• 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!

Republicans Altered Benghazi Emails, CBS News Report Claims [W:361]

head of joaquin said:
Do you really want to talk aboug grieving families in light of Bush's vanity wars in Iraq and Reaghanistan? Really?
Click to expand...

Reaghanistan? Really? You need to step up your game. :roll:
 
American said:
Reaghanistan? Really? You need to step up your game. :roll:
Click to expand...

Like justabubba says, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. But I'm glad you're concerned about me.
 
justabubba said:
so, while you insist something should have been done, you have no idea what should have been done
and asking you to expound on your post is found "harrassing"
you do realize this is a debate site?
Click to expand...

Yes and I'm finished debating with you. I'll answer your question. The government should have sent military assets to attack and kill the terrorists. If they weren't able to arrive in time then at least they tried. If they did arrive, it would act as a disincentive to other terrorists. The way it is now we the terrorists know they can attack our outposts with impunity. You could have figured that out yourself, couldn't you?
 
fmw said:
Yes and I'm finished debating with you. I'll answer your question. The government should have sent military assets to attack and kill the terrorists. If they weren't able to arrive in time then at least they tried. If they did arrive, it would act as a disincentive to other terrorists. The way it is now we the terrorists know they can attack our outposts with impunity. You could have figured that out yourself, couldn't you?
Click to expand...

More embassies were attacked under Bush 10 times over, and he attacked Iraq and Reaghanistan. So you're logic seems faulty.
 
head of joaquin said:
More embassies were attacked under Bush 10 times over, and he attacked Iraq and Reaghanistan. So you're logic seems faulty.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with anything? That is what I believe should happen no matter who is president
 
fmw said:
What does that have to do with anything? That is what I believe should happen no matter who is president
Click to expand...

You don't even understand the logic of your own argument, do you?
 
Middleground said:
There were 13 Benghazis under Bush. Where was your and the right outrage then???
Click to expand...

There was not one consulate attack that the Bush administration called anything other than a deliberate attack.
 
mac said:
There was not one consulate attack that the Bush administration called anything other than a deliberate attack.
Click to expand...

And Obama called Benghazi a deliberate attack.

Do you think Obama said the attack was an accident? :screwy:
 
mac said:
There was not one consulate attack that the Bush administration called anything other than a deliberate attack.
Click to expand...

but where was your outrage then?
and that of your cohort?
when American diplomats were killed at state department facilities under dicknbush's watch?
 
sangha said:
And Obama called Benghazi a deliberate attack.

Do you think Obama said the attack was an accident? :screwy:
Click to expand...

No he didn't. At least not initially.
 
justabubba said:
but where was your outrage then?
Click to expand...

My outrage was directed at the attackers. Specially for the 4 guys I went to boot-camp with (and the rest of the Sailors) that died on the USS Cole.

and that of your cohort?
Click to expand...

Who is my cohort?
 
mac said:
My outrage was directed at the attackers. Specially for the 4 guys I went to boot-camp with (and the rest of the Sailors) that died on the USS Cole.
Click to expand...
by your own admission it was not at the president - as it is now



Who is my cohort?
Click to expand...
those who are looking to find something - anything, actually - to criticize Obama
 
mac said:
There was not one consulate attack that the Bush administration called anything other than a deliberate attack.
Click to expand...

So? Every attack is deliberate. I think you mean a terrorist attack.

Bush was a friend of Gaddafi so he didn't have to deal with the chaos of his overthrow. Obama did, and handled it magnificently (didn't spend $3T to get rid of a dictator like Bush did). In that aftermath, hard to tell who were the attackers. Why does that bother you so much?
 
justabubba said:
by your own admission it was not at the president - as it is now
Click to expand...

Because Bush did not attempt to lie about them in order to save a political narrative.

those who are looking to find something - anything, actually - to criticize Obama
Click to expand...

It isn't very hard to find something.
 
pbrauer said:
Does this help?

Click to expand...


It doesn't help you. He refers to terrorist attacks in a general sense here, and about 2 hours later he told 60 minutes he was unwilling to label it a terror attack.

"KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.” "


Oh, and by the way, he himself acknowledges that he did not call it a terrorist attack during the Rose Garden speech in this 60 minutes interview, as you can see.
 
Last edited:
I really truly dont get why you guys worry about such a fine point. Maybe there really is little else to crtize?
mac said:
It doesn't help you. He refers to terrorist attacks in a general sense here, and about 2 hours later he told 60 minutes he was unwilling to label it a terror attack.

"KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
KROFT: “Do you believe that this was a terrorist attack?”
OBAMA: “Well, it’s too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved, but obviously it was an attack on Americans. And we are going to be working with the Libyan government to make sure that we bring these folks to justice, one way or the other.” "
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
I really truly dont get why you guys worry about such a fine point. Maybe there really is little else to crtize?
Click to expand...

Because he lied about it. Repeatedly.
 
Even from what you have quoted above, you have to really want him to lie to say he lied. It is right there in front of you. He refered to it as terrorism then refused to officially label it until all the facts were in.
mac said:
Because he lied about it. Repeatedly.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Even from what you have quoted above, you have to really want him to lie to say he lied. It is right there in front of you. He refered to it as terrorism then refused to officially label it until all the facts were in.
Click to expand...

What's right there in front of me is him acknowledging that he did not call it a terror attack. Then, later he lied about it and said he did. In an election debate. And oh, it wasn't too early to know what happened. At that point, he was fully aware of what happened.
 
No, he refered to it as terror and later merely refused to be nailed down until he had all the facts, not a lie, reasonable. Most reasonable people get this.
mac said:
What's right there in front of me is him acknowledging that he did not call it a terror attack. Then, later he lied about it and said he did. In an election debate. And oh, it wasn't too early to know what happened. At that point, he was fully aware of what happened.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
No, he refered to it as terror and later merely refused to be nailed down until he had all the facts, not a lie, reasonable. Most reasonable people get this.
Click to expand...

Uhhhhmmm, no.

KROFT: “Mr. President, this morning you went out of your way to avoid the use of the word ‘terrorism’ in connection with the Libya attack.”
OBAMA: “Right.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom