Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 111

Thread: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by tererun View Post
    You speak for the american people now? I guess that is why they elected obama because you spoke for them? Join us back in reality.
    One reason the American people voted for him because he was going around saying he had Alquiada on the run, then Alquiada killed our ambassador and several others in a terrorist attack. Nobody knows where obama was or what he was doing during these two separate attacks over seven hours and he won't say. The whole thing was handled terribly and then obama tried to cover this terrorism up by fabricating a story. When the truth comes out and people realized they voted for a president that covered up his inept response to a terrorist attack the American people will turn on him just as his fellow dem's are running from him now.

  2. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarcogito View Post
    Not going to happen. The People donít care enough about this. And the more time that passes the less they will care.
    That is what obama is hoping and why he has been stalling as long as possible. The mantra of all defense attorneys who know their client is guilty is delay,delay, delay.

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony60 View Post
    I recently realized that we have been conditioned by the liberal media for decades to believe that Watergate was the utmost horrible event that ever occurred in the U.S. Presidency. It was a break in at a hotel room, that Nixon had no knowledge of.

    Now, what happened in Libya? Obama didn't know, but we know that there were requests for more security months before it happened, right up to the SOS. No hotel room here. Hi level people died. More died in the hours after the event, left without any support. And so far it seems, without any attempt to help them. As far as we know at this point, Obama was informed of the dire situation, went to bed, then headed off to Vegas for a fundraiser.

    And Nixon was impeached. Yeah, there's a potential for big trouble for our current president. Again, he's in way over his head, as he was the first day he stepped into that office.
    Very true, Nixon's "crime" was a bumbling attempt to cover up a burglary. Obama's crime is his bumbling response to a terrorist attack and his attempt to cover it up in order to win an election. If there is any justice in this world obama will last be seen sulking into Air Force one for his last ride too.

  4. #24
    Educator
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    10-20-13 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    675

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    I simply fail to see why so many continue to talk about those deaths in Benghazi. The President and the SOS told us it was a movie on you tube that caused it. The evil person who made the movie is in jail. It's all been settled. Let's move forward.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Oftencold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    A small village in Alaska
    Last Seen
    05-09-14 @ 12:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    5,044

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    I tried this thread, nobody cared, maybe you will have better luck than I did. I do think as this cover up unravels it could be the undoing of obama's presidency though. I'm not talking impeachment but if he was elected on the basis of a cover up and a huge lie to the American people he may be considered an illegitimate president and may as well spend his second term playing more golf, more BB and taking more vacations because he will be more than a lame duck, he will be completely impotent.
    I think that maybe we've reached a point where the Obamanites are so utterly detached from reality that it's just tiresome to try to argue with them. It's like trying to get a deeply senile relative to understand their surroundings.

    So, some of these threads languish. Those of us living in mere Reality enforce each others' correct sense of mental health, but that sort of conversation can get old fast.

    On another board, I recently was discussing the Benghazi cover up. The Obama folks said that there is no evidence of a cover up. Never mind that the Benghazi Affair involves a major event in the life of the State, the massacre of diplomatic personnel by the citizens of the country they were assigned to after their concerns about security were dismissed by their superiors and so on. The fact that next to no information has been forthcoming from the responsible Administration and their clear lack of interest in producing or publishing that information is a text book example of an official cover up. How do you have a serious conversation with people so deeply, irrationally and willfully irrational?
    Quod scripsi, scripsi

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    okla-freakin-homa
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,626

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Lots of interesting rants here, let me see if I can remember them all.

    I guess the 'al-Queera on the run' somehow equals 'Mission Accomplished' is a good start. The former doesn't mean we have won, al-Queera isn't a threat anymore. FYI under BushII al-Queera attacked in Iraq, where they were not before WE invaded, but they also attacked in Spain, Britain, Morocco, the USofA, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Compared to those days al-Queera is on the run, but only a few who believe in banners on aircraft carriers think that means no ore al-Queera.

    To claim Watergate is of lesser 'sin' than Benghazi because no one died... and it was a simple cover-up. As soon as you admit President Obama won't be impeached over this you admit Watergate is a much bigger 'sin' because in no uncertain terms Nixon would have been impeached and the Senate would have voted to uphold.

    Personally I'd say first we try BushII for the run-up to Iraq, then his cabinet as the deaths of thousands of citizens over a series of lies and cover-ups seems by far the bigger sin.

    Now one thing I can say about first reports and who thinks what action can taken in a timely fashion. Those in the immediate reaction force tend to see the only response is immediate attack, there is no fog of war factor to them. Outpost hit, send the react force NOW. However this isn't an isolated outpost in the jungle where we can surround the embattled troops with nape and snake, before inserting at least 150 men in one lift.

    Last of all and the most sensitive are the actions of the ambassador at that time. It is the anniversary of 9-11. It is apparently a worsening situation and he has asked for more security in that country. BUT he leaves the relative safety of the Embassy in Tripoli for the very insecure Consulate in Benghazi. Who was he meeting that it couldn't wait or couldn't be done at the Embassy?

    Finally everyone thought the safe house in Benghazi was strong enough to withstand the attack, it was designed to do so. The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation, not direct attack. What should of happened is local security forces clear the area and then escort the Ambassador's team from safe house back to the Embassy in Tripoli where a heightened security detail safeguards those grounds.

    Didn't happen that way and I am sure the anti-Obama crowd thinks somehow the results could be changed but for some of us with a bit more experience in how simple things can fall apart without any regard to what we want to have happen, how a Tom Clancy novel would of had it happen...

    'Blackhawk Down' shows how a very simple snatch and run mission where we have total dominance in the air, sat relay and other nations involved can turn to **** and become a harrowing ordeal where men die because medivacs are denied in the chaos and confusion of the night time fighting.

    Anyway harp on whatever part you like to include did the President knowingly not say terrorist when he knew differently... I doubt there will be any direct connection there, but harp as you want.

    Bottomline this won't affect the second term of Obama anymore than Iran Contra affected Reagan...

  7. #27
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by Oftencold View Post
    I think that maybe we've reached a point where the Obamanites are so utterly detached from reality that it's just tiresome to try to argue with them.
    It's like trying to get a deeply senile relative to understand their surroundings.

    So, some of these threads languish. Those of us living in mere Reality enforce each others' correct sense of mental health, but that sort of conversation can get old fast.

    On another board, I recently was discussing the Benghazi cover up. The Obama folks said that there is no evidence of a cover up. Never mind that the Benghazi Affair involves a major event in the life of the State, the massacre of diplomatic personnel by the citizens of the country they were assigned to after their concerns about security were dismissed by their superiors and so on. The fact that next to no information has been forthcoming from the responsible Administration and their clear lack of interest in producing or publishing that information is a text book example of an official cover up. How do you have a serious conversation with people so deeply, irrationally and willfully irrational?
    I know exactly what you mean ...
    obama - yoga - supporters.jpg

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,304

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Lots of interesting rants here, let me see if I can remember them all.

    I guess the 'al-Queera on the run' somehow equals 'Mission Accomplished' is a good start. The former doesn't mean we have won, al-Queera isn't a threat anymore. FYI under BushII al-Queera attacked in Iraq, where they were not before WE invaded, but they also attacked in Spain, Britain, Morocco, the USofA, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Compared to those days al-Queera is on the run, but only a few who believe in banners on aircraft carriers think that means no ore al-Queera.

    To claim Watergate is of lesser 'sin' than Benghazi because no one died... and it was a simple cover-up. As soon as you admit President Obama won't be impeached over this you admit Watergate is a much bigger 'sin' because in no uncertain terms Nixon would have been impeached and the Senate would have voted to uphold.

    Personally I'd say first we try BushII for the run-up to Iraq, then his cabinet as the deaths of thousands of citizens over a series of lies and cover-ups seems by far the bigger sin.

    Now one thing I can say about first reports and who thinks what action can taken in a timely fashion. Those in the immediate reaction force tend to see the only response is immediate attack, there is no fog of war factor to them. Outpost hit, send the react force NOW. However this isn't an isolated outpost in the jungle where we can surround the embattled troops with nape and snake, before inserting at least 150 men in one lift.

    Last of all and the most sensitive are the actions of the ambassador at that time. It is the anniversary of 9-11. It is apparently a worsening situation and he has asked for more security in that country. BUT he leaves the relative safety of the Embassy in Tripoli for the very insecure Consulate in Benghazi. Who was he meeting that it couldn't wait or couldn't be done at the Embassy?

    Finally everyone thought the safe house in Benghazi was strong enough to withstand the attack, it was designed to do so. The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation, not direct attack. What should of happened is local security forces clear the area and then escort the Ambassador's team from safe house back to the Embassy in Tripoli where a heightened security detail safeguards those grounds.

    Didn't happen that way and I am sure the anti-Obama crowd thinks somehow the results could be changed but for some of us with a bit more experience in how simple things can fall apart without any regard to what we want to have happen, how a Tom Clancy novel would of had it happen...

    'Blackhawk Down' shows how a very simple snatch and run mission where we have total dominance in the air, sat relay and other nations involved can turn to **** and become a harrowing ordeal where men die because medivacs are denied in the chaos and confusion of the night time fighting.

    Anyway harp on whatever part you like to include did the President knowingly not say terrorist when he knew differently... I doubt there will be any direct connection there, but harp as you want.

    Bottomline this won't affect the second term of Obama anymore than Iran Contra affected Reagan...
    Comment #27 follows yours by accident.
    Accidents are sometimes both timely & appropriate.

  9. #29
    Guru
    Carleen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,622

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by apacherat View Post
    is this the beginning of the end of barack obama's presidency ?

    Is this barack obama's watergate ?

    Nixon resigned because he lied (not under oath) that he had no knowledge of the watergate break in knowing it could hurt his reelection for a second term in the white house. Nixon wasn't informed of the watergate break in until after it happened. And no one was murdered during the watergate break in.

    Evidence has already surfaced that president obama knew while the attack on the consulate in benghazi was in progress that it was a well organized attack having nothing to do with a you tube video and by the next day it was confirmed that the attack was an al qaeda attack.

    But obama knowing he has been running for reelection on a platform that al qaeda was on the run and being decimated, that if the american people found out that al qaeda isn't on the run and have expanded it's base of operations during his first term in the white house all across the middle east and north africa, this could cause him to lose reelection. So he ordered a cover up six weeks before the november elections.

    Will president obama show the same respect to the office of the presidency and resign as nixon did back in 74 ?

    Will the democrats follow the same course as the republicans honorably did back in 74 when they told nixon it's time to go ?

    It's starting to look likely some democrats see obama's watergate coming.

    sunday shows: Democrats back away from obama on benghazi, syria

    >" democrats on sunday morning's news shows appeared to back away from president barack obama on his administration's response to the benghazi terror attack and his blurry "red line" on syria's chemical weapons.
    On fox news sunday, rep. Stephen lynch (d-ma) admitted that the obama administration's talking points on benghazi, edited to remove references to extremism and blaming protests against an anti-islamic youtube video for the violence, were "false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside the benghazi compound."

    on cbs news' face the nation, rep. Dutch ruppersberger (d-md), the ranking member of the house intelligence committee, also admitted that the administration's talking points were wrong, though putting the changes down to the fact that the intelligence changed over time in a "volatile situation."


    meanwhile, on syria, former rep. Jane harman, a prominent california democraet, acknowledged on nbc news' meet the press that the obama administration had been slow to respond: "i wish we had acted sooner."

    republicans remain divided on the syria issue, but on benghazi the caucus anticipates a week of testimony that will prove deeply damaging to the obama administration, as well as the media's attempts to protect him. "<
    sunday shows: Democrats back away from obama on benghazi, syria
    ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Omg!
    "Being President doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are"

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Lots of interesting rants here, let me see if I can remember them all.

    I guess the 'al-Queera on the run' somehow equals 'Mission Accomplished' is a good start. The former doesn't mean we have won, al-Queera isn't a threat anymore. FYI under BushII al-Queera attacked in Iraq, where they were not before WE invaded, but they also attacked in Spain, Britain, Morocco, the USofA, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Compared to those days al-Queera is on the run, but only a few who believe in banners on aircraft carriers think that means no ore al-Queera.

    To claim Watergate is of lesser 'sin' than Benghazi because no one died... and it was a simple cover-up. As soon as you admit President Obama won't be impeached over this you admit Watergate is a much bigger 'sin' because in no uncertain terms Nixon would have been impeached and the Senate would have voted to uphold.

    Personally I'd say first we try BushII for the run-up to Iraq, then his cabinet as the deaths of thousands of citizens over a series of lies and cover-ups seems by far the bigger sin.

    Now one thing I can say about first reports and who thinks what action can taken in a timely fashion. Those in the immediate reaction force tend to see the only response is immediate attack, there is no fog of war factor to them. Outpost hit, send the react force NOW. However this isn't an isolated outpost in the jungle where we can surround the embattled troops with nape and snake, before inserting at least 150 men in one lift.

    Last of all and the most sensitive are the actions of the ambassador at that time. It is the anniversary of 9-11. It is apparently a worsening situation and he has asked for more security in that country. BUT he leaves the relative safety of the Embassy in Tripoli for the very insecure Consulate in Benghazi. Who was he meeting that it couldn't wait or couldn't be done at the Embassy?


    Finally everyone thought the safe house in Benghazi was strong enough to withstand the attack, it was designed to do so. The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation, not direct attack. What should of happened is local security forces clear the area and then escort the Ambassador's team from safe house back to the Embassy in Tripoli where a heightened security detail safeguards those grounds.

    Didn't happen that way and I am sure the anti-Obama crowd thinks somehow the results could be changed but for some of us with a bit more experience in how simple things can fall apart without any regard to what we want to have happen, how a Tom Clancy novel would of had it happen...

    'Blackhawk Down' shows how a very simple snatch and run mission where we have total dominance in the air, sat relay and other nations involved can turn to **** and become a harrowing ordeal where men die because medivacs are denied in the chaos and confusion of the night time fighting.

    Anyway harp on whatever part you like to include did the President knowingly not say terrorist when he knew differently... I doubt there will be any direct connection there, but harp as you want.

    Bottomline this won't affect the second term of Obama anymore than Iran Contra affected Reagan...
    So much for that theory.

    Another witness for Wednesday's hearing, Mark Thompson, is a counterterrorism expert. He's likely to address another sore spot surrounding the night of the attacks: the fact that the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource, the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). According to Rep. Issa, Thompson will testify that he was locked out of the process "even though he was the individual who was supposed to react to these kinds of things."

    Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack. National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News the CSG was not needed.

    "From the moment the president was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses," said Vietor.

    "The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."

    Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. "The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted.".....snip~

    Three more officials to testify about Benghazi attacks - CBS News

    "Oh" and Stevens was Meeting a Turkish Envoy and was seen on the Street with him In front of the Consulate. See he had to meet the Turks Envoy.....Cuz the Turks had pulled their Ambassador out when the after the Conflict with Gadhafi had jumped off. It is alleged that Steven's was meeting with the Turk over weapons to Syria. Especially after a Libyan Freighter showed up 5 days earlier than the attack on Benghazi. On the Shores of Syria. Then it was known that somehow the Syrian Rebels had gotten a hold of ManPads outta of Libya. Which we know that Clinton had testified that was what was a concern and being held in the CIA Safehouse. That they were trying to round up what Gadhafi had.....on specifically ManPads.

    Bottomline is.....now the MSMedia are the ones carrying it all forward. So far CBS, ABC, and CNN. Lions Tigers and Bears....."Oh My"!

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •