• 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.

Petraeus Throws Obama Under the Bus

AdamT said:
Do y'all realize that a special reaction force was mobilized from Europe, landing in Sicily en route to Libya, but apparently reached Sicily too late?
Click to expand...

They reached Sicily too late. Sicily. Too late. You've got to be kidding me. That whole piece you copied shows that our security failed. Why can't you just admit there should be a full investigation and heads should roll? You'd look so much less partisan if you did. ;)
 
AdamT said:
Do y'all realize that a special reaction force was mobilized from Europe, landing in Sicily en route to Libya, but apparently reached Sicily too late?
Click to expand...

You know we have forces in Aviano Lignano?

North Italy... north of Jesolo/Venice?
 
If heads rolled every time Faux had an outrage...
 
MaggieD said:
They reached Sicily too late. Sicily. Too late. You've got to be kidding me. That whole piece you copied shows that our security failed. Why can't you just admit there should be a full investigation and heads should roll? You'd look so much less partisan if you did. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has tried to argue that our security wasn't lacking. Which has nothing at all to do with the not-so-rapid-reaction force, which is obviously not something that's going to be stationed permanently in a backwater consulate in Libya.
 
zimmer said:
You know we have forces in Aviano Lignano?

North Italy... north of Jesolo/Venice?
Click to expand...

Really? Is that a specialized commando unit put together to deal with these kind of situations?
 
AdamT said:
Ehm ... what target was he painting? Did you want to blow up the building with U.S. personnel inside? With friends like y'all....
Click to expand...

Ask your Commander in Chief. I am sure he will tell you since he would have been the one to make the call, well, after months and months of investigations, Congressional oversight, and third-party approval of the investigation that will tell him (maybe) what he already knows.
 
C'mon folks! Can't there be any discussion without someone throwing in 'bu...bu...bu...Bush...?' Bush is out. He's been out 4 years.
 
MaggieD said:
They reached Sicily too late. Sicily. Too late. You've got to be kidding me. That whole piece you copied shows that our security failed. Why can't you just admit there should be a full investigation and heads should roll? You'd look so much less partisan if you did. ;)
Click to expand...

Full investigation sure, but the press should be asking one question without pause...

Mr. President... what did you know and when did you know it?... and then hammer his ass with every lie he tells.
 
AdamT said:
I don't think anyone has tried to argue that our security wasn't lacking. Which has nothing at all to do with the not-so-rapid-reaction force, which is obviously not something that's going to be stationed permanently in a backwater consulate in Libya.
Click to expand...

Backwater. I see, the reason they didn't have ample security is that they were a little backwater nothing. Didn't deserve it. Didn't need it. Despite the fact that more security was requested by the consulate itself. Despite the fact the guy requesting it said, in effect, he thought Al Quada was inside the compound. I guess the only answer is that they were expendable. Well, that worked out for them then.

The partisan thoughts are thick here. Yes, yes they are.
 
Maenad said:
C'mon folks! Can't there be any discussion without someone throwing in 'bu...bu...bu...Bush...?' Bush is out. He's been out 4 years.
Click to expand...

At least he would send troops there to do some badly needed nation building.
 
MaggieD said:
Backwater. I see, the reason they didn't have ample security is that they were a little backwater nothing. Didn't deserve it. Didn't need it. Despite the fact that more security was requested by the consulate itself. Despite the fact the guy requesting it said, in effect, he thought Al Quada was inside the compound. I guess the only answer is that they were expendable. Well, that worked out for them then.

The partisan thoughts are thick here. Yes, yes they are.
Click to expand...

Stupid comment, Maggie. The commando unit is on reserve to address crises all over Europe and the surrounding region. Obviously Libya isn't especially well located for that purpose.
 
Maenad said:
C'mon folks! Can't there be any discussion without someone throwing in 'bu...bu...bu...Bush...?' Bush is out. He's been out 4 years.
Click to expand...

No. That's the left's answer/war cry to everything.
 
zimmer said:
Full investigation sure, but the press should be asking one question without pause...

Mr. President... what did you know and when did you know it?... and then hammer his ass with every lie he tells.
Click to expand...

I hear you, Zimmer. But I also don't think the President of the United States is obligated to give out myriad details about these kinds of events. We can neither understand them, nor does it necessarily serve our best interests for the POTUS to be telling everything he knows to the American people. As I've said many times, my problem with this was Debate #2 and Obama trying to pretend like he said it was a terrorist attack...when the information coming from the White House for the next two weeks said it wasn't. That pissed me off.

Now! That I believe our State Department failed to provide requested security? Now that it's become very clear that the consulate asked for extra security and was turned down? Now, I think we have an indication that the Administration may have acted in the best interests of Obama's campaign rather than in the best interests of the Americans on the ground there who counted on their country for protection. That, if true, is a disgrace.
 
MaggieD said:
Backwater. I see, the reason they didn't have ample security is that they were a little backwater nothing. Didn't deserve it. Didn't need it. Despite the fact that more security was requested by the consulate itself. Despite the fact the guy requesting it said, in effect, he thought Al Quada was inside the compound. I guess the only answer is that they were expendable. Well, that worked out for them then.

The partisan thoughts are thick here. Yes, yes they are.
Click to expand...
Lt. Col. Wood
 
MaggieD said:
I hear you, Zimmer. But I also don't think the President of the United States is obligated to give out myriad details about these kinds of events. We can neither understand them, nor does it necessarily serve our best interests for the POTUS to be telling everything he knows to the American people. As I've said many times, my problem with this was Debate #2 and Obama trying to pretend like he said it was a terrorist attack...when the information coming from the White House for the next two weeks said it wasn't. That pissed me off.

Now! That I believe our State Department failed to provide requested security? Now that it's become very clear that the consulate asked for extra security and was turned down? Now, I think we have an indication that the Administration may have acted in the best interests of Obama's campaign rather than in the best interests of the Americans on the ground there who counted on their country for protection. That, if true, is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean crime, rather than disgrace?
 
The whole thing has me wondering what kind of rulings are we going to get from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America presiding at the impeachment trial in the United States Senate since he was the deciding vote on Obamacare.
 
Fisher said:
The whole thing has me wondering what kind of rulings are we going to get from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America presiding at the impeachment trial in the United States Senate since he was the deciding vote on Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Dude, you need to cut back on the LSD. :lamo

Besides which, impeachment trials are conducted in the Senate. :roll:
 
AdamT said:
Dude, you need to cut back on the LSD. :lamo

Besides which, impeachment trials are conducted in the Senate. :roll:
Click to expand...

Overseen by the Chief Justice.
 
zimmer said:
Lt. Col. Wood
Click to expand...


The last flag flying there and without essential security. Great foreign policy Mr. president. Then it appears you lie to deflect the tragedy: 1) it was an impromptu act of violence In response to a video; and 2) we responded as the intelligence came in.

What bull****
 
Since the latest polls seem to indicate we will need to be knowing a little something about this next year, here is a little impeachment primer for the folks who are not already Know It Alls

Constitutional FAQ Answer #115 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Q115. "What is the impeachment process?"

A. The Constitution details impeachment in Article 1, Section 2, Article 1, Section 3, Article 2, Section 3, and Article 3, Section 2. The word "details," however, is a bit strong for what the Constitution provides. As with many things, the Constitution primarily gives us a skeleton of a process. The House brings charges for impeachment. The Senate holds a trial and votes to convict or acquit. The only way to remove a President, Vice President, or Article 3 judge is through impeachment. Impeachments are not tried by a jury. The rest of the process is left to the rules of Congress.

The process begins with the House. It votes on passing articles of impeachment against a member of the Executive or Judicial branches. If the articles pass, then it is said that the person has been impeached. The vote is a straight up-or-down, majority vote.

After the House votes, the impeachment goes to the Senate. There, members of the House who were advocates for impeachment become the prosecutors in the Senate trial (they are called the House Managers). The accused secures his own counsel. The judge is the Senate itself, though the presiding officer acts as the head judge. In the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides; in other cases, the Vice President or President Pro Tem presides.

After all testimony has been heard, the Senate votes. If the Senate votes to convict by more than a two-thirds majority, the person is impeached. The person convicted is removed from office. The Senate may also prevent that person from ever holding another elective office. The Senate may set its own rules for impeachments, and the rules are not subject to judicial review. The Senate has streamlined rules for trial of impeachment for persons holding lower offices. There is no appeal in the case of conviction of impeachment.
 
Boo Radley said:
The Weekly Standard making leaps agian I see. Some are more than willing to treat speculation as fact.
Click to expand...

You people still cling to the premise that the ONLY reason Bush went into Iraq was for WMDs. It was a lie then, and a lie now......but you'll believe it till your dying days. So don't preach to us about speculation as fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom