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 34 of 34 FirstFirst ... 24323334
Results 331 to 339 of 339

Thread: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

  1. #331
    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 US Conservative View Post
    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?

  2. #332
    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 mmi View Post
    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.

  3. #333
    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 US Conservative View Post
    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.

  4. #334
    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 mmi View Post
    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.

  5. #335
    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 US Conservative View Post
    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.

  6. #336
    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 mmi View Post
    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.

  7. #337
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    No.

    The Obama administration exploited Youtube.
    Surely both can be true?

  8. #338
    Sage
    Paperview's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    The Road Less Travelled
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,450

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    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:

  9. #339
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:10 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,422

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    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!
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Page 34 of 34 FirstFirst ... 24323334

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •