. Especially if they leaked some sort of classified information. Not knowing they had done so at the time and especially with not having all documentation out there.
 
I would say that any homosexual who accepts a job in the Middle East needs to be committed. But then that's just my opinion......................

I have known plenty who do. Status and diplomatic immunity is usually enough to protect them. I have been stationed in places where sacrilege is punishable by law and atheists get thrown in jail. I am an outspoken atheist who has no problem talking about it on my Facebook or on forums like this. Of course I post pseudo anonymously and my comments are my personal opinions and not those of my employer. But still, if not for my diplomatic immunity I COULD get in trouble for those things. But diplomatic immunity can’t protect you from criminals.
 
I have known plenty who do. Status and diplomatic immunity is usually enough to protect them. I have been stationed in places where sacrilege is punishable by law and atheists get thrown in jail. I am an outspoken atheist who has no problem talking about it on my Facebook or on forums like this. Of course I post pseudo anonymously and my comments are my personal opinions and not those of my employer. But still, if not for my diplomatic immunity I COULD get in trouble for those things. But diplomatic immunity can’t protect you from criminals.



The naive, the optimistic, the believers in humanity as basically "decent"-------Well, you can count me out of that crowd......................
 
The naive, the optimistic, the believers in humanity as basically "decent"-------Well, you can count me out of that crowd......................

And here I was, just about to mail you an application. ;)
 
And here I was, just about to mail you an application. ;)



I like to think of it as the inevitable transvalution of the old value of "hope"..................
 
I find it ironic.. Most on the right seem to hate whistleblowers...
 
It sorta makes sense that the current administration might go after any 'whistleblowers'. They have somewhat become famous for going after such people, more so than just about every other administration. Must have something to do with transparency. ;)

Obama has declared war on whistleblowers.

Let me just say that for all you partisans trying to either crucify or absolve the persident of all guilt, you need to understand what he is guilty of first. He is guilty of bombing Libya in the first place, which is what caused the security situation in Benghazi.

All this hair splitting on who signed what document for more security is totally missing the picture. When you destroy a government, including the military and police, it's quite natural for the security situation to rapidly deteriorate. But the partisans seem to be in agreement that the bombing was justified, even though it's what caused this whole mess to begin with. Amazing! Oh well, I guess it just gives them something petty to squabble about while the real issues remain unspoken of anywhere in the media. When was the last term you heard a major news broadcast question the wisdom of this whole little operation in Libya in the first place? The media has been about as useful as they were in the run up to take Baghdad.
 
Back
Top Bottom