• 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!

Where do you stand?

What’s your take on Benghazi?

  • A stupid video incited localized terror

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .
How many more Americans would have had to get killed for it to become 'criminal' ???????
That depends on Clinton's political viability in 2016. If she is running, no amount would rise to the level of criminality. This is all in the interest of the greater good, of course. We must have a democrat in the WH, it must be a woman, and it must be Hillary. Besides, what difference does it make?
 
How many more Americans would have had to get killed for it to become 'criminal' ???????

the number does not determine criminality ... you can have one dead and it's criminal and 1000 on the other hand and it not be criminal ... let's take Iraq ... we lost over 4000 soldiers (and many more innocent civilians) based largely on lies told by an administration hell bent on wanting a war. Was that criminal? I think it is, but I've yet to see evidence that there was criminality in Benghazi ... incompetence, probably, including by Congressmen/women who didn't provide adequate funding for security requested by the State Dept. You have Issa heading that investigation, trying as hard as he can to find or make something up, and yet, nothing that rises to criminal thus far ... we'll see ..
 
A screw up that will not effect the Teflon in Chief.


Bobs.jpg
 
How many more Americans would have had to get killed for it to become 'criminal' ???????

It's not the number, it's the situation and the actions. A decision was made about embassy security, and it was the wrong decision. But I don't want a situation where every decision made by the President is reviewable by Congress, regardless of anyone's political affiliation.

If the same decisions were made and nobody died, would that make it OK with you? I suspect it would barely even be a story if that were the case. The criminality is based on the decisions made and the reasons for them, not the results.
 
No doubt. My statement is an evaluation of your concerns, which are reflected in your last sentence. Clinton's future political prospects have nothing whatever to do with the events which transpired in Benghazi. That you addressed her future while analyzing Benghazi speaks to exactly what I mentioned.

I mentioned the former Secretary of State, because there are conspiracy theories being promoted of a "cover up" (no evidence from the official investigation) to "protect" her.

Benghazi ‘cover-up to protect Hillary’
 
the negative results of imperialism

get over it or stop supporting such politics and politicians

thats all l know......
 
What’s your take on Benghazi?

That it was a travesty, and we were caught with our collective pants down, and the leadership of the country was negligent with the lives of our countrymen.
 
It's not the number, it's the situation and the actions. A decision was made about embassy security, and it was the wrong decision. But I don't want a situation where every decision made by the President is reviewable by Congress, regardless of anyone's political affiliation.

If the same decisions were made and nobody died, would that make it OK with you? I suspect it would barely even be a story if that were the case. The criminality is based on the decisions made and the reasons for them, not the results.

A desparate plea was made for help, and it was ignored. If that was not criminal, it was no doubt cowardly.
 
A desparate plea was made for help, and it was ignored. If that was not criminal, it was no doubt cowardly.

Maybe, but no laws were broken.

A question I've asked before, but nobody seems to have considered it. Assuming forces could get from the embassy in Tripoli across the gulf to Benghazi in time, wouldn't that have left the actual embassy at risk? If he knew it was a security risk, why would the ambassador go to Benghazi, especially knowing he'd be there on September 11?
 
The Pickering and Mullen Report found, "systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels" of the State Department, which meant that security was "inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place."

I find it hard to believe that Hillary knew nothing about the impending attack and refusal to send protection because of miscalculations and political reasons.
 
Why, imagine that. Certainly, there's no room in an "objective analysis" for conspiracy theories. And a cover up? That would never happen. It was that damn movie that caused the furor.
I mentioned the former Secretary of State, because there are conspiracy theories being promoted of a "cover up" (no evidence from the official investigation) to "protect" her.

Benghazi ‘cover-up to protect Hillary’
 
I do. The 2nd sentence explains it. In general, putting aside wording of questions, a useful poll should contain a response that accurately reflects the situation about which a question is being asked. That is not the case with this poll.
You don't. The 2nd sentence is just your opinion. In general, putting aside wording of explanations, a useful argument should contain compelling evidence. A good response should have compelling evidence. That is not the case with your response.
 
Hi Don, nice to see you as always. How would you summarize the situation? You tend to have a refreshingly honest, straightforward, balanced view and I am really curious as to hear your thoughts.
Of course you are. He's vague, PC, and you share the same sense of balance: slightly to the Left.
 
You don't. The 2nd sentence is just your opinion. In general, putting aside wording of explanations, a useful argument should contain compelling evidence. A good response should have compelling evidence. That is not the case with your response.

None of the polling responses accurately reflect the best of what's known. For a reference, one can start with the official review.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf

Of course, that assumes that the goal of the poll is to collect objective information related to people's understanding of what happened.
 
Well, actual Libertarians can. It's the ones that think the word "libertarian" is just a cooler sounding way to say "Republican" that you have to watch out for.

Those are easily identified and dissected. If you start taking right-wing stances on abortion, drugs, and homosexuality, you're instantly outed as LINO.

Fortunately, they're noticeably rare.

Or they can simply trash George Bush on a Barack Obama related thread. It's allowed, and it's also liberal. ;)

Haha. Well I was no big fan of Bush, but I do often defend him - in fact, I will defend him more than criticize him (despite obvious flaws) because every double-digit IQ liberal wants to "blame Bush" for anything and everything.

I don't worry about him too much because Bush is past, and Obama is present. In 2016, I'll close the book on 95% of my criticisms of Obama (100% if America wakes up and elects officials to repeal Obamacare) and I'll move on to attacking the next poor schlub they elect.
 
A screw up that will not effect the Teflon in Chief.

Ever considered why it won't effect the Teflon in Chief or any Teflon in Chief? Because making mistakes is not a criminal act. But the investigation is worthy, as it highlights mistakes and avoids them in the future.

We should have sent help. That's the message I think we ought to send to our friends and enemies. "No man left behind."
 
Ever considered why it won't effect the Teflon in Chief or any Teflon in Chief? Because making mistakes is not a criminal act.

That and good leaders insulate themselves from scandals & cover ups, they always have a loyal Eric Holder type to take the heat and possibly fall on his sword if need be. Also this particular President is almost as hostile to whistle blowers as the KGB were.
 
Of course you are. He's vague, PC, and you share the same sense of balance: slightly to the Left.

Well, when you can't refute what is said, you resort to attacking the person making the point. Well done.

Just to enlighten you, since you are fairly new here, Don is one of the most respected posters on this board, period, by people of any political ideology. I disagree with Don, frequently, but when he says something I disagree with or dislike, I first check my assumptions since there is a good chance those are in error. He was somewhat vague here, but I asked for a quick answer, not a long, indepth one which he can and has provided in the past on issues, making posts that Zyphlin is jealous of the wordiness of.

The problem is not that Don said something I agreed with, nor that he did not go into great depth, nor that he said anything untrue. The problem, which he illustrated, is your poll question is based entirely on your slanted view of the situation. You di not make an honest poll, you made one designed to try and get the answer you wanted to hear. I would recommend you stop trying to blame others for your own shortcomings.
 
Obama was playing golf, how can we hold him accountable?
 
Another bad attempt by Darrell Issa to turn one of his fantasies into fruition....unfortunately for Issa, he failed yet again.


Remember this is the man who cried after he financed the recall of Gray Davis and then Arnold entered the race.....Issa is a fool.
 
or another one:

A sad attempt by FauxNews to create a scandal that just wasn't there....but didn't stop them from trying 147 times.
 
It's complex. But based on the information currently available, I'd summarize it as follows:

1) Planning for security, etc., was somewhat chaotic and disorganized prior to the attacks.
probably because the commander in chief was too busy preparing for re election.

2) Once the terrorist attack was underway, there was no effective way to do more to rescue those under attack. U.S. fighter jets were in Italy.
and the commander in chief was on the campaign trail.

3) The messaging afterwards was not very good. Subsequent accounts had to be revised. The gap between the early accounts and later accounts had an impact on credibility. That gap was also exploited in the partisan jockeying, both in Washington and by political pundits along idealogical or partisan lines.
But Barack Obama was re elected, which is all the Left really cared about to begin with.

4) There was an investigation and recommendations were made. The focus should be on learning from what happened, not tilting at windmills aimed a politicizing what was a terrible tragedy.
Because everyone knows the commander in chief had damn good reason for dragging his feet on his ambassador's request for more security.

In terms of long-term political impact, I do not believe the Benghazi attacks will have any serious adverse impact should former Secretary of State Clinton seek the Presidency.
I'd love to hear Chris Stevens' take on this cold analysis.
 
Back
Top Bottom