• 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!

Is obama an illegitimate president?

Is obama an illegitimate president

  • yes he was elected based on a lie

    Votes: 9 14.3%
  • no he was fairly elected

    Votes: 54 85.7%

  • Total voters
    63
The OP begins with the premise that the US electoral system is comparable to the International Cycling Organization (ICO). My heart tried to see it from a genuine "feels" perspective, then my brain jumped out of my skull and screamed at my heart:

you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg
 
During both Clinton and Bush it was admitted right up front they were terror attacks. This one wasn't. This one was known by one and all that it was a terrorist attack, yet an attempt was made to kept that from the American people. In something like this, honesty is always the best policy. If the present administration had came right out and said Benghazi was a terrorist attack, none of what is happening now would be happening, even in today's highly partisan atmosphere.

I know you don't want to hear this, but a spontaneous attack does not preclude a terrorist attack.

Yes, the administration initially asserted that that the spontaneous attack was precipitated by the video, and that is almost certainly wrong, or at least there is no evidence that it is is right, but there seems to be this bifurcation between the initial characterization of who did the attacking and terrorists.

If Osama bin Laden had walked into a bar to have a goats milk White Russian and saw a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of him and pulled a pistol and shot ten people, would that be a terrorist attack or a spontaneous reaction to a video?

I'm not saying the characterization was right, or even that it was not politically motivated, but I guess what am saying is what difference, after all, does it make?

I would probably agree with you if the administration had someone managed to tightly wrap this up until after the election, but we knew all of this within days of the attack. It was debated in the debates!

Or is the idea that it even went in this direction for any period of time, even if it really was just in the immediate aftermath when there probably were people who actually and honestly thought the video was a factor?

I guess I am more upset by political gamesmanship (okay, lying) when it is a long drawn out act of obfuscation than when the early facts are inaccurate, intentionally, or not.

Do you remember Tora Bora?

I am not bringing this as "Bush did it" thing, more like a "this is what political government is" thing.

The whole Bush Administration came out to the Sunday talk circuits and said variations of UBL wasn't there. Singing from the same hymnal, Bush, Vice President Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks have all insisted: "We didn't know if bin Laden was at Tora Bora." He was they knew it, the CIA confirmed it, but it was politically expedient to say he wasn't there because the alternative was admitting we had him cornered and screwed it up.

We never got all that mad about that because the denials persisted all the way past the 2004 election and when we learned the facts were unequivocal at the time, it was old news.

But we knew the essential facts of Benghazi within days and the WH did not deny them.

Sure, dig deep enough and there is some level of obfuscation, but seriously, the focus on the characterization that lasted a few days is just ridiculous and I know why the party faithful are hitting this dead horse with the paddles, but I am surprised you are buying any of it.
 
Strange as it may seem, that question doesn’t bother me as much as why the administration tried to make the American people believe the well planned attacked by terrorist was the work of a video.

I can understand not sending in the 4 SF troopers armed with only .45’s or perhaps 9 mm’s against an attack force of what, 100? More? Less? I don’t know, I haven’t heard of a number assigned to the attackers. But we do know the attackers were armed with mortars and Ak-47’s. I can understand not sending them in, especially outgunned as they were. As for the aircraft based in Italy, could they have made it or not, it seems they might have before the second attack. But was it assumed that once the first attack was over, the engagement was finished? That is usually the pattern in attacks like these. I don’t know, but these things are judgment calls.

I have stated in the past about State being notorious for lax security, nothing new there. But this time it cost the Ambassador and others their lives. PBBauer in one of his posts defending the president said the reason the administration or the State Department okayed or wanted to blame everything on the video was State was afraid Congress would criticize State for lax security. Now that actually makes sense to me as I have personally seen the lax security State practices in the past.

Without good intel, there is also the potential for something akin to sniper baiting. Draw in more targets and kill them.

AFAIK, we are not fond of sending anyone, anywhere, blind.
 
I'm not sure anyone admitted anything the way you described because I don't think anyone noticed or cared about those embassy attacks. They got written off as diploamtic/strategic setbacks and were consigned to become footnotes of history.

If the Obama Administration stumbled when the whole point of the witch hunt was to make them stumble so Romney could be president, I still don't see why it is a reason to care about a fight between two sides that have proven equally unwilling to respect the dead in light of political opportunities/setbacks.

Admitted is the wrong word. All were terrorist attacks under Clinton and Bush and no attempt was made to redefine them as something they were not. The Terrorist Attack happened and were reported as such. Here, Benghazi it seems for what ever unfathomable reason a decision was made to make this one particular terrorist attack, to report this terrorist attack as a protesting mob that went bad caused by a video instead of what it was. It was a well planned out terrorist attack which even the organization that caused it was know to the CIA and to State and reported up the chain of command. I'd like to know why some people in this administration tried to cover up the fact it was a terrorist attack. They may have had a valid reason or it may have been purely political. As of today, I am very much tilted to the political side.

If any side is not respecting the dead, it is the administration in their attempt to call this terrorist attack something it was not. These people died in a terrorist attack and not as a result of a video mob gone bad. I hope you can see the difference.

This is not really new, previously the Ft. Hood attack/killings by Major Hasan has been classified as work place violence by this administration when it was a terrorist attack by Hasan on his fellow soldiers. This too was not Hasan going postal which is the category the Ft. Hood Event is now resting it, it was a well thought out plan by Hasan to kill as many soldiers as he possibly could. The dead and wounded deserve the purple heart which would be awarded to them if this was classified as a terrorist attack, as a man who went postal and classified as work place violence, these soldiers do not receive the proper recognition they deserve.

I am sure both sides are playing political games when they shouldn't when it comes to Benghazi. But only one side as it stands now looks like they tried to made something seem like it was something it wasn't and in the process tried to deceive the American People.
 
I know you don't want to hear this, but a spontaneous attack does not preclude a terrorist attack.

Yes, the administration initially asserted that that the spontaneous attack was precipitated by the video, and that is almost certainly wrong, or at least there is no evidence that it is is right, but there seems to be this bifurcation between the initial characterization of who did the attacking and terrorists.

If Osama bin Laden had walked into a bar to have a goats milk White Russian and saw a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of him and pulled a pistol and shot ten people, would that be a terrorist attack or a spontaneous reaction to a video?

I'm not saying the characterization was right, or even that it was not politically motivated, but I guess what am saying is what difference, after all, does it make?

I would probably agree with you if the administration had someone managed to tightly wrap this up until after the election, but we knew all of this within days of the attack. It was debated in the debates!

Or is the idea that it even went in this direction for any period of time, even if it really was just in the immediate aftermath when there probably were people who actually and honestly thought the video was a factor?

I guess I am more upset by political gamesmanship (okay, lying) when it is a long drawn out act of obfuscation than when the early facts are inaccurate, intentionally, or not.

Do you remember Tora Bora?

I am not bringing this as "Bush did it" thing, more like a "this is what political government is" thing.

The whole Bush Administration came out to the Sunday talk circuits and said variations of UBL wasn't there. Singing from the same hymnal, Bush, Vice President Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Tommy Franks have all insisted: "We didn't know if bin Laden was at Tora Bora." He was they knew it, the CIA confirmed it, but it was politically expedient to say he wasn't there because the alternative was admitting we had him cornered and screwed it up.

We never got all that mad about that because the denials persisted all the way past the 2004 election and when we learned the facts were unequivocal at the time, it was old news.

But we knew the essential facts of Benghazi within days and the WH did not deny them.

Sure, dig deep enough and there is some level of obfuscation, but seriously, the focus on the characterization that lasted a few days is just ridiculous and I know why the party faithful are hitting this dead horse with the paddles, but I am surprised you are buying any of it.

I do not mind hearing everyone’s point of view and at times I have been known to change my mind. There is not D or R next to my name, I once belonged to the Reform Party and I still claim that party as mine.

You are correct, a spontaneous attack does not preclude a terrorist attack. We would call this targets of opportunity and they are not really spontaneous in a sense, it is just taking advantage of a situation that presents it self in according to an over all plan. But with mortars being used, although a possibility, not very likely. The fact the CIA reported who was involved and knew it was terrorist which seems to have been changed by the State Department or at least deleted and a false report given to the American people, if not false as in an down right lie, at least to deceive the American people into thinking terrorist had nothing to do with it.

The up coming election is irrelevant to me, I didn’t care who won, I wanted neither. I think PBBauer probable had it right in one of his posts in defending Obama. He said the terrorist portions were deleted to avoid congressional criticism over lax security by State. Now this makes sense as State is/was notorious for lax security at least back in my day.

Sometimes governments/administrations lie on purpose or obfuscate or play very loose with the truth in trying to protect some things that deal with national security. Protecting an intelligence asset, ongoing operations, things of this nature. This is possible here, but I highly doubt it. I seen some of these things in action.

The thing with me I would like to find out the reason why. I see no benefit to this administrations in trying to portray this event was the result of a video instead of coming right out with the truth when the truth was known. I am not trying to crucify anyone, I am just trying to make sense of something that so far in my mind makes no sense. But governments/administrations do things all the time that makes no sense out of fear of political repercussions or some bad press for a day or two.
 
Baloney. The facts came out before the election and instead of impeachment, Obama was re-elected. QUOTE)



Alot of facts came out after the election, little things like rescue missions were told to stand down and the CIA report was sent back 12 times to edit things out the white house didn't want in there that made it look bad and we still don't know where obama was or what he was doing during that crucial 7 hours where four Americans were killed. If the story that is out now was out before election day obama may well be playing golf instead of playing president.
 
Without good intel, there is also the potential for something akin to sniper baiting. Draw in more targets and kill them.

AFAIK, we are not fond of sending anyone, anywhere, blind.

Very true. It is all judgment calls by those in charge. Civilians find this hard to take something and view certain actions or in this case non-action by the military being pretty cold hearted. They are use to seeing things on TV and in the movies, real life doesn't work that way.
 
I do not mind hearing everyone’s point of view and at times I have been known to change my mind. There is not D or R next to my name, I once belonged to the Reform Party and I still claim that party as mine.

You are correct, a spontaneous attack does not preclude a terrorist attack. We would call this targets of opportunity and they are not really spontaneous in a sense, it is just taking advantage of a situation that presents it self in according to an over all plan. But with mortars being used, although a possibility, not very likely. The fact the CIA reported who was involved and knew it was terrorist which seems to have been changed by the State Department or at least deleted and a false report given to the American people, if not false as in an down right lie, at least to deceive the American people into thinking terrorist had nothing to do with it.

The up coming election is irrelevant to me, I didn’t care who won, I wanted neither. I think PBBauer probable had it right in one of his posts in defending Obama. He said the terrorist portions were deleted to avoid congressional criticism over lax security by State. Now this makes sense as State is/was notorious for lax security at least back in my day.

Sometimes governments/administrations lie on purpose or obfuscate or play very loose with the truth in trying to protect some things that deal with national security. Protecting an intelligence asset, ongoing operations, things of this nature. This is possible here, but I highly doubt it. I seen some of these things in action.

The thing with me I would like to find out the reason why. I see no benefit to this administrations in trying to portray this event was the result of a video instead of coming right out with the truth when the truth was known. I am not trying to crucify anyone, I am just trying to make sense of something that so far in my mind makes no sense. But governments/administrations do things all the time that makes no sense out of fear of political repercussions or some bad press for a day or two.


After your long career in the military can you come up with any reasonable scenario as to why the SEAL was painting a mortar position for an air strike that wasn't there? Somehow that guy was under the impression that the calvery was coming.
 
Obama might very well be a incompetent and duplicitous commander and chief, but I don't see any way you could claim that he was an "illegitimate" president. If the American people people were dumb enough to vote the man into office twice in spite of his administration's complete and total failure to produce any kind of positive economic, social, political, or military outcome on either a domestic or international basis, that is hardly his fault.

As the old saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you." "Fool me twice..."

Other than the fact that he is not an NBC and that the results of the election are very much questionable.
 
Obama won
get over it


this election was the GOP's for the taking. and the republicans snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by running a milk toast ticket

and this is just the start
in 2016 a woman will win the presidential election
and Elizabeth Warren will kick some substantial republican ass over two terms

you may want to emigrate somewhere whiter and avoid having to endure such diversity

Maybe he won maybe he did not.
 
As much as his opposition wanted him to lose, nearly all of the Benghazi confusion took place in the first days after the tragic event. By the time Election Day rolled around nearly a full month had past and by then it was clarified that the initial false assumption that the attack was motivated by an Egyptian produced you tube video critical of Islam was debunked. By November the administration and the American people were fully aware al Qaeda carried out the terrorist act at Benghazi yet voted to reelect Obama anyway. If it was thought that an Egyptian making YouTube videos inspired the killing of Americans in Libya; the White House, the CIA and the state department all knew it was untrue but conspired with each other to deceive the American public until after Election Day, you might have a point but the truth came out way before Election Day.

Do I think the Obama administration feels America needs to walk on eggshells not to offend Muslims? Yes. Do I think the president will lie through his teeth in order to make it seem like an Egyptian thought to be an American offending Muslims motivated an attack that killed Americans when he knew it was untrue just to win an election? No.

My honest opinion: an America dividing partisan witch hunt that I, a Republican will be forced to consider when voting in 2014 and 2016. I always thought tragedies such as these is what made republicans shine as we put aside our political team divisions and came together as a united American people. Oh well.


You really expect anyone to believe you after
the White House, the CIA and the state department all knew it was untrue but conspired with each other to deceive the American public until after Election Day, you might have a point but the truth came out way before Election Day.

The truth is just starting to come out now. And its well after election day in case you have not noticed.
 
Whether or not he lied is irrelevant to whether or not he is a 'legitimate' president. He was elected fairly and legally. After all, it's not like he's the only president to lie about something to get elected now is he. By my estimate there have been 43 of those.

No he wasnt on either count
 
.... So... administration officials "lying" about the reasons behind Benghazi are worse than a US president committing a crime? Are you even trying to be partisan anymore?


Its not so much the lying its why they are lying and the fact that they left all those people to die without making any effort to save them.
 
Since we don't know all the information behind the Benghazi situation, we do not yet know whether or not Obama and/or Clinton were indeed negligent in failing to perform their constitutional duties. If they did not perform their duties in accordance with their oaths of office then they were criminally negligent as it lead to the death of American Citizens, thus making if far worse than Watergate, which did not lead to the death of anyone, at least not that I am aware of.

They sent no help at all. In fact they told them to stand down. They did not perform their duties. The call came at 2am and they both rolled over and went back to sleep.
 
No he wasnt on either count

Really? You have proof that Obama was elected illegally? Why haven't you gone to the media about it? Or presented it to your congressional representatives so he can be impeached?
 
Another partisan and dumb poll.

No elections are "fair." Fairness is irrelevant.
 
After your long career in the military can you come up with any reasonable scenario as to why the SEAL was painting a mortar position for an air strike that wasn't there? Somehow that guy was under the impression that the calvery was coming.

Without being there or seeing the after action reports, it is hard to tell. But I would say you are probably right. Thinking about it, I would also probably dismiss protecting an intel asset. In this case it was the CIA placing the names of the organization responsible in the report and coming right out and saying it was a pre planned attack. State was the one trying to get all this deleted. If it was protection of an Intel asset, I would presume it would be the other way around. The CIA trying to get the deletions from the State Report. Although the State Department has or did have their own intel folks or department.
 
Nixon tried to cover up a botched burglary, obama tried to cover up a botched reaction to a terrorist attack where 4 people died. You tell me which is worse.

Nixon used the tools of the FBI and CIA to assist in the cover up. It was an abuse of power, and he was rightly given what for because of it. No President should be able to do that with a government agency, which is why I find the IRS allegations far more disturbing than Benghazi.

Obama lied to the press. You may not like it, but that's not a crime. If you find evidence that an actual crime was committed in Benghazi, let's see it. So far I've seen failed leadership, botched response and lying to reporters. None of which is an actual crime. Abuse of power, as in Watergate, is a crime.
 
In other words, no, you do not have any proof, only conspiracy theories.

He also spouted birtherism earlier.

Basically he's one of those who, for whatever reason, accepts anything bad said about Obama at face value. Even when it contradicts other bad stuff that he accepts as true.
 
Maybe he won maybe he did not.

i only see him indicated as our current president
who did you believe had won instead
 
Obama is a bad president and a POS of a man, unlike Jimmy Carter who was a bad president but a decent human being
 
I find it impossible that he won 59 precincts in one city and that not a single resident in any of those voted for Romney

There is tons of evidence

Look at those precincts before making such comments. Poor, ghetto black slums NOT voting for Romney? SHOCKING!!!!
 
I do not mind hearing everyone’s point of view and at times I have been known to change my mind. There is not D or R next to my name, I once belonged to the Reform Party and I still claim that party as mine.

You are correct, a spontaneous attack does not preclude a terrorist attack. We would call this targets of opportunity and they are not really spontaneous in a sense, it is just taking advantage of a situation that presents it self in according to an over all plan. But with mortars being used, although a possibility, not very likely. The fact the CIA reported who was involved and knew it was terrorist which seems to have been changed by the State Department or at least deleted and a false report given to the American people, if not false as in an down right lie, at least to deceive the American people into thinking terrorist had nothing to do with it.

The up coming election is irrelevant to me, I didn’t care who won, I wanted neither. I think PBBauer probable had it right in one of his posts in defending Obama. He said the terrorist portions were deleted to avoid congressional criticism over lax security by State. Now this makes sense as State is/was notorious for lax security at least back in my day.

Sometimes governments/administrations lie on purpose or obfuscate or play very loose with the truth in trying to protect some things that deal with national security. Protecting an intelligence asset, ongoing operations, things of this nature. This is possible here, but I highly doubt it. I seen some of these things in action.

The thing with me I would like to find out the reason why. I see no benefit to this administrations in trying to portray this event was the result of a video instead of coming right out with the truth when the truth was known. I am not trying to crucify anyone, I am just trying to make sense of something that so far in my mind makes no sense. But governments/administrations do things all the time that makes no sense out of fear of political repercussions or some bad press for a day or two.

I get that, but I think the why is obvious, it was group think, message by committee. No one really owned the messaging and the messaging was essentially negotiated. I seriously doubt that the people who put this together had the slightest feeling they were misleading, rather I suspect they probably thought they limiting the inclusion of information that they did not like and did want to put out until they had to with some cover in protecting the investigation. Clearly a big part of the problem was a conflation of Benghazi and Cairo.

I was more interested in what could have been done to bring reinforcements in, and I would still like more information than we have, but again, my only says that State was begging and the military could not commit troops at the time, or in time, with the information that could be ascertained at the time. What would you think is more likely, state asked and the military could not approve, or the military was hung ho and State held them back?
 
Back
Top Bottom