• 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!

Do you think the Benghazi scandal could bring down Hillary's run for President?

Do you think the Benghazi scandal could bring down Hillary's run for President?


  • Total voters
    87
It's a major drawback to my support of Hillary for President. I don't believe it was a conspiracy to get Americans killed, nor an attempt to help promote Jihad in America thereby giving Obama a third term. I don't even think covering it up with claims that it might be about a protest is so horrible; that could be a result of intel security.

I do, however, believe that more could have and should have been done.

One of the reasons I support Hillary is that she is a hawk, but she let me down on this one and I question her resolve to face tough situations with sufficient military force.

A hawk would have attempted a rescue in Benghazi.
 
To be frank, those who would be dissuaded from voting for her based on this issue alone likely would't have supported her in the first place. Her popularity, while lower than when in office as SOS, remains among (if not the) the highest of any current politician.

It's a bit early to make that claim. All pinion polls can do at this point is ask the questions based on hypothetical opponents. Such a poll at this point about little more then name recognition.
 
I hope you are wrong my friend........I think if the Liar Hillarry were elected president it would be a total disaster for our great country and I don't know if we will recover from it.

In my opinion, with Eric Holder gone soon , there is at least a chance that a lot more will come out regarding Benghazi.
 
In my opinion, with Eric Holder gone soon , there is at least a chance that a lot more will come out regarding Benghazi.

I truly believe that Benghazi is 10 times worse then Watergate and we know that brought a president down because of his lies.......How come Obama's lies don't count?
 
I truly believe that Benghazi is 10 times worse then Watergate and we know that brought a president down because of his lies.......How come Obama's lies don't count?

I agree. And I think the Obama administration's tactic of stall, obfuscate and wait it out will ultimately fail.
 
I truly believe that Benghazi is 10 times worse then Watergate and we know that brought a president down because of his lies.......How come Obama's lies don't count?

Why did you never ask the same question about GWB's lies? Oh....must be the (R).
 
Why can't you figure it out? they lied to the families of the guys that were murdeered for political reasons..........They did it over and over again....When someone died under president Bush he did not lie about it.............

OMFG!!!! This has to be the biggest "pull the wool over your eyes and pretend that you don't see anything" post in the history of Debate Politics. Wow....just Wow.
 
There is no scandal but that in the minds of extremist conspiracy theorists. No, it will have no effect.

That's interesting. Do you think that the guys who were involved are "extremist conspiracy theorists", or does their testimony not count because it embarrasses the Obama administration?
 
That's interesting. Do you think that the guys who were involved are "extremist conspiracy theorists", or does their testimony not count because it embarrasses the Obama administration?
Like Dylan Davies?
 
That's interesting. Do you think that the guys who were involved are "extremist conspiracy theorists", or does their testimony not count because it embarrasses the Obama administration?

It's been dragging on forever, and only diehard conspiracy partisans with an axe to grind remain interested. Their axes are worn to a nub, but they're still grinding away. Alone.
 
Everyone has that vision. The visions of some are even loftier and more eloquent than that..

To the point of not, actually, having that vision. Remember Pelosi waxing on about how wonderful it would be if people didn't have to work, and could instead write poetry or some such nonsense?

.. and, what you are articulating is a vision of a "promised land" not a vision of policy on how to get there, which your party lacks.

quite the contrary. Conservatives are choc-a-block with ideas to increase work and make it easier to find and keep work.

Government officials and their armed body guards killed in a combat zone are not classified as being "murdered",

There is only one current Declared Theater of Armed Conflict, and that is Afghanistan. Neither that AUMF or IRS tax free exclusions make Libya into a combat zone.

nor are the more than 100 other American's that were killed on the job in the several dozen attacks on US embassies and consulates in the past 35 years.

1. Your link actually says 75 other Americans have been killed in attacks on Embassies in the past 35 years.
2. Of those 75, 85% were either the Beiruit bombings of the early 1980s or the Africa bombings by al-Qaeda, and if you want to discuss which side of the political spectrum, broadly seeking, is more upset about and willing to pursue response to violent threats by Islamist Fundamentalists, well, that's a conversation I'm willing to have.
3. (this may be difficult for you to accept, as it forces you to give up your narrative) The scandal isn't that 4 Americans were killed in an attack on a consulate. The scandal is that the Administration then immediately lied about it to the American people in order to help win an election.
 
It's been dragging on forever, and only diehard conspiracy partisans with an axe to grind remain interested.

:shrug: you are correct that the left and the broad middle, aided by a compliant media, seem to have simply decided to ignore that the administration lied to them about this. However, you are incorrect to either A) suggest that it is a nutter conspiracy theory - this happened or B) the only people still interested are those with a partisan axe - I know of quite a few people, including a couple of folks who voted for the current administration, who are pretty upset about what all happened.
 
Like Dylan Davies?

Like Sarcogito. Who left that post just prior to this attack, only to watch the political party he supported proceed to smear and attack his friends. And who also recognized that the smear against those who think that the Administrations response was problematic is also false.

Or, if you like, the would-be-quick-responders that FOX recently interviewed, who apparently either outlasted their gag orders, or who decided they were just willing to lose their jobs.

Or the people who were part of the (eventual) response force, or the people who wanted to respond,and were told not to? You're smearing some of our very best military personnel, here.
 
Like Sarcogito. Who left that post just prior to this attack, only to watch the political party he supported proceed to smear and attack his friends. And who also recognized that the smear against those who think that the Administrations response was problematic is also false.
W.....T....F?

What does a banned libertarian poster from SE Asia have to do with this? Is he some pillar of the CT community that is looked upon as an authority on the topic?

Or, if you like, the would-be-quick-responders that FOX recently interviewed, who apparently either outlasted their gag orders, or who decided they were just willing to lose their jobs.Or the people who were part of the (eventual) response force, or the people who wanted to respond,and were told not to?
Nine Military Officers Demolish Fox's Benghazi "Stand Down" Order Fable | Blog | Media Matters for America

You're smearing some of our very best military personnel, here.
Because I brought up Dylan Davies....I "smeared" someone?

FFS...CP, are you conscious?
 
[B said:
SheWolf;1063807780]If there was anything to the Benghazi, the mainstream media would pick the story up.[/[/B]QUOTE]

This is one of those HUH? WTF moments. Did she really say that?:lamo
 
What does a banned libertarian poster from SE Asia have to do with this? Is he some pillar of the CT community that is looked upon as an authority on the topic?

:lol: Sarcogito is a member of the diplomatic community (part of the DAT) who is pretty solid left-wing. Obama administration supporter (last we saw him, at least, who knows after all this) who pushed single-payer of all things. He was shifted out of Libya before this went down, as his hardship tour was up. I was on active duty in Okinawa at the time, and actually went and looked him up to see if he was indeed who he said he was.

IOW, someone whose politics would otherwise put them on your side of the house on this question was instead left aghast because of his direct knowledge.

As for CT? No. But I've known some CT dudes who are pretty upset about this thing as well.


:yawn: Firstly, with regards to the people in the immediate vicinity, they sure seem to remember being told to stand down. Secondly, the people not in the immediate vicinity seem to have similar recollections.

Which is why I find the question of this poll as yet-to-be-answered. There are more shoes, if they will drop, who knows.

Because I brought up Dylan Davies....I "smeared" someone?

This is a mea culpa - I treated you as an extenuation of the discussion rather than as having popped into it. My apologies.
 
If there was anything to the Benghazi, the mainstream media would pick the story up.

:lamo

Thanks :mrgreen: I needed that tonight. :lol:




...ooohhhh wooooeeeh. :wipes tears: oh man. That was perfectly timed. :lol:
 
:lol: Sarcogito is a member of the diplomatic community (part of the DAT) who is pretty solid left-wing.
I have no way of confirming his true identity, so this is nothing more than hearsay. Beyond this, his own description before his banning is libertarian which isn't "left-wing".
Obama administration supporter (last we saw him, at least, who knows after all this) who pushed single-payer of all things. He was shifted out of Libya before this went down, as his hardship tour was up. I was on active duty in Okinawa at the time, and actually went and looked him up to see if he was indeed who he said he was.
Yawn, again, hearsay. I still have no idea what this has to do with my bringing up a fraud who actually was in the attacks at the compounds. Perhaps it is somehow designed to make you feel better....who knows?

IOW, someone whose politics would otherwise put them on your side of the house on this question was instead left aghast because of his direct knowledge.
Again, hearsay, I could care less, it has zero impact upon my comment.

As for CT? No. But I've known some CT dudes who are pretty upset about this thing as well.
Well...LOL....there you are.



:yawn: Firstly, with regards to the people in the immediate vicinity, they sure seem to remember being told to stand down. Secondly, the people not in the immediate vicinity seem to have similar recollections.
Double yawn, you keep relying upon already discredited reports.

Which is why I find the question of this poll as yet-to-be-answered. There are more shoes, if they will drop, who knows.
Non-sequitur...I never mentioned the poll.

Why do I have the feeling that this conversation IS FOR SOMEONE ELSE.



This is a mea culpa - I treated you as an extenuation of the discussion rather than as having popped into it. My apologies.
No, this has been a complete non-sequitur series from you, you have completely failed to impress with your "connections", you have completely steered away from recognizing who Dylan Davies is ....and you have failed to show that I "smeared" anyone.

This was one of the strangest pair of replies I have ever seen from you.

PS...I never knew a person could be an extenuation.
 
Last edited:
I have no way of confirming his true identity, so this is nothing more than hearsay. Beyond this, his own description before his banning is libertarian which isn't "left-wing"

Actually it's Libertarian-Left, and he was indeed left-leaning:

Sarcogito said:
I am about as liberal as one can be and I have a problem with the individual mandate. Don’t get me wrong, I am for universal healthcare but of the single payer variety.

:shrug: which is useful only to point out that the claim that the only people who claim about the actual truth here are nutter right-wingers is a false one.

As for hearsay - not really. I went and looked him up, went back and forth with him a couple of times, actually, as I was considering a FAO/RAO program for enlisted. He was a good dude, and broke down some of the specifics for me from the back-end, so to speak.

Yawn, again, hearsay. I still have no idea what this has to do with my bringing up a fraud who actually was in the attacks at the compounds. Perhaps it is somehow designed to make you feel better....who knows?

Again, hearsay, I could care less, it has zero impact upon my comment.

Well...LOL....there you are.

Double yawn, you keep relying upon already discredited reports.

:roll: Those revelations happened after the article you cited was published. And then we found out once it leaked that General Hamm's classified testimony differed rather substantially and interestingly from his unclassified testimony with regards to people making it to the consulate.
 
Actually it's Libertarian-Left, and he was indeed left-leaning:



:shrug: which is useful only to point out that the claim that the only people who claim about the actual truth here are nutter right-wingers is a false one.
Who the f cares, it was never a point concerning Dylan Davies.....FFS.

As for hearsay - not really. I went and looked him up, went back and forth with him a couple of times, actually, as I was considering a FAO/RAO program for enlisted. He was a good dude, and broke down some of the specifics for me from the back-end, so to speak.
Again, this has ABSOLTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I BROUGHT UP.

Do your reminiscing on your own time.

Good grief, you just won't shut up about this guy.



:roll: Those revelations happened after the article you cited was published. And then we found out once it leaked that General Hamm's classified testimony differed rather substantially and interestingly from his unclassified testimony with regards to people making it to the consulate.
Again, I'll ask you straight up...what does this have to do with Dylan Davies?
 
Specifically which lies would those be?


Where do you want me to start? You can begin with the whole manipulating the fears of the America people and linking 911 to Iraq. That is one of the most egregious.
 
Back
Top Bottom