• 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
I am not a wikidiot and therefore not interested in your ridiculous anti-USA wikipedia propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Go to the library and read some history. I suggest reading "Operation Hotel California" for starters if you wish to know more about what AQ was doing in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. It was written by someone who was actually there. AQ was in Iraq fighting against Saddam's long time enemies, the KDP .
 
Last edited:
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.

Go to the GOP website on Benghazi, you'll see a link to make a monetary donation to the GOP to, uhum, investigate Benghazi, I posted it in a different thread I started. If anything, the GOP should be investigated for turning Benghazi into a fund raising event.
 
I am not a wikidiot and therefore not interested in your ridiculous anti-USA wikipedia propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Go to the library and read some history. I suggest reading "Operation Hotel California" for starters if you wish to know more about what AQ was doing in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion. It was written by someone who was actually there. AQ was in Iraq fighting against Saddam's long time enemies, the KDP .
Likewise. I believe I'll ignore some of your posts now, much like I do other history revisionists.
 
how did you get that, from this:

Does it really matter if the republicans try to exploit that event for political purposes; since, it merely opens them up to criticism regarding their future, potential, political strategy to position themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility when it comes to our War on Terror.

I agree with you, it's more like nonsensical gibberish.
 
Likewise. I believe I'll ignore some of your posts now, much like I do other history revisionists.
Well, the actual history shows that AQ was in Iraq fighting both the PUK and the KDP. And even took control of Halabja in 2002. AQ wasn't merely in Iraq, they actually controlled large swaths of territory in Iraq where they enforced very strict Taliban style sharia law. Making women wear burkas in public, outlawing music, dancing and pictures.... that type of sharia.


But of course the LWNJ noise machine will keep the ignorant ignorant regarding the truth. The US Democratic party wouldn't even exist if there were not so damn many ignorant fools out there.
 
Last edited:
...
Where does she contradict herself? What did she fail to acknowledge? When did she do this "trotting out"?
...

First off ... you really should stop loading up your comments with replies to the entire DP membership and every comment they ever made.
Know what I mean?

Second, I'll address one of your comments to me ... Hillary 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. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.


So which is it? Does it make no difference why the 4 Americans were killed or who did it ? ... or is the job is to figure out that very thing? Can't do the latter if you believe the former.
And the rest of her comment reiterated that contradiction.
Hillary is learning from her boss (at the time).
What Obama did was make a passing comment about "act of terror" so he can later point to that if he needs to, while simultaneously getting himself and his troops to blame a video.

He's covered, she's covered, and you bought the blanket.

Third ... As to Hillary and the video ...

'Two days after this attack,' said Rep. Adam Kinzinger, 'we were in a briefing with Hillary Clinton and she screamed at a member of Congress who’d dare suggest that this was a terrorist attack.'
...
The congressman appeared on the Fox News Channel on Friday, recalling Clinton 'basically, in a very loud, angry voice, [saying] "It's irresponsible to even suggest this is a terror attack. This is a YouTube video. We know that there are protests all over, and we need to be very careful how we're saying this" -- and basically chided this member of Congress.'


Read more: Hillary Clinton exploded at a congressman two days after Benghazi for suggesting that the attack was the work of terrorists, says GOP Rep. | Mail Online
 
In response to:I asked:The response I got was: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.

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?

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.



Where does she contradict herself? What did she fail to acknowledge? When did she do this "trotting out"?



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.

Yes, and Stalin became one in 1941.



Is that the level of debate that I should come to expect in this forum?

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.

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?


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.


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.

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

Obama and his administration lied for two weeks.....claiming that the attack in Benghazi was inspired by a you tube video.....when they knew almost immediately that was not the case.
 
Go to the GOP website on Benghazi, you'll see a link to make a monetary donation to the GOP to, uhum, investigate Benghazi, I posted it in a different thread I started. If anything, the GOP should be investigated for turning Benghazi into a fund raising event.

If the roles were and it was a democrat house and a republican president and Benghazi were handled similarly...the democrats would already be holding impeachment hearings.
 
If the roles were and it was a democrat house and a republican president and Benghazi were handled similarly...the democrats would already be holding impeachment hearings.


.....Uh.....do you remember W, and the wars.

I guess I must have missed the fundraising an impeachment part, must have been covered by local news where you are.
 
.....Uh.....do you remember W, and the wars.

I guess I must have missed the fundraising an impeachment part, must have been covered by local news where you are.

I really don't care about the fund raising, sport. That's politics. Both sides do it. I do care whether or not they get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. Four Americans died including our ambassador. There are many serious questions that must be answered. For example....why did Obama
and his cabinet claim for two solid weeks that the attack was a spontaneous result of an obscure you tube video when they knew almost immediately that it was a planned terrorist attack? why was the security for the ambassador in Libya so shaky? Why was their no rescue attempt? Why did the president wait weeks upon weeks to send the FBI in to investigate? And why have none of the terrorists been apprehended? It's been two years! Obama promised to bring them to justice. When is that going to happen? I realize that you are a partisan progressive and just want to circle the wagons and protect the democrat party president, however most Americans want to know the truth.
 
If the roles were and it was a democrat house and a republican president and Benghazi were handled similarly...the democrats would already be holding impeachment hearings.

I doubt it.

And admitting to not caring about the fundraising part, is basically admitting not really caring about the Benghazi victims themselves.
 
I doubt it.

And admitting to not caring about the fundraising part, is basically admitting not really caring about the Benghazi victims themselves.

You do not get to speak for me. I just want congress to get to the bottom of the Benghazi scandal. I do not care about the fundraising. Democrats would be doing the same...and as a matter of fact they are in this case.
 
For example....why did Obama
and his cabinet claim for two solid weeks that the attack was a spontaneous result of an obscure you tube video when they knew almost immediately that it was a planned terrorist attack? why was the security for the ambassador in Libya so shaky? Why was their no rescue attempt? Why did the president wait weeks upon weeks to send the FBI in to investigate? And why have none of the terrorists been apprehended? It's been two years! Obama promised to bring them to justice. When is that going to happen? I realize that you are a partisan progressive and just want to circle the wagons and protect the democrat party president, however most Americans want to know the truth.

I doubt very much you are interested in the truth...."SPORT". If you were you might have read the report produced from the first several investigations, and understood many of the answers to your questions were answered.As far as your realization that I am a partisan progressive....perhaps a quick review of my contributions here is in order.
 
You do not get to speak for me. I just want congress to get to the bottom of the Benghazi scandal. I do not care about the fundraising. Democrats would be doing the same...and as a matter of fact they are in this case.

Sure they are, 7 repuglicons, and 5 democrats, nope, no political witch hunt or bias here, none at all....and Boehner (Boner) is truly focused, zeroing in on Mrs. Clinton in a smear campaign, who would have seen through that smokescreen?
 
I doubt very much you are interested in the truth...."SPORT". If you were you might have read the report produced from the first several investigations, and understood many of the answers to your questions were answered.As far as your realization that I am a partisan progressive....perhaps a quick review of my contributions here is in order.

I am not a republican. Unlike you I have not party dog in this hunt. The reason that there have already been seven investigations into Benghazi is that congress has had virtually no co-operation with the investigations. They refuse to admit that it is even a scandal. The Valerie Plame/cia-gate was a witch hunt, however the Bush Administration did co-operate and allowed the appointment of a special prosecutor. Obama and the democrats are merely circling the wagons to protect the president.
 
Sure they are, 7 repuglicons, and 5 democrats, nope, no political witch hunt or bias here, none at all....and Boehner (Boner) is truly focused, zeroing in on Mrs. Clinton in a smear campaign, who would have seen through that smokescreen?

It is hilarious that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are screaming bloody murder over the 7-5 mix.....considering that was the usual make up of such investigative committees when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House. And your use of the term "repuglicons" makes your bias rather clear. As for political gain for the republicans? So what! If it leads to getting to the bottom of the Benghazi scandal, more power to them. If you were anything close to objective, you would admit to yourself that the democrats wanted political gain from the Valerie Plame investigation, Iran/Contra, Watergate, etc. That's politics. At least it ends up holding politicians accountable when they step over the line.
 
Not sure why you quoted me, since what you said had exactly nothing to do with what I said. :shrug:

It had to do with this:

but it is also a real issue and a real question as to why this happened and why help wasn't sent in time.

Or do you believe fiscal responsibility doesn't matter even during times of alleged War and the use wartime powers.
 
Actually AQ was flying their flags over the government buildings in Benghazi before the 9/11 attack.

You saw it. You have pictures. Oh, neither, you read it on a right-wing internet site. Yeah, that would be enough to convince me.

No, that wasn’t an al-Qaeda Flag over Benghazi

Yet Hillary's State department still sent Ambassador Stevens there with inadequate security.

Where in Libya was there adequate security? Nowhere.

Then they tried to blame it on some jerk in California who put a video on YouTube.

No, they didn't. They said it was a terrorist attack by definition, and that they weren't sure what the attackers motivation was. Some of the attackers told reporters that the video was part of their motivation. But maybe you know better.
 
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]

Have you ever heard of a place called Guantanamo Bay Naval Base ? U.S. Marines called it GITMO.

After 9-11-01 during the Bush administration the U.S. needed a place to incarcerate captured terrorist off of U.S. soil so liberals and the ACLU wouldn't be intervening in behalf of Al Qaeda demanding that terrorist be protected by the Constitution. GITMO seemed to be the place.

558 suspected terrorist, Al Qaeda leaders and unlawful combatants including the mastermind of 9-11-01 were captured and sent to GITMO.

How many were captured during the Obama administration ? 0

How easy is it to capture "these people"? I suppose it depends how competent an Executive administration is.
 
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.

Sure sounds like a lot o' hot air t' me.
[/I]

Do you think maybe Obama was in the gun running business ?

Barack Obama has been recognised as the best gun salesman of the year for the past six years and he's shoe in for 2014.
 
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.

Yes, I know. When I said "t was a CIA station," I was referring to the location where Stevens was killed.

That [When Bush invaded Iraq, there was no operational AQ in Iraq.] is one of the most often told lies of the LWNJs. … AQ was in Iraq. Anyone who says different is a lying anti-USA zealot.

Looks like you've got a real scoop there. As I noted, the Pentagon says it.

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida

I think you really should spread the word that the people over there at the Institute for Defense Analyses are "LWNJs" and "lying anti-USA zealots."

Here's their report: Iraqi Perspectives Project Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents. I'm not gonna read it, now that I know it has no credibility.
 
How easy is it to capture "these people"? I suppose it depends how competent an Executive administration is.
Oh, I'd say it's difficult under any circumstances. But you didn't answer my question: what intelligence should we be risking American lives to gather?

I mean, you seem to know that it's worth it. So I thought I'd ask what it is we'd be after. Or is this just some more mindless criticism like all the rest of it?
 
Oh, I'd say it's difficult under any circumstances. But you didn't answer my question: what intelligence should we be risking American lives to gather?

I mean, you seem to know that it's worth it. So I thought I'd ask what it is we'd be after. Or is this just some more mindless criticism like all the rest of it?

If Obama wouldn't have told the CIA to stop capturing Al Qaeda for gathering intelligence, maybe Obama would have learned back in 2011 that Al Qaeda has grown in size, is more dangerous today, were no longer confined to Yemen and the Horn of Africa as they were in 2008 and have spread throughout the Middle East and North Africa expanding their base of operations.

A few years ago the CIA warned the Obama administration that Obama's war against terrorism has been relying solely on intelligence gathered during the Bush administration and that the intelligence was drying up fast.


What do you expect ? There's a community organizer as CnC.
 
Back
Top Bottom