• 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!

Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

Your opinion


  • Total voters
    79
Well that and the ABC piece I have above his post.....pretty much ends all that focus on Fox now. ;)

Weeeeeell ... at least now we'll be able to see who's simply repeating what they've been told to say about Fox ... and that's pretty much all of 'em here.

Jonathan Karl was the guy who asked Obama if he had any juice.
... and there's Cheryl Atttkisson on CBS.

Waddupwiddat?

I still can't imagine it really suggests the media is going to start acting responsibly all of a sudden.
 
And they call the libs sheeple...

Sheeple? Yeah ...

But also

ducklings.jpg
 
I voted for "I hope so" but it won't happen. Everything this administration has touched has turned to **** and he is still here
 

What's BS, exactly? Where did I get it wrong?

Are you STILL jealous Obama got Osama bin Laden?

Killing UBL was a great day for The United States of America. What do I have to be jealous of? I'm proud to be an American, no matter who the prez is...unlike some folks.
 
Who gave the order to stand down?

Would have had to come from AFRICOM, perhaps SOCAF. Would have been interesting if Hicks had ordered them to go anyway. Chiefs of Mission and Combatant Commanders both have their authority direct from the POTUS (at least in theory). Overlap and potential conflict is an unresolved issue.:cool:
 
Would have had to come from AFRICOM, perhaps SOCAF. Would have been interesting if Hicks had ordered them to go anyway. Chiefs of Mission and Combatant Commanders both have their authority direct from the POTUS (at least in theory). Overlap and potential conflict is an unresolved issue.:cool:

There never was an order to stand down.

The story has been that a 'stand down' order was given which prevented 4 special forces personnel from moving to Benghazi from Tripoli. The question has been who issued the 'stand down' order, was it President Obama, SOS Hillary Clinton, who??

Well nobody gave the order, it's a meme that began with Fox' s Jennifer Griffin:


EXCLUSIVE: CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack, sources say | Fox News


The real story from DOD:

DOD Cooperates With Congress on Benghazi Probes

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 8, 2013 – The Defense Department has cooperated fully with Congress and the State Department on the investigation into the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that led to the death of four U.S. citizens, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said here today.

A number of panels on Capitol Hill are examining the incident, which occurred September 11, 2012.

DOD officials provided a full accounting of military actions, “before, during and after” the attack. “The fact remains -- as we have repeatedly indicated -- that United States forces could not have arrived in time to mount a rescue of those Americans killed or injured that night,” Little said.

The attacks killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

The U.S. military responded quickly to notifications of the attack on the Benghazi consulate, the spokesman said.

Little specifically addressed what military personnel in the Libyan capital of Tripoli were doing during the attack. Special operations personnel, he said, were in Libya in general support of embassy security and to aid the movement of embassy personnel.

Little reiterated that two service members did go from Tripoli to Benghazi that evening. These personnel were members of a quick reaction force quickly put together.

“We also had four personnel who continued a mission in Tripoli to support the relocation of American embassy personnel to that location,” Little said. “This is against a backdrop of uncertainty and concerns of threats to diplomatic installations throughout the region.”

The four personnel stayed in the area to relocate American embassy personnel from various embassy facilities to a U.S. embassy annex in Tripoli, Little said.

These four personnel attempted to travel to Benghazi. “The team leader of this four-man unit, called Special Operations Command—Africa to tell them that the movement of personnel to the annex was complete,” Little said. “He then reported his intention to move his team to Benghazi aboard a Libyan C-130.”

But by this time, the mission in Benghazi had shifted to evacuation. The higher command directed the team leader “to continue providing support to the embassy in Tripoli,” Little said.

“We continue to believe there was nothing this team could have done to assist during the second attack in Benghazi,” he added.

The four-man team remained in Tripoli and played a key role in receiving, treating and moving the wounded from Benghazi.
 
There never was an order to stand down.

I never claimed that the order to stand down came while there was still a chance to save lives, but a stand down order there certainly was, and your post proves it. When ordered not to go to Benghazi, the Lt.Col. in question complained to ACOM Hicks that for the first time in his life he had seen a diplomat with more balls than military officers.:shock:
 
I never claimed that the order to stand down came while there was still a chance to save lives, but a stand down order there certainly was, and your post proves it. When ordered not to go to Benghazi, the Lt.Col. in question complained to ACOM Hicks that for the first time in his life he had seen a diplomat with more balls than military officers.:shock:
You claimed it was shameful, do yu still feel that way after reading the release from DOD?
 
Yes. It absolutely was shameful. Had I been Hicks, I would have ordered them to go anyway.:cool:
Why would you do that anyway when the mission in Benghazi had changed and the four were useful in
Triploli?
 
No matter what comes out, it will still be a coverup by the Obama administration. Faux intentionally tried to manipulate the election with this story and now has to stick to it. What if some news organization does this next election?

Your brothers died, alone, abandoned, surrounded, and begging for help on the radio while their leadership watched dispassionately on friggin television. Their funerals were turned into political grandstanding by those who lied over their bodies. I realize you're a pretty leftish fellow, but so is Sarcogito, and he at least remembers who he is and who they were enough to be upset over that, rather than trying to make any mental gymnastic necessary to defend the people he voted for.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. I don't think anything will drive him from office, but I'll sure as hell be glad when his term's over.
 
Your brothers died, alone, abandoned, surrounded, and begging for help on the radio while their leadership watched on friggin television. Their funerals were turned into political grandstanding by those who lied over their bodies. I realize you're a pretty leftish fellow, but so is Sarcogito, and he at least remembers who he is and who they were enough to be upset over that, rather than trying to turn it into a partisan wedge.

There's a Roland-at-the-bridge quality to this. They fought for seven hours--one who died came from far away to join--in the expectation that their country would support them.:hm
 
You claimed it was shameful, do yu still feel that way after reading the release from DOD?

The DOD release does not solve the questions that you think it does, but rather describes the process. It also does not answer the question about where the order originated from, nor who stood down other options. This still reads as "Africom stood up a response and was then told to stop", and the claim that they couldn't have gotten there is is thoroughly dismantled by Bing West who is sort of kind of how to put this a fairly authoritative voice. A bunch of diplomats were able to make it there, a bunch of CIA guys were able to secure an airfield 90 minutes away in order to support operations, but SOF guys golly gee willickers well you know I hate flying at night and I have a headache and who knows if it would all be over by the time we got there.......


Whoever originated the order deserves to be made an example of. If that person is wearing a uniform, then their name additionally needs to go down in history with the Army officers who refused to provide fire support in Afghanistan because the request was in the wrong format.
 
The DOD release does not solve the questions that you think it does, but rather describes the process. It also does not answer the question about where the order originated from, nor who stood down other options. This still reads as "Africom stood up a response and was then told to stop", and the claim that they couldn't have gotten there is is thoroughly dismantled by Bing West who is sort of kind of how to put this a fairly authoritative voice. A bunch of diplomats were able to make it there, a bunch of CIA guys were able to secure an airfield 90 minutes away in order to support operations, but SOF guys golly gee willickers well you know I hate flying at night and I have a headache and who knows if it would all be over by the time we got there.......


Whoever originated the order deserves to be made an example of. If that person is wearing a uniform, then their name additionally needs to go down in history with the Army officers who refused to provide fire support in Afghanistan because the request was in the wrong format.

Is finding the low level paper pusher at the state department or defense department really going to prove anything different about the Benghazi story.

It all sounds like a lynch mob mentality in pursuit of a victim to me.
 
The DOD release does not solve the questions that you think it does, but rather describes the process. It also does not answer the question about where the order originated from, nor who stood down other options. This still reads as "Africom stood up a response and was then told to stop", and the claim that they couldn't have gotten there is is thoroughly dismantled by Bing West who is sort of kind of how to put this a fairly authoritative voice. A bunch of diplomats were able to make it there, a bunch of CIA guys were able to secure an airfield 90 minutes away in order to support operations, but SOF guys golly gee willickers well you know I hate flying at night and I have a headache and who knows if it would all be over by the time we got there.......


Whoever originated the order deserves to be made an example of. If that person is wearing a uniform, then their name additionally needs to go down in history with the Army officers who refused to provide fire support in Afghanistan because the request was in the wrong format.
I think your link is bad, it takes me to NRO. I am sorry when I read it, it tells me what happened, not what the process is
 
Is finding the low level paper pusher at the state department or defense department really going to prove anything different about the Benghazi story.

It all sounds like a lynch mob mentality in pursuit of a victim to me.

By definition a low level paper pusher at the state department is unlikely to have the authority to issue stand down orders to AFRICOM.

Someone betrayed Americans on the ground and left them to die a horrible death. And someone then decided to lie about the nature of their death. It is possible that these are two different someones, it is possible they are the same someone, but both deserve to be discovered and expected to answer for their deeds.
 
I think your link is bad, it takes me to NRO. I am sorry when I read it, it tells me what happened, not what the process is

Precisely. It tells you what happened, specifically pointing out that the notion that no one could have made it in in time is ludicrous.
 
I don't think it will get Obama booted, and i kinda hope it doesn't. Because who's gonna take over? It'll just be the same thing again.
 
Gosh, I dunno. How about... violate the law?

Somehow that didn't make your list. I wonder why.

Oh, I think if you look at my list, intimidating civil servants to keep them from speaking out in their telling of the truth, I think that is against the law. Requiring them to leave out or not talk... or withhold them, gag them, from telling the truth to our congressmen who come on scene, there to find out what actually happened for us, the "people"... think that is lawful? Demoting a civil servant who has spoken the truth forthrightly, you do not think that is against the law? Whistle blower protection laws ring a bell at all?



It didn't for Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter Ford Nixon etc. Heck, by these standards Bush 43 should've been thrown out of office a dozen times over.

Well with two of the ones you mention, Clinton got impeached at least and Nixon's was on the way, with the first article of impeachment passed in committee, he smartly stepped down. I will not defend Carter, he being in contention for the worst president with Obama, FDR and Wilson... but Reagan, Ford and GWB? It would require another debate thread really...but would be willing to take you on in each and every one of those cases. And you actually have to be in the proper position to get impeachment first, but the democrats did have the House for the last two years under Pelosi while GW was in office, I am sure if they had the "goods" on GW they would have made the attempt, its not like they are/were rational or anything.



What are you, new?

Politicians lie. So do citizens. Everyone lies, constantly, routinely, when it matters, when it doesn't.
Politicians lie, sure, in campaigns and generally... but really not supposed to be using that vice when before a committee holding hearings or in a court of law... that is where "we" the public want, require, truth to be told, with penalty for not, so we can get to the truth when its most imortant. Our Government is only our elected and paid help, here to assist us in this enterprise we call governing, they serve at our convenience and behest, when "we" are asking for specific truths, we expect it told correctly... and if not there are consequences...why, are you new?

I don't mind politicians being taken to task for their mistakes or a lack of transparency. But there is nothing impeachable here.
Fortunately you are not the one in charge of whether there is anything here impeachable or not... you seem to lack the requisite inquisitiveness of desire to ascertain if there is any reason or not... I am sure that little bungled burglary of the Watergate didn't sound like much at the beginning either, did it? And we have another Clinton committing perjury in the case of Clinton's impeachment ...for which he got disbarred...

How about we sit back, let the process goes where it goes, find out if there is anything impeachable before making such pronouncements before you know truly of what you speak.
 
Back
Top Bottom