• 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
I am not sure yet. I think Benghazi could possibly end up being a bigger scandal once its all said and done. It's still early yet because they are keeping everything so hush hush. It won't be until after the election that the truth will come out, but even then Obama will try his best to have it covered up. I wish America could see just how dangerous this man is.
 
I am not sure yet. I think Benghazi could possibly end up being a bigger scandal once its all said and done. It's still early yet because they are keeping everything so hush hush. It won't be until after the election that the truth will come out, but even then Obama will try his best to have it covered up. I wish America could see just how dangerous this man is.

What sequence of events could you see having happened that would amount to a scandal that would cause President Obama to either face impeachment or resign?
 
Nobody died during Watergate...

I'll repeat what I asked Bamamom. What sequence of events do you see happening re Benghazi that would result in the president being impeached or forced to resign? I just don't see it. We don't impeach presidents for mistakes. We don't force them to resign because they made an unpopular decision. What "scandal" do you see here?
 
If they are both cases of Presidential cover-up then we have to compare them that way. Nixon went to extremes to cover it up, to the point the Supreme Court had to actually order him to turn over the tapes.

Obama's administration made a knee jerk reaction, an incorrect one, in whom to attribute the attack to. They corrected their error without any legal pressures.
 
Nobody died during Watergate...

Watergate was about the President endorsing a ton of illegal stuff, mostly against political opponents so he can seize personal power.

The attack in Benghazi has no way of providing the President with more power.
 
Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair.

Obama lied to the American people about the terrorist attack. His administration led us to believe it was a mob riot due to some video. We know now that he knew from day 1 that it was a terrorist attack.

We know that he watched the attack live, as it happened. We had troops stationed in Italy, 1 hour flight away. Obama watched and did nothing.

He sat by, watched people die, and did nothing. He lied about it to the American people. Don't let a good crisis go to waste, right?

Now, he refuses to answer questions about it. What is he hiding? Why have the hearings been pushed back till after the election?

It's a lot like Obamacare: you'll find out after you pass it. Benghazi: you'll find out after he's re-elected.

Scary.

I'll repeat what I asked Bamamom. What sequence of events do you see happening re Benghazi that would result in the president being impeached or forced to resign? I just don't see it. We don't impeach presidents for mistakes. We don't force them to resign because they made an unpopular decision. What "scandal" do you see here?
 
Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair.

Obama lied to the American people about the terrorist attack. His administration led us to believe it was a mob riot due to some video. We know now that he knew from day 1 that it was a terrorist attack.

We know that he watched the attack live, as it happened. We had troops stationed in Italy, 1 hour flight away. Obama watched and did nothing.

He sat by, watched people die, and did nothing. He lied about it to the American people. Don't let a good crisis go to waste, right?

Now, he refuses to answer questions about it. What is he hiding? Why have the hearings been pushed back till after the election?

It's a lot like Obamacare: you'll find out after you pass it. Benghazi: you'll find out after he's re-elected.

Scary.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Let's take a worst-case scenerio. There's no way he's going to "get in legal trouble" from not releasing what he knew. There is no obligation for the President of the United States to release information that could in any way compromise American interests. That's an easy, obvious (and okay) reason for a President to "lie" in a press conference. (In my opinion, anyway).

So, let's say he absolutely KNEW it was a terrorist attack from the very beginning. And he didn't share that with the American people. And let's go further and say that Hillary Clinton (who'd asked Libya permission to enter their airspace with help...though we don't know what answer they gave) called him and said, "Mr. President, Libya did not give us permission to enter their airspace to assist at the Benghazi consulate. What are your orders? Do we go in? Do we stand back?" And let's say, President Obama said, "Stand down."

While it might be an abomination to the American people that a President would refuse to aid American civilians being attacked by foreigners in a foreign country, while it might end his chances of re-election, while it might permanently mark his presidency with scandal, that -- in and of itself -- it not an impeachable offense.

We don't impeach Presidents for making the wrong decision...the unpopular decision...or for lying to the American people in matters of national security.
 
I was making the point that it was a bigger scandal, not really that he'll be impeached, but still...

I don't know enough about constitutional law to tell you if the president has done anything impeachable, but the constitution says "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" are what constitute impeachable offenses.

High crimes and misdemeanors are defined by the House, I believe. It's not like there's a list that says perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable, but this and that are not. It's subjective and depends on the current House.

Allowing Americans to die is pretty bad. Lying about it is pretty bad. There will be hearings, even if Obama puts them off. I wouldn't bat an eye if he were impeached. What Nixon and Clinton did were not nearly as bad as this.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Let's take a worst-case scenerio. There's no way he's going to "get in legal trouble" from not releasing what he knew. There is no obligation for the President of the United States to release information that could in any way compromise American interests. That's an easy, obvious (and okay) reason for a President to "lie" in a press conference. (In my opinion, anyway).

So, let's say he absolutely KNEW it was a terrorist attack from the very beginning. And he didn't share that with the American people. And let's go further and say that Hillary Clinton (who'd asked Libya permission to enter their airspace with help...though we don't know what answer they gave) called him and said, "Mr. President, Libya did not give us permission to enter their airspace to assist at the Benghazi consulate. What are your orders? Do we go in? Do we stand back?" And let's say, President Obama said, "Stand down."

While it might be an abomination to the American people that a President would refuse to aid American civilians being attacked by foreigners in a foreign country, while it might end his chances of re-election, while it might permanently mark his presidency with scandal, that -- in and of itself -- it not an impeachable offense.

We don't impeach Presidents for making the wrong decision...the unpopular decision...or for lying to the American people in matters of national security.
 
I was making the point that it was a bigger scandal, not really that he'll be impeached, but still...

I don't know enough about constitutional law to tell you if the president has done anything impeachable, but the constitution says "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" are what constitute impeachable offenses.

High crimes and misdemeanors are defined by the House, I believe. It's not like there's a list that says perjury and obstruction of justice are impeachable, but this and that are not. It's subjective and depends on the current House.

Allowing Americans to die is pretty bad. Lying about it is pretty bad. There will be hearings, even if Obama puts them off. I wouldn't bat an eye if he were impeached. What Nixon and Clinton did were not nearly as bad as this.

I totally understand your passion. I think Americans would be horrified to find that, although he pulled the trigger on Bin Laden (as an example), he failed to pull the trigger on a rescue mission in which an American ambassador and three other Americans died at the hands of a mob. I know I would be.

I look at Watergate as an attempt to disenfranchise the American people. An Administration that was willing to stop at nothing -- nothing -- to get Richard Nixon re-elected. And a President who, if he didn't arrange to have the whole process orchestrated, protected the asses of those involved through his lies and cover-ups. There were rumors at the time that top military brass had a contingency plan in place in case President Nixon, as Commander in Chief, gave orders to the military to interfere with our election process.

In the case of Benghazi, I can think of nothing President Obama might have done that would come close to the Watergate mess. Others may disagree.
 
uhm? currently only one was a "scandal" LMAO
 
Like I said, I am not really sure yet so I didn't vote in the poll, but if this has something to do with it than Obama should be impeached.
Was Syrian weapons shipment factor in ambassador

Oh, I completely agree with you here. I saw that a few days ago on a website so INcredible I would never cite it. It's now made Fox. It will be interesting to see if this story gets legs. Thanks for posting the link. Wow.
 
There is no Benghazi scandal yet.

It's hard to believe any permutation of events in Benghazi could rise to the level of Watergate.

It already has. Obama knows who sent Rice out to do those talk shows and tell those lies.
 
It already has. Obama knows who sent Rice out to do those talk shows and tell those lies.

What are you talking about, Marsden? Specifically what did Obama do that makes Benghazi an impeachable offense. If we're going to compare it to Watergate, that's the comparison to make.
 
If they are both cases of Presidential cover-up then we have to compare them that way. Nixon went to extremes to cover it up, to the point the Supreme Court had to actually order him to turn over the tapes.

Obama's administration made a knee jerk reaction, an incorrect one, in whom to attribute the attack to. They corrected their error without any legal pressures.

Nixon was also bat**** crazy. Anyone who disagrees can feel free to listen to the wiretap recordings.
 
Benghazi or Watergate? You decide.

You've GOT to be kidding. I cannot imagine anyone who is not a diehard rightwing hack seriously asking this.

Watergate was a series of deliberate actions, many illegal. Benghazi had none of those characteristics.
 
You've GOT to be kidding. I cannot imagine anyone who is not a diehard rightwing hack seriously asking this.

Watergate was a series of deliberate actions, many illegal. Benghazi had none of those characteristics.

I'm not sure I think of Benghazi as a scandal or a cover-up but it is sad to me that some people would seem to rather not know or don't care to know the truth (not that I'm saying I know what that is) if it might make Obama look bad.
 
I'm not sure I think of Benghazi as a scandal or a cover-up but it is sad to me that some people would seem to rather not know or don't care to know the truth (not that I'm saying I know what that is) if it might make Obama look bad.

I have no issue with discovering the truth and seeing if any mistakes were made. But a scandal akin to Watergate? That's idiotic. Watergate consisted of deliberate illegal acts. Best I can see is that Benghazi consisted of a series of mistakes.
 
To be honest, it's way too early to answer this question. We have all the facts from Watergate, we don't yet from Benghazi. Watergate was about getting Nixon re-elected and what appears to be a cover up on the part of the administration over a completely botched security hole is about getting Obama re-elected. Had it happened a year ago, I don't think there would be the obvious attempts to cover this up.
 
Back
Top Bottom