• 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!

Ex-White House Official On Benghazi: 'Dude, This Was Like Two Years Ago'

No, American. The blatant arrogance belongs to those who have been passionately screaming "Benghazi" for political points the last few years, yet don't give one flying **** about those who died.



Really?

How many posts from apologists who respond to these charges with an arrogant "four people died. So what" How many have died there so far?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim people are heartless who are trying to find out the truth of the circumstances of how they died?

And please...not everyone who smells some leaking sewage out of Obama's White House is either a right wing fanatic or a Republican. I am a leading proponent of appointing a special prosecutor and politically am as far from a US Republican as one can get without becoming as void of conscience as a US Democrat.
 
Thought I'd share:

"You think people's failure to match your level of outrage is based on ignorance," Stewart said. "That after nearly 100 network news stories, hundreds of cable news stories about Benghazi, 13 Congressional hearings, 50 further Congressional briefings, and 25,000 pages of official findings concerning what happened in Benghazi, that if we all only knew about it, we would care." Right.

Rather, the reason no one can match Fox News' outrage is that we've seen this sort of thing before. You want to talk about an intelligence failure leading to the tragedy of American's losing their lives? As Stewart pointed out, there's a little something called the Iraq War.

"I commend you for finally getting in touch with your inner outrage. Because if I remember correctly, in the previous decade it was an emotion you did not seem comfortable addressing or expressing," Stewart said.

Jon Stewart Exposes Fox News' Hypocrisy over Benghazi - The Wire



It is a false comparison. There was no wrong intelligence on Benghazi regardless of the lies told by the Administration, there was no international consensus on the safety of Benghazi that the administrations neglect can be excused for heeding. Nation after nation was pulling out of Benghazi because of the deteriorating conditions there and this Administration stayed because they needed to make a political point in the lead up to the election that they had pacified Libya.

And Stewart also is simply killing his own argument by arguing the number of investigations into Benghazi.... and then bringing up Iraq. Doesn't the same rule apply? And if there was nothing found in all of those Iraq hearings then why does the left keep bringing it up? Moreover, the number of Benghazi hearings is a pointless argument to begin with given that the information that sparked the current demand for hearings was actively withheld from all those other investigations. You can't claim a thoroughness of previous investigations when the evidence is new and previously withheld. By definition those old investigations were not thorough because they didn't have all the evidence.

Ironically, on a side note,. Stewart's favorite for President in 2016 has a long history of defending her vote to attack Iraq.
 
Can we move this Benghazi stuff out of Breaking News? It's certainly not breaking by any mainstream source.


Yeah, let's hide it.

The Obama administration has been trying to sweep this under the carpet since oops, the Guardian blew their little cover right out of the water.

"Old news" is such a pathetic bleat. As I read though this thread I see one side posting information, analysis of the video of this sleazy little geek, and informed opinion for the most part. While you and the other defenders whine about it being in the wrong section, that it's "old news", that to even discuss it is somehow unpatriotic. Even this too-sleazy-to-be-a-car-salesman is playing down the significance with double speak. But not one fact. a lot of ridicule and mild personal attacks and claims, but not one fact. 'Not one answer, just shut up, stop asking questions, we know what's good for you.'

Did anyone catch the new mislead? He says we should be concentrating on it not happening again instead of playing "gotcha" politics. And just how are we supposed to do that when he himself and the rest of the administration refuse to come clean on what "it" is and continue to play an advanced version of Clinton's "it depends on what your definition of is, is."

He won't even admit he doctored the memos, so how can anyone know what the real story is? he changed "attacks" to "demonstrations" and won't own up to it and all of you say that's reason to stop looking.

I admire the foolish and blind loyalty, but all reason and logic is missing
 
Yeah, let's hide it.

The Obama administration has been trying to sweep this under the carpet since oops, the Guardian blew their little cover right out of the water.

"Old news" is such a pathetic bleat. As I read though this thread I see one side posting information, analysis of the video of this sleazy little geek, and informed opinion for the most part. While you and the other defenders whine about it being in the wrong section, that it's "old news", that to even discuss it is somehow unpatriotic. Even this too-sleazy-to-be-a-car-salesman is playing down the significance with double speak. But not one fact. a lot of ridicule and mild personal attacks and claims, but not one fact. 'Not one answer, just shut up, stop asking questions, we know what's good for you.'

Did anyone catch the new mislead? He says we should be concentrating on it not happening again instead of playing "gotcha" politics. And just how are we supposed to do that when he himself and the rest of the administration refuse to come clean on what "it" is and continue to play an advanced version of Clinton's "it depends on what your definition of is, is."

He won't even admit he doctored the memos, so how can anyone know what the real story is? he changed "attacks" to "demonstrations" and won't own up to it and all of you say that's reason to stop looking.

I admire the foolish and blind loyalty, but all reason and logic is missing


Exactly. Spot on.

At the root of the issue here is the astonishing lack of leadership leading up to, during and in the aftermath of this attack on the US consulate. This administration is incapable of introspection because at every stage of the autopsy of this tragedy they have been insisting there was no fault at all, just an unfortunate, completely unforeseen accident. They tried to lump the planned 9/11 attack on a video to make it appear that it was a situation that was impossible to control in order to cover for the ever clearer truth that it was not only a foreseen tragedy, but the leadership of the administration did literally nothing at any stage to fix it.

To this day the Democrats are apologetically against an open and transparent discussion about the failure on Benghazi. Hillary Clinton is so sycophantically averse to introspection that she, under oath, mused that it makes no difference if we know what happened at this point.

Ironically, Hillary put it best in the 2008 primaries when she said that the American people needed a leader who could take the 3am phone call. Double irony that neither of the Democratic candidates on that stage at the time she said that were up to that task.
 
Hack or not he's correct. You just don't want to own your own hypocrisy (universal your).

"Not surprisingly, the very conservatives who love to hurl invective against the ranks of their enemies prove to have the thinnest of skins when the same is done to them."

--John Dean, Conservatives Without Conscience
 
Yeah, let's hide it.

The Obama administration has been trying to sweep this under the carpet since oops, the Guardian blew their little cover right out of the water.

"Old news" is such a pathetic bleat. As I read though this thread I see one side posting information, analysis of the video of this sleazy little geek, and informed opinion for the most part. While you and the other defenders whine about it being in the wrong section, that it's "old news", that to even discuss it is somehow unpatriotic. Even this too-sleazy-to-be-a-car-salesman is playing down the significance with double speak. But not one fact. a lot of ridicule and mild personal attacks and claims, but not one fact. 'Not one answer, just shut up, stop asking questions, we know what's good for you.'

Did anyone catch the new mislead? He says we should be concentrating on it not happening again instead of playing "gotcha" politics. And just how are we supposed to do that when he himself and the rest of the administration refuse to come clean on what "it" is and continue to play an advanced version of Clinton's "it depends on what your definition of is, is."

He won't even admit he doctored the memos, so how can anyone know what the real story is? he changed "attacks" to "demonstrations" and won't own up to it and all of you say that's reason to stop looking.

I admire the foolish and blind loyalty, but all reason and logic is missing

947221_512034585499420_306263930_n.jpg

Spare me the faux outrage. You know what I see from modern history? When Americans are attacked with a Republican president, the country pulls together. We get the bottom of what happened, and we make sure it doesn't happen again. Compare that to what happens under a Democratic administration. The GOP didn't even wait until the attack was over before they started politicizing it. When was the last time a Republican missed an opportunity to score political points in the name of patriotism? WWII?

Contrast that with Benghazi. Yes, its' a tragedy. But 13 Benghazi's happened under Bush. Did anyone try to politicize them? What about the Republican's insistence that Bin Laden was a Clinton manufactured threat? What about Bin Laden poised to attack US? What about deliberately releasing misleading intelligence to sell a war? What about families buying body armor online to send to their loved ones in harms way because that's the military we have. What about increasing the terror threat levels before elections when there was no new threat? The list goes on and on and on and on...

But obviously the real story here is Benghazi... everyone else is the problem.
 
Last edited:
Exactly. Spot on.

At the root of the issue here is the astonishing lack of leadership leading up to, during and in the aftermath of this attack on the US consulate. This administration is incapable of introspection because at every stage of the autopsy of this tragedy they have been insisting there was no fault at all, just an unfortunate, completely unforeseen accident. They tried to lump the planned 9/11 attack on a video to make it appear that it was a situation that was impossible to control in order to cover for the ever clearer truth that it was not only a foreseen tragedy, but the leadership of the administration did literally nothing at any stage to fix it.

To this day the Democrats are apologetically against an open and transparent discussion about the failure on Benghazi. Hillary Clinton is so sycophantically averse to introspection that she, under oath, mused that it makes no difference if we know what happened at this point.

Ironically, Hillary put it best in the 2008 primaries when she said that the American people needed a leader who could take the 3am phone call. Double irony that neither of the Democratic candidates on that stage at the time she said that were up to that task.



I have no doubt of the capacity for Hilary to throw Obama under the bus should the situation warrant.



I am not convinced this was foreseen, at least enough detail to have actually prevented it, but it more than stretched credibility that they did not have embassies and consulates on high alert for the anniversary of the greatest terrorist attack against the United States, especially considering that Canada did have their people on alert and Canada has never been attacked.


Of course Obama is not capable of introspection or self awareness in the sense of defect or fault, he has never admitted a mistake. Even "if you like your plan..." was never addressed, merely the incredibly lame attempt to shovel the dog's breakfast Obamacare roll out on Romney and claim "I never said that..."


As the lemmings crawl deeper into the hole of denial and this insistence it is "old news" while not one reasonable answer has been provided it becomes increasingly obvious that at the very least someone screwed up and the White House is resisting any and all inquiries while still living with the promise "mine will be the most open and accountable administration in American history."

At this point Nixon and his people look like blabbermouths compared to Obama and his cretins.
 
View attachment 67166027

Spare me the faux outrage. You know what I see from modern history? When Americans are attacked with a Republican president, the country pulls together. We get the bottom of what happened, and we make sure it doesn't happen again. Compare that to what happens under a Democratic administration. The GOP didn't even wait until the attack was over before they started politicizing it. When was the last time a Republican missed an opportunity to score political points in the name of patriotism? WWII?

Contrast that with Benghazi. Yes, its' a tragedy. But 13 Benghazi's happened under Bush. Did anyone try to politicize them? What about the Republican's insistence that Bin Laden was a Clinton manufactured threat? What about Bin Laden poised to attack US? What about deliberately releasing misleading intelligence to sell a war? What about families buying body armor online to send to their loved ones in harms way because that's the military we have. What about increasing the terror threat levels before elections when there was no new threat? The list goes on and on and on and on...

But obviously the real story here is Benghazi... everyone else is the problem.

Do you not see the difference in the two attacks? You are trying to blame the Rules of Engagement on Ronald Reagan vs the manning of US embassy. You would have a leg to stand on if the troops and the command said they required a change in the ROE or it could lead to death, but I have never heard of them asking for that. You did hear of the embassy requesting additional personnel for protection which was not given. I find the meme you used in your rant to be misguided and that means either you are misguided as well or a liar.
 

Your graphic is incredibly misleading. the guards of the barracks were armed, and did open fire on the truck as it crashed through the barricaded and exploded. The sleeping marines in the barracks would not have had the time to fire back.

Also, if Obama had given a speech like this one we probably wouldn't have been talking about Benghazi today.
 
View attachment 67166027

Spare me the faux outrage. You know what I see from modern history? When Americans are attacked with a Republican president, the country pulls together. We get the bottom of what happened, and we make sure it doesn't happen again. Compare that to what happens under a Democratic administration. The GOP didn't even wait until the attack was over before they started politicizing it. When was the last time a Republican missed an opportunity to score political points in the name of patriotism? WWII?

Contrast that with Benghazi. Yes, its' a tragedy. But 13 Benghazi's happened under Bush. Did anyone try to politicize them? What about the Republican's insistence that Bin Laden was a Clinton manufactured threat? What about Bin Laden poised to attack US? What about deliberately releasing misleading intelligence to sell a war? What about families buying body armor online to send to their loved ones in harms way because that's the military we have. What about increasing the terror threat levels before elections when there was no new threat? The list goes on and on and on and on...

But obviously the real story here is Benghazi... everyone else is the problem.



I am delighted you have mentally developed to the point of being able to read my mind.


Will you be so kind as to supply a link to these previous events ans I seem to recall the Guardian newspaper piece saying this is the first assassination of an Amereican diplomat in something like 30 years. Please be sure to draw the parallels that Bush covered it up, claimed it was a spontaneous demonstration and happened on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack against the US in history.

I am sorry, but because it happened under Bush it's OK that Obama does it too? Or did you in your headlong rush assume to protect the inept and failing Obama simply assume only Republicans see a scandal? For the record I oppose Afghanistan, Iraq, and Obama's expansion of those wars along with the torture of innocent civilians in Gitmo, a torture concentration camp Obama swore he would close.

I am also curious as to how the fact of losing 13 Ambassadors went unnoticed among the fawning Obamal "tingle down my leg media".

and further, if true, which I doubt, how does that excuse Obama who was supposed to have been better than Bush. In six years, on ever file, we see the lemming left oozing your "faux outrage" about "Bush did it too!", proving that not only is Obama at least as bad as Bush but far less intelligent than Bush since he is incapable of either learning from his mistakes or admitting them, abysmal qualities in even a boyscout leader.

Please continue to display Obama's weaknesses, inexperience, and stupidity by comparing him to Bush.
 
To some extent, sure it is. But let's see if Obama the liar will release the PDBs. Wanna bet he won't?

I see nothing equivalent, but feel free to provide some evidence.
 
It is a false comparison. There was no wrong intelligence on Benghazi regardless of the lies told by the Administration, there was no international consensus on the safety of Benghazi that the administrations neglect can be excused for heeding. Nation after nation was pulling out of Benghazi because of the deteriorating conditions there and this Administration stayed because they needed to make a political point in the lead up to the election that they had pacified Libya.

And Stewart also is simply killing his own argument by arguing the number of investigations into Benghazi.... and then bringing up Iraq. Doesn't the same rule apply? And if there was nothing found in all of those Iraq hearings then why does the left keep bringing it up? Moreover, the number of Benghazi hearings is a pointless argument to begin with given that the information that sparked the current demand for hearings was actively withheld from all those other investigations. You can't claim a thoroughness of previous investigations when the evidence is new and previously withheld. By definition those old investigations were not thorough because they didn't have all the evidence.

Ironically, on a side note,. Stewart's favorite for President in 2016 has a long history of defending her vote to attack Iraq.

Just won't own your (universal your) hypocrisy. You've killed any right to expect outrage by having none when we needed it most.
 
It seems to be a common ploy by the white house to stonewall unpleasant things until enough time has passed that they can use the "old news" excuse. To me it makes no difference at all who lied or who wrote what talking points. My problem with the affair is that, for some reason, we had a consulate under attack and did nothing to help those being attacked. That is unconscionable and inexcusable. I don't even care whose fault it is but I understand that politicians are consumed with fault and blaming. I just blame government incompetence.

White house staffers are consumed with protecting their reputation when doing so causes more problems in the future that if they simply came clean earlier. I also realize the committee is partisan and motivated by partisanship. Nevertheless, I approve of appointing it because nobody in the administration appears to be willing to tell the truth. It is not unreasonable for the public to be angry when the government lies to them. Makes me wonder why they aren't angry at the government every day. If they were we might be able to clean house in Washington.
 
Do you not see the difference in the two attacks? You are trying to blame the Rules of Engagement on Ronald Reagan vs the manning of US embassy. You would have a leg to stand on if the troops and the command said they required a change in the ROE or it could lead to death, but I have never heard of them asking for that. You did hear of the embassy requesting additional personnel for protection which was not given. I find the meme you used in your rant to be misguided and that means either you are misguided as well or a liar.

''Even though there had been three bombings, even though the State Department had recommended that steps be taken, even though last week the State Department warned that protection was inadequate, even though terrorists had publicly threatened and warned they were going to attack, there were still no guard gates at the embassy.''

Reagan’s response: ''Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.''
 
Yes, Obama and Hillary concocting a fake video narrative while our Embassy was still under attack and then lying about it for the next 20 months is a "fake scandal".

The WH ignoring a Senate committee subpoena over a E-mail that would have proven they lied to Millions of Americans and the Family members of those murdered at Benghazzi is a "fake scandal".

The Obama administration and Hillary chosing their Political welfare over the welfare of the people who died in Benghazzi is a "fake scandal".

Sucks for people like you.

For months to come we get to witness a steady stream of corroborating data and evidence that will define Obama's legacy and ruin Hillary's chances in 2016 .

No amount of desperate and pathetic partisan mitigation from people like you is going to stop it.

Yes, we were ( Conservatives ) RIGHT all along about these low lifes

LOL....do you honestly believe that anything that has come out is going to ruin Hilary's chances? Man......that is either hopeful thinking or you are spending waaaaaaaaay too much time listening to the right-wing radio propogandists. Do you know how many times the GOP has tried to politicize Benghazi and gotten nowhere? After 15 or so congressional hearings there has been nothing.....zero......zilch......that has been brought forth that shows the FauxNews conspiracy that obviouisly you have bought into.

BTW....I'm sure you were as outraged at GWB raising the "color" of the terrorism alerts prior to the elections. Wh-wh-wh-what? You weren't. Hmmmmmm....ok.....that explains it.....now your post makes perfect sense.
Keep kicking this dead horse......maybe the 1856th time will get you guys somewhere.......ROTFL........
 
This is not about the Bush era and your juvenile attempts to move the thread in that directions has become far too commonplace among the leftists. Why not just stick to the topic at hand, or you can start another thread about George Bush if you have anything topical to report.

My points are salient and with merit. Where is your outrage over the tens of thousands deaths over false intelligence? Why all of a sudden do you care?
 
Really?

How many posts from apologists who respond to these charges with an arrogant "four people died. So what" How many have died there so far?"

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim people are heartless who are trying to find out the truth of the circumstances of how they died?

And please...not everyone who smells some leaking sewage out of Obama's White House is either a right wing fanatic or a Republican. I am a leading proponent of appointing a special prosecutor and politically am as far from a US Republican as one can get without becoming as void of conscience as a US Democrat.

They are trying to find the truth for political points. Nothing more. That is my point.
 
''Even though there had been three bombings, even though the State Department had recommended that steps be taken, even though last week the State Department warned that protection was inadequate, even though terrorists had publicly threatened and warned they were going to attack, there were still no guard gates at the embassy.''

Reagan’s response: ''Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.''

And I am sure the Republicans of today and Fox News would have gladly turned over a blind eye because Reagan was a Republican. :roll:
 
For me this question is simple.

IF the version of events I have heard from right-leaning persons is even half correct, someone ****ed up and we need to know who, how, and why.

If that version of events is NOT correct, we need to know what actually happened in order to hopefully put this to bed.

Either way an investigation is necessary. I just hope the inquiry or whatever that's going on atm isn't overly politicized.
 
My points are salient and with merit. Where is your outrage over the tens of thousands deaths over false intelligence? Why all of a sudden do you care?

Again, why do you wander off topic? Why do you not care about the lies, the cover-up, and four dead Americans?
 
Just won't own your (universal your) hypocrisy. You've killed any right to expect outrage by having none when we needed it most.

There have been dozens of threads devoted to this topic over the years. Now we have a new topic.

The leftists are deliberately trying to destroy threads about Benghazi by diverting back to George Bush, just as Barry Obama has done..
 
I see nothing equivalent, but feel free to provide some evidence.

I wouldn't expect you to...But, in that vein, I needn't prove anything to you Joe...All I am saying is when demo's wanted Bush's PDB's, and then later used it to further a false narrative of him somehow not being prepared for 9/11, then I want to know what was in Obama's PDB's days before the attacks in 2012...At least Bush didn't have the significance of the date being special somehow...Obama, can't duck that criticism...It was after all ON 9/11!
 
''Even though there had been three bombings, even though the State Department had recommended that steps be taken, even though last week the State Department warned that protection was inadequate, even though terrorists had publicly threatened and warned they were going to attack, there were still no guard gates at the embassy.''

Reagan’s response: ''Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.''

I really don't want to make this about the Barracks, but you are still misrepresenting. In your quotes, Reagan isn't denying them what they need. They were in the process of addressing it, just not fast enough by your quote.

Also, the gate was armed. The only Marine to chamber a round was in the guard house.

The difference is, NOTHING was done about Benghazi.
 
There have been dozens of threads devoted to this topic over the years. Now we have a new topic.

The leftists are deliberately trying to destroy threads about Benghazi by diverting back to George Bush, just as Barry Obama has done..

And this is about the new thread. You don't understand that you guys killed any chance of having outrage here because you had none when it matter. You're the reason this won't likely go anywhere. You guys set the bar. You're now not seen as having any substance because of your hypocrisy.
 
I wouldn't expect you to...But, in that vein, I needn't prove anything to you Joe...All I am saying is when demo's wanted Bush's PDB's, and then later used it to further a false narrative of him somehow not being prepared for 9/11, then I want to know what was in Obama's PDB's days before the attacks in 2012...At least Bush didn't have the significance of the date being special somehow...Obama, can't duck that criticism...It was after all ON 9/11!

You'll recall, nothing happened to Bush. Nothing. And he went way beyond the PDB's. And you and others were never, ever outraged. How can you now expect your outrage to be taken seriously. You set the bar.
 
Back
Top Bottom