• 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

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.....



Heya Glen :2wave: Graham and the Senate Committee have a different take.....can you point out where Graham is wrong? He was one that was actually Questioning people. Like Graham says he isn't going for the Intel Community passing the buck onto the State Dept.


Oh and the one report that will matter is from the Select committee. That's the investigation that is still on going.
 
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.

No, but I do remember Bush lying us into a war where thousands of American military personnel (and over 100K Iraqi citizens) were killed. Remember, the invasion of Iraq was discussed in Bush's very first cabinet meeting, several months before 9/11 happened. 9/11 simply provided him a convenient excuse to go forward with the invasion.

Here's more:

In February 2001, a month after Bush’s inauguration, White House officials discussed a memo called “Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,” which described troop requirements, establishing war crimes tribunals, and dividing up Iraq’s oil wealth.” Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was astonished to discover that actual plans “were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it – complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals – carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war.” According to O’Neill, a preemptive attack on Iraq and the prospect of dividing the world’s second largest oil reserve among the world’s contractors “made for an irresistible combination.”
 
No, but I do remember Bush lying us into a war where thousands of American military personnel (and over 100K Iraqi citizens) were killed. Remember, the invasion of Iraq was discussed in Bush's very first cabinet meeting, several months before 9/11 happened. 9/11 simply provided him a convenient excuse to go forward with the invasion.

Here's more:

In February 2001, a month after Bush’s inauguration, White House officials discussed a memo called “Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,” which described troop requirements, establishing war crimes tribunals, and dividing up Iraq’s oil wealth.” Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was astonished to discover that actual plans “were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it – complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals – carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war.” According to O’Neill, a preemptive attack on Iraq and the prospect of dividing the world’s second largest oil reserve among the world’s contractors “made for an irresistible combination.”



Well that won't help here with Benghazi Glen. Which really the whole issue of Libya should also be put into play with all BO had to say and not just Benghazi. Which then there is another issue connected to another country that is also involved.
 
Heya Glen :2wave: Graham and the Senate Committee have a different take.....can you point out where Graham is wrong? He was one that was actually Questioning people. Like Graham says he isn't going for the Intel Community passing the buck onto the State Dept.


Oh and the one report that will matter is from the Select committee. That's the investigation that is still on going.

Hi, MMC. Had to stay away for a while - life happened. You'd have loved it - a grand case of government overreach.
The state came by and shut down our business thanks to pictures that we have since proven were staged and sent in with false claims...but the state investigator never asked our side of the story, and now we're going through the appeal process and they're represented by an Assistant Attorney General...whereas it's just me representing my wife and myself. But I sorta feel sorry for that AAG because the state handed them a bum case, and - God willing - I'm going to rub their noses in it. It's a long, long story, but I can prove that the state witnesses changed their testimony, that the investigator changed words from her notes to her official allegations, and that in most of the investigation, never ever asked our side of the story concerning the allegations. So if we do indeed win, I can't go around bragging I beat an AAG - they were handed a mostly-indefensible case. In mid-January I'll drop off the radar again so I can prepare for the last three days of the case in early February.

Government overreach shutting down my wife's small business on false pretenses - it's almost enough for this liberal to start yelling for small government. The irony is that the lead investigator and her husband are prominent Republicans in the county....

But back to the discussion -

Well, seeing as how Graham wouldn't say why he dismissed the report's findings, but would only 'suggest' people were lying, well, no, I don't really give a whole lot of weight to his claim. That, and this IS the 7th investigation in the GOP-led House's quest to blame it all on the Dems. And they've shot nothing but blanks. So either Dems are THAT good and THAT sneaky and THAT organized and THAT dedicated to an unbreakable code of silence...or there's no 'there' there. From The Hill:

Graham didn’t clearly pinpoint why he dismissed the report’s findings, but suggested its information was provided by people in the intelligence community who had previously lied to Congress about the attack.
 
Well that won't help here with Benghazi Glen. Which really the whole issue of Libya should also be put into play with all BO had to say and not just Benghazi. Which then there is another issue connected to another country that is also involved.

I only brought up Bush and Iraq because Fenton was apparently thinking that Bush was some kind of cowboy with a white hat.
 
Hi, MMC. Had to stay away for a while - life happened. You'd have loved it - a grand case of government overreach.
The state came by and shut down our business thanks to pictures that we have since proven were staged and sent in with false claims...but the state investigator never asked our side of the story, and now we're going through the appeal process and they're represented by an Assistant Attorney General...whereas it's just me representing my wife and myself. But I sorta feel sorry for that AAG because the state handed them a bum case, and - God willing - I'm going to rub their noses in it. It's a long, long story, but I can prove that the state witnesses changed their testimony, that the investigator changed words from her notes to her official allegations, and that in most of the investigation, never ever asked our side of the story concerning the allegations. So if we do indeed win, I can't go around bragging I beat an AAG - they were handed a mostly-indefensible case. In mid-January I'll drop off the radar again so I can prepare for the last three days of the case in early February.

Government overreach shutting down my wife's small business on false pretenses - it's almost enough for this liberal to start yelling for small government. The irony is that the lead investigator and her husband are prominent Republicans in the county....

But back to the discussion -

Well, seeing as how Graham wouldn't say why he dismissed the report's findings, but would only 'suggest' people were lying, well, no, I don't really give a whole lot of weight to his claim. That, and this IS the 7th investigation in the GOP-led House's quest to blame it all on the Dems. And they've shot nothing but blanks. So either Dems are THAT good and THAT sneaky and THAT organized and THAT dedicated to an unbreakable code of silence...or there's no 'there' there. From The Hill:

Graham didn’t clearly pinpoint why he dismissed the report’s findings, but suggested its information was provided by people in the intelligence community who had previously lied to Congress about the attack.



Sure he did, he Pointed out to who and when the talking points were changed. Which came out from the after the lawsuit being Filed. Which was what the Senate Committee and also from the Independent Investigation came up with when looking at the State Dept.

Also, he gives out the Info that Susan Rice didn't have. Yet someone gave her that talking point. See Graham knows that Intel can't blame just themselves. Nor say.....that nothing was politically motivated.
 
No, but I do remember Bush lying us into a war where thousands of American military personnel (and over 100K Iraqi citizens) were killed. Remember, the invasion of Iraq was discussed in Bush's very first cabinet meeting, several months before 9/11 happened. 9/11 simply provided him a convenient excuse to go forward with the invasion.

Here's more:

In February 2001, a month after Bush’s inauguration, White House officials discussed a memo called “Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq,” which described troop requirements, establishing war crimes tribunals, and dividing up Iraq’s oil wealth.” Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill was astonished to discover that actual plans “were already being discussed to take over Iraq and occupy it – complete with disposition of oil fields, peacekeeping forces, and war crimes tribunals – carrying forward an unspoken doctrine of preemptive war.” According to O’Neill, a preemptive attack on Iraq and the prospect of dividing the world’s second largest oil reserve among the world’s contractors “made for an irresistible combination.”


More nonsense

Numerous Democrats alluded to Saddam's growing stock pile of WMD prior to the bi-partisan vote on the Iraq resolution.

Even Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and John Kerry and Al Gore.

In 2008 the Air Force airlifted Tons of yellow cake Uranium out of Iraq and the recent disclosure of thousands of warheads filled chemical agents pretty much debunks the lefts claims that Bush lied about WMD.

Anyway, this thread is about a unprecedented Democrat covering up of the deaths of four Americans for political purposes.

Not about debunked false narratives like " Bush lied people died "
 
More nonsense

Numerous Democrats alluded to Saddam's growing stock pile of WMD prior to the bi-partisan vote on the Iraq resolution.

Even Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and John Kerry and Al Gore.

In 2008 the Air Force airlifted Tons of yellow cake Uranium out of Iraq and the recent disclosure of thousands of warheads filled chemical agents pretty much debunks the lefts claims that Bush lied about WMD.

Anyway, this thread is about a unprecedented Democrat covering up of the deaths of four Americans for political purposes.

Not about debunked false narratives like " Bush lied people died "

Have I told you lately how much I admire you not letting others get away with revisionism? Something often done in history but as of late it now involves recent or current affairs. Kudos.
 
More nonsense

Numerous Democrats alluded to Saddam's growing stock pile of WMD prior to the bi-partisan vote on the Iraq resolution.

Even Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and John Kerry and Al Gore.

In 2008 the Air Force airlifted Tons of yellow cake Uranium out of Iraq and the recent disclosure of thousands of warheads filled chemical agents pretty much debunks the lefts claims that Bush lied about WMD.

Anyway, this thread is about a unprecedented Democrat covering up of the deaths of four Americans for political purposes.

Not about debunked false narratives like " Bush lied people died "

And the reason the Dems were voting for it was that they BELIEVED the intel given them via the Bush Administration. Yes, Fenton, we WERE lied into that war. And no, yellowcake is NOT WMD:

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

But the yellowcake had not been processed, and Iraq was decades away from having enough centrifuges in order to do so. If Iraq had really wanted nukes, they could have bought them more cheaply from Pakistan.
 
Hi, MMC. Had to stay away for a while - life happened. You'd have loved it - a grand case of government overreach.
The state came by and shut down our business thanks to pictures that we have since proven were staged and sent in with false claims...but the state investigator never asked our side of the story, and now we're going through the appeal process and they're represented by an Assistant Attorney General...whereas it's just me representing my wife and myself. But I sorta feel sorry for that AAG because the state handed them a bum case, and - God willing - I'm going to rub their noses in it. It's a long, long story, but I can prove that the state witnesses changed their testimony, that the investigator changed words from her notes to her official allegations, and that in most of the investigation, never ever asked our side of the story concerning the allegations. So if we do indeed win, I can't go around bragging I beat an AAG - they were handed a mostly-indefensible case. In mid-January I'll drop off the radar again so I can prepare for the last three days of the case in early February.

Government overreach shutting down my wife's small business on false pretenses - it's almost enough for this liberal to start yelling for small government. The irony is that the lead investigator and her husband are prominent Republicans in the county....

But back to the discussion -

Well, seeing as how Graham wouldn't say why he dismissed the report's findings, but would only 'suggest' people were lying, well, no, I don't really give a whole lot of weight to his claim. That, and this IS the 7th investigation in the GOP-led House's quest to blame it all on the Dems. And they've shot nothing but blanks. So either Dems are THAT good and THAT sneaky and THAT organized and THAT dedicated to an unbreakable code of silence...or there's no 'there' there. From The Hill:

Graham didn’t clearly pinpoint why he dismissed the report’s findings, but suggested its information was provided by people in the intelligence community who had previously lied to Congress about the attack.

Greetings, Glen Contrarian. :2wave:

I just wanted to jump in here to say Good Luck! Political parties aside, we are all humans, and everyone should be outraged by how you were treated! This just isn't right, and it's outrageous to hear about! The fact that you have to take the time to defend yourself against this is not only unjust, but costly to you! :bs Again, Good Luck!
 
Greetings, Glen Contrarian. :2wave:

I just wanted to jump in here to say Good Luck! Political parties aside, we are all humans, and everyone should be outraged by how you were treated! This just isn't right, and it's outrageous to hear about! The fact that you have to take the time to defend yourself against this is not only unjust, but costly to you! :bs Again, Good Luck!

Thanks - actually, I consider myself very fortunate that I have the time and (admittedly amateur) ability to defend us. I just feel sorry for all the ones who don't have the time to do so.
 
"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


2014-11-23_15-57-36.jpg
 
And the reason the Dems were voting for it was that they BELIEVED the intel given them via the Bush Administration. Yes, Fenton, we WERE lied into that war. And no, yellowcake is NOT WMD:

While yellowcake alone is not considered potent enough for a so-called "dirty bomb" — a conventional explosive that disperses radioactive material — it could stir widespread panic if incorporated in a blast. Yellowcake also can be enriched for use in reactors and, at higher levels, nuclear weapons using sophisticated equipment.

But the yellowcake had not been processed, and Iraq was decades away from having enough centrifuges in order to do so. If Iraq had really wanted nukes, they could have bought them more cheaply from Pakistan.

The Dems believed it before there was even a Bush Administration.

Please read this and stop the silliness. It's just a waste of space!

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes
 
Heya Glen :2wave: Graham and the Senate Committee have a different take.....can you point out where Graham is wrong? He was one that was actually Questioning people. Like Graham says he isn't going for the Intel Community passing the buck onto the State Dept.


Oh and the one report that will matter is from the Select committee. That's the investigation that is still on going.

Exactly, and that is still ongoing. Trey Gowdy Captains Benghazi Investigation As The Anti-Issa
 
Heya Grant. :2wave: The House Intel Committee knows it hasn't debunked what the Senate Intel Committee came up with. Nor can they get around that it took a Lawsuit to compel who and how those talking points were changed.

The Grubers are jumping the gun more than just a little bit. How they can claim its over when there have been no significant witnesses called is a mystery.
 
The Dems believed it before there was even a Bush Administration.

Please read this and stop the silliness. It's just a waste of space!

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

Did you stop reading at the word "True?"

Here, I'll help for cart it over for ya:

"All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them

— several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
"

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

Context. It's a bitch.
 
The Grubers are jumping the gun more than just a little bit. How they can claim its over when there have been no significant witnesses called is a mystery.

That's why Gowdy went with the depositions. Notice how that has kept Cummings and his mouth shut. He should make sure to make a big deal about calling Hillary once she drops her hat into the Ring. Then she can explain why she never checked back on her people after she talked to Hicks.

Wasn't even concerned if they made it out alive or not. Her actions show it for what it is. Nobody with common sense wants someone to not even care about their people to be leading this country.
 
Did you stop reading at the word "True?"

Here, I'll help for cart it over for ya:

"All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them

— several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
"

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

Context. It's a bitch.

Then take the quotes you choose and out them 'in context'!
 
Problem is, you're reading snopes and taking their word as gospel.

Really? Point out the quotes which are untrue and they'll be withdrawn.

These quotes aren't exclusive to any one website, btw. You can check them for yourself if you're interested in learning before posting.
 
Did you stop reading at the word "True?"

Here, I'll help for cart it over for ya:

"All of the quotes listed above are substantially correct reproductions of statements made by various Democratic leaders regarding Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's acquisition or possession of weapons of mass destruction. However, some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them

— several of these quotes were offered in the course of statements that clearly indicated the speaker was decidedly against unilateral military intervention in Iraq by the U.S. Moreover, several of the quotes offered antedate the four nights of airstrikes unleashed against Iraq by U.S. and British forces during Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, after which Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen and Gen. Henry H. Shelton (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) announced the action had been successful in "degrad[ing] Saddam Hussein's ability to deliver chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
"

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

Context. It's a bitch.
Here's something you can look at and listen to as well..

Clinton Orders Missile Attack (1993) - YouTube

Democrats Hypocrisy Over The Iraq War - YouTube

Democrats before Iraq War started.... - YouTube
 

Yet obviously the Democrats never believed there was sufficient evidence of an ongoing Iraqi WMD program to justify going to war, expending thousands of U.S. lives, and spending trillions of dollars on it.

Had Clinton still been president in 2003, we would not have gone into Iraq and we would be better off because of that today. Instead we would have continued the policy of containment we had with Iraq throughout the 90s. The mess that is the Middle East today is entirely the fault of the bad decisions of the Bush Administration. The civil war in Syria, the rise of Iran, and ISIS is all the direct result of our going into Iraq.
 
Yet obviously the Democrats never believed there was sufficient evidence of an ongoing Iraqi WMD program to justify going to war, expending thousands of U.S. lives, and spending trillions of dollars on it. Had Clinton still been president in 2003, we would not have gone into Iraq and we would be better off because of that today. Instead we would have continued the policy of containment we had with Iraq throughout the 90s. The mess that is the Middle East today is entirely the fault of the bad decisions of the Bush Administration. The civil war in Syria, the rise of Iran, and ISIS is all the direct result of our going into Iraq.
The reason Gruber calls Obama supporters 'S____D' is largely because they demonstrate their feelings and beliefs and thus have to ignore facts.

You could have investigated this as easily as I but chose not to, for some reason. The why behind that would be interesting. Hillary Clinton Iraq War Vote Speech - YouTube
 
Back
Top Bottom