• 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!

GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?

GOP Benghazi hearings a partisan disgrace?


  • Total voters
    72
But I'd say that an investigation is necessary - how they go about it will determine how much partisanship is involved.

I can appreciate those like yourself wanting to learn all the truth, however...

There have been investigations into Benghazi, conducted by the senate and the military. Also, the NY Times launched a major investigation into the attacks and there finding were reported months later. All of them found that there was no cover up, that spontaneous demonstrations caused by a YouTube video played a role, and that al Qaeda was probably not at all leading some kind of long planned for attack. Here is an excerpt from the NY Times about the senate report:

On the contentious issue of the role of Al Qaeda or other international terrorist organizations in the attack on the diplomatic mission, the Senate committee’s report found that individuals “affiliated with” many such groups had participated in the attack but that none of them appeared to have planned or led the assault.

The report found that among the many terrorist groups with which individual attackers had some affiliation were Ansar al-Shariah, Al Qaeda’s North African affiliate; Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate; and an Egyptian network led by Muhammad Jamal. But the report said, “Intelligence suggests that the attack was not a highly coordinated plot, but was opportunistic.”

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate,” the report said. “Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day’s violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/w...rt-finds-benghazi-attack-was-preventable.html

Perhaps there was no major protest in Benghazi immediately before the attack, however the CIA believed there was when Susan Rice went to talk about the attacks (not under any oath mind you) on the infamous sunday talk shows. And al Jazeera, the NY Times, and the CIA deputy director all attributed anger over the video to the attacks. There were protests and attacks at the US Embassy in Cairo as well, caused by the video.

If the Republicans wanted to call out the President and Secretary of State for their incompetence, that would be Ok. Normal partisan banter that is going to follow any event. I get that, fair game.

But to compare this to Watergate (as dozens (all?) of prominent conservatives have done) is non-sensical and stupid. Just like the comparisons between Solyndra and Watergate were stupid. And the comparisons between Fast and Furious and Watergate were stupid. And the IRS/Lois Lerner comparisons to Watergate are stupid. And the EPA enforcing EPA standards scandal being compared to Watergate is stupid. Just like comparing the individual mandate to Hitler/Stalin/Mao is stupid.

And to use these 4 dead Americans as a fundraising tool is disturbing, and I give props to Rep Trey Gowdey who has called for this to stop.

Good luck taking on Hillary boys. She is going to skull**** these clowns the second they go hyper-partisan on this. I will be tuned in daily to watch the beatdown. Anyone here remember Ken Starr? I almost feel like Obama is a matador, urging the tea party on with a red cape of emails being released, while Hill stands behind him with the knife firmly in her hand.
 
What is the charge here really? The President tried to reassure the nation that everything would be OK following an attack on American diplomats?

Cause he's supposed to go "OMFG FREAK THE **** OUT PEOPLE These MUSLIMS IS TURRISTS COMING For all of US!!!1!!11 Sharia law! SHARIA LAW MOTHER****ERS ITS COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!1!11!!!"


What we really need is a committee to find the damn birth certificate. When you have a muslim terrorist kenyan in the white house of course al Qaeda is going to feel right at home.
 
Crafting talking points is part of their job. It's not even spin, and it's certainly not lies. The story, as told on 9/12/12, is the same as the facts show today.
That's hilarious. So lying is now called "crafting talking points". Gotcha.
 
That's hilarious. So lying is now called "crafting talking points". Gotcha.

No. Crafting talking points is an age-old method of politics. Obama did not invent talking points.
 
I can appreciate those like yourself wanting to learn all the truth, however...

There have been investigations into Benghazi, conducted by the senate and the military. Also, the NY Times launched a major investigation into the attacks and there finding were reported months later. All of them found that there was no cover up, that spontaneous demonstrations caused by a YouTube video played a role, and that al Qaeda was probably not at all leading some kind of long planned for attack. Here is an excerpt from the NY Times about the senate report:



http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/w...rt-finds-benghazi-attack-was-preventable.html

Perhaps there was no major protest in Benghazi immediately before the attack, however the CIA believed there was when Susan Rice went to talk about the attacks (not under any oath mind you) on the infamous sunday talk shows. And al Jazeera, the NY Times, and the CIA deputy director all attributed anger over the video to the attacks. There were protests and attacks at the US Embassy in Cairo as well, caused by the video.

If the Republicans wanted to call out the President and Secretary of State for their incompetence, that would be Ok. Normal partisan banter that is going to follow any event. I get that, fair game.

But to compare this to Watergate (as dozens (all?) of prominent conservatives have done) is non-sensical and stupid. Just like the comparisons between Solyndra and Watergate were stupid. And the comparisons between Fast and Furious and Watergate were stupid. And the IRS/Lois Lerner comparisons to Watergate are stupid. And the EPA enforcing EPA standards scandal being compared to Watergate is stupid. Just like comparing the individual mandate to Hitler/Stalin/Mao is stupid.

And to use these 4 dead Americans as a fundraising tool is disturbing, and I give props to Rep Trey Gowdey who has called for this to stop.

Good luck taking on Hillary boys. She is going to skull**** these clowns the second they go hyper-partisan on this. I will be tuned in daily to watch the beatdown. Anyone here remember Ken Starr? I almost feel like Obama is a matador, urging the tea party on with a red cape of emails being released, while Hill stands behind him with the knife firmly in her hand.
I must say that, given the available republican nominees so far, I won't be voting either democrat or republican this year.

And Clinton will kick their asses, probably. They're that bad.

But as for Benghazi, I'm actually more interested in the incompetence bit you mention.
I heard con talking heads saying things along the lines "it wasn't even vaguely related to that video, that's a coverup".

Of course everything is a coverup these days.

Apparently everything the government says is a lie.


I actually agree with that though....I just don't think the repubs will be any better in that regard.
 

Are you claiming Obama invented talking points or that they are not standard operating procedure since at least the 1980's?

Besides, in the end, the original talking points released on 912 were shown to be pretty close to the exact events on 9-11-2012. They certainly were a lot more accurate than the GWB talking points originally released on 911 back in 2001, which certainly did not include the fact that Bush sat frozen in a classroom full of school children while the tallest building's in America's largest city burned.
 
Are you claiming Obama invented talking points or that they are not standard operating procedure since at least the 1980's?

Besides, in the end, the original talking points released on 912 were shown to be pretty close to the exact events on 9-11-2012. They certainly were a lot more accurate than the GWB talking points originally released on 911 back in 2001, which certainly did not include the fact that Bush sat frozen in a classroom full of school children while the tallest building's in America's largest city burned.
Haven't heard that line in awhile.
 
But as for Benghazi, I'm actually more interested in the incompetence bit you mention.
I heard con talking heads saying things along the lines "it wasn't even vaguely related to that video, that's a coverup".

Agreed. There is definitely a story in the failure of the Administration to act decisively and allowing the situation to unfold as it did.

As this is probe #8 into Benghazi, I have lost almost all faith that the GOP will use this as anything more than a tactic to rally the base prior to the midterms.

But again, I appreciate Republican Rep Trey Gowdey calling on his party to not use the attacks as a fund raising tool after he was one of the main voices calling for this probe. In my mind it will be incumbent on them to ensure this is about finding out all the facts, not searching blindly for witches. I have my doubts (to say the least), but we shall see.
 
Haven't heard that line in awhile.

That's because the GOP is more concerned about screw ups that cost 4 deaths than those which cost 3000.
 
That's because the GOP is more concerned about screw ups that cost 4 deaths than those which cost 3000.
No, it's because partisans from the anti-GOP crowd haven't pulled it out recently.


Edit: Besides which, what the hell could the POTUS have done at that point? It was up to rescue crews and intelligence agencies, all of whom were no doubt hard at work.
 
No, it's because partisans from the anti-GOP crowd haven't pulled it out recently.


Edit: Besides which, what the hell could the POTUS have done at that point? It was up to rescue crews and intelligence agencies, all of whom were no doubt hard at work.

I'm sure GWB asked himself the same question. :roll:
 
I'm sure GWB asked himself the same question. :roll:
It's possible.

How would anyone but he know?

Edit: But back to the thread topic.

I'm interested in this inquiry thing both to see how the repubs go about it, and to see what they uncover, if anything.
 
It's possible.

How would anyone but he know?

Edit: But back to the thread topic.

I'm interested in this inquiry thing both to see how the repubs go about it, and to see what they uncover, if anything.

Assuming a leadership role was obviously out of the question. :roll:
 
Assuming a leadership role was obviously out of the question. :roll:
Sometimes leaders have to let their subordinates work without interrupting them, for best performance.
 
Sometimes leaders have to let their subordinates work without interrupting them, for best performance.
Riiiight. That must have been it. :roll:
 
well head GOP hater Bill Maher claims that this scandal is nothing proves the point that the Dems really did screw up. When a guy who slurps Obama like Maher is trying to minimize this major screw up, you know there really is something there
 
And you think another partisian Circus de Issa is going to lead to "the truth?" Bwahahahaha! That is NOT what congressional hearings are designed for. They are designed for committee members to give speeches to their constituents consistent with their particular political needs, either left or right, to push their version of "the truth" while casting aspersions on the "other side", which can then be neatly sound-bited during election years. The "real truth", if anyone has even managed to figure it out yet, would be in thousands of pages of investigative results, which interest neither journalist nor congress-critter. :lol:

This isn't just a congressional hearing, it is a select committee. That means it will be more like a an even handed deposition designed to get to the truth.
 
This isn't just a congressional hearing, it is a select committee. That means it will be more like a an even handed deposition designed to get to the truth.

If it was even-handed it would be bipartisan, 6-6 evenly split between democrats and republicans, not 7-5 GOP. :roll:

It's a slobber fest pandering to the base, just in time for fundraising. Get your checkbooks out, boys.
 
This isn't just a congressional hearing, it is a select committee. That means it will be more like a an even handed deposition designed to get to the truth.

It's a select committee of Republicans, re-doing everything that 12 other "select committees" have already investigated and submitted reports on. The few democrats "invited" have not even been told if they will be allowed to call their own witnesses or question those who Republicans will call. C'mon. You didn't really post that with a straight face, did you?
 
When hard evidence is brought to prove that there were deliberate lies, not just the media/political spewing of picked-apart words during the confusion in the after attack, I'll look at it. Last I heard the CIA admitted that the talking points given to UN Ambassador Rice had been "reworked" before she received them. The actual reports submitted by bi-partisian investigations have either been cherry-picked for quotes or totally ignored. Husby had Fox News on over the weekend, and they are still harping about Rice's words, when was a terrorist attack a terrorist attack and who knew what when... all crap from a couple weeks after the incident, when Libya was saying one thing and DC was trying to figure out what happened, while being denied access to the site itself.

Everything else is pure, unadulterated fabrication, speculation, commentary, and partisian bull****.

I don't have much respect for either the republicans or the democrats when it comes to partisian smokescreens and slight of hand. This time it's the republicans. Next time it'll be the democrats. Bull**** all around.

Why not just tell the truth then no reworking would be needed.:shock: oh nevermind
 
Back
Top Bottom