• 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!

Republican-led report debunks Benghazi theories and accusations

Absolutely. There's no leading Presidential candidate on the right who blurted in exasperation "what difference does it make".

Lol. You're kidding.

Republicans started calling hearings while the bodies were still warm, and any consternation over Benghazi was all Democrats' fault?
 
If you think there were more investigations by the House under Obama than under Bush, more politics of the Republican House under Obama than the Democrat House under Bush, you're just a blind political hack.

And before you start doing your happy dance, you might want to actually read the findings of the report and wait until the entire investigation is completed. I don't know what the outcome will be, but I'm prepared to wait and see.

LOL. The investigation has been completed numerous times, then the Republicans don't like the results, and then we get a new investigation.

Does it stop?
 
From Paperview's quotation in post #62

In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks.

This is important to determine why security wasn't increased while attacks were increasing, not only on our facilities, but on others as well, causing the Brit's to pull out...We stayed...Why?

Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al Qa'ida, participated in the attacks....

Hillary Clinton's testimony when she made that fateful blunder of "what difference does it make" was preceded by her saying that 'How do we know that it wasn't just kids out for a walk that night and decided that they'd attack some American's"....Even at that point where everyone knew it was a terrorist attack, and murder of our people there she couldn't bring herself to tell the truth under oath...Yet the liberal left defenders in here will ignore this part, as evidenced by skipping over it in highlighting...

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate....There was no protest.

There was NO protest....The administration lied...So, why is this not the definitive report? Well, simple. It doesn't answer all the questions, nor does it contain any accountability. We were told this lie repeatedly, and the family members were told this despicable lie to their face as the bodies of their loved ones were being unloaded on the tarmac...This only answers the question about intelligence, and clears the intelligence services after Obama tried to cast the blame on them...Now, we continue forward....
 
LOL. The investigation has been completed numerous times, then the Republicans don't like the results, and then we get a new investigation.

Does it stop?

Aw boo freakin hoo....Your guy is a lying, and possibly criminal buffoon...No they won't stop as long as his lying ass is in office.
 
Absolutely. There's no leading Presidential candidate on the right who blurted in exasperation "what difference does it make".

There was one leading Presidential candidate who said something in that incident that maybe you've forgotten.

Here's a memory spark of Sept 11, 2012 --

When candidate Romney, chomping at the bit to make political hay over a video the whole world was chattering about, our embassy issued a Press Release about, the Grand Mufti issued a strong denunciation a few days earlier over, and those nutcakes were storming our walls in Egypy earlier --

-- Candidate Romney While the attack was still going on in Benghazi went and issued a Press Release the night of Sept 11th. He couldn't even wait. Couldn't even wait.
--
then ---> he mugged for the camera the next morning with a ****-eating grin on his face, with fires still burning, dead bodies not even cold -- to attack the president again.

Blaming it on Obama, and tracing it to the video, in absolutely the most cravenly political ****-the-facts-I-have-an-election-to-win statement in the history of the incident.

Look -- the GOP candidate was actually SMILING as he walked away, fires still smoldering, 4 dead bodies barely cold --

Mitt-Romney-smirking-as-h-008_zpsbfdacba9.jpg



A truly despicable act. But hey, what difference does that make?
 
Absolutely. There's no leading Presidential candidate on the right who blurted in exasperation "what difference does it make".

Nobody on the right blurted that out, but many on the right like to take quotes out of context to spin an agenda.

Clinton: 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.

In Context: Hillary Clinton's 'What difference does it make' comment | PolitiFact Wisconsin
 
:lol: Oh boy. If you actually think that referred to the deaths and not the fixation on who formulated the talking points, you're absolutely clueless.

And if you think it wasn't a blatant attempt by Hillary Clinton to get the monkey off her back and escape responsibility for her role in the event, you're the reason why America keeps electing dolts as President.
 
LOL. The investigation has been completed numerous times, then the Republicans don't like the results, and then we get a new investigation.

Does it stop?

You didn't read the report and the article either, did you?
 
It was only a left/right issue because many on the left wanted to dismiss the deaths of four Americans in a diplomatic facility as no big deal.

Over a DOZEN embassies were attacked under Bush, 60 deaths total, yet the left didn't use those tragedies as avenues of attack against the Bush administration. See the difference? Of course not.
 
A little more from ...back then?

Prior to the bombing that killed 241 Marines?

...of which the Reagan Administration *was* warned it would be the target of a terrorist attack?

...are you aware of the timeline?

Here's just a snip -- click the link and open your eyes.

April 18, 1983Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut
blank.gif
A suicide bomber in a pickup truck loaded with explosives rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. 63 people were killed, including 17 Americans, eight of whom were employees of the CIA, including chief Middle East analyst Robert C. Ames and station chief Kenneth Haas.

The U.S. government took no military action in response to the embassy bombing...

sub.gif
Oct. 23, 1983Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
blank.gif
A suicide bomber detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks located at Beirut International Airport; 241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded.


sub.gif
Dec. 12, 1983Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
The American embassy in Kuwait was bombed in a series of attacks ...
The U.S. military took no action in retaliation.

sub.gif
Sept. 20, 1984Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut
In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel. ...

The U.S. mounted no military response to the embassy annex bombing.

Terrorist Attacks On Americans, 1979-1988 | Target America | FRONTLINE | PBS
 
Over a DOZEN embassies were attacked under Bush, 60 deaths total, yet the left didn't use those tragedies as avenues of attack against the Bush administration. See the difference? Of course not.



Name the Embassy that was attacked right before a Residential Election under Bush that was passed off as a " spontaneous protest " because a truthful explanation was Politically inconvenient.

Name one.
 
A little more from ...back then?

Prior to the bombing that killed 241 Marines?

...of which the Reagan Administration *was* warned it would be the target of a terrorist attack?

...are you aware of the timeline?

Here's just a snip -- click the link and open your eyes.

April 18, 1983Bombing of U.S. Embassy in Beirut
blank.gif
A suicide bomber in a pickup truck loaded with explosives rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. 63 people were killed, including 17 Americans, eight of whom were employees of the CIA, including chief Middle East analyst Robert C. Ames and station chief Kenneth Haas.

The U.S. government took no military action in response to the embassy bombing...

sub.gif
Oct. 23, 1983Bombing of Marine barracks in Beirut
blank.gif
A suicide bomber detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks located at Beirut International Airport; 241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded.


sub.gif
Dec. 12, 1983Bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait
The American embassy in Kuwait was bombed in a series of attacks ...
The U.S. military took no action in retaliation.

sub.gif
Sept. 20, 1984Bombing of U.S. Embassy annex northeast of Beirut
In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel. ...

The U.S. mounted no military response to the embassy annex bombing.

Terrorist Attacks On Americans, 1979-1988 | Target America | FRONTLINE | PBS


Irrelevant.

Which one of those attacks was passsd off as a " spontaneous protest " because a truthful account was Politically damaging ?

Which one of those attacks left a entire Political party scrambling for cover as their numerous lies started to catch up to them ?

Four dead Americans and the Democrats cover their asses first.

F***in low lifes.
 
What a stupid request.

Name one that fits the exact parameters of the exact situation I want to fit into my bubble of understanding of this political football so it jives with why I can make it *the same* - otherwise, no dice.

How lame.

Hey Fenton, you finally figure out there was no Embassy or Consulate in Benghazi?
 
Name the Embassy that was attacked right before a Residential Election under Bush that was passed off as a " spontaneous protest " because a truthful explanation was Politically inconvenient.

I like how you've contorted the challenge so that it presupposes that there was wrong-doing on the part of the Obama administration, including a conspiracy to distort the perceptions of the American people to win votes.

The founders of the Logical Fallacies would be proud.
 
Four dead Americans and the Democrats cover their asses first.

F***in low lifes.

Over 3000 Americans died during 9/11.

9/11 was used shamelessly to rally support for an invasion which cost over 4000 more American lives, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis.

It also helped Bush win re-election.

And you're making allegations about when an attack during Obama's administrated was designated as an act of terrorism?

Stop pretending that you care about the victims of Benghazi. No one is buying it.
 
I like how you've contorted the challenge so that it presupposes that there was wrong-doing on the part of the Obama administration, including a conspiracy to distort the perceptions of the American people to win votes.

The founders of the Logical Fallacies would be proud.


There WAS wrong doing on the part of the Obama administration. Wow......

Panetta: I Knew Right Away Benghazi Was a 'Terrorist Attack' | The Weekly Standard
" President Obama's former defense secretary and CIA chief, Leon Panetta, told MSNBC today that he knew the Benghazi attack was a "terrorist attack" right away "

" I didn't have any specific information, but the fact was: when you bring grenade launchers to a demonstration, there's something else going on," said Panetta. "And I just, from the very beginning, sensed that this was an attack -- this was a terrorist attack on our compound."
 
Over 3000 Americans died during 9/11.

9/11 was used shamelessly to rally support for an invasion which cost over 4000 more American lives, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis.

It also helped Bush win re-election.

And you're making allegations about when an attack during Obama's administrated was designated as an act of terrorism?

Stop pretending that you care about the victims of Benghazi. No one is buying it.


Nonsense.. You people need to remind yourselves occasionally that WE ( Conservatives ) were NOT the people Gruber was referring to when he called the American voters idiots.'

We KNEW Obama and the Democrats were lying scum long before Gruber's comments were disclosed.

And why do you people continue to run and hide behind the false narrative of Bush's supposed " lies " about WMD ??

Oh that's right, you WERE the people Gruber was referring to....



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Final votes for Iraq Resolution

Party Yeas Nays Not

Republican 215 6 2
Democratic 82 126 1
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 297 133 3
 
Actually, Benghazi wasn't an embassy. Had it been an embassy there would have been a significant marine presence there. If you're going to rave, at least get your facts right.

Did I say that there was an U.S. Embassy in Benghazi ? No I did not, you are making **** up.

Now the Obama administration referred to it an State Department consulate and most of us have known since 2009 you can't believe any thing that comes from the Obama White House or any thing that comes from any of the executive branches of government.

What my post was referring to was that the political left starting in 2009 will report a car bombing outside the wall of an American Embassy or consulate as an attack on the later even though the perimeter wall hadn't been breached.
 
Over 3000 Americans died during 9/11.

9/11 was used shamelessly to rally support for an invasion which cost over 4000 more American lives, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilian Iraqis.

It also helped Bush win re-election.

And you're making allegations about when an attack during Obama's administrated was designated as an act of terrorism?

Stop pretending that you care about the victims of Benghazi. No one is buying it.

Or how about this? Remember these being pushed hard before the election of 2004?

347266883_dhs_threat_xlarge1_zpsae657fe2.jpeg



Exploiting fear in people. **** getting Bin Laden.

Flashback 2004: "Former US homeland security chief Tom Ridge charges in a new book that top aides to then-president George W. Bush pressured him to raise the "terror alert" level to sway the November 2004 US election."

USA TODAY reporting:

"The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled."

It's pretty ****ty to prey on people's fears to sway an election.
 
Here is what Senator Lindsey Graham has to say about this. As he was on the Senate Committee and what he and that Committee knows is a bit different since they had to file a lawsuit to get some answers. He isn't going for the Intel Community pointing the finger just at the State Dept.

 
What a stupid request.

Name one that fits the exact parameters of the exact situation I want to fit into my bubble of understanding of this political football so it jives with why I can make it *the same* - otherwise, no dice.

How lame.

Hey Fenton, you finally figure out there was no Embassy or Consulate in Benghazi?


You know whats lame ?

Your continued defense of what are essentially pathological liars.

Your attempt to minimize the deaths of four Americans.

That's lame
 
Or how about this? Remember these being pushed hard before the election of 2004?

347266883_dhs_threat_xlarge1_zpsae657fe2.jpeg



Exploiting fear in people. **** getting Bin Laden.

Flashback 2004: "Former US homeland security chief Tom Ridge charges in a new book that top aides to then-president George W. Bush pressured him to raise the "terror alert" level to sway the November 2004 US election."

USA TODAY reporting:

"The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.

Ridge, who resigned Feb. 1, said Tuesday that he often disagreed with administration officials who wanted to elevate the threat level to orange, or "high" risk of terrorist attack, but was overruled."

It's pretty ****ty to prey on people's fears to sway an election.



You're a hypocrite.

Trying to minimize ths deaths of four Americans because your'e too dishonest to admit you were lied too.

Did Bush attempt cover up the deaths of four Americans right before a Presidential election ?

Did Bush leave a consulate unprotected after a attack that blew a 12 foot hole in the compound wall ?

Hilary and Obama didn't even have a back up plan in place after EVERYONE else including the Red Cross bailed out.

Next time take a whole 3 minutes and vet your Presidential candidate properly before condemning the rest of America to the stupidity that is your blind allegiance to a corrupt ideology.
 
Oh dear, what will the True Believers say now



I wonder why the report was released late on a Friday

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/11/21/benghazi.report.pdf

That means the investigations by the Republican-led House are, what, 0-for-7 in their attempts to claim that the Obama, Hillary, et al somehow caused the death of the ambassador and/or tried to cover it up.

Which means that either the Democrats are so doggone smart and organized that even the House Intelligence Committee, with all its resources and influence, couldn't break the liberal Cosa Nostra...or there was simply nothing there to begin with.

But obviously it's all a grand conspiracy.....
 
Back
Top Bottom