• 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!

Rand Paul Calls Benghazi "Worst Tragedy Since 9/11"

Terrorists do not respect any authority that contradicts their own. Terrorists are agents of chaos, they create chaos and thrive in the chaos they create, to assume otherwise is a act of naïveté. We can assume very little, but one thing that is clear is that only a act of extrordernary foresight could have prevented this tragedy, because the ones who attacked us in Benghazi opertunisticly chose their moment to strike while we were distracted by events elsewhere.

It took no foresight whatsoever. The Ambassador had said months previous, and on several occasions, that they needed extra security. The Brits ahd pulled out and so had the Red Cross but in order to demonstrate their good will Obama and Hillary left their representatives behind to die. it is Hillary's fault it happened.

How could the people responsible for the security in Benghazi possibly have been distracted? Is that their excuse or are you manufacturing one for them?
 
Worst tragedy since 9-11? Just political Grand Standing.
My suggestion of the Worst-Tragedy-Since-911 Award would be The Iraq War.
Build upon trumped-up data, kill 100K civilians, pillaged the Treasury on no-bid contracts, etc, etc.
Any other suggestions welcome.
Just my $0.02

Of course in the Iraq War soldiers were trained and prepared to defend themselves. They stood together and fought together and their leaders supported them however they could.

That was not the case in Benghazi. Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton left these people to die on there own. That is a real tragedy, not just for those who died but for the American people as well.

There are those who will defend lies, corruption and incompetence no matter what level it sinks to because they belong to the same political frame of mind but there is a great deal of danger in that thinking, and we only need to read a bit of history to see where it leads.
 
Anyone who has been in an insurgent war, knows that the front lines are 360 degrees. Whether it was Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
What the argument has been missing, is that the war on terror is no different, only that the "green zone" is the United States.
In an insurgent war, the enemy always has the upper hand, because only they know what, when, and where they will strike.
We have hundreds of out posts around the world. Since we don't have enough Grunts to protect them all, we have 2 choices, or a combination of both, arm the outposts to the teeth, or draw down unnecessary deployment outposts.
Hind sight always brings out the ones who proclaim they would have done the right thing. Even to where a self proclaimed Libertarian knows what would have been best... Leaving out the fact that tragedies wouldn't happen, if we were not there.

The Brits and the Red Cross had no difficulty in assessing the situation and doing the right thing. Shillary couldn't.

She got where she is because she's married to Bill. That was her only qualification, and it shows.

S
 
If your daughter and/or son was one of the 20 children massacre in CT, would you still rank Benghazi as the worst tragedy since 9/11.

Why don't you ask Ambassador Steven's family where THEY'D rank it............
 
Let's not forget it was Bill Clinton's incompetence in handling the FIRST WTC attack that allowed THE SAME PEOPLE to come back and kill 3,000 Americans......
 
Well, I don't know how long the history is but one certainly cannot argue that it isn't what they are about today.

I am old enough to remember when the GOP was an honorable party on the side of the people over their corporate special interests. I long for the day when that becomes reality again. Some GOP'er's seemed to have got the message. Some are fighting tooth and nail in their denial.

Time will tell if the GOP get's with the program or not.

Speaking of denial. Barack Obama has collected nearly twice as much money as John McCain - NY Daily News

Obama and his Economic Advisor Jeff Immelt, Chairman of General Electric send union jobs to China

and where do you think all that 'stimulus' money was going to if not big business? Check out who's getting the billions in solar and wind businesses. and other profitable scams from the American taxpayer. Al Gore is just one of the many Democrats who have made billions duping their own fellow travelers.
 
and where do you think all that 'stimulus' money was going to if not big business? Check out who's getting the billions in solar and wind businesses. and other profitable scams from the American taxpayer. Al Gore is just one of the many Democrats who have made billions duping their own fellow travelers.[/QUOTE]


In fact, Wall Street bought and paid for Obama's Presidency, and there's a reason every level of his Administration looks like a "Who's Who" at Goldman Sachs...........

Have you noticed since "Bank Reform," everyone's complaining about new fees, while the banks are sitting on record profits....?

Let's not forget that B.O. was RAISED by a rich, 1%er bank Vice President..........
 
Calling the Benghazi incident the "worst tragedy since 9/11" is utterly hysterically ignorant.
I can think of a handful way worse.

I disagree! I think its quite shrewd. After all, he is merely appealing to his base: the hysterically ignorant
 
Didn't you mean the majority out of the 2/3rds of the population that didn't vote?


Nothing like being lose with the facts when it serves you correctly. Just to refine the facts: 118M out of 207M registered voters voted in 2012. That is 57% of the electorate. Given the state of the US electorate, one has to assume that many of those that did not vote do not care; likely because they have become disillusioned with US politics.

The vast majority of those not registered but part of the US population of 311M are under 18 and thus not eligible to vote.

We can only speculate where these people who didn't vote stand. But the majority of voters voted for Obama. No spin or diversion in the world can negate that fact.

Agreed. 51% of those interested and eligible to vote, voted for the President. Its silly to spin that any other way.

Somehow inferring the President is illegitimate because he did not have a majority of Americans vote for him is silliness. To extent that, I doubt we ever had a president win the majority of eligible voters. When Obama won in 2008, he was the first president in 20 years to even win more than 51% of the actual vote.
 
Last edited:
I disagree! I think its quite shrewd. After all, he is merely appealing to his base: the hysterically ignorant

Supporters of Rand Paul are 'hysterically ignorant"?

Whereas supporters of Barrack Obama are cool and intelligent?
 
Supporters of Rand Paul are 'hysterically ignorant"?

Whereas supporters of Barrack Obama are cool and intelligent?

Barack Obama's base consists of people living in every ghetto, project, ward and barrio in America.......

You know, the more educated and enlightened folks in their party............
 
Rand Paul is the latest far right wing GOP wet dream fulfillment. He embodies the full complement of wacko beliefs that the far right so dearly loves. My fondest hope is that he does indeed run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016, gets royally screwed out of it, and goes rogue forming his own third party and mounts a serious run that way.

He will lack no support from the tri-cornered folks on this site on others. The only drawback with that is that they spend lots of time fighting the political wars on a computer and do next to nothing our on the streets where the actual door to door work is done to win elections.
Thanks God Kentucky,is a small Commonwealth,with only four million plus people in it. Rand Paul, would probably get two million votes here, if he was running a presidential campaign in 2016.Once you leave the urban cities of Lexington,Ky. and Louisville,Ky. it's his in this Commonwealth! :peace
 
Barack Obama's base consists of people living in every ghetto, project, ward and barrio in America.......

You know, the more educated and enlightened folks in their party............

Yes, as well as 72% of persons in teaching positions in colleges and universities... they would be considered the highly educated. OTH, the Republican base consists of bigots, hillbillies and persons that live in states that are net takers of government funds.... That said, "consists of"is not the same thing as "substantially comprised of"...

No, "hysterically ignorant" includes those that think the your can cut $500B out of a budget in one year and expect the deficit to fall by $500B; that believe you can balance the budget in 5 years (though admittedly, may be the most plausible of the Rand platform); that believe if you ended welfare (or medicaid or medicare) that the problems that welfare (medicaid or medicare) attempts to address just go away and cost taxpayers nothing; think global warming is a farce; or, even, for that matter, think the Republicans, as a whole, are really interested in actually balancing the budget; or thinking that Benghazi is the worst tragedy to befall America since 9/11.
 
Last edited:
I can agree with most of what you said. Let me add that the Tea Party had a lot to do with many Republican voters not voting. IMHO, the extremism in the party kept them from voting.

You are absolutely Right.....even tho it wasn't Lou Dobbs and his Independent Tea party people. That and some of the Personalities like Murdoch and Akin. Plus Palin put her foot into her mouth several times as well. Course Romney didn't help the cause much.
 
the conservative delusion continues: you're going extinct guys. Nobody wants more tax cuts for Paris Hilton and deregulation for Goldman Sachs.



Nah.....that's just the dose of reality that keeps steeping off in lefts space while twisting the thorn blatantly in their side. Course no one wants more tax cuts for the Lefts Poster Girl in Hollywood. Course many don't like hearing from Hollywood types like Spielberg who all back Obama.....thinking their film scripts pose as actual reality.

Hence those Heroes of yours.....U know, Michael Moore, George Clooney and the Cast of MSDNC.
 
Nothing like being lose with the facts when it serves you correctly. Just to refine the facts: 118M out of 207M registered voters voted in 2012. That is 57% of the electorate. Given the state of the US electorate, one has to assume that many of those that did not vote do not care; likely because they have become disillusioned with US politics.

The vast majority of those not registered but part of the US population of 311M are under 18 and thus not eligible to vote.



Agreed. 51% of those interested and eligible to vote, voted for the President. Its silly to spin that any other way.

Somehow inferring the President is illegitimate because he did not have a majority of Americans vote for him is silliness. To extent that, I doubt we ever had a president win the majority of eligible voters. When Obama won in 2008, he was the first president in 20 years to even win more than 51% of the actual vote.

Turnout in this year's presidential and Senate primaries was the lowest on record, at 15.9 percent of eligible citizens, a new report found.

Turnout reached record lows for presidential election years in 15 of 41 states which held statewide primaries in both parties. Democratic turnout dropped to record lows in 26 of 41 primaries. In the 46 states where Republican primaries were held, there were eight record lows and three record highs," according to the report by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

The findings run counter to the common-sense notion that a close election means high turnout.

Democratic turnout was at record lows in Alabama, at 5.3 percent of eligible voters, and 25 other states, including Maryland, at 8 percent. Presidential primaries in most states have been in place since 1972, so the national Democratic turnout was lower than in all recent cycles in which Democrats did not have a contested presidential primary.

Read more: Voter turnout for 2012 statewide primaries was lowest on record - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Did you think the Center for the Study of the American Electorate got their numbers wrong?
 
Turnout in this year's presidential and Senate primaries was the lowest on record, at 15.9 percent of eligible citizens, a new report found.

Turnout reached record lows for presidential election years in 15 of 41 states which held statewide primaries in both parties. Democratic turnout dropped to record lows in 26 of 41 primaries. In the 46 states where Republican primaries were held, there were eight record lows and three record highs," according to the report by the Center for the Study of the American Electorate.

The findings run counter to the common-sense notion that a close election means high turnout.

Democratic turnout was at record lows in Alabama, at 5.3 percent of eligible voters, and 25 other states, including Maryland, at 8 percent. Presidential primaries in most states have been in place since 1972, so the national Democratic turnout was lower than in all recent cycles in which Democrats did not have a contested presidential primary.

Read more: Voter turnout for 2012 statewide primaries was lowest on record - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Did you think the Center for the Study of the American Electorate got their numbers wrong?

My numbers were based on the election, not the primaries. The primaries, almost by definition, field a low voter turnout... they are party functions. A large percent of the electorate are independents....Moreover, the primary of a incumbent party, particularly in a state dominated by the opposite party is not going to draw interest. The primaries on the other side were fundamentally a clown show; there was general lack of interest in the field as a whole than what we typically witness. The party was lukewarm on its eventual nominee. This was one of the biggest ho-hum elections of the modern era.

I am not certain what you are trying to get at showing us primary voting turnout, particularly when by comments were about the general election. Who cares about primary turnout, especially given the aforementioned factors? Low turnout in primaries is more an indictment of a flawed election process than lack of voter participation,
 
You are absolutely Right.....even tho it wasn't Lou Dobbs and his Independent Tea party people. That and some of the Personalities like Murdoch and Akin. Plus Palin put her foot into her mouth several times as well. Course Romney didn't help the cause much.

Well, this is the problem. In the Beginning, the Tea Party wasn't about Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, or anybody else but grass roots locals who had legitimate concerns. But what was a great beginning was destroyed when the Republican Party co-opted the Tea Party and hijacked it, forcing their own agenda into it. At that point, it was no longer the Tea Party, but just another political party's douche bag of tricks. It is ironic that a popular movement, whose claim to fame was no party affiliation, was eventually destroyed by a party affiliation that was forced upon them.
 
Last edited:
Well, this is the problem. In the Beginning, the Tea Party wasn't about Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, or anybody else but grass roots locals who had legitimate concerns. But what was a great beginning was destroyed when the Republican Party co-opted the Tea Party and hijacked it, forcing their own agenda into it. At that point, it was no longer the Tea Party, but just another political party's douche bag of tricks. It is ironic that a popular movement, whose claim to fame was no party affiliation, was eventually destroyed by a party affiliation that was forced upon them.

Well when it comes to politics it's like this thread and the way it was put up. Not so much on the hearing but moreso over what Pauls Remarks were over comparing this with other tragedies. In which he had made others over Benghazi anyways.

Otherwise the left doesn't want to really look and see how far this rabbit hole goes. Hence the Avoidance and Conspiracy rational and or excuses over it.
 
Barack Obama's base consists of people living in every ghetto, project, ward and barrio in America.......

You know, the more educated and enlightened folks in their party............

Jingal wants you to put a lid on it. You're making the party look bad.
 
I can agree with most of what you said. Let me add that the Tea Party had a lot to do with many Republican voters not voting. IMHO, the extremism in the party kept them from voting.

Yes, in the America of today talk of cutting government spending or expecting accountability is considered "extremism". That's why the country is failing.
 
Jingal wants you to put a lid on it. You're making the party look bad.

No one in the Republican party can withstand the demonization of the Leftists and their mainstream media. Mitt Romney and his family were some of the best America had to offer andbecause of that they could not run on records so they ay-ttacked the man and his wife. Even to try the truth with Obama is 'racist".

The same holds true on this thread.

Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton were clearly responsible for what happened in Benghazi but who ever mentions it, like Rand Paul, is demonized and hen the conversation again moves to criticism of the Republicans.

Am
 
Turnout in this year's presidential and Senate primaries was the lowest on record, at 15.9 percent of eligible citizens, a new report found.

Let's see... round that figure to 16%, subtract an estimated 10% who always vote for the party they cheerlead for, and we're left with 6% of the population who actually chose the president. Estimate 200m million eligible voters, and we have 12 million voters who actually made a difference. The final tally was about 49% Romney and 51% Obama, and we're left with approximately six million who elected the president, less than the population of Los Angeles.

But, those figures could be off. It might have been a lot fewer than that.
 
It always tickles me when our more extreme rightwingers take it upon themselves to speak for the "USA." I always think to myself, "You got a mouse in your pocket?"

He may be your enemy Travis, but most of the USA, certainly the majority, support Obama and not you or your brand of politics. Mathmatically, where the majority rules, doesn't that make you an enemy to the USA moreso than Obama?

It always tickles me when someone comments on something and they are clueless...
 


Yes, as well as 72% of persons in teaching positions in colleges and universities... they would be considered the highly educated.

You mean the folks who buy Democrats their political offices, so they can demand more from the poor students in the way of Student Loans, while they get paid ridiculous amounts NOT to teach?

Yeah, so smart, they don't even know they're the FIRST folks who get put against a wall and shot when their schemes of "the greater village" finally bear fruit.....

Most of them are just left over 60's radicals who couldn't make it in the tougher fields.
 
Back
Top Bottom