View Poll Results: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, They are exploiting Benghazi

    73 68.87%
  • No

    27 25.47%
  • Other

    6 5.66%
Page 20 of 34 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 339

Thread: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

  1. #191
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    President Clinton went further, he signed regime change in Iraq into law. It's the "Iraq Liberation Act" of 1998. Passed by Congress and signed into law by Clinton.

    President G.W. Bush just followed the law that Clinton signed into law.

    For those who were to young during the 1990's or those who are older but are inflicted with short term memory lost from drinking to much alcohol or smoking to much pot, during the 1990's the Hollywood Left came out with many comedies with Saddam Husein in them. "Hot Shots" with Charley Sheen, "Police Squad" always had hours of laughs and how many episodes of "South Park" had Saddam in them ?

    According to the Hollywood liberals, the evilest man alive on Earth since Adolph Hitler was Saddam Husein.
    Odd how that would change after a republican came into the whitehouse, isn't it?

  2. #192
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,990

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Yes and no. They are definitely pushing it over political motives from what I think, but I also think that there is likely lies and stuff that needs to be investigated on the Administration's end as well.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  3. #193
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    In response to:
    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    They have stalled, lied, and evaded for too long.
    I asked:
    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    Toward what end? What were they trying to accomplish?
    The response I got was:
    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    For a start, we are going to find out what happened, and when. … Hows that for a start?
    Apparently, I was misunderstood. I meant "toward what end" did people in the administration "stall, lie, and evade"?

    As I outlined in that post (#115):

    • There is a strong consensus among military experts that nothing could have been done to rescue the Ambassador once the attack was underway. So nothing there to cover up.
    • Within two weeks of the attack, both top WH counterterrorism officials and Secretary Clinton made public statements that were widely reported linking AQ affiliates to the attack. So the idea that the administration was misleading anyone in order to maintain a fiction about AQ being "on the run" simply makes no sense. Of course, the whole thing makes no sense at all since AQ has surely been nothing but "on the run" since Sept 2001.


    So I'm still wondering what it is that was being covered up.

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamacareFail View Post
    The difference is that the President and his cabinet lied to us for two weeks and planted a false story about the attacks on Benghazi were inspired by a youtube video.
    There was no lie. If there was. for God's sake, once and for all, let's hear it. WHO SAID WHAT that is a lie?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    And then the administration recognized its mistake and said it was an act of terror.
    Obama said it was an act of terror the next morning in the Rose Garden. The "mistake" was the CIA's decision to give credence to local newspaper reports that pointed to a protest over the video as instigating the assault on the facility. And yes, Rice was put out on television the following weekend with talking points that were designed to keep both State and CIA happy. It was taking the path of least bureaucratic resistance. It was inadequate — a mistake. But there was no lying and no covering up.

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    she contradicts herself in an effort to cover all the bases. And she didn't acknowledge that she was pretty much the first person to trot out those talking points she said were being looked into.
    Where does she contradict herself? What did she fail to acknowledge? When did she do this "trotting out"?

    Quote Originally Posted by ObamacareFail View Post
    It was not a mistake. It was an outright bald faced lie.
    One MORE time, where is the lie? You guys say this over and over. Fox repeats it over and over. It's certainly more than clear to me that you guys have no doubt whatsoever about this. You don't voice doubts or suspicions. You KNOW that somebody, presumably Obama and/or Clinton and maybe others, lied. So you really should agree that you will have no problem, none at all, telling me just what that big old lie is. I don't mean to be a jerk or give anyone the satisfaction of thinking that they're getting under my skin, but I suppose I am becoming annoyed. So please, do me a favour, will ya? End the mystery.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Gaddafi became an American ally in 2003
    Yes, and Stalin became one in 1941.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    After some Americans got their panties all wadded in a bunch because the mastermind of 9-11 was waterboarded
    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    For those who were to young during the 1990's or those who are older but are inflicted with short term memory lost from drinking to much alcohol or smoking to much pot
    Is that the level of debate that I should come to expect in this forum?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Obama was violating the "War Powers Act" and waging an unlawful war
    The man has committed one serious crime after another. Why has nothing ever come of it. Oh that's right, with this committee, you'll finally be able to get 'im.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    When Obama became President he refused to capture terrorist or Al Qaeda to gather intelligence probably because he had no place to put them except at GITMO or on U.S. soil.
    Of course, it's very easy to capture these people. You just go out there with a butterfly net, right? And how much of an expert on counterintelligence in this specific area are you? What intelligence should we be risking American lives to gather?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Obama had no use for Gaddafi and threw him under the bus like he did with Egypt's President Mubarak who protected Israel's southern flank.
    Yeah, Obama had no real use for a mass slaughter of civilians in Benghazi. If you recall, that's when the coalition began serious air strikes against Libyan armour and artillery. If we hadn't stopped the loyalist forces closing in on the city, I have to wonder if Stevens might have resigned. He'd be alive, and monumental outrage over our weak, indecisive, desperate, flailing, panicking, cowardly failure to lead and respond in time to save the lives of thousands of innocent civilians would have taken the place of the monumental outrage over our weak, etc, failure to protect the life of our ambassador.

    And so you feel Israel is now threatened by Egypt. You wanted us to continue to side with a rather brutal dictator when a democracy movement was exploding in the streets of the most important Arab nation. Well, I suppose as long as we didn't do it in a weak, feckless, indecisive way, things would have turned out OK. Ya just need t' get in there boldly, with plenty o' feck.

    Speaking of John Christopher, I never did get a response to my enquiry regarding what you Obama haters would think of Stevens if he hadn't been killed. Oh well, a heroic figure in death at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Take a look at the promises made by the dems over the last 6 years. Compare them to now. The democrat party has nothing.
    I don't want to continue this off-topic line, but I feel compelled to note that I have repeatedly listed Obama's accomplished goals and all you do is keep on saying he's never achieved them. I suppose I'll just give up — what's the point?

    The Democratic party has three things that come to mind at the moment: the WH, the Senate, and a higher level of party identification than Republicans.

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    The CIA has to be pretty bush league to have done that ... or pretty much in the tank.
    I'm not denying that version but it sounds more likely that it was really the WH who believed the media story because it was most serendipitous.
    CIA has done this before, as was mentioned in that Time article:

    "The intelligence community’s inability to collect, analyze and assess the value of information that is not secret has been a dangerous weakness of American spook services for a long time. It’s not just that the CIA is bad at catching errors in public news reports. The agency also has a bad track record at finding and prioritizing accurate information that originates not from highly secret sources but from publicly available ones.

    A famous example of the agency’s blindness to facts that aren’t secret came when India tested a nuclear weapon in May 1998, catching American policy makers off-guard even though Indian politicians had publicly said they intended to go nuclear. That blindness has apparently continued in the age of Facebook. In the case of Benghazi, the SSCI reported that the CIA missed open source communications in social media around Benghazi that “could have flagged potential security threats." — A Benghazi Scandal That’s Already Been Revealed: The CIA Believed A Media Mistake

  4. #194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    The U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens request beefing up security at the Benghazi consulate and Hillary Clinton ignores the request.
    It was a CIA station. They were using State as a cover. Stevens didn't like that, but he accepted it. If he didn't, he would have resigned.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Then you have the majority of those serving in the U.S. military asking why didn't Obama issue an order to at least try to save these Americans in Benghazi during the attack ? And those Navy and Army flag officers who went on the record were purged from the military by the Obama administration.
    Sure sounds like a lot o' hot air t' me.

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    the dems dont really have much else they want to bring attention to
    Except for all the achievements I keep pointing to and you keep ignoring.

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Lets get this straight-its the dems who exploited those dead Americans for political purposes
    And how did they do that? I mean, other than by being the opposition to the Republicans that were so making fools of themselves, to put it mildly.

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    Exactly as I had stated an attempt to turn a simple line of questioning into an emotional and visceral event.
    You guys always seem to know what people are thinking, their motivations. Maybe that's why you often don't know what's going on — yer continually distracted reading people's minds.

    Quote Originally Posted by johndylan1 View Post
    recent e mails have proved that Hillary lied when she said their was confusion some time later. The official time that everyone knew it wasn't a reaction to a video was 9:45AM 9/12, this is indisputable because of the judicial watch inquiry.
    Lied before Congress? A very serious crime. And yet no charges. I guess the courts don't accept mind reading as evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    There was an understanding within the State Department that officials in Libya ought not to request more security, in part because of concerns about the political fallout of seeking a larger military presence in a country that was still being touted as a foreign policy success.

    The embassy was told through back channels to not make direct requests for security. This was more of the direct cause of the deaths than any other single factor and the reason for covering up.
    From what I understand, this is all correct except for one thing — the part about "being touted as a foreign policy success." The facility was a CIA station, not a diplomatic post. And how would adding more security cause people to think some claim of "success" was unwarranted?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    The state dept should have had a military presence there to protect it-like in Iraq. Just another failure of Hillary.
    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    dropping the ball after months of requests for additional security, increased AQ presence, and being ignored by Hillary
    Again, the facility was a CIA station, not a diplomatic post. What "increased presence"?

    I asked:
    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    What wasn't known? What is now known that wasn't known when that debate took place on Oct 17?
    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Testimony from people on the ground, from Hillary Clinton, from state dept staff, from military leaders, and so on.
    Oy. What "testimony"?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    You are wrong again-the point is that both Obama and Hillary had a very potent reason to obscure the events-which is why they did it.
    You seem to never get to the point. What reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    The intelligence that led to finding Osama bin Laden was gathered during the Bush administration, not during the Obama administration.
    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Its also notable that some of the intelligence used by Obama was gathered by waterboarded terrorists.
    "A U.S. Senate investigation concludes waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods provided no key evidence in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to congressional aides and outside experts familiar with a still-secret, 6,200-page report." — "Senate report: Waterboarding didn't lead to Osama bin Laden," USA Today, Mar 31, 2014

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    During the first three years of the Obama administration, Al Qaeda did go on the run, running all over the Middle East and North Africa expanding their base of operations in almost every country in the Middle East and North Africa.
    You seem quite knowledgeable about AQ activities. Where do you get this? And if AQ has expanded so much, why don't they take any action?

    My guess is yer talking about AQ affiliates — this "morphing" that Clapper testified about.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    When Bush left the White House there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq.
    When Bush invaded Iraq, there was no operational AQ in Iraq.

    Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    All Hillary has to do is admit she was an incompetent Secretary of State and all Obama has to do is admit on the night of the Benghazi attacks that he was derelict in his duties as CnC.
    Neither of those accusations has any validity. And so, let the circus begin! Or rather, drone on and on and on and …

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    G.W. Bush didn't spend eight years of blaming President Clinton's failed counter terrorism policies
    Maybe that PDB about OBL's determination to strike the US slowed him down. But he wouldn't have anyway — not in his nature. Jusy like it's not in Obama's. All this endless nonsense (part of a much larger collection) about Obama blaming Bush for stuff is just more right-wing hooey. He inherited a terrible economy. What was he supposed to do — pretend that he didn't? Reporters kept asking him, "Hey Barry, what is up with the slow recovery, man?" He would talk about the Great Recession and the patience required to get out of it. Republicans of course endlessly mocked him for "blaming Bush for everything."

    I don't think I've ever come across a crowd so full of accusations and so devoid of substantive evidence. (And my family has set a high standard there.) "The guy's a liar — can't you see that?" Ahhh, … well, … can ya show me something? Anything?

  5. #195
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mecca
    Last Seen
    01-14-15 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,426

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    AQ flies its flag all over-including Benghazi after the attacks there in 2012.
    Actually AQ was flying their flags over the government buildings in Benghazi before the 9/11 attack. Yet Hillary's State department still sent Ambassador Stevens there with inadequate security. To a facility that had recently had it's perimeter wall blown up by terrorists. Then they tried to blame it on some jerk in California who put a video on YouTube.

  6. #196
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Im going to hold the people in charge accountable. Obama should have had jets buzzing that compound every 3 minutes until the help he never sent arrived. The ambassador sent multiple requests for help, and none came. Some of those dead hero's went so far as to paint laser designators on the gun trucks that were part of the attack-hoping for air support that never came.

    And then the WH decides to wait weeks before sending the FBI in (it was unsafe, they said-after repeated requests for increased security by the dead ambassador were ignored). In the mean time, the masterminds of the attack are freely and openly seen in public all over Benghazi and elsewhere, at one point seen drinking cocktails in a high end western hotel. Quick reaction forces all over the region were told to stand down when they might have made a difference-and if they didn't-we wouldnt have left the Presidents representative and 3 other heros to die alone surrounded by terrorists.



    And the entire time, the spin machine of the Obama admin was running overtime. It was clear who committed these attacks but that might have hurt Obama in that election season-reminding people that AQ ISNT on the run, and on 9/11 no less-wouldnt be politically viable. So they lied, obscured, and left the families in the dark-all for politics.

    And yet the silly libs of this forum want to accuse the Republicans of playing politics here. Its mind boggling. This type of thing can't happen again, and with a select committee the Obama admin is going to be pulled kicking and screaming into the sunlight. We are going to find out what they knew, and when.
    Jets? Use jets in a close combat situation? Mind boggling.


  7. #197
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,958
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Are the Republicans exploiting Benghazi? I don’t know and at this point I really do not care. I suppose the answer to that question will be what they find out if anything. If this special investigation committee uncovers something new and relevant, then the answer will be no. If not, then the answer is yes. So I prefer to sit, listen, watch and wait. Until this thing is over, it will be just something that is there, something that is ongoing that has no effect on my daily life and something I will not pay much attention to if at all. I would say 90% or more of America isn’t paying any attention to this either. That is unless your politically active, like the posters on DP here are, most just don’t care. Now a revelation of wrong doing may bring their attention back, if nothing is found that really stands out and puts the world on edge, it probably will be just a waste of time, money and energy. But time will tell. For me this is nothing to get upset about or to avidly back it. It politics as normal in a very partisan divided Washington we have today. Get used to it, these type of things are not going to go away.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  8. #198
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Mecca
    Last Seen
    01-14-15 @ 07:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,426

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    It was a CIA station. They were using State as a cover. Stevens didn't like that, but he accepted it. If he didn't, he would have resigned.
    The 9/11 Benghazi attack was sustained for several hours and occurred at 2 separate facilities.

    Actually the attack began at the known State Department facility, then the terrorists followed CIA operatives who tried the stop the attack back to a CIA station a few blocks away. And the attack continued there.


    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    When Bush invaded Iraq, there was no operational AQ in Iraq.
    That is one of the most often told lies of the LWNJs. That lie along with the 911 truther nutjobs handed the Dumbocrats congress in 2006. The fact of the matter is that Al Qaeda controlled territory and held fortified positions in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. And even had a WMD facility near Sargat.

    Yes AQ was in Iraq. Anyone who says different is a lying anti-USA zealot.
    Last edited by Muhammed; 05-11-14 at 08:30 AM.

  9. #199
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by danielpalos View Post
    Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Of course; it is politics as usual, especially when they have no fiscally responsible solutions.
    Earlier, someone posted a clip of Boehner speaking, about the "FOCUS", which must be one of his favorite words to use, seems I recall him saying the GOP agenda a few years ago was to be 'LASER FOCUSED ON JOB CREATION" and what have we seen from the GOP, focus on repeal of the ACA, repeal of Roe v Wade, other house bills to cripple the EPA which were disguised as jobs bills, yep, gotta hand it to 'em, they're hard at work, spinning their wheels.

    Can't hardly wait til 2016 to see who they put forth as their front runner for prez., it'll probably be someone they can't stand or stomach, like mittens.

  10. #200
    Paying To Play
    AJiveMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    wisconSIN
    Last Seen
    05-15-15 @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,775

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    The 9/11 Benghazi attack was sustained for several hours and occurred at 2 separate facilities.

    Actually the attack began at the known State Department facility, then the terrorists followed CIA operatives who tried the stop the attack back to a CIA station a few blocks away. And the attack continued there.


    That is one of the most often told lies of the LWNJs. That lie along with the 911 truther nutjobs handed the Dumbocrats congress in 2006. The fact of the matter is that Al Qaeda controlled territory and held fortified positions in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. And even had a WMD facility near Sargat.

    Yes AQ was in Iraq. Anyone who says different is a lying anti-USA zealot.
    NO.

    Allegations of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might "conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States",[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others.
    The consensus of intelligence experts has been that Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda were in contact but it never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."[5]
    Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page 20 of 34 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... 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
  •