• 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!

Which was a bigger scandal?

Which was a bigger scandal?


  • Total voters
    49
Though I agree with what you said from your second sentence on, for many it IS about ideology and nothing else.
I don't speak for everyone. I would think that most people though would be pissed about the way this is being handled though I do admit there are partisans looking to throw trash at the candidate they don't like.
 
So? He doesn't have a right to be pissed? 1 dead ambassador, his aide, and 2 NAVY SEALs.


If we give him a second term, he'll probably start a senseless war in someplace like Syria that gets 4000 Americans killed.
 
Uhm. No, lying under oath is perjury which is a crime and impeachable.
Obama lied under oath?

He was impeached, not removed. His bar license was revoked because of the impeachment.
He committed a crime, no one died.
No lies proven. Intelligence may or may not have been faulty, not a crime.

No lie by Obama proven.

He broke a law, Obstruction. He resigned as president, found guilty, pardoned by Ford so as to be done with it. The end.

right. he obstruction for the tapes. Yep, that's all he did. Everyone else fell on their swords for him, but not for the tapes.

If you are going to speak of partisanship it helps not to say "That side only has................"

Except when it is true of course. This is a transparent attempt to manufacture a "scandal" where at the moment one doesn't exist.
 
Obama lied under oath?

He was impeached, not removed. His bar license was revoked because of the impeachment.
He committed a crime, no one died.


No lie by Obama proven.



right. he obstruction for the tapes. Yep, that's all he did. Everyone else fell on their swords for him, but not for the tapes.



Except when it is true of course. This is a transparent attempt to manufacture a "scandal" where at the moment one doesn't exist.
Thought we were talking about Clinton. My bad.
 
So 28% of you believe this Benghazi scandal is bigger than Watergate. Interesting. It certainly seems like it could end up being bigger than Watergate. The administration and the liberal media are doing all they can to keep the facts from coming out until after election day, though.
 
What amazes me is that people think there is a scandal about Benghazi, when any number of facts have not yet been made public, and even the congressional hearing hasn't used those words or made any accusations - yet.

What do these people who are convinced its such a scandal, even bigger than the one that forced the resignation of a president for the first time in history, know that nobody else does?
 
What amazes me is that people think there is a scandal about Benghazi, when any number of facts have not yet been made public, and even the congressional hearing hasn't used those words or made any accusations - yet.

What do these people who are convinced its such a scandal, even bigger than the one that forced the resignation of a president for the first time in history, know that nobody else does?

I think, if the truth ever comes out, that we'll find out our President made a very unpopular decision. I don't think it comes anywhere NEAR approaching Watergate. I don't think he did anything illegal. Further, if it comes out that he covered up his involvement in a decision not to try to help these people, I think he'll be able to spin it (maybe rightfully so) to convince enough of us that he had to do what he did in the best interests of the American people and our country.

It's pretty clear-cut to me...without knowing much more...just from a common sense perspective:

FACTS: The Benghazi consulate asked numerous times in the preceding year for more protection. It was denied. The former Chief of Security (I think that's his title) made a number of phone calls up the ladder asking for more protection. Denied. He is quoted as saying he felt "Al Quada is in the compound." (That's paraphrased.) The Ambassador asked for more security. Denied. Leon Panetta tells us (paraphrased), "We couldn't just go in there until we had a better idea of what was going on." We know that Hillary Clinton asked permission to enter Libya's airspace. When asked what Libya said, no answer was given by the Administration. We know there were at least two drones in the air. (Were they armed? Don't know, no one will answer that question.) We know President Obama was made aware of exactly what was happening, and there is some speculation out there that he was watching the drone feeds live. We know that two SEALS asked permission to travel the short distance to the consulate's main building and were told to stay put. They asked again. Again told to stay put. We know that they disobeyed orders and went anyway. I heard today (I don't know if it's true) that they saved 30-some people. We know the entire attack took at least seven hours. And we know that the United States of America stood back and did not enter the fray. END FACTS

The only question that needs answering in my mind is, "Did President Obama give the order to stand down?" I'm at Confidence Level #8 that the decision was his. And that he, for whatever reason, did, in fact, tell our military not to go in.

Now, ya'll can call me a conspiracy theorist or any other name with which you'd like to ridicule me, but that's what I think.
 
I think, if the truth ever comes out, that we'll find out our President made a very unpopular decision. I don't think it comes anywhere NEAR approaching Watergate. I don't think he did anything illegal. Further, if it comes out that he covered up his involvement in a decision not to try to help these people, I think he'll be able to spin it (maybe rightfully so) to convince enough of us that he had to do what he did in the best interests of the American people and our country.

It's pretty clear-cut to me...without knowing much more...just from a common sense perspective:

FACTS: The Benghazi consulate asked numerous times in the preceding year for more protection. It was denied. The former Chief of Security (I think that's his title) made a number of phone calls up the ladder asking for more protection. Denied. He is quoted as saying he felt "Al Quada is in the compound." (That's paraphrased.) The Ambassador asked for more security. Denied. Leon Panetta tells us (paraphrased), "We couldn't just go in there until we had a better idea of what was going on." We know that Hillary Clinton asked permission to enter Libya's airspace. When asked what Libya said, no answer was given by the Administration. We know there were at least two drones in the air. (Were they armed? Don't know, no one will answer that question.) We know President Obama was made aware of exactly what was happening, and there is some speculation out there that he was watching the drone feeds live. We know that two SEALS asked permission to travel the short distance to the consulate's main building and were told to stay put. They asked again. Again told to stay put. We know that they disobeyed orders and went anyway. I heard today (I don't know if it's true) that they saved 30-some people. We know the entire attack took at least seven hours. And we know that the United States of America stood back and did not enter the fray. END FACTS

The only question that needs answering in my mind is, "Did President Obama give the order to stand down?" I'm at Confidence Level #8 that the decision was his. And that he, for whatever reason, did, in fact, tell our military not to go in.

Now, ya'll can call me a conspiracy theorist or any other name with which you'd like to ridicule me, but that's what I think.

I don't think you are a conspiracy theorist, just that you have determined a conclusion in the absence of answers of critical importance to clarify what happened.

All those rejections of additional security - who made those decisions, when were they made and what was the rationale for same.
The two ex Seals - who ordered them to stand down? Why were they at the CIA station at the time of the attack?
Who was responsible for arming the "consulate" - that is a joke in itself, since it wasn't a recognized diplomatic mission and was basically just a rented house - very strange place to put a consulate in such an unsettled situation.

I should think that finding out who made the decisions and their rationale is of critical importance to accertaining what happened.

I will reiterate something that seems to be totally lost in this blamestorm.

The people responsible for the deaths of four americans were the guys with the AK47s and the RPGs.

For the right, it is as if Obama pulled the damn trigger. this notion of scandal is totally over the top. Where bad decisions made - obviously, now lets find out exactly who made them before judgement is made.
 
Back
Top Bottom