• 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!

Will the Libya scandal lose the election for Obama?

Will the Libya scandal lose the election for Obama?


  • Total voters
    71
Most folks who do not subscribe to the right cause celebre of the week hardly care about this as an important or crucial election issue.
 
Funny Boo. That is precisely how Obama sees things. No personal responsibility, it's always someone else who is at fault.

He had to cover this up. His team could not figure out how to blame Bush.

Frankly, the whining I see is as much, if not more, from conservatives who blame everyone around them.

As for the cover up, provide some evidence. A claim is not evidence.
 
Frankly, the whining I see is as much, if not more, from conservatives who blame everyone around them.

As for the cover up, provide some evidence. A claim is not evidence.


Susan Rice making the talk shows and saying that the attack was due to some protest based on the intel they had at the time. Was the beginning of the evidence. Then Obamas Press Secretary Jay Carney stating the same thing. Only to come out 10 days later stating they now knew it was a planned attack by militants. Notice the Terminology. Militants. There are several videos of what she stated and we do have a thread here on what she stated. So there is no getting around that fact.

Moreover Obama if you recall at the second debate yelled for Candy. Show the tape, show the tape. Yeesssss show the tape in the Rose Garden. Any reason Obama didn't want to reference his first speech at Andrews Air Force base with Clinton upon receiving the Bodies of Stevens and the fallen. Notice he didn't mention an act of terror in that Speech.

In addition Both Clinton and Obama knew that a trade Association and some Pakistani minister used world wide media to put a bounty on the guy that made the Anti Islam Movie. Which after 23 Muslim countries protested and rioted our Embassies. Clinton a week later was still imploring the Indians, Mali and Pakistan from resorting to violence. Stating they condemned the making of the movie.

Seems the only ones whining are those that keep asking for more details. Do you think this is why Fienstein and other Democrats wants answers and why Fienstein has called For Senate hearings after the Election? there goes that theory about only conservatives looking to blame everyone around them.....huh?

When the left has EJ Dunne, Lanny Davis, and James Carville questioning this Administrations actions and statements over Benghazi.....speaks Volumnes for those who have ears!
 
Susan Rice making the talk shows and saying that the attack was due to some protest based on the intel they had at the time. Was the beginning of the evidence. Then Obamas Press Secretary Jay Carney stating the same thing. Only to come out 10 days later stating they now knew it was a planned attack by militants. Notice the Terminology. Militants. There are several videos of what she stated and we do have a thread here on what she stated. So there is no getting around that fact.

Moreover Obama if you recall at the second debate yelled for Candy. Show the tape, show the tape. Yeesssss show the tape in the Rose Garden. Any reason Obama didn't want to reference his first speech at Andrews Air Force base with Clinton upon receiving the Bodies of Stevens and the fallen. Notice he didn't mention an act of terror in that Speech.

In addition Both Clinton and Obama knew that a trade Association and some Pakistani minister used world wide media to put a bounty on the guy that made the Anti Islam Movie. Which after 23 Muslim countries protested and rioted our Embassies. Clinton a week later was still imploring the Indians, Mali and Pakistan from resorting to violence. Stating they condemned the making of the movie.

Seems the only ones whining are those that keep asking for more details. Do you think this is why Fienstein and other Democrats wants answers and why Fienstein has called For Senate hearings after the Election? there goes that theory about only conservatives looking to blame everyone around them.....huh?

When the left has EJ Dunne, Lanny Davis, and James Carville questioning this Administrations actions and statements over Benghazi.....speaks Volumnes for those who have ears!

I'm sorry, but in order to accept that as evidence, you have to read in a conclusion you have started with. It is usually a mistake to begin with the conclusion.
 
I'm sorry, but in order to accept that as evidence, you have to read in a conclusion you have started with. It is usually a mistake to begin with the conclusion.

No actually I can look in the thread we have and see the Video of Susan Rice and her very own words. Especially about the intel that was had at the time. Course now the rest have validated it was a planned attack. So how was that again that Susan Rices own words can't be used against her as evidence with evidence starting as a conclusion?
 
Nice. Wishing for a terrorist attack on the Capitol. You're so much better than Ahmedinijad. :roll:

It would pose an opportunity for political reform, which I think we sorely need. That said I don't wish a nuke to be set off on the homefront.
 
No actually I can look in the thread we have and see the Video of Susan Rice and her very own words. Especially about the intel that was had at the time. Course now the rest have validated it was a planned attack. So how was that again that Susan Rices own words can't be used against her as evidence with evidence starting as a conclusion?

Because that isn't even the issue. A lot of people said a lot of things. Some accurate, some not. But you have to show a deliberate cover up. Not that people said inaccurate things.
 
Frankly, the whining I see is as much, if not more, from conservatives who blame everyone around them.

As for the cover up, provide some evidence. A claim is not evidence.

Could it be they're doing the blaming because the blamed are actually at fault? Obama's record shows his lack of honesty. He failed on so many levels it's a miracle people still support him.
 
Because that isn't even the issue. A lot of people said a lot of things. Some accurate, some not. But you have to show a deliberate cover up. Not that people said inaccurate things.

What part of "Obama said it two weeks later" and "they knew within 24 hours" didn't make sense to you? They knew right away, everyone involved did. Yet two weeks later they came out spewing the same bogus lie.
 
Could it be they're doing the blaming because the blamed are actually at fault? Obama's record shows his lack of honesty. He failed on so many levels it's a miracle people still support him.

You mean like saying Obama closed down Jeep and had those jobs outsourced to China? Or the entire "you didn't build that" dishonesty? Or how about this gem: "Regulations have quadrupled. The rate of regulations quadrupled under this president." Or this one: President Obama has "doubled" the deficit.

What you have to show, with evidence and not speculation, is an actual cover up.
 
What part of "Obama said it two weeks later" and "they knew within 24 hours" didn't make sense to you? They knew right away, everyone involved did. Yet two weeks later they came out spewing the same bogus lie.

If he corrected it, it's not a cover up. What don't you get?
 
In your opinion how long should the investigation go on before Obama finds out what role he played?

Excellent question!! I look forward to hearing the answer(s)...
 
Because that isn't even the issue. A lot of people said a lot of things. Some accurate, some not. But you have to show a deliberate cover up. Not that people said inaccurate things.

How wasn't it a deliberate cover up when the CIA, Libya, and Clinton have come and stated there was no protest. Rice made all the talk shows on a Sunday. Why do you think Republicans want her Resignation? There is no doubt Rice stated there was a protest outside the Libyan Consulate. She was flat out denying that it was a planned attack and only after the CIA and Clinton with Obama stating they now knew it was pre-planned. Did she then change her remarks.

So some things were covered. Maybe not all of it.....but that doesn't give them the right to play it like they didn't know what was happening and going on.

Which later Obama confirmed on 60 minutes. When he stated he thought there was something going on there.

Either way incompetency will not be a valid excuse to chase away a failed policy.
 
How wasn't it a deliberate cover up when the CIA, Libya, and Clinton have come and stated there was no protest. Rice made all the talk shows on a Sunday. Why do you think Republicans want her Resignation? There is no doubt Rice stated there was a protest outside the Libyan Consulate. She was flat out denying that it was a planned attack and only after the CIA and Clinton with Obama stating they now knew it was pre-planned. Did she then change her remarks.

So some things were covered. Maybe not all of it.....but that doesn't give them the right to play it like they didn't know what was happening and going on.

Which later Obama confirmed on 60 minutes. When he stated he thought there was something going on there.

Either way incompetency will not be a valid excuse to chase away a failed policy.

So, even you give an alternative possibility. And others may see a third, or a fourth, or a fifth. So, what is needed is more evidence. Speculation isn't news. And that is the point here.
 
The comments of the human debris that occupies the leftmost part of the political spectrum disgust me. We see them here. They believe they are oh-so-intelligent. But they are shells of human beings. There is a thin veneer with no core, no center, no soul.

You are one of the reasons why Obama's Benghazi Massacre will not go away.

It is a bit telling that this is the only reply to my post. Not one liberal, including the person I replied to, wanted to address the facts of the case or Obama's willingness to allow Americans to die when help was readily available, while blaming a youtube video.
 
You mean like saying Obama closed down Jeep and had those jobs outsourced to China? Or the entire "you didn't build that" dishonesty? Or how about this gem: "Regulations have quadrupled. The rate of regulations quadrupled under this president." Or this one: President Obama has "doubled" the deficit.

What you have to show, with evidence and not speculation, is an actual cover up.

First of all, he DID double the deficit. Second of all, I wasn't saying that any of that had anything to do with the cover up. I'm just saying he has a poor track record.
 
If he corrected it, it's not a cover up. What don't you get?

He only corrected it when the evidence came out in the hearing. There was evidence to support the claims that they knew 24 hours after the event happened though, so why didn't they just come out and say it? It was a cover up UNTIL the hearing when they started calling it a terrorist attack. It's like getting in trouble for something but only admitting you did it after they find proof that you did. It doesn't changed what happened or lift any fault, but it begs the question, "Why did you lie to us?"
 
So, even you give an alternative possibility. And others may see a third, or a fourth, or a fifth. So, what is needed is more evidence. Speculation isn't news. And that is the point here.

I'm pretty sure there is evidence. I'm pretty sure they had either a satellite feed or a drone over the area when it happened because there were reports of them "watching in real time". How could they not know?
 
So, even you give an alternative possibility. And others may see a third, or a fourth, or a fifth. So, what is needed is more evidence. Speculation isn't news. And that is the point here.


Just how do they get around the Commander of the 17th Btn in Libya stating he told US Diplomats 3 days ahead of the attack it was to dangerous to go in. That there had been kidnappings and assassinations of local officials. Associated press has several witnesses of when the battle took place. Before and afterwards. Libya and Worldwide media Sources have reported on the Libyans Confiscating Cell phones, Cam corders, Footage from Security Cameras from Shops.

You do know the safehouse is not the the same building as of the CIA compound.....Right? The safehouse was compromised before the battle began.
 
He only corrected it when the evidence came out in the hearing. There was evidence to support the claims that they knew 24 hours after the event happened though, so why didn't they just come out and say it? It was a cover up UNTIL the hearing when they started calling it a terrorist attack. It's like getting in trouble for something but only admitting you did it after they find proof that you did. It doesn't changed what happened or lift any fault, but it begs the question, "Why did you lie to us?"

You may rightly criticizing him for being slow to correct. I do that. But it simply is not the scandal some are trying to make it. A coverup requires much, much more. it is like with nearly ever criticism of Obama, some feel the need to try and hype it. For the life of me I don't understand why your side has to destroy any real criticism by jumping off hyperbole mountain. It destroys your credibility when you do that, giving him a pass because few reasonable people will go with you.
 
You may rightly criticizing him for being slow to correct. I do that. But it simply is not the scandal some are trying to make it. A coverup requires much, much more. it is like with nearly ever criticism of Obama, some feel the need to try and hype it. For the life of me I don't understand why your side has to destroy any real criticism by jumping off hyperbole mountain. It destroys your credibility when you do that, giving him a pass because few reasonable people will go with you.

Witnesses and the authorities have called Ahmed Abu Khattala one of the ringleaders of the Sept. 11 attack on the American diplomatic mission here. But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments.

Libya’s fledgling national army is a “national chicken,” Mr. Abu Khattala said, using an Arabic rhyme. Asked who should take responsibility for apprehending the mission’s attackers, he smirked at the idea that the weak Libyan government could possibly do it. And he accused the leaders of the United States of “playing with the emotions of the American people” and “using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections.” Mr. Abu Khattala’s defiance — no authority has even questioned him about the attack, he said, and he has no plans to go into hiding — offered insight into the shadowy landscape of the self-formed militias that have come to constitute the only source of social order in Libya since the fall of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

A few, like the militia group Ansar al-Shariah that is linked to Mr. Abu Khattala and that officials in Washington and Tripoli agree was behind the attack, have embraced an extremist ideology hostile to the West and nursed ambitions to extend it over Libya. But also troubling to the United States is the evident tolerance shown by other militias allied with the government, which have so far declined to take any action against suspects in the Benghazi attack.

Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaeda’s puritanical zeal for Islamic law. And he said that the United States had its own foreign policy to blame for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Why is the United States always trying to impose its ideology on everyone else?” he asked. “Why is it always trying to use force to implement its agendas?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/w...ttack-scoffs-at-us.html?ref=global-home&_r=1&

From the NY Times.....Problem is, Libya is who will be destroys his credibility and then himself and his own people.
 
Edumatcation is great!

Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And it is not actually clear that the President denied anything. You are simply jumping at what you want to be true and dismissing everything you don't like as false.

Back to my questions. What major laws did the President break? The answer is none.
What did the President do that caused him trouble? The answer is that he tried to cover up the burglary because it involved his re-election committee.
Why was the President threatened with impeachment? Because he lied to the American people.

When the Consulate was attacked had president Obama done anything wrong? There is insufficient information to answer.
What did the President do that caused him trouble? He refused to provide effective, armed support to the Benghazi defenders. Four of them were murdered. Then he and his minions lied to the American people.
 
You may rightly criticizing him for being slow to correct. I do that. But it simply is not the scandal some are trying to make it. A coverup requires much, much more. it is like with nearly ever criticism of Obama, some feel the need to try and hype it. For the life of me I don't understand why your side has to destroy any real criticism by jumping off hyperbole mountain. It destroys your credibility when you do that, giving him a pass because few reasonable people will go with you.

There is no rhetoric in the facts presented at the hearing. The facts are that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours, but continued to deceive us for another two weeks. This is no statement of opinion, nor an attempt to persuade people to hate Obama. Those are the facts.

What is my opinion, is that people should take being lied to more seriously, especially when coming from the President himself. I think people should be very serious about this event no only because of the lie, but because of the foreign policy failures that lead up to it and that could potentially lead to more attacks.
 
2012-10-26T165654Z_2_CBRE89O1HND00_RTROPTP_2_USA-CAMPAIGN.JPG


President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi, telling radio host Michael Smerconish, "I've always been straight with the American people."

Asked whether the administration's shifting explanation for the September 11 strike reflected the intelligence he was receiving, Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up.

"And what is true," he continued, "...This is something that the American people can take to the bank—is that my administration plays this stuff straight. We don't play politics when it comes to American national security," the president said. "As information came in we gave it to the American people. And as we got new information, we gave that to the American people."

Asked whether he knew Americans in Libya had asked for more security, Obama replied: "I was not personally aware of any request. Obviously we have an infrastructure that's set up to manage requests like that," in reference to the State Department.....snip~

Obama rebuts claims he


He has always been straight with the American People.....does anyone actually believe this point Obama make? Is that why there are leaks coming out of the WH all because he always plays it straight with the American people? Or is that so he can influence the MSM with whatever story he wants to project. Head them off at the pass so to speak. Get in those diversions and deflections so focus doesn't force them to come up with answers.
 
2012-10-26T165654Z_2_CBRE89O1HND00_RTROPTP_2_USA-CAMPAIGN.JPG


President Barack Obama on Friday forcefully denied deliberately misleading Americans about the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi, telling radio host Michael Smerconish, "I've always been straight with the American people."

Asked whether the administration's shifting explanation for the September 11 strike reflected the intelligence he was receiving, Obama replied: "What's true is that the intelligence was coming in and evolving as more information came up.

"And what is true," he continued, "...This is something that the American people can take to the bank—is that my administration plays this stuff straight. We don't play politics when it comes to American national security," the president said. "As information came in we gave it to the American people. And as we got new information, we gave that to the American people."

Asked whether he knew Americans in Libya had asked for more security, Obama replied: "I was not personally aware of any request. Obviously we have an infrastructure that's set up to manage requests like that," in reference to the State Department.....snip~

Obama rebuts claims he


He has always been straight with the American People.....does anyone actually believe this point Obama make? Is that why there are leaks coming out of the WH all because he always plays it straight with the American people? Or is that so he can influence the MSM with whatever story he wants to project. Head them off at the pass so to speak. Get in those diversions and deflections so focus doesn't force them to come up with answers.

I don't believe a word of it. As I said before, the facts are that they knew within 24 hours yet continued to tell us otherwise for the next two weeks. If they weren't misleading us, then what was it if they had already known?

Perhaps if Obama read his security briefings he would have know (I think he did know anyway).

I think Obama is still lying about the whole thing. He's trying to take the same approach he did with Romney's "5 trillion added" thing. He thinks if he says it enough that it will somehow become true.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom