• 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
Yes. Nothing more than party politics.
 
NIMBY said:
Should Kerry cancel his already confirmed trip to Mexico for another kangaroo court?
Issa will get his clock cleaned soon enough by Kerry.

Btw, I see people posting about 13 Benghazis for Bush.
That means we'd need 52 separate committees in comparison to the House.

Since Mitch is just filibustering, time for the Senate to get investigating .
Click to expand...

Perhaps you will find one of them to be similar but I doubt it. ;)
 
APACHERAT said:
That's right. I'm one of the 48% who actually pay individual income taxes.
Click to expand...
I also pay taxes in retirement on my public pension, as do you, as you mentioned.
I don't get the sweet deal you get on Health Insurance though.

Both of us baby-boomers must realize our public pensions/bennies are "perks", not "rights".
Without a complete overhaul to the pension system soon, we'll both be getting 50 cents on the dollar .
 
Nothing more on Kerry?
ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps you will find one of them to be similar but I doubt it. ;)
Click to expand...
Or why I$$A opposed the subpoena of his own party's Secretary of State in 2007.
No DEMs will participate in Gowdy's howdy doody "select" circus .
 
Phys251 said:
050214-toon-luckovich-ed.jpg
Click to expand...

So that's the only response you have to being demonstrated to be not only wrong, but outlandishly so?


Well, I have to admit, as far as tacit admissions of defeat go, I'll rate this at least a 6.5
 
Jango said:
Oh? Do tell.
Click to expand...

i may be a critic of bushes policies and i did not believe the reasons he gave for invading iraq were justified, there is one thing i give him the benefit of the doubt: that he would not willing put american lives to waste for political gain. that is why i oppose the conspiracy theory of 9/11 being a inside job, or the suggestion that obama knowingly let 4 people get killed in benghazi without sending help. the only people who could make those kind of theories up is if they believe that President Bush and President Obama were not actual human beings but heartless tyrants.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i may be a critic of bushes policies and i did not believe the reasons he gave for invading iraq were justified, there is one thing i give him the benefit of the doubt: that he would not willing put american lives to waste for political gain. that is why i oppose the conspiracy theory of 9/11 being a inside job, or the suggestion that obama knowingly let 4 people get killed in benghazi without sending help. the only people who could make those kind of theories up is if they believe that President Bush and President Obama were not actual human beings but heartless tyrants.
Click to expand...

I think you’re right here. I have gotten to a point where I do not care if there was a cover up or not. I am just tired of it. I have spent my entire life being a military man, either on active duty or working for the army and the one thing I noticed is when it comes to security, the state department is pretty darn lax. Now this goes for any administration going back to the mid 60’s when I was first drafted into the army. I suppose it comes with the job state has, that of diplomacy. It is awful hard to get any Embassy to beef up their security even when state knows of threats, the last thing state wants is a bunch of uniform military around an embassy or consulate.

Now I am just an old cynic, I think the president used the talking points, video/protester excuse to maintain an political advantage going into an election, I also believe the Republicans are trying to use Benghazi today to gain advantage going into an election. All this proves to me is we have a bunch of conniving politicians in Washington trying to gain a political advantage before an election. So what else is new?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i may be a critic of bushes policies and i did not believe the reasons he gave for invading iraq were justified, .
Click to expand...

Invading Iraq because he had WMD's was more than a justified reason. But I knew better that it didn't have that much to do with WMD's. I also knew that it wasn't really about oil as some claimed. But WMD's was the only thing where everyone would jump aboard and support an invasion.

But the mission was regime change. Even President Clinton while POTUS called for regime change in Iraq and if Hillary Clinton's words have any credibility, she also called for regime change.
 
As long as we're not talking about real world foreign policy problems happening right this moment,
maybe we can waste our time looking at allocated assests by each administration on each hot spot in the world,
to see if there were any decreases in assets by the House followed by problems in said hot spots .

ttwtt78640 said:
Perhaps you will find one of them to be similar but I doubt it. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
i may be a critic of bushes policies and i did not believe the reasons he gave for invading iraq were justified, there is one thing i give him the benefit of the doubt: that he would not willing put american lives to waste for political gain. that is why i oppose the conspiracy theory of 9/11 being a inside job, or the suggestion that obama knowingly let 4 people get killed in benghazi without sending help. the only people who could make those kind of theories up is if they believe that President Bush and President Obama were not actual human beings but heartless tyrants.
Click to expand...

According to a large percentage of foreigners around the world, the U.S. is a heartless tyrant, and that stems from putting our national and business interests above the lives of everyone else often at the end of our guns or ones we've hired. Nevertheless, I agree with you. Presidents Bush and Obama are not heartless men, and 9/11 is not a conspiracy. The jury, though, is still out on Benghazi. Perhaps not on a stand-down order, but definitely on an initial attempt of a cover-up and the lack of transparency in releasing information.
 
NIMBY said:
Should Kerry cancel his already confirmed trip to Mexico for another kangaroo court?
Issa will get his clock cleaned soon enough by Kerry.

Btw, I see people posting about 13 Benghazis for Bush.
That means we'd need 52 separate committees in comparison to the House.

Since Mitch is just filibustering, time for the Senate to get investigating .
Click to expand...

Direct hit.
 
`
bSSzdWL.jpg
 
Last edited:
pbrauer said:
I seriously doubt the Republicans who keep harping about Benghazi care about the four people who died September 11, 2012.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't care about them. If they did they wouldn't take the deaths under Bush and try to rationalize how those deaths were different.
 
pbrauer said:
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."​
Click to expand...

I'm a Republican voting in 2016 and... yes, yes, yes! The thickness of what I can only call the right wing echo chamber is astounding.
 
Sherman123 said:
I'm a Republican voting in 2016 and... yes, yes, yes! The thickness of what I can only call the right wing echo chamber is astounding.
Click to expand...
Yup, it's all about Hillary Clinton.
 
APACHERAT said:
Invading Iraq because he had WMD's was more than a justified reason. But I knew better that it didn't have that much to do with WMD's. I also knew that it wasn't really about oil as some claimed. But WMD's was the only thing where everyone would jump aboard and support an invasion.

But the mission was regime change. Even President Clinton while POTUS called for regime change in Iraq and if Hillary Clinton's words have any credibility, she also called for regime change.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And when it comes to Benghazi-the Obama administration covered up what happened, because it contradicted Obama's election slogan that "AQ was on the run"-but its the RIGHT thats playing politics here? :doh
 
I believe the republicans should lead the charge in fiscal responsibility regarding wartime tax rates so we can win our artificial and socialized Wars, even if only through attrition.
 
Cardinal said:
Of course they don't care about them. If they did they wouldn't take the deaths under Bush and try to rationalize how those deaths were different.
Click to expand...

1. It isn't that they died overseas, it's that they were abandoned and then lied about.

2. And yeah, they are different. For example, the four killed in Syria in 2006? One of them was a security guard and the other three were the terrorists attacking the embassy. Those 9 killed in Saudi Arabia? Five of them were local Saudis and four of them were the attackers. Sensing a pattern? Those five killed in Calcutta at the "Cultural Center"? All of them Indian. Mind you, one of those attacks seems to have killed a foreign service officer with a car-bomb along with 4 Pakistanis, but it turns it out that attack actually happened at a hotel. None of them are Embassies/Consulates/Etc. getting overrun by ground forces and then being abandoned, and then lied about.

Whoever put that list together trusted no one would fact-check them. And as far as those willing to grab it to try to provide a tissue-paper defense for the administration, they were right.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
1. It isn't that they died overseas, it's that they were abandoned and then lied about.

2. And yeah, they are different. For example, the four killed in Syria in 2006? One of them was a security guard and the other three were the terrorists attacking the embassy. Those 9 killed in Saudi Arabia? Five of them were local Saudis and four of them were the attackers. Sensing a pattern? Those five killed in Calcutta at the "Cultural Center"? All of them Indian. Mind you, one of those attacks seems to have killed a foreign service officer with a car-bomb along with 4 Pakistanis, but it turns it out that attack actually happened at a hotel. None of them are Embassies/Consulates/Etc. getting overrun by ground forces and then being abandoned, and then lied about.

Whoever put that list together trusted no one would fact-check them. And as far as those willing to grab it to try to provide a tissue-paper defense for the administration, they were right.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. BTW, I think I saw you on the Penn and Teller Bull**** episode for reparations. Well done.
 
Benghazi.jpg
 
NIMBY said:
Were there any WMDs, or did they get moved to syria?
Click to expand...
Actually, yes there was. I saw the hearings on C-SPAN about the hundreds of WMD that were recovered in Iraq.

But that certainly doesn't rule out the possibility that some of them were also taken to Syria.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom