• 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!

Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?


  • Total voters
    79
unfortunatly they had to be there, because it was important to show support for the libyan government.
So what you are saying is that Hillary valued supporting the libyan govt more than the life of an Ambassador? You sure you want to go with that?

She received several requests for help-they were denied. Even after an attack early in the year, she denied sending security. Other western consulates were attacked-she again refused to send security.

Its odd that she never used your defense, isnt it?
 
i don't think there is anything Hillary could have done to save the lives of those four people at the time of the attack.

Of course Cankles couldn't. But her BOSS could have. And I don't mean Slick Willie.
 
Uhh, when did I get on about Geithner? And to my broader point, you guys have the audacity to explain exactly what is going on in each candidates head-and it always favors your side. I see it as childish.

I meant "you" in the sense of the "Scandal a Day" Club.

And just a bit ironic to hear you credit this telepathic ability to those on the Left. You may recall earlier in this thread (post #194) my comment regarding:

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.

This is SOP at Fùx Noise. I'm continually hearing them tell me why members of the administration are doing things. They don't focus on what was done or what was said, and they don't stop at speculating about why — they TELL me why. "Obama knew x wasn't true when he said it — we know that now." "They're trying to blah." "They believe that …" — what is it "they" believe? "Well, lemme tell ya! They believe that America is rotten, no good, the problem with the world today. They want to, yes, destroy America."

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining. I don't want the haters on the Right to have that satisfaction. But this is poisoning the political atmosphere in this country. Fùx Noise and right-wing hate media spew toxic waste out of fire hoses into the face of America 24/7. The only good news is that it will implode. Hateful liars always lose in the end.

This is the level of discussion I seek to avoid. My goal is to stick to evidence, logic, reason. I don't have ANY problem with conservatives. But a viscous hysteria has developed in recent years on the Right. I never called Mr. Bush a liar. He's a gentleman, a patriot, a fine citizen. Obama is the same damn thing. He's not the problem. People like Blech and Limpbaugh — they're the problem. Our heroes. Gonna save the country from that lying Kenyan, Muslim, America-hating, commie fraud. There's not much that could be more disgusting.

Im amazed at how many lefties will enter these threads knowing absolutely nothing about the facts (as an example, in trying to blame it on "republican" funding cuts-though Clinton herself said it had nothing to do with the attacks)

A very narrow interpretation. Did Republicans seek large cuts in the budget for overseas diplomatic security? Then I have to listen to all this nonsense about all the booze and expensive furniture she bought. Nothing at all to back it up. "Rush and Sean both said it." No numbers. No evidence. Just slanderous invectives. Well beneath the dignity of men like Reagan and the Bushes.

>>but then will arrogantly state that its a false scandal, and then tell us whats in Mitt Romney's head, based on a photo of him smiling. I can't imagine thinking like this.

Why is is any more arrogant to claim that it's not a scandal than it is to claim that it IS one? Nothing AT ALL has come of it. "Well that's because they're covering up." And when nothing does come of it? "They covered up and got away with it. And the media covered it up too, or else they would have been exposed." Yeah.



Like I said, watching the clip from the debate, it is entirely obvious why Obama smiled. Romney goes and on, not answering the question, and eventually says that he knows F & F "has been investigated — to a degree." Obama chuckles. Fwiw, not the same as a smirk walking off the stage from that statement. You seem to think he saw something offstage that prompted it. Fine.

As I said, I don't care at all what facial expressions he made. He expressed his sympathy and concern, offered his condolences. He should have walked away. But the morons he had advising him persuaded him to ATTACK. "You must strike — now! Obama is vulnerable on foreign policy. Weak, indecisive, woefully short of feck." Romney embarrassed himself, his party, and the nation. The staffer I mentioned says it cost him the election. Good thing, if ya ask me.

>>YOU dont want to know the specifics, I do.

I already know them. They are known. You want them to be something else.

>>when the bullets started flying-she didn't pick up the phone.

Yeah.

>>this attack was preventable

So was the original 9/11. "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." I don't blame Bush; I blame Chaingang — Mr. National Security.

>>So what you are saying is that Hillary valued supporting the libyan govt more than the life of an Ambassador? You sure you want to go with that?

Stevens valued his work enough to take chances like that over and over and over again.

I have asked repeatedly for the "conservative" view of John Christopher as of Sept 10, 2012. I've not yet heard a peep. From what I understand, he was pretty much like a son to her, the son she never had. I won't go into it, because I don't want her feelings urinated on as being just a lot of fakery.
 
I meant "you" in the sense of the "Scandal a Day" Club.

And just a bit ironic to hear you credit this telepathic ability to those on the Left. You may recall earlier in this thread (post #194) my comment regarding:





This is SOP at Fùx Noise. I'm continually hearing them tell me why members of the administration are doing things. They don't focus on what was done or what was said, and they don't stop at speculating about why — they TELL me why. "Obama knew x wasn't true when he said it — we know that now." "They're trying to blah." "They believe that …" — what is it "they" believe? "Well, lemme tell ya! They believe that America is rotten, no good, the problem with the world today. They want to, yes, destroy America."

Now, I don't want to sound like I'm complaining. I don't want the haters on the Right to have that satisfaction. But this is poisoning the political atmosphere in this country. Fùx Noise and right-wing hate media spew toxic waste out of fire hoses into the face of America 24/7. The only good news is that it will implode. Hateful liars always lose in the end.

This is the level of discussion I seek to avoid. My goal is to stick to evidence, logic, reason. I don't have ANY problem with conservatives. But a viscous hysteria has developed in recent years on the Right. I never called Mr. Bush a liar. He's a gentleman, a patriot, a fine citizen. Obama is the same damn thing. He's not the problem. People like Blech and Limpbaugh — they're the problem. Our heroes. Gonna save the country from that lying Kenyan, Muslim, America-hating, commie fraud. There's not much that could be more disgusting.



A very narrow interpretation. Did Republicans seek large cuts in the budget for overseas diplomatic security? Then I have to listen to all this nonsense about all the booze and expensive furniture she bought. Nothing at all to back it up. "Rush and Sean both said it." No numbers. No evidence. Just slanderous invectives. Well beneath the dignity of men like Reagan and the Bushes.

>>but then will arrogantly state that its a false scandal, and then tell us whats in Mitt Romney's head, based on a photo of him smiling. I can't imagine thinking like this.

Why is is any more arrogant to claim that it's not a scandal than it is to claim that it IS one? Nothing AT ALL has come of it. "Well that's because they're covering up." And when nothing does come of it? "They covered up and got away with it. And the media covered it up too, or else they would have been exposed." Yeah.



Like I said, watching the clip from the debate, it is entirely obvious why Obama smiled. Romney goes and on, not answering the question, and eventually says that he knows F & F "has been investigated — to a degree." Obama chuckles. Fwiw, not the same as a smirk walking off the stage from that statement. You seem to think he saw something offstage that prompted it. Fine.

As I said, I don't care at all what facial expressions he made. He expressed his sympathy and concern, offered his condolences. He should have walked away. But the morons he had advising him persuaded him to ATTACK. "You must strike — now! Obama is vulnerable on foreign policy. Weak, indecisive, woefully short of feck." Romney embarrassed himself, his party, and the nation. The staffer I mentioned says it cost him the election. Good thing, if ya ask me.

>>YOU dont want to know the specifics, I do.

I already know them. They are known. You want them to be something else.

>>when the bullets started flying-she didn't pick up the phone.

Yeah.

>>this attack was preventable

So was the original 9/11. "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." I don't blame Bush; I blame Chaingang — Mr. National Security.

>>So what you are saying is that Hillary valued supporting the libyan govt more than the life of an Ambassador? You sure you want to go with that?

Stevens valued his work enough to take chances like that over and over and over again.

I have asked repeatedly for the "conservative" view of John Christopher as of Sept 10, 2012. I've not yet heard a peep. From what I understand, he was pretty much like a son to her, the son she never had. I won't go into it, because I don't want her feelings urinated on as being just a lot of fakery.


You mention logic, evidence, and reason, and yet you make these claims that contradict the evidence, make illogical assumptions (regarding why a candidate smiled, really?) and say its reasonable that there is nothing here. Thats quite a leap.

Hillary Clinton herself said there were NO budgetary reasons for not increasing security in Benghazi. Her words, public record-and now you expect everyone to make the inferences you would like made, when the facts dont reflect that. Much like your inferences about knowing exactly what was in both Romney and Obama's heads. Its a pretty weak argument, perhaps it has sway with you, I dont know.

Now, on the other end where an inference CAN logically and rationally be made-A now-murdered Ambassador who begged multiple times for security, where initial inquiries reveal the attack was entirely preventable, and where the White house line contradicts the evidence it only released when it was forced to-and with an increasing presence of Radical islamists under this President-at THAT point, you say THAT cant be an actual scandal, or issue.

Well it can, it is, and it will continue to be until we find out what happened so no more are killed under this failed policy. Thats going to happen, and you can cling to arguments not even Clinton is making, and hope people make the same inferences as you, but thats not likely to end up well, is it?
 
Hillary Clinton herself said there were NO budgetary reasons for not increasing security in Benghazi. Her words, public record

I of course never suggested that she didn't say that. She's not a whiny excuse-maker. She's a highly skilled, professional administrator. My point is that you cannot successfully make the case that Republicans had concerns about the safety of our overseas diplomatic facilitates. If they did, they wouldn't have called for steep budget cuts.

>>now you expect everyone to make the inferences you would like made

I have no expectations or concerns about what inferences anyone makes. There is nothing to this. Nothing will come of it.

>>your inferences about knowing exactly what was in both Romney and Obama's heads.

I've said repeatedly, and I'm saying again, that I don't know and I don't care what Romney thinks or what facial expressions he makes. His statement following the attacks was … well, let's see: how about obscene? Dishonourable? Contemptible? Despicable? Surely worse than scandalous, in my mind. Great crew he had helping him. Too bad we didn't get to see them in action on Pennsylvania Avenue.

>>A now-murdered Ambassador who begged multiple times for security

Begged? Let's hear the details on that.

>>initial inquiries reveal the attack was entirely preventable

Yep, just like the original 9/11. Who had a clearer warning? I can't recall a memo about "AQ affiliates determined to attack inside Libya." I guess you figure we didn't torture enough people to find out. Of course, no torture was employed to know that they were coming here to attack us.

>>the White house line contradicts the evidence it only released when it was forced to

The Rhodes memo changes nothing. It was not included because it was not about Benghazi. There was no interest to be served by withholding it.

>>an increasing presence of Radical islamists under this President

Perhaps in response to events in Iraq after March 2003.

>>>until we find out what happened so no more are killed under this failed policy.

We already know what happened. What failed policy? Having diplomatic stations in very dangerous locations?

>>you can cling to arguments not even Clinton is making

What arguments are those?

>>hope people make the same inferences as you

What inferences?
 
I of course never suggested that she didn't say that. She's not a whiny excuse-maker. She's a highly skilled, professional administrator. My point is that you cannot successfully make the case that Republicans had concerns about the safety of our overseas diplomatic facilitates. If they did, they wouldn't have called for steep budget cuts.
Again, an inference you'd hope others make, because you'd like them to

>>now you expect everyone to make the inferences you would like made

I have no expectations or concerns about what inferences anyone makes. There is nothing to this. Nothing will come of it.
And yet you tried anyway. Please own it.

>>your inferences about knowing exactly what was in both Romney and Obama's heads.

I've said repeatedly, and I'm saying again, that I don't know and I don't care what Romney thinks or what facial expressions he makes. His statement following the attacks was … well, let's see: how about obscene? Dishonourable? Contemptible? Despicable? Surely worse than scandalous, in my mind. Great crew he had helping him. Too bad we didn't get to see them in action on Pennsylvania Avenue.
So the reaction to the preventable tragedy that killed 4 Americans is the bigger problem, compared to what actually happened, and the actions of the people actually in charge? How much water do you think that holds?
>>A now-murdered Ambassador who begged multiple times for security

Begged? Let's hear the details on that.
>>initial inquiries reveal the attack was entirely preventable

Yep, just like the original 9/11. Who had a clearer warning? I can't recall a memo about "AQ affiliates determined to attack inside Libya." I guess you figure we didn't torture enough people to find out. Of course, no torture was employed to know that they were coming here to attack us.
Not even close to your 9/11 strawman. 2012 Benghazi attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We knew the situation on the ground there in Benghazi. The military knew. Stevens knew. We know this because journalists who went to the compound found letters asking for help, and the day of the attacks, stevens wrote in his diary that he feared AQ in that city had him on a hit list.
>>the White house line contradicts the evidence it only released when it was forced to

The Rhodes memo changes nothing. It was not included because it was not about Benghazi. There was no interest to be served by withholding it.

>>an increasing presence of Radical islamists under this President

Perhaps in response to events in Iraq after March 2003.

>>>until we find out what happened so no more are killed under this failed policy.

We already know what happened. What failed policy? Having diplomatic stations in very dangerous locations?
No failing to protect them even after its clear the situation is dangerous, and after requests for additional security. A bipartisan investigative committee agrees with this, and so do I.
>>you can cling to arguments not even Clinton is making

What arguments are those?
That a cut in funding in any way impacted the events of Benghazi, or have you stopped remembering your baseless assertions?
>>hope people make the same inferences as you

What inferences?
That a lack of funding was what caused the attacks. Own it, but in any case know that what happened can't happen again, and the investigation is warranted, ethical, and entirely appropriate in light of the facts of the case.
 
That a lack of funding was what caused the attacks. Own it

Sorry, no sale. I seem to be repeating myself a lot in my communication with you. Maybe we should just stop.

I never said, suggested, inferred, implied, insinuated, alluded to, hinted, or anything else the idea that "a lack of funding was what caused the attacks." And I think you must mean "failed to stop the attacks from killing Stevens."

My point is that the Republicans wanted to CUT significantly the budget for protecting our overseas stations. Now they're OUTRAGED that security was inadequate. Yeah, I know — lots o' booze and expensive furniture.

Why is it you never seem to let me know what you think of our boy John, I mean other than using his corpse as an object for political gain? Isn't that the ultimate debate challenge in this group: answer the question!

>>warranted, ethical, and entirely appropriate in light of the facts of the case

Hillary-arious.
 
Sorry, no sale. I seem to be repeating myself a lot in my communication with you. Maybe we should just stop.

I never said, suggested, inferred, implied, insinuated, alluded to, hinted, or anything else the idea that "a lack of funding was what caused the attacks." And I think you must mean "failed to stop the attacks from killing Stevens."

My point is that the Republicans wanted to CUT significantly the budget for protecting our overseas stations. Now they're OUTRAGED that security was inadequate. Yeah, I know — lots o' booze and expensive furniture.

Why is it you never seem to let me know what you think of our boy John, I mean other than using his corpse as an object for political gain? Isn't that the ultimate debate challenge in this group: answer the question!

>>warranted, ethical, and entirely appropriate in light of the facts of the case

Hillary-arious.

Once again, funding had nothing to do with the attacks, the failure to provide protection by the State Dept DID.

These are fundamental facts of the case, and frankly why this needs to be investigated.
 
Once again, funding had nothing to do with the attacks

Once again, you guys wanted to slash the budget. If those cuts had gone through, how much success would you be having defending them before the electorate?

Enjoy the ongoing circus.
 
Once again, you guys wanted to slash the budget. If those cuts had gone through, how much success would you be having defending them before the electorate?

Enjoy the ongoing circus.


Im going to say it again-funding had no impact on the attacks. Do you realize how silly it is to make arguments that Clinton herself has already dismissed? If I where you Id move to more fertile pastures, frankly you are going to need it.
 
Bill Maher challenges Republicans: Impeach Obama ‘so he can kick your ass a third time!’

A fun lil view of Bill nailing it on Benghazi --

The fact that Republicans are seizing on the B attack as a talking point again...means Obamacare is working.

“Logic, however, not as much,” Maher said.

“Because if you ask conservatives to explain what the Benghazi crime is, they still can’t.

It’s just some blather about ‘Don’t you see? If it was terrorists, instead of what he said, act of terror, then Obama is weak and Mitt Romney gets to be retroactive president.’”


Watch Maher say to cons Put up or Shut Up:
 
I seriously doubt the Republicans who keep harping about Benghazi care about the four people who died September 11, 2012. They are in my opinion using their deaths for political gain, they want to use this tragedy to weaken the chances of Hillary Clinton should she decide to run for president in 2014. They misquote what Clinton said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013, they say she said "What difference does it make?" Here is what she actually said:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."​
Politicians exploiting "opportunities"?!? No! Say it isn't so!
 
Back
Top Bottom