• 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!

Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

Others disagree.
Hence the use of the word SUBJECTIVE. Some hate so much, it would never be sufficient for them. Particularly when you factor in their suppositions not rooted in fact.
 
Hence the use of the word SUBJECTIVE. Some hate so much, it would never be sufficient for them. Particularly when you factor in their suppositions not rooted in fact.

Says you.
 
Upside's preferred response to Benghazi I guess should be something along the lines of:

'yeah, 4 people died, including the ambassador....so what? got any pie left?'

Only if its apple....
 
Iraq was approved by demos in congress.

and the spineless democrats that voted for it are responsible as well. It doesn't change the fact that the lies and manipulation came from the top. And it doesn't eliminate the hypocrisy from the far right-wingers who are "outraged" at four deaths in Benghazi while not giving a damn about the thousands who died as a result of Iraq.
 
It was unilateral. The vote was to let
him decide, and he did. That's a fact.

If the Democrats were so concerend about a "invasion" why did they give him the option in the first place ?

Turns out they "knew" he had hidden WMDs.
 
BS, he didnt need a vote to send forces there-and your statement disproves your own claim.

No, he didn't. Nor does it disprove my claim. He asked for the right to decide; there was no vote to go.
 
If the Democrats were so concerend about a "invasion" why did they give him the option in the first place ?

Turns out they "knew" he had hidden WMDs.

You might want to read Kerry's speech before he voted. He explains pretty well than Saddam wasn't the kind of threat that required invasion, but wanted Bush to have some teeth to encourage compliance. Still, Kerry noted Bush promised not to go in unilaterally and hope Bush would hold up his end, and that if Bush didn't, he'd oppose Bush. That's way reading what is actually said and argued is important.
 
No, he didn't. Nor does it disprove my claim. He asked for the right to decide; there was no vote to go.

He doesn't need to ask for any "right to decide. :roll:

He can send forces if he wants, and separately, he can ask for resolutions for force etc.

The president does not ask congress for permission to be a dictator.

Revisionism.
 
You might want to read Kerry's speech before he voted. He explains pretty well than Saddam wasn't the kind of threat that required invasion, but wanted Bush to have some teeth to encourage compliance. Still, Kerry noted Bush promised not to go in unilaterally and hope Bush would hold up his end, and that if Bush didn't, he'd oppose Bush. That's way reading what is actually said and argued is important.

Politically convenient, especially from the guy recently gunning for syria-wouldnt you say?
 
He doesn't need to ask for any "right to decide. :roll:

He can send forces if he wants, and separately, he can ask for resolutions for force etc.

The president does not ask congress for permission to be a dictator.

Revisionism.

Nope. He did not ask for a vote to go. He asked to allow him to decide. As I said, read the speeches.
 
Back
Top Bottom