• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

He Knew [W:610]

Fisher said:
Might want to pick someone else. Nobody would ever believe Bush would even know how to turn a computer on, let alone make a tube vid
Click to expand...

Someone else filmed it. He just paid for it and jumped around with a Mohammad mask.
 
AreteCourage said:
You don't know that. Romney has never been in the White House. He has changed position so many times on foreign policy that we simply don't know what he will do. Your spitting out nonsense rhetoric and need to really use some critical thinking skills. Romney has pandered to the far right and now the center....he has no real plan and shows ignorance all the time.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not exonerating Obama at all, but to sit there and say Romney would be much better is a flat out lie.
Click to expand...

No, it's not a lie. It's my opinion just like your opinion. You don't rise to the level Romney has by being stupid. You can't fake the kind of success Romney has earned. Obama is a fake and always has been.
 
Morality Games said:
That's a shaky appeal to pathos at best. Actually, it is absurd. The odds that Obama would allow a US Ambassador to die because "he didn't want to use the word terrorism" are astronomically low.

Purely from a perspective of self-interest (this is assuming that Obama has absolutely no other concern than re-election), a US Ambassador dying in his tenure can only be bad for Obama, regardless of any mitigating factors.

You can't spin turn that public perception war into a positive in anyway whatsoever.
Click to expand...

who cares.. Obama is COOKED..its over.. your fraud hero is baked... done.. soon to be in jail..

well you can use your cute fancy words as liberal love to do.. but the facts are going to not be in your favor..
 
AdamT said:
The irony of your statement is all consuming. :lamo
Click to expand...

Not really.... keep your Obama colored glasses on...

your posts are nothing but Obama thin gruel...
 
Dusty Rhodes said:
No, it's not a lie. It's my opinion just like your opinion. You don't rise to the level Romney has by being stupid. You can't fake the kind of success Romney has earned. Obama is a fake and always has been.
Click to expand...

Romney was born into success man. He was handed everything on a silver platter. Romney's success has a lot to do with where he came from rather than what he actually has done. They both are fake!

Your opinion (which you have every right to have) is flawed. You seem to believe in the rhetoric of the GOP instead of doing your own research and thinking. Romney has never held steady on one position since being in politics...NEVER. He has changed and pandered to different groups of people. That is all he has done. I don't know what is more fake than that.
 
AreteCourage said:
Romney was born into success man. He was handed everything on a silver platter. Romney's success has a lot to do with where he came from rather than what he actually has done. They both are fake!

Your opinion (which you have every right to have) is flawed. You seem to believe in the rhetoric of the GOP instead of doing your own research and thinking. Romney has never held steady on one position since being in politics...NEVER. He has changed and pandered to different groups of people. That is all he has done. I don't know what is more fake than that.
Click to expand...

Great. That's your opinion. Nothing more.
 
Travis007 said:
who cares.. Obama is COOKED..its over.. your fraud hero is baked... done.. soon to be in jail..

well you can use your cute fancy words as liberal love to do.. but the facts are going to not be in your favor..
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think so. The only way there is even a chance -- a slim, very remote chance -- that Obama could incur any legal difficulty of any sort (not even jail) is if he falsified the final results of the investigation's reports to cover up mistakes made by his Administration. That hasn't happened and probably won't.

Pretty much anything that is said or done between those two points is awkward, at worst.
 
Now there is evidence the administration knew the attack in Libya was a terrorist incident. In fact, a terrorist group claimed responsibility. Why did the administration go for 2 weeks telling us it was a random mob riot due to some video? Why weren't they straight with us?

I have to admit, this does concern me.

pbrauer said:
Coverup of what exactly? :lamo
Click to expand...
 
It's Joe Biden's catch phrase. The only person who knows what the mysterious word really means is Joe Biden.

I am not Joe Biden, although I do have a drunken uncle that reminds me very much of him.

rocket88 said:
What's mularkey? You said yourself:



Check the Constitution for who becomes President if Obama is removed from office. Go ahead, we'll wait.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Now there is evidence the administration knew the attack in Libya was a terrorist incident. In fact, a terrorist group claimed responsibility. Why did the administration go for 2 weeks telling us it was a random mob riot due to some video? Why weren't they straight with us?

I have to admit, this does concern me.
Click to expand...

The president said on day one that it was an act of terror. How easy it is to forget. Within a week there were government statements saying that it may have been a well organized terrorist attack.

Can we now label this, "Fast & Furious II: Tears of Impotent Rage"?
 
PeteEU said:
LOL cover-up HAHAH

What exactly did they do wrong to require a cover-up?
Click to expand...

Fair question. Would it be equally fair to ask, if there is a cover-up, what did they do wrong?
 
PeteEU said:
Right wing conspiracy theories....
Click to expand...

Hillary already used that line to defend Bill.

Who was in charge of the security of our diplomats in Benghazi?
 
Born Free said:
This story is not going away, more evidence of a coverup.............

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails


White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails | Reuters
Click to expand...

This is a disgrace. Attempting to blatantly politicize the death of Americans while at the same time pushing lies and conspiracy theories kind of makes you scum. There is nothing more disgraceful than putting your party ahead of the lives of Americans serving in harms way to preserve your freedom.

Fact: According to the latest intelligence sources, the attacks were OPPORTUNISTIC attacks carried out by militia groups tied to protests in RETALIATION for the video.

The administration accurately reported the intelligence given to them at the time. Yes, Susan Rice should have said "Opportunistic" instead of "Spontaneous", but the attacks were not preplanned. There are still conflicting reports as to whether there was a protest at the time of the attacks or not, and it is possible that a someone managed to file a fake Reuters report. Finally, the entire delay can be attributed to a failure in the FBI department to propagate a single memo upstream.

Seriously, I don't know how you can look yourself in the mirror. All of this right wing disinformation including blowing intelligence covers, and releasing classified information is currently putting our troops and service personal overseas in more danger. Disgusting. Completely and utterly disgusting.
 
Sorry, that's not how I remember it. I know Candy Crowley pointed out to us all that Obama did say something about terror in the rose garden, but most of America was awake during the 2 weeks following September 11th, and you can't rewrite history. The administration DID say it was a random mob act in response to a video, I remember that CLEARLY and there is no sense in trying to whitewash it.

I want to know if Obama and Clinton can explain why they ran with this story. Maybe they have a perfectly good reason.

AdamT said:
The president said on day one that it was an act of terror. How easy it is to forget. Within a week there were government statements saying that it may have been a well organized terrorist attack.

Can we now label this, "Fast & Furious II: Tears of Impotent Rage"?
Click to expand...
 
Morality Games said:
Your lack of moderation and unwillingness to engage in substantial evaluation of the capabilities and responsibilities of the President destroys the purpose of debate.

I started with an elaborate way of reasoning out the issue, but let's try a common sense approach.

If Obama had a decisive and compelling reason to believe the information of an attack was consistent and good, then why wouldn't have have sent in the troops? It would cost him nothing to do so and could only help both the United States's diplomatic and military goals and his personal chances of re-election.

We are led to conclude that either there wasn't decisive and compelling reason to believe an attack was inevitable, or that Obama allowed the attack to happen specifically so he could have it loom over him in the election for some reason.
Click to expand...

So explain the completely left-field excuse of blaming this on an obscure youtube video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom