• 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!

McCain claims ‘massive cover-up’ on Benghazi

APACHERAT

APACHERAT

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
15,633
Reaction score
6,159
Location
Behind the Orange Curtain
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
On Sunday Sen. John McCain accused the Obama White House of a "massive cover-up" on "Meet the Press.

Most of us know that the only thing Richard M. Nixon was guilty of was after learning of the Watergate break in, was the cover up from the White House until after the elections.

For a year President Obama ran on "Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run." But the real truth was, Al Qaeda was on the run, running all over the Middle East and North Africa expanding their base of operations. Then on September 11th, 2012, four Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya. And this is where the cover-up begins. Obama ran for reelection on lies and he had to cover-up the Al Qaeda murder of four Americans or his lies about Al Qaeda being on the run would be exposed before the elections.

>" While discussing the contentious confirmation hearings for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, things got a bit heated on Sunday's "Meet The Press" when Sen. John McCain referred to the lack of information from the White House surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi as a "massive cover-up."

"There are so many answers we don't know," McCain told host David Gregory. "We've had two movies about getting bin Laden and we don't even know who the people were who were evacuated from the consulate the day after the [Benghazi] attack. So there are many, many questions. So we've had a massive cover-up on the part of the administration."

Gregory then pressed McCain on what the Arizona senator meant by "a massive cover-up."

"I'm asking you, do you care whether four Americans died?" McCain said. "And shouldn't people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died?"

"Well, what you said was the cover-up--a cover-up of what?" Gregory asked.

"Of the information concerning the deaths of four brave Americans," McCain replied. "The information has not been forthcoming. You obviously believe that it has. I know that it hasn't. And I'll be glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered, including 'What did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi?'"McCain continued: "Why did the president for two weeks, for two weeks during the heat of the campaign continue to say he didn't know whether it was a terrorist attack or not? Is it because it interfered with the line 'Al Qaeda has [been] decimated'? And 'everything's fine in that in that part of the world'? Maybe. We don't know. But we need the answers. Then we'll reach conclusions. But we have not received the answers. And that's a fact."

McCain claims
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Benghazi is nothing more than a means to attack the President, and its quite shameful that this tragedy was turned into something like that. When the event first happened the first thing we were hearing was that Obama wanted to blame a video on YouTube for the attack, it wasn't calls for an investigation or anything productive, it just an attempt to make Obama seem like A) he blames Americans for these kinds of attacks and B) he is against our 1st amendment. Since then its evolved to theories that the State Department had ignored cables from the consulate which made requests for more security but were denied, ignored or unknown by upper leadership for a variety of reasons.

When you listen to questions by the Republicans when hearing Clinton's testimony its a ****ing joke, everything is about trying to find a gotcha somewhere in there, hardly any effort is given to figure out exactly what happened there unless Clinton or Obama were PERSONALLY involved so they could make politics out of it even more. And just as bad the Dems in that hearing were just pitching softballs, constantly thanking her, and I think someone asked what were some good New York restaurants.

Nothing about what happened, what went wrong, how can we avoid it, what's being done different now. Too much blame game, not enough problem solving.

Anyone who wants to know what happened should read this:

Scribd
 
Wiseone said:
Benghazi is nothing more than a means to attack the President, and its quite shameful that this tragedy was turned into something like that. When the event first happened the first thing we were hearing was that Obama wanted to blame a video on YouTube for the attack, it wasn't calls for an investigation or anything productive, it just an attempt to make Obama seem like A) he blames Americans for these kinds of attacks and B) he is against our 1st amendment. Since then its evolved to theories that the State Department had ignored cables from the consulate which made requests for more security but were denied, ignored or unknown by upper leadership for a variety of reasons.

When you listen to questions by the Republicans when hearing Clinton's testimony its a ****ing joke, everything is about trying to find a gotcha somewhere in there, hardly any effort is given to figure out exactly what happened there unless Clinton or Obama were PERSONALLY involved so they could make politics out of it even more. And just as bad the Dems in that hearing were just pitching softballs, constantly thanking her, and I think someone asked what were some good New York restaurants.

Nothing about what happened, what went wrong, how can we avoid it, what's being done different now. Too much blame game, not enough problem solving.

Anyone who wants to know what happened should read this:

Scribd
Click to expand...

See if you can understand this:

Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives. There isn't an American combat soldier alive, past or present, that wouldn't have volunteered immediately for that mission. Gunships circling the embassy and firing into the attackers would have accomplished the goal. Those gunships, with brave American fighting men were available and ready to go.

That is why America's latest Medal of Honor winner, when asked to attend Obama's inauguration and sit with the President's wife, said NO. Obama is not one of us, he does not have America's historical warrior spirit. He has no natural feel for fighting men, no natural feel for duty, honor, country and courage.

The infantile loons of course, simply bleat that the meanies are attacking their beloved messiah, the unfairness of it all.
 
I doubt this will be the end of Obama. I'm not a supporter of either major party, but it sickens me that the GOP is still politicizing this national tragedy several months later, while the Democrats remained silent during the 12 embassy/consulate attacks that happened under Bush. Either call presidents out on all of these events, or shut up. This is not the sort of thing that needs to be turned into a political weapon. Four Americans are dead; do you think they would want their deaths to become a sideline fact in a political ****fest?
 
Ray410 said:
See if you can understand this:

Four Americans, dying, desperately called for help and the President, in effect, said "No, let them die." That is what he said, when he could have helped, could have saved their lives. There isn't an American combat soldier alive, past or present, that wouldn't have volunteered immediately for that mission. Gunships circling the embassy and firing into the attackers would have accomplished the goal. Those gunships, with brave American fighting men were available and ready to go.

That is why America's latest Medal of Honor winner, when asked to attend Obama's inauguration and sit with the President's wife, said NO. Obama is not one of us, he does not have America's historical warrior spirit. He has no natural feel for fighting men, no natural feel for duty, honor, country and courage.

The infantile loons of course, simply bleat that the meanies are attacking their beloved messiah, the unfairness of it all.
Click to expand...

I guess if you want to stick with the bull**** narrative you're free to do so, but again if you want the actual results of the investigation, which are not very kind at all to the adminstration they can be found here

Scribd

The attacks were security related, involving arson, small arms and machine gunfire, and the use of RPGs, grenades, and mortars against U.S. personnel at twoseparate facilities – the SMC and the Annex – and en route between them.Responsibility for the tragic loss of life, injuries, and damage to U.S. facilitiesand property rests solely and completely with the terrorists who perpetrated theattacks. The Board concluded that there was no protest prior to the attacks,which were unanticipated in their scale and intensity.2.

Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levelswithin two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in aSpecial Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grosslyinadequate to deal with the attack that took place.Security in Benghazi was not recognized and implemented as a “sharedresponsibility” by the bureaus in Washington charged with supporting the post,resulting in stove-piped discussions and decisions on policy and security. Thatsaid, Embassy Tripoli did not demonstrate strong and sustained advocacy withWashington for increased security for Special Mission Benghazi.The short-term, transitory nature of Special Mission Benghazi’s staffing, withtalented and committed, but relatively inexperienced, American personnel oftenon temporary assignments of 40 days or less, resulted in diminishedinstitutional knowledge, continuity, and mission capacity
Click to expand...

And that's just on the fourth page. So if you read it you can both criticize the administration and have a ****ing clue about what you talking about, hurray!
 
Never. Not as long as Democrats are in control of the Senate.

They'd rather lock up their own children than do/say anything against Lord Obama.
 
Velvet Elvis said:
Never. Not as long as Democrats are in control of the Senate.

They'd rather lock up their own children than do/say anything against Lord Obama.
Click to expand...

These are the kind of comments that really show off how people will sometimes voluntarily become completely ignorant to enjoy the simplicity of an easy narrative. Is not the world so much simple and easy to comprehend when you view it in as a binary system, where all Democrats line up precisely behind one man whom you can direct your anger at, saving you the trouble of having to acknowledge differences amongst them?
 
So something went wrong; 4 Americans died; and asking questions about what went wrong is wrong? If nothing else, it guarantees that it does not happen again. Partisan politics be damned. Let the chips fall where they may. Keeping people from having answers sure as hell seems like a cover up of something to me.
 
Benghazi will not be the downfall of President Obama because there is no such thing as a moral and curious press when it comes to President Obama.

In the case of Nixon, you had a press that hated the man and went full bore to bring him down. In the case of Clinton, you had a press that loved the man and went full bore to dismiss and excuse his actions when they failed in hiding them. In the case of Bush II, you had a press that hated the man and went full bore to attack his every move. With Obama, you again have a press that loves the man, is highly invested in the man, they built him up and propelled him into the White House and they will do nothing that jeapordizes that.
 
The federal gov't is just too darn big to keep track of. It has thousands of programs, often with overlapping mission statements, many are so obscure that even their own department heads could not name them on a bet. Yet, each year, they are funded and deemed "needed" simply because they provide carreers for federal (and state) employees. What boongdoggles like fast & fuzzy, GSA parties, Solyndra and Benghazi should tell us is that when things "go wrong" nobody (high up) is ever "responsible" - a few peons are blamed for "using bad judgement" and all continues with little, if any, changes in their organizational sturcture.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97337.pdf

Top ten: wasteful government programs | The Daily Caller

These are the WH "recommended" federal programs just for "drug abuse prevention":

Included in this directory are substance abuse prevention programs with the goal of stopping drug use before it starts. It is important to note that the grant programs listed here often have more than one permissible use competing with drug prevention for the limited grant funds. For each program, the agency name, operating unit or bureau, program name, program-identifying number (CFDA), grantee types, grant type, grant program description, and recent appropriated and requested amount available to grantees are listed.
Click to expand...

Directory of Federally Funded Prevention Programs | The White House
 
This reminds me of the Trevor Martin-Zimmerman killing. When the President mentioned Trevor Martin being killed many here asked how come he wasn't concerned about the thousand of other young men violenty killed in our streets. And that same thing applies here that many have jumped on the bandwagon about these four Americans being killed but what about the other thousands killed in our Middle East foray.

I can't forsee anytime in my lifetime that Americans can ever feel safe in the Middle East. What happened in Benghazi is a tragedy and so is ever American soldier killed there.
 
Each Family of the 4 Americans who died in Benghazi, as well as each American, need to know the true facts, of what happened in Benghazi,

this Has Nothing to do with Politics, tho alot of the Politicians on both sides have tried to make it that way, let the Chips fall to who & where they may,

IF there is Nothing to Cover up, then........... No-one should have a problem with this, its Simply a matter Of Honor, which America was built on,
And to this Day, Stands upon.
 
APACHERAT said:
On Sunday Sen. John McCain accused the Obama White House of a "massive cover-up" on "Meet the Press.

Most of us know that the only thing Richard M. Nixon was guilty of was after learning of the Watergate break in, was the cover up from the White House until after the elections.

For a year President Obama ran on "Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run." But the real truth was, Al Qaeda was on the run, running all over the Middle East and North Africa expanding their base of operations. Then on September 11th, 2012, four Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya. And this is where the cover-up begins. Obama ran for reelection on lies and he had to cover-up the Al Qaeda murder of four Americans or his lies about Al Qaeda being on the run would be exposed before the elections.

>" While discussing the contentious confirmation hearings for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, things got a bit heated on Sunday's "Meet The Press" when Sen. John McCain referred to the lack of information from the White House surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi as a "massive cover-up."

"There are so many answers we don't know," McCain told host David Gregory. "We've had two movies about getting bin Laden and we don't even know who the people were who were evacuated from the consulate the day after the [Benghazi] attack. So there are many, many questions. So we've had a massive cover-up on the part of the administration."

Gregory then pressed McCain on what the Arizona senator meant by "a massive cover-up."

"I'm asking you, do you care whether four Americans died?" McCain said. "And shouldn't people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died?"

"Well, what you said was the cover-up--a cover-up of what?" Gregory asked.

"Of the information concerning the deaths of four brave Americans," McCain replied. "The information has not been forthcoming. You obviously believe that it has. I know that it hasn't. And I'll be glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered, including 'What did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi?'"McCain continued: "Why did the president for two weeks, for two weeks during the heat of the campaign continue to say he didn't know whether it was a terrorist attack or not? Is it because it interfered with the line 'Al Qaeda has [been] decimated'? And 'everything's fine in that in that part of the world'? Maybe. We don't know. But we need the answers. Then we'll reach conclusions. But we have not received the answers. And that's a fact."

McCain claims
Click to expand...

John McCain has become a bitter old man who will never get over losing. Maybe someday a republican will return to the WH and he will finally shut up!
 
Carleen said:
John McCain has become a bitter old man who will never get over losing. Maybe someday a republican will return to the WH and he will finally shut up!
Click to expand...
Alternately, Barack Obama has become an arrogant man who will never get over winning.
 
Retire already Grandpa. You haven't been relevant in eons.
 
APACHERAT said:
On Sunday Sen. John McCain accused the Obama White House of a "massive cover-up" on "Meet the Press.

Most of us know that the only thing Richard M. Nixon was guilty of was after learning of the Watergate break in, was the cover up from the White House until after the elections.

For a year President Obama ran on "Bin Laden is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run." But the real truth was, Al Qaeda was on the run, running all over the Middle East and North Africa expanding their base of operations. Then on September 11th, 2012, four Americans were murdered by Al Qaeda in Benghazi, Libya. And this is where the cover-up begins. Obama ran for reelection on lies and he had to cover-up the Al Qaeda murder of four Americans or his lies about Al Qaeda being on the run would be exposed before the elections.

>" While discussing the contentious confirmation hearings for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, things got a bit heated on Sunday's "Meet The Press" when Sen. John McCain referred to the lack of information from the White House surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi as a "massive cover-up."

"There are so many answers we don't know," McCain told host David Gregory. "We've had two movies about getting bin Laden and we don't even know who the people were who were evacuated from the consulate the day after the [Benghazi] attack. So there are many, many questions. So we've had a massive cover-up on the part of the administration."

Gregory then pressed McCain on what the Arizona senator meant by "a massive cover-up."

"I'm asking you, do you care whether four Americans died?" McCain said. "And shouldn't people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died?"

"Well, what you said was the cover-up--a cover-up of what?" Gregory asked.

"Of the information concerning the deaths of four brave Americans," McCain replied. "The information has not been forthcoming. You obviously believe that it has. I know that it hasn't. And I'll be glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered, including 'What did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi?'"McCain continued: "Why did the president for two weeks, for two weeks during the heat of the campaign continue to say he didn't know whether it was a terrorist attack or not? Is it because it interfered with the line 'Al Qaeda has [been] decimated'? And 'everything's fine in that in that part of the world'? Maybe. We don't know. But we need the answers. Then we'll reach conclusions. But we have not received the answers. And that's a fact."

McCain claims
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons nothing gets done in Washington is that far too many people get twisted off on the irrelevant for the sole purpose of wanting to score political points. We don't need gamesmanship; we need to fix the financial mess, which is largely caused by Washington. Get your head out of your butts Senators and Congressman and get to the people's work.
 
Carleen said:
John McCain has become a bitter old man who will never get over losing. Maybe someday a republican will return to the WH and he will finally shut up!
Click to expand...

When the Obama White House comes out on the Benghazi Al Qaeda murder of Four Americans and says that there were mistakes made but no one made any mistakes, it's time to start digging a little deeper on what exactly happened. Who knew what and why no action was taken.

Sen. McCain is doing what he's suppose to be doing.

51 % of Americans may be uninformed and drinking the White House kool-aid but 48 % of Americans are informed and nobody gets a free pass for being incompetent that leads to the death of Americans.
 
APACHERAT said:
When the Obama White House comes out on the Benghazi Al Qaeda murder of Four Americans and says that there were mistakes made but no one made any mistakes, it's time to start digging a little deeper on what exactly happened. Who knew what and why no action was taken.

Sen. McCain is doing what he's suppose to be doing.

51 % of Americans may be uninformed and drinking the White House kool-aid but 48 % of Americans are informed and nobody gets a free pass for being incompetent that leads to the death of Americans.
Click to expand...

Who said al Qaeda is behind the attack in Benghazi? Just because a terrorist attack happens in the Middle East or North Africa it does not mean it was a al-qeada plot, or a Hamas plot, or a Hezbollah plot. The attackers could have been homegrown terrorists with no alliegancie to al qeada.
 
humbolt said:
Alternately, Barack Obama has become an arrogant man who will never get over winning.
Click to expand...

The post is not about Obama. It is about McCain. Please post about the topic. Thankyou.
 
Liberals don't want to know the truth about Benghazi. They could care less. Obama will never be held accountable for anything by the left. Ever. They are like that over protective mother who believes their son is a little angel, regardless how bad the kid is. He's a black liberal democrat president so he gets a pass. His skin color gives him automatic victim status, because of the perceived evil and racist past of the US that only Obama, the great and powerful, can fix.

Like I've said many times before, if Obama was caught eating dead babies and having sex with corpses, the same people in this thread giving Obama a pass and objectifying/marginalizing dissent would just blame it on the GOP or some other hidden evil force out to get Obama. He has become a religion to liberals. Their morality is "Social Justice" and Obama is their "Jesus". Republicans are the "Enemy of the People". The Bourgeois. The "Counter-Revolutionaries" that must be marginalized, demonized, objectified, and polarized. 4 dead Americans isn't even a bump in the road in the left's mad dash for revolution.

Admitting the truth about Benghzi would destroy their delusional cult worship of Obama. 4 dead Americans, including the first Ambassador to be murdered in 30 years, is nothing more than an inconvenience. If you demand answers you are nothing more than a sour old white guy or something. It's sad and pathetic how infantile "rationality" on the left has become.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Benghazi will not be the downfall of President Obama because there is no such thing as a moral and curious press when it comes to President Obama.

In the case of Nixon, you had a press that hated the man and went full bore to bring him down. In the case of Clinton, you had a press that loved the man and went full bore to dismiss and excuse his actions when they failed in hiding them. In the case of Bush II, you had a press that hated the man and went full bore to attack his every move. With Obama, you again have a press that loves the man, is highly invested in the man, they built him up and propelled him into the White House and they will do nothing that jeapordizes that.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should stick with Canadian political history. You have a lot to learn about U.S. presidents.
 
Bronson said:
Liberals don't want to know the truth about Benghazi. They could care less. Obama will never be held accountable for anything by the left. Ever. They are like that over protective mother who believes their son is a little angel, regardless how bad the kid is. He's a black liberal democrat president so he gets a pass. His skin color gives him automatic victim status, because of the perceived evil and racist past of the US that only Obama, the great and powerful, can fix.

Like I've said many times before, if Obama was caught eating dead babies and having sex with corpses, the same people in this thread giving Obama a pass and objectifying/marginalizing dissent would just blame it on the GOP or some other hidden evil force out to get Obama. He has become a religion to liberals. Their morality is "Social Justice" and Obama is their "Jesus". Republicans are the "Enemy of the People". The Bourgeois. The "Counter-Revolutionaries" that must be marginalized, demonized, objectified, and polarized. 4 dead Americans isn't even a bump in the road in the left's mad dash for revolution.

Admitting the truth about Benghzi would destroy their delusional cult worship of Obama. 4 dead Americans, including the first Ambassador to be murdered in 30 years, is nothing more than an inconvenience. If you demand answers you are nothing more than a sour old white guy or something. It's sad and pathetic how infantile "rationality" on the left has become.
Click to expand...


What is it that you consider the truth? Clinton gave her testimony. Other officials gave their testomonys. What is it that demands answering?
 
Last edited:
Texmex said:
Maybe you should stick with Canadian political history. You have a lot to learn about U.S. presidents.
Click to expand...

I know a great deal about US Presidents, particularly the ones who've served during my lifetime. It's a pity more Americans don't know much of anything about the leaders they elect. If they did, you wouldn't be suffering under a reelected President Putt-Putt right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom