• 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!

Threats Against Benghazi Whistleblowers Alleged [W:345/361]

MMC made the bogus, undocumented assertion

thanks for asking

The demotion. Hicks told lawmakers he was given a scathing review of his management style after the attacks and was later “effectively demoted.” The State Department strongly denies his account, saying it had not and would not retaliate against Hicks. We don’t know who is telling the truth, but Hicks’ testimony forced Obama’s aides to make a devil’s choice between letting the allegations stand or calling a respected and long-serving diplomat, effectively, a liar. They chose the latter.....snip~

Why Benghazi is a Blow to Obama and Clinton - NationalJournal.com

Here’s the significance of Hicks’s testimony from a media standpoint: Whether he’s telling the truth or not, it’s now a story requiring further investigation. If he’s really the disgruntled axe-grinder Hillaryland will inevitably claim that he is, he’s effectively perjured himself on a matter of grave national-security import. If he’s telling the truth, then Hillary and her deputies retaliated against a decorated diplomat for the crime of questioning their initial bogus narrative about the attack. The public needs to know, either way. If the press refuses to pursue this, it’s essentially a green light to Obama’s administration to retaliate against future whistleblowers on the assumption that the dismissive “disgruntled employee” explanation will be accepted without checking too much into it. If you’re a manager in some government agency and your underling challenges you, demote him/her and then claim axe-grinding if he/she goes public. We’ll see tomorrow and Friday how much afflicting-of-the-comfortable our fearless media is up for.....snip~

Hicks: Oddly enough, State started criticizing my performance only after I challenged them about Benghazi « Hot Air

JB made the lacking point without the benefit of common sense. Thanks for not knowing about that, my brutha. ;)
 
When theres some documented proof, Ill post it justabubba. No need for you to keep repeating yourself.
 
When theres some documented proof, Ill post it justabubba. No need for you to keep repeating yourself.

actually, there is a need to keep repeating myself
especially when the other side acts as if it has provided information which it has not
no need to run from the truth
 
actually, there is a need to keep repeating myself
especially when the other side acts as if it has provided information which it has not
no need to run from the truth

We are expressing an opinion. You have expressed yours. If you have something new to add, then do so.
 
We are expressing an opinion. You have expressed yours. If you have something new to add, then do so.

then we are agreed you have been unable to actually offer any facts to defend your opinions
 
I agree that there is currently no evidence that will satisify you.

and since i am more than willing to factor into my opinion facts in evidence, this tells us you have been able to offer none

well done, jonny5
 
and since i am more than willing to factor into my opinion facts in evidence, this tells us you have been able to offer none

well done, jonny5

I can tell by your tone you are not interested in a civil discussion.
 
Moderator's Warning:
You can discuss the topic (which is not each other), or you can be removed from the thread.
 
Back
Top Bottom