• 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
Again, you dont see whats off camera. You want an assumption to be made, that Romney wasn't being sincere. Its a pretty pathetic argument, which highlights the inability of the left to make a substantive response.

Heres Obama smiling about the fast and the furious. Hundreds of people are dead because of his administration, and he cracks a grin. What does this mean? :roll:



Because the greatest failure we've had to gun violence, I assume he means in decreasing it, wasn't Fast and Furious that statement is completely stupid.
 
Because the greatest failure we've had to gun violence, I assume he means in decreasing it, wasn't Fast and Furious that statement is completely stupid.

F&F is about much more than gun violence, its about the Presidents incompetent handling of the mess, his AG's judgement, and the continued negative impact of HIS OWN policy.
 
For months the RW noise machine pitched F&F as a gun grab attempt by Obama. When that story got to sillyville the Repubs and Fox swithced to something else. At first I wondered if there was anything to it, then one speech Bohner refused to mention gun grab...then that died down and it just becamce a case of governemnt incompetence.
F&F is about much more than gun violence, its about the Presidents incompetent handling of the mess, his AG's judgement, and the continued negative impact of HIS OWN policy.
 
Well it was at a press conference about Benghazi, right before the election where he spent the time speaking in a deep and sorrowful tone bemoaning the deaths of four Americans and how we deserve a President that can keep us safe, and then he smirked about it afterwards.

The smirk doesn't look good, I agree. But my problem with the statement, as was voiced by many at the time, is that Romney, who spoke only very briefly, shifted rather clumsily from a proper tone of regret and condolence to a very much inappropriate, especially in its timing, partisan attack. Somewhat outrageous.

I don't have much confidence in his political judgement, and I think he had a really lousy collection of senior campaign advisors. People like Eric "Etch-A-Sketch" Fehrnstrom. Throw in that pig Sununu as a surrogate and yer in real trouble. They couldn't even run effective polling. They were shocked to lose Ohio. Rove is still waiting for some of votes to come in from Butler County.

You guys might have heard about a book written by a campaign staffer that highlighted this very incident: Campaign Insider Book Argues Mitt Romney Lost Because Of Benghazi
 
Heres Obama smiling about the fast and the furious. Hundreds of people are dead because of his administration, and he cracks a grin. What does this mean? :roll

Because the greatest failure we've had to gun violence, I assume he means in decreasing it, wasn't Fast and Furious that statement is completely stupid.

Romney's answer was kinda ridiculous. Seems like he just wanted to talk about F & F because he didn't want to say anything about assault weapons. Women don't like 'em, but the NRA does. Rock and a hard place.

The reason Obama smiles at one point is because Romney says F & F has "been investigated to a degree." Obama knew how much time Holder's staff had wasted dealing with the Issa Circus over the matter.
 
Remember waking up every morning back in 2003 and 2004 reading about American troops duking it out in bloody clashes against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan ? NOT

When I said we should have concentrated on Afghanistan instead of invading Iraq, I didn't mean that extensive combat operations were still required there. I meant that we should have focused on doing what we could to keep the Taliban from regaining its political influence. We spent a lot of money on the war in Iraq — about $2 trillion so far and still a lot more to be added because of veteran's benefits and the interest on the debt incurred given that we borrowed the money. Not to mention the loss to society that results from all the death and injury.

>>By 2003 … the Taliban [was] waiting for the political climate to change in America before entering Afghanistan.

An analysis that I figure is completely partisan and without foundation. Have you studied the strategic planning of the Taliban between 2004 and 2009? My guess is that they decided early during that time frame that they could regain a good measure of their status in Afghanistan because the Americans were busy elsewhere, and set about doing so. I figure that by the time Obama got in and was able to begin getting us out of Iraq, a lot of the progress we had made between Sept 2002 and March 2003 had been squandered. Certainly we accomplished much less during those six years than we might have otherwise.

>>America's national security is in the hands of a community organizser who ignores the military.

I'd say it's in the hands of the POTUS. When Bush43 was in office, was our national security in the hands of a baseball franchise owner who had been involved in some questionable financial dealings?

>>the president’s determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations.

I can understand Secretary Gates' concerns about this. Obama and his closest aides do seem to have a controlling nature. And I can see where a highly skilled administrator like Gates would find this to a degree problematic, even potentially dysfunctional. But I didn't hear anything from Gates about a failed foreign policy and incompetent leadership of the military. So if liberal supporters of the President will concede that Gates' criticism has validity, will conservatives agree with Gates that Obama has been an effective commander-in-chief?

>>The community organizer had a hard-on over the Arab Spring. Upstairs in the living quarters of the communiy olrganizer the bed sheets were soiled every morning from wet dreams.

Can I ask to be spared the puerile sexual taunts?

Am I correct in assuming that some posters here see the Arab Spring as regrettable?
 
Once again, you appear to not understand the context of the attacks. When the Obama administration decided to not send help-IT WAS NOT KNOWN WHO WAS ALIVE OR DEAD.

We dont know because the white house has been adversarial from the start. There were assets in Sicily that could have been there fairly quickly, and 2 ships arrived the next day. But there is much that has not been released, and thats why we need an investigation.

Also, the response from the WH, and Clinton (who refused to cooperate) will also require investigation.

We are going to find out what happened, I guarantee you that.

Mrs. Clinton testified. Some people aren't satisfied with what she said.

I'm confident that all the details of this have been brought out, either publicly or in closed session. This select committee is a fund-raiser, a base-motivator, and an effort to get somebody to say something that will embarrass the administration.

I continue to wonder what some of the conservatives on this site would have thought of Mr. Stevens on Sept 10, 2012.
 
I generally have great respect for Marines … They also never leave a man behind.

Life is not always a John Wayne movie.

I think about this sometimes. I'm sure we all agree that the tradition is a fine and noble one. But as mak2 suggests, life, and the special hell of combat in particular, isn't a movie.

Speaking of the cinema, I'm reminded of a scene in Full Metal Jacket. Eightball has been sent out ahead to see what's in front of the platoon. He's seriously wounded by sniper fire.

DOC JAY: We can't leave him out there!

COWBOY: We're not leavin' 'im! We'll get him when the tank comes up.

DOC JAY: He's hit three ****ing times! He can't wait that long!

COWBOY: I've seen this before! That sniper's just tryin' t suck us in one at a time!

Doc Jay jumps over the low wall and runs out to get Eightball. He does not survive the effort.

not all marines would leave behind wounded military?

In your case, marine is appropriate.

I think it's important to make every effort to respect the Marine element of Marines. I've known some who were real jerks. But I was careful not to hold that against the Corps. These people walk into it, sometimes run into it, sometimes crawl into it through body parts and feces, to advance the cause of liberty and justice for all. I'd say a capital em is always in order.
 
Like I said, when he is forced to release information, it contradicts the WH story.

I understand that you sincerely feel that way. I know you must think I'm blindly loyal to Obama, but I know that's not the case. Give me some examples of this behaviour on his part. You can understand my view that since yer saying it has happened repeatedly, you really should have some prominent examples at the ready.

The other day, I responded to a comment about "Obama's Twenty Biggest Lies" or something like that. The only one I felt I couldn't refute was the idea that using the ACA website would "be like shopping on Amazon." But I realized I was completely ignorant of that comment. Turns out it falls into, for me, the same category as "keep yer plan and doctor." No lies, just embarrassing and politically costly overconfidence.

President On Obamacare Site
 
Romney's answer was kinda ridiculous. Seems like he just wanted to talk about F & F because he didn't want to say anything about assault weapons. Women don't like 'em, but the NRA does. Rock and a hard place.

The reason Obama smiles at one point is because Romney says F & F has "been investigated to a degree." Obama knew how much time Holder's staff had wasted dealing with the Issa Circus over the matter.

Its amazing that the lefties here are able to tell us EXACTLY why each candidate smiled, and SHOCK!...Obama's reasons are good, and Romney's evil. You guys are truly special people.
 
Mrs. Clinton testified. Some people aren't satisfied with what she said.

I'm confident that all the details of this have been brought out, either publicly or in closed session. This select committee is a fund-raiser, a base-motivator, and an effort to get somebody to say something that will embarrass the administration.

I continue to wonder what some of the conservatives on this site would have thought of Mr. Stevens on Sept 10, 2012.

She gave a brief testimony, and several more facts are known now, that weren't known then. She also repeatedly stalled, and even refused to provide information to the committee that she then released to the newspapers for publication the next day. She's playing the same old politics game, and its clear as day.

Nothings over, now you can continue to dismiss this-but this is just getting started.
 
Its amazing that the lefties here are able to tell us EXACTLY why each candidate smiled

I know why he smiled because it's obvious if you watch the video.

I have to say, yer not simply an advocate for yer beliefs, you seem highly motivated to disparage those who disagree with you. I find that quite … disagreeable.

>>this is just getting started

Everything important was over within days of the attack. The rest has just been another act in the anti-Obama circus. Now yer on about Geithner. It's just a shame that Boehner won't decide to do his job and lead the House instead of his caucus.
 
Someone needed to "exploit" Benghazi. Especially after Cankles blurted this B.S. out for all the relatives of the dead victims to hear.

Hillary...What difference does it make....jpg
 
What do you think she meant by that?

That, of course, is a very good question. My first thought is to say the "critics" don't much care what she meant. It's just an opportunity t' dump on her. But then I tell myself that it doesn't make sense to believe there are so many people so devoid of intellectual honesty. They actually think there's something to this rhetorical question. Something more than the obvious.

Does it matter exactly what the attackers motivations were? How they came to be the way they are — violent political murderers? Why did that right-wing coward shoot Rabin in the back? I figure we have a pretty good idea. Why did McVeigh slaughter all those women and children? What was the exact reasoning of that guy at the community center in Overland Park? The Tsarnaev brothers? The "original" 9/11 attackers?

I figure this is stuff for the investigators, counterterrorism analysts, forensic psychologists, lawyers, judges, juries, etc. I don't need to know and don't really eant to know.

The part I'm concerned about is the impact this has on the families of the victims, the ones that Fùx loves to drag out for questioning. The ones some are the Right are so indignant about. "We demand justice for these people!" I assume it must be sincere. They just hate Obama so much, it blinds them.

This can be seen in the fact that the report says that Al Qaeada was NOT involved. Shameless partisanship? I'm guessing ideological fervor leading to a lack of basic judgement and reasoning.
 
Last edited:
I know why he smiled because it's obvious if you watch the video.

I have to say, yer not simply an advocate for yer beliefs, you seem highly motivated to disparage those who disagree with you. I find that quite … disagreeable.

>>this is just getting started

Everything important was over within days of the attack. The rest has just been another act in the anti-Obama circus. Now yer on about Geithner. It's just a shame that Boehner won't decide to do his job and lead the House instead of his caucus.

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.
 
Someone needed to "exploit" Benghazi. Especially after Cankles blurted this B.S. out for all the relatives of the dead victims to hear.

View attachment 67166412

Absolutely. 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) 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.
 
That, of course, is a very good question. My first thought is to say the "critics" don't much care what she meant. It's just an opportunity t' dump on her. But then I tell myself that it doesn't make sense to believe there are so many people so devoid of intellectual honesty. They actually think there's something to this rhetorical question. Something more than the obvious.

Does it matter exactly what the attackers motivations were? How they came to be the way they are — violent political murderers? Why did that right-wing coward shoot Rabin in the back? I figure we have a pretty good idea. Why did McVeigh slaughter all those women and children? What was the exact reasoning of that guy at the community center in Overland Park? The Tsarnaev brothers? The "original" 9/11 attackers?

I figure this is stuff for the investigators, counterterrorism analysts, forensic psychologists, lawyers, judges, juries, etc. I don't need to know and don't really eant to know.

The part I'm concerned about is the impact this has on the families of the victims, the ones that Fùx loves to drag out for questioning. The ones some are the Right are so indignant about. "We demand justice for these people!" I assume it must be sincere. They just hate Obama so much, it blinds them.

This can be seen in the fact that the report says that Al Qaeada was NOT involved. Shameless partisanship? I'm guessing ideological fervor leading to a lack of basic judgement and reasoning.

Classic, this is. I think the Sec of state should be help accountable for her actions and failures to act. I dont think a fact finding committee is the place for her to make rhetorical statements, and regardless of if YOU dont want to know the specifics, I do.
 
Classic, this is. I think the Sec of state should be help accountable for her actions and failures to act. I dont think a fact finding committee is the place for her to make rhetorical statements, and regardless of if YOU dont want to know the specifics, I do.

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.
 
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.

One of the biggest tragedies regarding Benghazi-was that there were numerous occasions where additional security was requested, and ignored. They didnt feel safe there, they had been attacked before. And when the bullets started flying-she didn't pick up the phone.

 
One of the biggest tragedies regarding Benghazi-was that there were numerous occasions where additional security was requested, and ignored. They didnt feel safe there, they had been attacked before. And when the bullets started flying-she didn't pick up the phone.



choices were made, some were made in error, some were made with false assumptions.

so it goes
 
choices were made, some were made in error, some were made with false assumptions.

so it goes

not so it goes-thats not good enough. We need to find out what happened and why, remember a bi-partisan committee stated this attack was preventable. This is BESIDES the fact that the events were misrepresented to the public even when they knew better, and the fact that the administration continues to be oppositional.

Make "so it goes" is fine with you. But its not to me.
 
not so it goes-thats not good enough. We need to find out what happened and why, remember a bi-partisan committee stated this attack was preventable. This is BESIDES the fact that the events were misrepresented to the public even when they knew better, and the fact that the administration continues to be oppositional.

Make "so it goes" is fine with you. But its not to me.

do you really think anything could have been done on the night of the attack that would have prevented those 4 from dying that night?

what documents are needed to prove this point? Obama and Clinton's private correspondence. top secret information about CIA activities?

anything with CIA involvement is bound to be locked up for 50+ years.
 
do you really think anything could have been done on the night of the attack that would have prevented those 4 from dying that night?

what documents are needed to prove this point? Obama and Clinton's private correspondence. top secret information about CIA activities?

anything with CIA involvement is bound to be locked up for 50+ years.

If nothing could have been done the night of the attack, they shouldn't have been there. 3 of those men would still be alive (maybe even the 4th). Perhaps there are some secrets, fine-I say let the investigative committee review them and tell us their findings.
 
If nothing could have been done the night of the attack, they shouldn't have been there. 3 of those men would still be alive (maybe even the 4th). Perhaps there are some secrets, fine-I say let the investigative committee review them and tell us their findings.

unfortunatly they had to be there, because it was important to show support for the libyan government.
 
Back
Top Bottom