• 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
ksu_aviator said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's because they believe that it would be akin to blasphemous to defy, who Hannity creatively calls, the "Annointed One".
 
Krystov said:
That's because they believe that it would be akin to blasphemous to defy, who Hannity creatively calls, the "Annointed One".
Click to expand...

That and it is indefensible. You can't defend a President that stood by and watched Americans die.
 
Krystov said:
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?

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.
Click to expand...

I agree with ya.....plus like I said. The Undersecretary Kennedy had already questioned what took place and alluded to certain events.

My question is who Sent Rice out to the talk Shows to run Cover for Obama? She is a disgrace and has proven she is totally inept in dealing with those overseas. In the UN she was out-witted, out-maneuvered, and out-played by the French. Myself I think it was Stephanie Cutter and both should pay the price for straight out lying to the American People.
 
MMC said:
I agree with ya.....plus like I said. The Undersecretary Kennedy had already questioned what took place and alluded to certain events.

My question is who Sent Rice out to the talk Shows to run Cover for Obama? She is a disgrace and has proven she is totally inept in dealing with those overseas. In the UN she was out-witted, out-maneuvered, and out-played by the French. Myself I think it was Stephanie Cutter and both should pay the price for straight out lying to the American People.
Click to expand...

Stephanie Cutter has proven she's willing to lie to us. She formulated most of Obama's campaign on lies.

The mere fact that this occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 should have made it obvious what happened.
 
Krystov said:
Stephanie Cutter has proven she's willing to lie to us. She formulated most of Obama's campaign on lies.

The mere fact that this occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 should have made it obvious what happened.
Click to expand...


Yeah.....although I did vote no for this thread. As I don't think there is just one issue that will cause Obama to lose. There are a host of good reasons as to why.
 
Misterveritis said:
Back to my questions. What major laws did the President break? The answer is none.
Click to expand...

Nice fallacy of raising the bar there.

First you ask what laws did he break, I provide a summary which includes the laws he broke and now you arbitrarily decide that only "major" which by your secret definition only apply counts.

I don't generally respond to your posts because of **** behavior like that from you.

Set your criteria and stone and we'll talk. I'm tired of you always changing your criteria whenever you feel like it.
 
ksu_aviator said:
What false outrage? You think I'm faking this?! I honestly believe that if the reports are accurate, this president should be tried and executed! You don't leave Americans to die just because. You don't tell Marines to "stand down" when they can help. And you sure as hell don't tell the American public and the world that it was a "spontaneous protest" when you watched the live video feed of an organized militia execute your ambassador. And you really don't have a guy arrested in the US that had absolutely nothing to do with it! This goes way above what any President has done. This is completely unprecedented and I can't believe that some would sit around and just let it be!

I want you to think about this. The heroes that died serving their country in Benghazi would have never had the true story told if this administration had gotten their way. They would have been killed by "protesters" that reacted to a YouTube video and we would have never known their true heroism. They disobeyed orders to save American lives and succeeded. They gave their lives despite the stupidity of our government. They most certainly would have faced significant punishment for their actions, but their selfless sense of duty and spot on intuition with regards to right and wrong saved many of the Americans based in Benghazi.

But, hey, we should not be outraged, there was nothing that could be done? Right?

Bite me.

Even if there was nothing that could have been done (and I doubt that's the case, the reports just don't reflect that), the cover up was not needed. That's what makes me believe there was a bad call. There was someone, in this administration, that did the wrong thing. Other wise, why cover it up? If there was nothing to be done then the ambassador was a victim of terrorism. He would have been the poster boy for a new cry for the war on terror. It could have propelled the President to new heights as he called for renewed efforts. Instead, it was covered up in hopes the truth wouldn't come out until after the election. An american's rights were violated for political gain and the true valor of two of America's finest was shoved under the rug like dirt.
Click to expand...

yeah bro, ditto.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Exactly.

Obama hasn't sent troops into Iran even though Netanyahu has instructed him to.
Click to expand...

I HATE to defend Obama, but he shouldn't take orders from Netanyahu, nor should we send troops... an underground, spec ops mission MAYBE.
No President should take orders from any foreign leader, even a treasured ally like Netanyahu

that being said, Obama hasn't even visited Israel since being elected, total fail.
 
Earlier we had this exchange. "
obvious Child said:
Tell me how Benghazi is worse then an incident where the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES openly conspired to violate several major US laws and then attempted to cover up the fact that he knowingly committed crimes. Tell me how an incident where the POTUS engaged in an illegal conspiracy is not as bad. What Nixon did perverted and corrupted the very nature of our democracy and government. That is a bigger threat to America then Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:
Tell me more my obvious "friend". What major laws did the president conspire to break?

I have frequently suspected that you believed human life was far less valuable than defending the indefensible.

The president denied help three times. The Benghazi four were murdered. Then Obama and his minions lied for more than two weeks. For some of us on the right that is appalling. For those of you on the left it is October.
Click to expand...


obvious Child said:
Edumatcation is great!

Watergate scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Misterveritis said:
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.
Click to expand...

obvious Child said:
Nice fallacy of raising the bar there.

First you ask what laws did he break, I provide a summary which includes the laws he broke and now you arbitrarily decide that only "major" which by your secret definition only apply counts.

I don't generally respond to your posts because of **** behavior like that from you.

Set your criteria and stone and we'll talk. I'm tired of you always changing your criteria whenever you feel like it.
Click to expand...

Wow. Even you can clearly see that you began by claiming that President Nixon conspired to break major laws

I asked what major laws he conspired to break. You never answered. You did point me to wikipedia. But you never answered.

Maybe you should take your own advice and set your criteria in stone.
 
Misterveritis said:
Maybe you should take your own advice and set your criteria in stone.
Click to expand...

Okay. Tell me what you think is a major law.

And I see you do not want to include any laws broken cited the Wiki page.

Tell me, why do you think being part of the break in plan to illegally wiretap the Democratic offices is not a major crime or a crime at all?

Furthermore, tell me what laws Obama has broken.

Nixon and his administration knew about the plan, took part in its planning. Merely because they themselves didn't do the break in does not mean they are not commit a crime.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Okay. Tell me what you think is a major law.

And I see you do not want to include any laws broken cited the Wiki page.

Tell me, why do you think being part of the break in plan to illegally wiretap the Democratic offices is not a major crime or a crime at all?

Furthermore, tell me what laws Obama has broken.

Nixon and his administration knew about the plan, took part in its planning. Merely because they themselves didn't do the break in does not mean they are not commit a crime.
Click to expand...
Actually, you made the claim that President Nixon conspired to break major laws. Then you pointed me to an encyclopedia. Awesome.
He got into serious trouble because he was involved in the coverup. And he lied about it to the American people.

Guess where the parallel is? It is NOT in breaking laws. It is in the cover-up and the lies to the American people. Everything else is an attempt at diversion.
 
Misterveritis said:
Actually, you made the claim that President Nixon conspired to break major laws. Then you pointed me to an encyclopedia. Awesome.
He got into serious trouble because he was involved in the coverup. And he lied about it to the American people.

Guess where the parallel is? It is NOT in breaking laws. It is in the cover-up and the lies to the American people. Everything else is an attempt at diversion.
Click to expand...

You seem to miss the point. Nixon got in trouble because he covered up illegal activity his administration took part in. Yes, he got in trouble largely because of obstruction of justice, but you are going out of your way to ignore how his Administration got in trouble for partaking in the illegal activity that started the whole mess.

On top of that, you are assuming what you want to be true about Benghazi rather then taking a step back and waiting for the smoke to clear. There is plenty of conflicting information and you are doing exactly what the liberals did with the Zimmerman case. You went with the information you want to hear and what you want to be true rather then wait for the noise to clear. You WANT Obama to be guilty so you are ASSUMING there is a cover up despite plenty of information saying otherwise.

This is why I generally don't bother with your posts. You assume what you want to be true and everything that doesn't support your beliefs is a giant government conspiracy.

You failed to answer this:
Tell me, why do you think being part of the break in plan to illegally wiretap the Democratic offices is not a major crime or a crime at all?
 
MMC said:
Yeah.....although I did vote no for this thread. As I don't think there is just one issue that will cause Obama to lose. There are a host of good reasons as to why.
Click to expand...

Same thing here.
 
Krystov said:
Yes, I did hear it on Fox News. Did you know that Fox has been rated the most reliable news source? I wonder why that is. Put down your biases.
Click to expand...
Faux News is the most reliable news source only for Republican/conservatives that can't handle the truth. Faux News tells them exactly what they want to hear whether it is true or not. Did you know that Faux News viewers are considered the most uninformed people in American? I wonder why that is. Open your eyes/ears.
Beside that point, Fox showed a sound byte of Obama saying this in a speech at the UN. You can't fake a video of Obama saying it without suffering ridiculous scrutiny for falsifying that information, not to mention it would be incredibly hard to do.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't put it past Faux News to make stuff up, they've done it before and gotten caught at it. There was confusing information coming out. Obama wasn't quick to spew out misinformation like Romney, but he did call it an act of terror the very next morning. So Faux News is trying to build this up into some awful mishandling by Obama and it isn't gelling with the rest of us.



This was in Egypt. An entirely different country. How could it be a distraction?
Click to expand...
It's not like Egypt is in another planet. And, the investigation is still sorting through the information being given. There were reports that the video had something to do with it while other reports said it didn't, it is hard to say with certainty that the film did or didn't have anything to do with it because there were protests in many different areas against the film. But right after it happened, that was some of the information that was provided, and to completely ignore it just because later it was determined that the film had nothing to do with it is disingenuous, because hindsight doesn't change the facts. The investigation is ongoing, but Faux News is trying to capitalize on sensationalism and trying to make Obama look bad just so that Romney can get the votes of whoever can be fooled into believing that this Administration failed epically.

Interviews with Libyan witnesses and American officials provide new details on the assault on American diplomatic facilities and the initial moblike attack, set off by a video denigrating the Prophet Muhammad, that transformed into what the Obama administration now, after initial hesitation, describes as a terrorist attack.

The most significant inconsistency between Libyan and American accounts is whether the attack that night began with a small protest over the trailer of “The Innocence of Muslims,” parts of which were broadcast on Egyptian television. American officials insist there was a protest that began peacefully, only to be hijacked by armed militants. But Libyan witnesses, including two guards at the building, say the area around the compound was quiet until the attackers arrived, firing their weapons and storming the compound from three sides, beginning at 9:30 p.m. on Sept. 11. A witness said that some of those attacking referred to the film’s insults to Islam.
After Attack in Libya, Ambush Struck Rescuers - NYTimes.com

Yes, in fact I did hear this. But that doesn't excuse the president when there were 200 some prior incidents in the region throughout the year. You can bet that it was in his security briefing. So why didn't he so much as suggest more security?
Click to expand...
Because that is an ongoing problem in that area. Did you know that Bush had about 12 of these attacks while he was President? I don't remember FAux News or many Republicans taking such an interest in it as they have with this case.

You must not have understood then. Did you miss the tidbit there where Romney asked for the transcript and the moderator said "Yes he did say that, and yes you are correct". Obama walked into a corner. Take off those Obama-lust glasses you have on and you might get a glimpse of reality.
Click to expand...
You must have watched an altered copy of the debate, because it was Obama that asked for the transcript. Romney was claiming that Obama did not call it an act of terror the very next morning after the attack, and Crowley corrected Romney and told him he did. And yes, she did say that it took 2 weeks for the information to come out and confirm that it was an act of terror. There have been conflicting stories as to whether it was planned or spontaneous. The New York Times reported that reports were showing that it was spontaneous and now they believe it was planned, so if the investigation has taken this long to try and identify the truth, what makes Faux News and Republicans think they know exactly what happened when they weren't there? It's a witch hunt, Faux News knows it, Republicans know it, but they just want to appear concerned.
 
did you guys miss the video's I posted? you know, the one where Obama and his lackeys blame the OTHER youtube video instead of terrorism?
 
David Watson said:
did you guys miss the video's I posted? you know, the one where Obama and his lackeys blame the OTHER youtube video instead of terrorism?
Click to expand...

Yeah they tend to forget his First Speech at Andrews Air Force base when he gave his speech over the Bodies of Stevens and the fallen. Wherein he blamed the Video first and kept with the Story that Rice and Clinton did. Hence the timeline until he spoke in the Rose Garden.

Notice he didn't call for the Candy to Show that video at the debate. He wanted the Rose Garden video brought up. What they should of done at the Debate was to have a big screen Right behind both of them. So that they could put up their remarks to be seen by all.

Course I doubt you would have heard him then say.....Get the Tape Get the Tape.

Either way this issue isn't going away and he will have use the Axe on somebody.
 
MMC said:
To Bad its not all going away.....huh? Did the left actually think they could just ignore it? Truly, how Naïve!!!!!
Click to expand...

Maybe and maybe not. A few diehards yelling without any evidence won't mean much. To advance, there needs to be more evidence than provided to date.
 
Boo Radley said:
Maybe and maybe not. A few diehards yelling without any evidence won't mean much. To advance, there needs to be more evidence than provided to date.
Click to expand...



Well several Radio Stations are not going to let it go. Same with several Newspapers. Neither will the BBC and the UK news. Nor will Al-Jazerra, Press TV, nor the Asian Times. Course the Demo ranking Chair of the Senate Arms Committee Dianne Fienstein has called for Senate hearings after the Election.

So just how does it go away when the Demos themselves are calling for Transparency?
 
MMC said:
Well several Radio Stations are not going to let it go. Same with several Newspapers. Neither will the BBC and the UK news. Nor will Al-Jazerra, Press TV, nor the Asian Times. Course the Demo ranking Chair of the Senate Arms Committee Dianne Fienstein has called for Senate hearings after the Election.

So just how does it go away when the Demos themselves are calling for Transparency?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. Voices in the wilderness. Absent evidence, it will not advance.
 
It's barely been mentioned on the BBC since the event, and certainly not in the "scandalous" terms you are painting it. Nobody cares but Faux and its dupes.
 
No one knows if it is a scandal yet.
If it turns out it is a scandal then at that time we will find out what the scandal is and who is responsible.

I think in the end we will find out there is no scandal just a tradegy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom