View Poll Results: Your opinion

Voters
119. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    27 22.69%
  • Disagree

    76 63.87%
  • I hope so

    40 33.61%
  • I hope not

    23 19.33%
  • Republicans are nuts

    51 42.86%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 349

Thread: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

  1. #231
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    08-25-16 @ 08:31 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    11,265

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    So has Obama been driven out of office yet?


  2. #232
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:50 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,011

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    No it wasn't a hacked a Email.....it was a Copy of a Diplomatic Cable to the Libyan President. Now what will your Assuming Be?
    My assumption is that you've mixed up the timeline.

    The CIA sent a cable of 9/12 saying that eyewitnesses described it as an attack by militants. It took until 9/15 for the CIA to put out a memo, which referenced both protests and extremists.


    I realize this part is hard to accept. It's been 8 months. Now even Obama's Own Team has set him out. All that he and his team stated at the beginning. Has been proven to be a.....LIE!
    What are you, new?

    Of all the things Presidential administrations have kept obscure or lied about in the past 20, 30, 50 years, this is the one that you find truly beyond the pale? Seriously?


    Uhm your Right.....the US didn't declare War on Libya. We were put there with an EO. Which that falls on Obama and his team. Since they never had an End game for Libya in the First Place. But I am glad that you Finally realized this and can no longer Deny such.
    Well, that's a scrambled mess. And, unsurprisingly, you completely missed my point.

    The level of US military involvement in overthrowing Qaddafi was quite small, and the US had no responsibility for an "end game." The alleged trigger was taking out a militant in Pakistan, not the minimal US role in the Libyan revolution. The US would have had diplomatic missions in Libya regardless of any level of US involvement. And pretty much anything flying a US flag is a potential target.

    The US did not invade Libya (in fall 2012) because of Benghazi. The US was not going to invade Libya over Benghazi. The foreign policy consequences based on Rice or Clinton or anyone else saying the wrong things were negligible. At worst the administration stonewalled Congress over some details. Big deal.

    Ultimately this barely about transparency, it's barely about separation of powers. It's mostly about Republicans finding any possible reason, yet again, to bash Obama.

  3. #233
    Guru
    Smeagol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 11:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,147

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Yep.....you can check the DOD Classification or even DHS. An act of Terrorism is a Pre-planned and premeditated attack. Why would you think that Politi-Fact, Fact Check and others Fact Checkers are ALL pointing out the difference? Do you see the connection that they state when they show Obama saying it wasn't a Planned attack, while putting this statement with what he said?
    Interesting. I honestly thought "act of terror" and "terrorist attack" were different ways of essentially saying the same thing. 9/11 was certainly planned but out of curiosity I googled "9/11 terrorist attacks" and according to google there are 10,700,000 pages online with those words in that exact sequence so apparently I'm not the only one. Nevertheless, despite a possible technical distinction (again, one I'd never heard of until now), I wonder if others in the administration also were interchanging the pharases making at least some of this controversy splitting hairs over semantics.

    I also wonder if initial intelligence could have honestly thought there were in fact "extremists" planning and leading the attack but used the youtube video to instigate masses to join them; not an either or but a hybrid of both a planned assault but recruited a mob to join in using the youtube video to incite. I'm not saying that's what happened myself, but could the early intelligence that was later clarified given them that impression?

    As a side, one interesting dynamic about Middle Eastern culture is many tend to be in awe of western technology especially from lesser developed regions. Because they have such a big impression of The Internet for example, merely by being on the Internet creates an impression in their minds that information and messages posted online carry an official and/or pervasive characteristic.
    Having opinions all over the map is a good sign of a person capable of autonomous thinking. Felix -2011

  4. #234
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    My assumption is that you've mixed up the timeline.

    The CIA sent a cable of 9/12 saying that eyewitnesses described it as an attack by militants. It took until 9/15 for the CIA to put out a memo, which referenced both protests and extremists.



    What are you, new?

    Of all the things Presidential administrations have kept obscure or lied about in the past 20, 30, 50 years, this is the one that you find truly beyond the pale? Seriously?



    Well, that's a scrambled mess. And, unsurprisingly, you completely missed my point.

    The level of US military involvement in overthrowing Qaddafi was quite small, and the US had no responsibility for an "end game." The alleged trigger was taking out a militant in Pakistan, not the minimal US role in the Libyan revolution. The US would have had diplomatic missions in Libya regardless of any level of US involvement. And pretty much anything flying a US flag is a potential target.

    The US did not invade Libya (in fall 2012) because of Benghazi. The US was not going to invade Libya over Benghazi. The foreign policy consequences based on Rice or Clinton or anyone else saying the wrong things were negligible. At worst the administration stonewalled Congress over some details. Big deal.

    Ultimately this barely about transparency, it's barely about separation of powers. It's mostly about Republicans finding any possible reason, yet again, to bash Obama.

    Looks like your assumption wasn't so accurate. The US and the West took out Gadhafi.....they had no End game. Plain and Simple. Moreover Fact checkers already understand that Obama Stated it wasn't a planned attack. But now we know it was and it was told to Clinton and That they even knew AQ was involved. As that is what the Libyan President reported and now the FBI validates. It's called accountability.

    Sept.12: Obama Labels Attack ‘Act of Terror,’ Not ‘Terrorism’

    Sept. 14: White House Says No Evidence of Planned Attack

    Oct. 24: White House, State Department Emails on Ansar al-Sharia

    Oct. 24: Reuters reports the White House, Pentagon and other government agencies learned just two hours into the Benghazi attack that Ansar al-Sharia, an Islamic militant group, had “claimed credit” for it. The wire service report was based on three emails from the State Department’s Operations Center. One of the emails said, “Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripol.” The article also noted, “Intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate.” (It should be noted that Reuters first reported on Sept. 12 that unnamed U.S. officials believed that Ansar al-Sharia may have been involved.)

    FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

    Flashing red in Benghazi

    For months, questions have piled up about how and why U.S. officials failed to protect a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans in a U.S. consulate in Benghazi last Sept. 11. We know the system was flashing red. We know there were warnings from security officers on the ground in that dangerous Libyan city and pleas for more security.

    Now a blunt Senate committee report provides vital answers about why Washington failed to respond effectively.

    The search for these answers is about much more than doling out bureaucratic blame or seeking political advantage. Knowing what went wrong is crucial if Washington is to protect U.S. diplomats around the globe, many of whom serve in hostile locales. The mistakes in Benghazi must never be repeated.

    The report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs found that the State Department had "a clear and vivid picture of a rapidly deteriorating threat environment" in Benghazi, which should have jolted Washington to action.

    Instead of closing the diplomatic post and relocating personnel to Tripoli, however, State Department officials batted away requests for more security and gambled that local guards and a skeleton crew of American security personnel would be enough to repel attacks. Officials compounded error with error: They didn't fortify the compound to repel attacks because the facility was considered temporary, Senate investigators found.

    The report concluded that U.S. government officials may have been lulled into complacency because they focused almost exclusively on al-Qaida and had no "specific intelligence of an imminent attack" on the Benghazi consulate. That intelligence — that there was no elaborately planned attack — may have been correct. But U.S. officials apparently failed to account for a spontaneous and "opportunistic" assault by scores of terrorists with loose or ambiguous operational ties to al-Qaida.

    In other words, by focusing single-mindedly on al-Qaida, American officials missed the larger terror threat that includes scores of nascent violent Islamist extremist groups shifting "focus from local grievances to foreign attacks against U.S. and other Western facilities overseas," investigators said.

    That's a huge oversight. The U.S. needs to calibrate the threat to diplomats not only on what's known of the terrorists' plots and intentions to attack, but on their capabilities even in the absence of specific threats.

    The report's devastating conclusion: "Despite the inability of the Libyan government to fulfill its duties to secure the facility, the increasingly dangerous threat assessments, and a particularly vulnerable facility, the Department of State officials did not conclude the facility in Benghazi should be closed or temporarily shut down. That was a grievous mistake.".....snip~

    flashing red in benghazi - Chicago Tribune

    Right.....its only about Republicans looking to bash Obama for whatever.
    Last edited by MMC; 05-09-13 at 12:56 PM.

  5. #235
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Smeagol View Post
    I'm of this opinion that if anyone tries to use the dead body of our ambassador for political gain, it will trigger outrage toward and backfire on the side that does it. I guess we'll see in 2016. The stuff that the right thinks should fire people up has proven to backfire on us consistently. This even if the ultimate GOP candidate distances himself and denounces it. People took what republicans said that offended people out on Mitt Romney on election day. With all due respect, even your post ends with and could sound like you're celebrating the murder of an American by Al Qaeda because it helps the GOP (or hurts the Democrats). That kind of stuff might excite people who have already made up their minds on with deep emotion on who they want to see elected, or don't want to see elected but IMHO will drive a lot of people away.
    Looks like Obama and Clinton already used the dead bodies of 3 people for political gain. It appears to be backfiring.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #236
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    Yep.....you can check the DOD Classification or even DHS. An act of Terrorism is a Pre-planned and premeditated attack. Why would you think that Politi-Fact, Fact Check and others Fact Checkers are ALL pointing out the difference? Do you see the connection that they state when they show Obama saying it wasn't a Planned attack, while putting this statement with what he said?
    What do you call an attack that wasn't pre-planned like the attack on 9/11 was, but with a few Tweets brought a few Al Qaeda members to gather at one site to attack it? What would you call that?

  7. #237
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:24 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,467

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Looks like Obama and Clinton already used the dead bodies of 3 people for political gain. It appears to be backfiring.
    Actually, it looks like conservatives are politicizing the dead bodies. After all, they're the ones conducting the witch hunt...and you're right it will backfire...just like it did in 1996.

  8. #238
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Actually, it looks like conservatives are politicizing the dead bodies. After all, they're the ones conducting the witch hunt...and you're right it will backfire...just like it did in 1996.
    Yes, they are. They want to knock down Hillary a notch or two.

  9. #239
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,290

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Do you ever have anything to add other than non sequitur memes?

    What should be done? A mistake was made. Should Presidents be prosecuted for every decision you disagree with?
    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    Good morning, bubba.

    Another excellent post, but you have conditioned us to expect same! Thanks for your hard work! Kudos
    Some folks don't understand 'em, Pol. What do you do with skulls full of mush like that?
    (personally ... I think they're just making believe because to them appearing slow-witted is probably more appealing than abandoning the Obama battlements)

  10. #240
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,290

    Re: Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    What do you call an attack that wasn't pre-planned like the attack on 9/11 was
    , but with a few Tweets brought a few Al Qaeda members to gather at one site to attack it? What would you call that?
    But this WAS an attack on 9/11

Page 24 of 35 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •