• 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!

Susan Rice defends Benghazi interviews on 60 Minutes

I guess reading the whole thread would just be too much for you to handle?

Yeah it would be and WHY, especially when they are boring and have nothing to say and are hundreds to over a thousand post in a thread. Try and read a thousand posts in a thread before you post up, I would suggest it would be to much for you to handle.
 
Mr. Abu Khattala was a jihadist, if not actual AQ.
Mr. Abu Khattala joined a column of as many as 200 pickup trucks mounted with artillery as they drove through downtown Benghazi under the black flags of militant Islam

ignoring the Islamic militias:
The C.I.A. kept its closest watch on people who had known ties to terrorist networks abroad, especially those connected to Al Qaeda
thinking the 'close ties' with the militas was some kind of a warning. The CIA annex was supposed to provide security..(?) what happened there?

McFarland was getting contradictory wqrnings from the militias...still relience on those for "warnings"
Bengazi had been the target of British consulates..again no real security, as Steven wrote in his diary..
They were hung out to dry, there was no follow up on security.

This is what happened when Obama destroyed the Libyan gov't -milita rule- ( which is really mob rule), no folowing up on security from DC, no
real desire to dig any deeper, content to let them stay in a well known hot spot.
Libyan militia leaders who might have intervened to help the Americans washed their hands of the attack.

(Rogers)This was a preplanned, organized terrorist event,” he said, “not a video. That whole part was debunked time and time again.”
But the Republican arguments appear to conflate purely local extremist organizations like Ansar al-Shariah with Al Qaeda’s international terrorist network
it was both, it wasn't just the video as Rice tried to blame it, it wasn't AQ as the Republicans tried to sell it.

It wss incompetence, and the result of relying on Islamic milita grouips for early warning and protection.

FUBAR, as the phrase goes...such is the fruit of our "liberation " of Libya.
 
oh yeah. and before this sinks down into thread oblivion, recall the article did mention "pre-planning',but the main idea transcends Bengazi.

Libya is a terrorist state.
Al Qaeda was having its own problems penetrating the Libyan chaos
More than a year later, the group appears more successful. People briefed on American intelligence say the regional affiliate has established a presence in Derna
American teacher shot dead in Libya's Benghazi
The detentions followed the U.S. announcement last month that it was stepping up military support for Libya's fledgling security forces, which have been overwhelmed by militia violence and unrest since the overthrow of dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011.

Popular sentiment against the various militias has been mounting for months in Tripoli and other parts of the country, including the eastern city of Benghazi, where increasing violence has included assassinations
Libya says U.S. military personnel drove off from checkpoint - CNN.com

Al Qaeda's senior leadership (AQSL) has "issued strategic guidance to followers in Libya and elsewhere to take advantage of the Libyan rebellion," the report reads. AQSL ordered its followers to "gather weapons," "establish training camps," "build a network in secret," "establish an Islamic state," and "institute sharia" law in Libya.

Abu Anas al Libi was identified as the key liaison between AQSL and others inside Libya who were working for al Qaeda. "Reporting indicates that intense communications from AQSL are conducted through Abu Anas al Libi, who is believed to be an intermediary between [Ayman al] Zawahiri and jihadists in Libya," the report notes
Read more: 'Core' al Qaeda member captured in Libya - The Long War Journal

etc. etc. etc....
 
monumental amount of facts and evidence we have which supports what I'm saying
Monumental facts and evidence that the Obama team wasn't lying about Benghazi? There's the fantasy I was talking about.
what Nixon did was less than what happened under Obama and those who defend those making such preposterous statements.
Maybe the poster was thinking that an Ambassador & a rescue team didn't die because of Nixon's lie.
What fantasies? We know Benghazi was a CIA hotspot. We have pretty good evidence we were running weapons into Syria from Libya. What fantasies are you accusing me of
You're quite right ... we did know that ... right when it happened ... yet Obama lied about it ... and to this day I betcha most people still don't know about that Consulate ... so what does that tell you about the shelf-life of Obama's lies?
Because that's an asinine belief. Obama has been FAR more damaged politically by the video than he would have been if he had simply said we were attacked. To believe Obama lied about this to win an election is the height of fantasy. Look how much damage Obama took over the Benghazi video thing (which the NYT is now reporting to be partly true after all)...
if that damage would have come out a month earlier, Romney would be President
I just addressed this ... he only needed to get past November. Another example of his success rate on lying. Why wasn't he telling the truth about the impact of Obamacare before the election? He knew what it would be. He was even specifically asked about people losing their insurance. How come it wasn't plastered all over the news ... before the election? And yes ... if it came out before the election Romney would have had a better shot. But you learned the wrong lesson from the whole thing.

Only a fool would think Obama lied to protect his presidency, when the lie he's accused of telling would have done so much more harm to his re-election chances.
Already addressed. You think because he didn't get caught soon enough means he didn't lie. Downright silly.
....

12345
 
No chance ... you?
How's your leg?

Not that I am planning on. Oddly, I haven't heard of anyone throwing a party this year. Usually there are two or three that do. Maybe someone will, but I doubt I'd go anyway. Every bar in the area will be celebrating, though, which means lots of DUI's being handed out, so I'm better off not being out there.

The leg is almost better than new! It's got a titanium rod reinforcement that the other leg doesn't have. I haven't tried leaping over tall buildings yet, though! :lamo: The surgeon here, that the Texas surgeon referred me to, told me NO skiing or ice skating this year, but tobogganing is okay, and I do enjoy that. It's raining hard here at the moment, but it's supposed to turn to snow, so who knows?
 
Lawmakers push back on New York Times Benghazi report | MSNBC

Repubs apoplectic that direct ties to AQ not shown in Bengazi attack - missing the entire point, that the attack was feuled byIslamic jihad,
if not 'AQ Central"

Appearing on Meet the Press, Kirkpatrick suggested that congressional leaders who insist al Qaeda is to blame for the events in Libya are the ones obscuring facts.
“There’s just no chance that this was an al Qaeda attack if, by al Qaeda, you mean the organization founded by Osama bin Laden,” he said. “If you’re using the term al Qaeda to describe even a local group of Islamist militants who may dislike democracy or have a grudge against the United States, if you’re going to call anybody like that al Qaeda, then okay.”

Kirkpatrick continued, “Certainly there were some anti-Western, Islamist militants involved in this attack. But to me, that’s a semantic difference and not a useful way of answering the original question.”
things are 't neatly categorized in a chaotic situation like Libya.

American politics = willful ignorance (Repubs' mischacterization + Dem's dissembling.) Stupid r' U.S.
 
Susan Rice is a lying warmongering piece of ****. She used the false Viagra Rape story to go to the UN to get authorization for the US to attack and destroy Libya .. and the lying warmongering Obama ran with it.

Susan Rice’s Viagra Hoax: The New Incubator Babies « Antiwar.com Blog

Intel Agencies: ‘No evidence’ of Viagra-fueled Libyan rape campaign | The Raw Story

Rice and Clinton used their positions as women to fuel the lie at the UN. But Rice and Clinton weren't the only ones lying.

Obama's lie about Libya disproved in under 30 seconds ..

-- a third of the entire country of Libya protesting AGAINST NATO destruction of their country and in SUPPORT of Gaddafi.

Question: Why was Amb. Stevens in Benghazi on 9/11?

Answer: So Hillary Clinton could make a 'Mission Accomplished' march into Benghazi.

Testimony: Stevens Went to Benghazi Mission on 9/11/12 So Clinton Could Announce on Upcoming Libyan Visit It Had Become Permanent U.S. Post | CNS News

Rice, Clinton, and Obama .. all liars and warmongers. They completely destroyed Libya and turned it into a nightmare, especially for its black population.

Libya: Black Africans Are Terrorized & Slaughtered, and The World Is Silent « AddisEthiopia Weblog

America's first Black president .. and his posse is 'The Brigade to Rid Libya of Black Skin.'

Libyan rebel ethnic cleansing and lynching of black people « Human rights investigations

The brigade for boiling and burning blacks | Thought Leader

May they all burn in Hell.


This further demonstrates that, in the end, there's a dimes thickness of difference between the parties. Why hasn't the GOP been outspoken on this? Because, it's been the agenda for years. Seven ME countries are listed for demolition and several have been crossed off the list. It does not matter who's in power, that list will be completed.
 
This further demonstrates that, in the end, there's a dimes thickness of difference between the parties. Why hasn't the GOP been outspoken on this? Because, it's been the agenda for years. Seven ME countries are listed for demolition and several have been crossed off the list. It does not matter who's in power, that list will be completed.

That is absolutely correct good brother. Republicans have never met a war they didn't want to have sex with .. and democrats are only antiwar when republicans are in the White House.

What Obama did to Libya is a crime against humanity.
 
the crap is hip deep in DC!! "Who did it?"

'AQ affiliates" ( no) "AQ influenced" (yes), AQ wannabes (known terrorists - yes, but not AQ proper)....
in this singular instance I do agree with Hillary.

"What difference does it make?" not the way she blew it off, having no desire to dig into WHY it happened
(decapitation of Qaddafi/Islamic militia 'security').

I swear to great Buddha, if the Japanese were to hit Pearl Harbor again,
the FIRST thing on Capitol Hill would be dueling press conferences blaming the other party.

No-one question the WAR IN LIBYA, *oh good god - no we can't look at it that way*.. I mean all American wars are "liberation" right?? :usflag2:

we wear the white hats dontcha' know?? :shoot
 
O gawd. not the treaty obligations argument again. the NATO treaty only mandates US participation if another NATO state is attacked.
The US led the propaganda machine at the UN - it was Susan Rice's so called "Viagra rape" crap .
Qaddafi had a wide swath of popular support -not so much in east Africa, not as much outside the cities, but look at the Green Square demonstrations.
Qaddafi rode around in a car without bullet proofing. He renounced terrorism after Reagan damn near killed him in a bombin raid in the 80's.

The shelling of the NTC was a response by a duly recognized head of state to thwart an attemped revoltuion.
Gotta learn to let these civil war play out by themselves - then the truer realization of the country 's desires, come into play.

The US jumped the gun, and facilitated a terrorist state.

He's conveniently leaving out the fact that the US abused the UN resolution to use force to protect civilians, to overthrow the Libyan government, drawing the scorn of both China and Russia, who felt betrayed, subsequently making sure that the US did not pull the same **** with Syria.
 
WRONG.

The Libyan people did not ask the US to invade and destroy their country no more than the Iraqis did.

Would you like to know what the Libyan people thought? Watch the video of the largest demonstration in history where Libyans protest AGAINST NATO destruction.

Would you like to know why they felt that way about Gaddafi?



Libyans got more from their government than you get from yours.

Would you care to know what Libya looks like today after Obama destroyed it?

?Violent chaos?: Libya in deep crisis 2 years since rebels took over ? RT News

Libya's descent into chaos fuelled by rise of militias - Telegraph

Chaos Continues in Libya Where Militias Rule

I'm sure you don't care, but Libya is now destroyed. What Obama, Rice, and Clinton did to Libya was a crime against humanity.

.. AND, the icing on the corporatist/MIC cake .. Obama used AL QUEDA to destroy Libya.

After destroying Libya, Obama attempted to do the same thing to Syria using AL ****ING QUEDA .. but the world stopped his warmongering ass from doing it.


The dude is self proclaimed pro-war, loves the taste of blood so long as its not his own, you'll never get anywhere with him!
 
The United States didn't invade Libya and the destruction was caused by local forces.

If you want to take the strict definition, no. But with hundreds of cruise missiles and hundreds or thousands of plane launched bombs/missiles/rockets, against a gnat (by comparison) like Libya, what's the need for the army or marines?
 
It was the destruction of a sovereign nation based on lies .. no differently than Iraq and what we had planned for Syria.

We bombed a peaceful and prosperous nation back into the Stone Age .. and we used AL QUEDA as our ground forces.

Al Queda is our enemy .. sure they are.

How do you 'humanitarianly' drop massive bombs on densely packed cities?

What absolutely blows my mind is the number of total morons that support this ****, over and over again. Because I suppose, we're America, we're right, and we can. Quite sick actually.
 
It amazes me how people can actually think this...

Nixon resigned because he knew he would be impeached (with a real possibility of conviction) for charges related to breaking several federal laws. That's not a "smaller lie", no matter how much you want it to be.

Even if we say the attack had NOTHING to do with the video (which the New York Times article disputes) and the Obama Administration KNEW it had nothing to do with a video (which, again, can be disputed), and they told a lie which said it was because of a video, that still would not be breaking federal laws, it would simply be a lie. And the lie, as we know now, would have been made to protect American intelligence interests in the Middle East, not for political gain. After all, it makes no sense to claim the Obama Administration lied for political gain when they knew (if we assume the video had nothing to do with it) the video story would be debunked.


In other words, your little comment here is utterly absurd and you should rethink such statements before you make them.

Nixon lied and no one died. Lies that bring upon the deaths of innocents trump all others.
 
If you want to take the strict definition, no. But with hundreds of cruise missiles and hundreds or thousands of plane launched bombs/missiles/rockets, against a gnat (by comparison) like Libya, what's the need for the army or marines?

Because, at the end of the day, it was the ground troops that secured victory; the bombs and missiles were just support.
 
Because, at the end of the day, it was the ground troops that secured victory; the bombs and missiles were just support.

Really now, what was this "victory"?
 
Really now, what was this "victory"?

I doubt most of the Libyan people feel "liberated" 2 years later and counting..they are too busy trying not to
get assasinated (officials), or kidnapped, or killed by mistaken militias.

we ****ed up but good, we left the place in shambles, unable to govern, or even pump oil as of late.
Terrorist living openly in Tripoli (abu-Anas)?? Guarantee you that would not have happened under Qaddafi
 
Because, at the end of the day, it was the ground troops that secured victory; the bombs and missiles were just support.
ya but.
Thing is the NTC picked up no popular support along the way, and NATO had to lead almost ever step of the advances by air.

How far you think they would have gotten without all thoses bombs and misiles?? not very.
 
Was Kadhfi defeated? I think he was. Yes?

That was not what the UN resolution authorized, A and B, is there any war you won't get behind?
 
Read more: Susan Rice defends Benghazi interviews - Andrea Drusch - POLITICO.com

arrogant hubris, much like Hilary testimony where she throws up her hands and the famous "what does it matter" line.

They were caught lying, and they just can't admit it, so they dissemble - isn't that correct "Susan"





Are you guys still trying that tired old spin? The reality is, most of America understand the comment when taken in context. Your spin hasn't worked yet....why do you keep trying the same failed lines?
 
When she was pressed to account for her perpetuation of the obvious lie of a " protest" by the House Committee she screamed " what difference does it make " .

She looked right in the eyes of the parents who's sons died trying to defend the Embassy and said " we're going to arrest and prosecute the man who made that movie ".

I always knew she was scum, but when she did that I knew she was sub-human scum.

And to think there are people that still believe she is Presidential material. She's not even HUMAN material.
Flat out lie. Do you actually believe what you wrote here? If you do....you are relying on your right-wing propaganda. Why not take a look at what was actually said and the context of it, rather than just spouting off the same failed right-wing lies?
 
Here is the entire statement:
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.

When you read the statement in context it becomes pretty clear, at least for most Americans, why the right-wing attempts to spin this never gained any ground....because the lies they spouted were not based in reality. I find it hilarious that after failing to perpetuate this fraud on the American public over and over....you guys are STILL trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Good luck guys!!!
 
Flat out lie. Do you actually believe what you wrote here? If you do....you are relying on your right-wing propaganda. Why not take a look at what was actually said and the context of it, rather than just spouting off the same failed right-wing lies?

LOL !!

Wow.....I mean it was televised and everything. What's worse than Hillary' indifference are the millions of Americans who are willing to give her a pass on the whole Benghazi issue.

An OBVIOUS cover up and perpetuation of a flat out false narrative right before a Presidential election and people like you have no qualms with it. Susan Rice making the rounds days after EVERYONE knew it was a terrorist attack. It was UNREAL. Even I couldn't believe that Obama and Hillary were that blatantly corrupt.

They obviously thought Americans in general were so innately stupid that a ridiculous story about a protest would cover their sorry asses. Why else would they offer up that ridiculous excuse ? NO ONE believed that it was a "protest gone awry ".

So you would rather take up for a sub-human who would chose to cover her own ass, perpetuate a narrative that was obviously a lie, to the point of Lying to the faces of the parents who lost their sons on her watch than hold a GREAT EXAMPLE of a corrupt politician accountable for her actions ? ( She told one of the Fathers that he they were going to arrest and prosecute the guy that made that video )

Because her candidacy is more important than the truth behind the 4 Americans that were killed by a obvious terrorist attack....UNREAL.

Modern day Democrats are so absolutely twisted, so devoid of any substantial moral core. Integrity must be just a passing annoyance for liberals, quickly subverted as the calculate the amount of lies and diversions needed for damage control.

Iv'e said it a thousands times and its true, Liberal Democrat Progressives use their ideology to define the truth. Conservatives use truth to define their ideology.
 
Back
Top Bottom