• 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!

Democrats Back Away from Obama on Benghazi

Lots of interesting rants here, let me see if I can remember them all.

I guess the 'al-Queera on the run' somehow equals 'Mission Accomplished' is a good start. The former doesn't mean we have won, al-Queera isn't a threat anymore. FYI under BushII al-Queera attacked in Iraq, where they were not before WE invaded, but they also attacked in Spain, Britain, Morocco, the USofA, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Compared to those days al-Queera is on the run, but only a few who believe in banners on aircraft carriers think that means no ore al-Queera.

To claim Watergate is of lesser 'sin' than Benghazi because no one died... and it was a simple cover-up. As soon as you admit President Obama won't be impeached over this you admit Watergate is a much bigger 'sin' because in no uncertain terms Nixon would have been impeached and the Senate would have voted to uphold.

Personally I'd say first we try BushII for the run-up to Iraq, then his cabinet as the deaths of thousands of citizens over a series of lies and cover-ups seems by far the bigger sin.

Now one thing I can say about first reports and who thinks what action can taken in a timely fashion. Those in the immediate reaction force tend to see the only response is immediate attack, there is no fog of war factor to them. Outpost hit, send the react force NOW. However this isn't an isolated outpost in the jungle where we can surround the embattled troops with nape and snake, before inserting at least 150 men in one lift.

Last of all and the most sensitive are the actions of the ambassador at that time. It is the anniversary of 9-11. It is apparently a worsening situation and he has asked for more security in that country. BUT he leaves the relative safety of the Embassy in Tripoli for the very insecure Consulate in Benghazi. Who was he meeting that it couldn't wait or couldn't be done at the Embassy?

Finally everyone thought the safe house in Benghazi was strong enough to withstand the attack, it was designed to do so. The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation, not direct attack. What should of happened is local security forces clear the area and then escort the Ambassador's team from safe house back to the Embassy in Tripoli where a heightened security detail safeguards those grounds.

Didn't happen that way and I am sure the anti-Obama crowd thinks somehow the results could be changed but for some of us with a bit more experience in how simple things can fall apart without any regard to what we want to have happen, how a Tom Clancy novel would of had it happen...

'Blackhawk Down' shows how a very simple snatch and run mission where we have total dominance in the air, sat relay and other nations involved can turn to **** and become a harrowing ordeal where men die because medivacs are denied in the chaos and confusion of the night time fighting.

Anyway harp on whatever part you like to include did the President knowingly not say terrorist when he knew differently... I doubt there will be any direct connection there, but harp as you want.

Bottomline this won't affect the second term of Obama anymore than Iran Contra affected Reagan... :peace
 
Oftencold said:
I think that maybe we've reached a point where the Obamanites are so utterly detached from reality that it's just tiresome to try to argue with them.
Click to expand...
It's like trying to get a deeply senile relative to understand their surroundings.

So, some of these threads languish. Those of us living in mere Reality enforce each others' correct sense of mental health, but that sort of conversation can get old fast.

On another board, I recently was discussing the Benghazi cover up. The Obama folks said that there is no evidence of a cover up. Never mind that the Benghazi Affair involves a major event in the life of the State, the massacre of diplomatic personnel by the citizens of the country they were assigned to after their concerns about security were dismissed by their superiors and so on. The fact that next to no information has been forthcoming from the responsible Administration and their clear lack of interest in producing or publishing that information is a text book example of an official cover up. How do you have a serious conversation with people so deeply, irrationally and willfully irrational?
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean ...
obama - yoga - supporters.jpg
 
notquiteright said:
Lots of interesting rants here, let me see if I can remember them all.

I guess the 'al-Queera on the run' somehow equals 'Mission Accomplished' is a good start. The former doesn't mean we have won, al-Queera isn't a threat anymore. FYI under BushII al-Queera attacked in Iraq, where they were not before WE invaded, but they also attacked in Spain, Britain, Morocco, the USofA, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Compared to those days al-Queera is on the run, but only a few who believe in banners on aircraft carriers think that means no ore al-Queera.

To claim Watergate is of lesser 'sin' than Benghazi because no one died... and it was a simple cover-up. As soon as you admit President Obama won't be impeached over this you admit Watergate is a much bigger 'sin' because in no uncertain terms Nixon would have been impeached and the Senate would have voted to uphold.

Personally I'd say first we try BushII for the run-up to Iraq, then his cabinet as the deaths of thousands of citizens over a series of lies and cover-ups seems by far the bigger sin.

Now one thing I can say about first reports and who thinks what action can taken in a timely fashion. Those in the immediate reaction force tend to see the only response is immediate attack, there is no fog of war factor to them. Outpost hit, send the react force NOW. However this isn't an isolated outpost in the jungle where we can surround the embattled troops with nape and snake, before inserting at least 150 men in one lift.

Last of all and the most sensitive are the actions of the ambassador at that time. It is the anniversary of 9-11. It is apparently a worsening situation and he has asked for more security in that country. BUT he leaves the relative safety of the Embassy in Tripoli for the very insecure Consulate in Benghazi. Who was he meeting that it couldn't wait or couldn't be done at the Embassy?

Finally everyone thought the safe house in Benghazi was strong enough to withstand the attack, it was designed to do so. The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation, not direct attack. What should of happened is local security forces clear the area and then escort the Ambassador's team from safe house back to the Embassy in Tripoli where a heightened security detail safeguards those grounds.

Didn't happen that way and I am sure the anti-Obama crowd thinks somehow the results could be changed but for some of us with a bit more experience in how simple things can fall apart without any regard to what we want to have happen, how a Tom Clancy novel would of had it happen...

'Blackhawk Down' shows how a very simple snatch and run mission where we have total dominance in the air, sat relay and other nations involved can turn to **** and become a harrowing ordeal where men die because medivacs are denied in the chaos and confusion of the night time fighting.

Anyway harp on whatever part you like to include did the President knowingly not say terrorist when he knew differently... I doubt there will be any direct connection there, but harp as you want.

Bottomline this won't affect the second term of Obama anymore than Iran Contra affected Reagan... :peace
Click to expand...

Comment #27 follows yours by accident.
Accidents are sometimes both timely & appropriate.
 
apacherat said:
is this the beginning of the end of barack obama's presidency ?

Is this barack obama's watergate ?

Nixon resigned because he lied (not under oath) that he had no knowledge of the watergate break in knowing it could hurt his reelection for a second term in the white house. Nixon wasn't informed of the watergate break in until after it happened. And no one was murdered during the watergate break in.

Evidence has already surfaced that president obama knew while the attack on the consulate in benghazi was in progress that it was a well organized attack having nothing to do with a you tube video and by the next day it was confirmed that the attack was an al qaeda attack.

But obama knowing he has been running for reelection on a platform that al qaeda was on the run and being decimated, that if the american people found out that al qaeda isn't on the run and have expanded it's base of operations during his first term in the white house all across the middle east and north africa, this could cause him to lose reelection. So he ordered a cover up six weeks before the november elections.

Will president obama show the same respect to the office of the presidency and resign as nixon did back in 74 ?

Will the democrats follow the same course as the republicans honorably did back in 74 when they told nixon it's time to go ?

It's starting to look likely some democrats see obama's watergate coming.

sunday shows: Democrats back away from obama on benghazi, syria

>" democrats on sunday morning's news shows appeared to back away from president barack obama on his administration's response to the benghazi terror attack and his blurry "red line" on syria's chemical weapons.
On fox news sunday, rep. Stephen lynch (d-ma) admitted that the obama administration's talking points on benghazi, edited to remove references to extremism and blaming protests against an anti-islamic youtube video for the violence, were "false. They were wrong. There were no protests outside the benghazi compound."

on cbs news' face the nation, rep. Dutch ruppersberger (d-md), the ranking member of the house intelligence committee, also admitted that the administration's talking points were wrong, though putting the changes down to the fact that the intelligence changed over time in a "volatile situation."


meanwhile, on syria, former rep. Jane harman, a prominent california democraet, acknowledged on nbc news' meet the press that the obama administration had been slow to respond: "i wish we had acted sooner."

republicans remain divided on the syria issue, but on benghazi the caucus anticipates a week of testimony that will prove deeply damaging to the obama administration, as well as the media's attempts to protect him. "<
sunday shows: Democrats back away from obama on benghazi, syria
Click to expand...

ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Omg!
 
notquiteright said:
Lots of interesting rants here, let me see if I can remember them all.

I guess the 'al-Queera on the run' somehow equals 'Mission Accomplished' is a good start. The former doesn't mean we have won, al-Queera isn't a threat anymore. FYI under BushII al-Queera attacked in Iraq, where they were not before WE invaded, but they also attacked in Spain, Britain, Morocco, the USofA, Bali, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Compared to those days al-Queera is on the run, but only a few who believe in banners on aircraft carriers think that means no ore al-Queera.

To claim Watergate is of lesser 'sin' than Benghazi because no one died... and it was a simple cover-up. As soon as you admit President Obama won't be impeached over this you admit Watergate is a much bigger 'sin' because in no uncertain terms Nixon would have been impeached and the Senate would have voted to uphold.

Personally I'd say first we try BushII for the run-up to Iraq, then his cabinet as the deaths of thousands of citizens over a series of lies and cover-ups seems by far the bigger sin.

Now one thing I can say about first reports and who thinks what action can taken in a timely fashion. Those in the immediate reaction force tend to see the only response is immediate attack, there is no fog of war factor to them. Outpost hit, send the react force NOW. However this isn't an isolated outpost in the jungle where we can surround the embattled troops with nape and snake, before inserting at least 150 men in one lift.

Last of all and the most sensitive are the actions of the ambassador at that time. It is the anniversary of 9-11. It is apparently a worsening situation and he has asked for more security in that country. BUT he leaves the relative safety of the Embassy in Tripoli for the very insecure Consulate in Benghazi. Who was he meeting that it couldn't wait or couldn't be done at the Embassy?

Finally everyone thought the safe house in Benghazi was strong enough to withstand the attack, it was designed to do so. The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation, not direct attack. What should of happened is local security forces clear the area and then escort the Ambassador's team from safe house back to the Embassy in Tripoli where a heightened security detail safeguards those grounds.

Didn't happen that way and I am sure the anti-Obama crowd thinks somehow the results could be changed but for some of us with a bit more experience in how simple things can fall apart without any regard to what we want to have happen, how a Tom Clancy novel would of had it happen...

'Blackhawk Down' shows how a very simple snatch and run mission where we have total dominance in the air, sat relay and other nations involved can turn to **** and become a harrowing ordeal where men die because medivacs are denied in the chaos and confusion of the night time fighting.

Anyway harp on whatever part you like to include did the President knowingly not say terrorist when he knew differently... I doubt there will be any direct connection there, but harp as you want.

Bottomline this won't affect the second term of Obama anymore than Iran Contra affected Reagan... :peace
Click to expand...

So much for that theory. :lol:

Another witness for Wednesday's hearing, Mark Thompson, is a counterterrorism expert. He's likely to address another sore spot surrounding the night of the attacks: the fact that the Obama Administration did not convene its top interagency counterterrorism resource, the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). According to Rep. Issa, Thompson will testify that he was locked out of the process "even though he was the individual who was supposed to react to these kinds of things."

Counterterrorism sources and internal emails reviewed by CBS News express frustration that key responders were ready to deploy, but were not called upon to help in the attack. National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor told CBS News the CSG was not needed.

"From the moment the president was briefed on the Benghazi attack, the response effort was handled by the most senior national security officials in governments. Members of the CSG were of course involved in these meetings and discussions to support their bosses," said Vietor.

"The CSG is the one group that's supposed to know what resources every agency has. They know of multiple options and have the ability to coordinate counterterrorism assets across all the agencies," a high-ranking government official told CBS News. "They were not allowed to do their job. They were not called upon."

Absent coordination from Counterterrorism Security Group, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official says the response to the crisis became more confused. "The response process was isolated at the most senior level," says an official referring to top officials in the executive branch. "My fellow counterterrorism professionals and I (were) not consulted.".....snip~

Three more officials to testify about Benghazi attacks - CBS News

"Oh" and Stevens was Meeting a Turkish Envoy and was seen on the Street with him In front of the Consulate. See he had to meet the Turks Envoy.....Cuz the Turks had pulled their Ambassador out when the
poopfan.gif
after the Conflict with Gadhafi had jumped off. It is alleged that Steven's was meeting with the Turk over weapons to Syria. Especially after a Libyan Freighter showed up 5 days earlier than the attack on Benghazi. On the Shores of Syria. Then it was known that somehow the Syrian Rebels had gotten a hold of ManPads outta of Libya. Which we know that Clinton had testified that was what was a concern and being held in the CIA Safehouse. That they were trying to round up what Gadhafi had.....on specifically ManPads.

Bottomline is.....now the MSMedia are the ones carrying it all forward. So far CBS, ABC, and CNN. Lions Tigers and Bears....."Oh My"! :lamo
 
No one besides whacked out conspiracy theorists care this much about Benghazi. There was no malicious coverup. There was nothing illegal. It was tragic that those people died. The terrorists responsible should be captured and punished. That's all there is to it.
 
Paschendale said:
No one besides whacked out conspiracy theorists care this much about Benghazi. There was no malicious coverup. There was nothing illegal. It was tragic that those people died. The terrorists responsible should be captured and punished. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

So then why is CBS, ABC, CNN, and all kinds of MSMedia outlets all of a sudden interested in it? If it is nothing then why are they the ones to bring up about Obama and them knowing when they say they didn't. Why are they saying that Team Obama changed their talking points?

Evidently you have not been keeping up on it.....as now they have the Libyans and the Brits state that the US Knew of things going down 48hrs before the attack? Which is even before al Zawahiri released his 911 video for AQ.

Plus now we have the CGS stating they were never contacted. As opposed to that No response team could have been deployed.
 
Paschendale said:
No one besides whacked out conspiracy theorists care this much about Benghazi. There was no malicious coverup. There was nothing illegal. It was tragic that those people died. The terrorists responsible should be captured and punished. That's all there is to it.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'm nominating this post for the "Remain calm, all is well" award (Kevin Bacon in Animal House). Or that Gieco commercial where the guy crawls out from under a rock. Yeah, that's all there is to it, let's move on. LOL!
 
I'm no fan of Obama and his administration and I happen to be someone who considers Nixon's presidency to be a good one - however, Benghazi is nothing like Watergate and never will be. There was no "crime" committed in Benghazi. At its worst, there was gross negligence on the part of State Department staff in both Libya and Washington that allowed the ambassador and his staff to be murdered. There was a cover-up - that is a certainty - and it was done to protect the President's Al Qaeda storyline leading up to the election.

This will not ever lead to any criminal charges against anyone involved nor will it lead to the impeachment/resignation of Obama. It is important, however, to get the truth out and have the administration acknowledge it. Part of Obama's legacy depends on it as well as the possible candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2016.
 
Republicans are still really sore about Romney losing. So sore that they're trying to replace the fact that they had a ****ty candidate with some fictional scandal. Guys, get over it. Nobody cares.
 
Anthony60 said:
Okay, I'm nominating this post for the "Remain calm, all is well" award (Kevin Bacon in Animal House). Or that Gieco commercial where the guy crawls out from under a rock. Yeah, that's all there is to it, let's move on. LOL!
Click to expand...

I didn't say that we should remain calm, or that all is well. There's a lot of things that are messed up, even just in the subject of Middle Eastern policy and the War on Terror. There are plenty of areas where the Obama administration is doing wrong things and needs to be taken to task for them. This just isn't one of those things.

Guantanimo, for example, is. Unconstitutional surveillance is, too. Drone bombing an American citizen? That, too. Let's talk about real issues, instead of made up scandals.
 
Hatuey said:
Republicans are still really sore about Romney losing. So sore that they're trying to replace the fact that they had a ****ty candidate with some fictional scandal. Guys, get over it. Nobody cares.
Click to expand...

Congress and Most of the "informed Americans" wanted answers about Benghazi six weeks before the elections. It was the Democrats who wanted to hold off on any Congressional hearing on Benghazi until after the elections.

Well the elections were held and 52 % of Americans decided to give Obama a second chance.

The Senate held hearings after the elections and the Obama administration refused to answer the questions.

Now the House are holding their hearings.

Just doing what the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress demanded, hold the hearings after the elections.

If Obama, Clinton and Rice don't want to answer the questions then I guess we have to turn to non political appointees with in the State Department and the military to get the answer of why four Americans are dead and why their was no response by the White House when Americans in Benghazi were requesting help while fighting for their lives and no help came.
 
Nixon did not resign out of respect for the office of the Presidency. He did it because he knew he was going to be kicked out in pretty short order and he delayed and delayed and delayed up until the point he finally left.
 
APACHERAT said:
Congress and Most of the "informed Americans" wanted answers about Benghazi six weeks before the elections. It was the Democrats who wanted to hold off on any Congressional hearing on Benghazi until after the elections.

Well the elections were held and 52 % of Americans decided to give Obama a second chance.

The Senate held hearings after the elections and the Obama administration refused to answer the questions.

Now the House are holding their hearings.

Just doing what the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress demanded, hold the hearings after the elections.

If Obama, Clinton and Rice don't want to answer the questions then I guess we have to turn to non political appointees with in the State Department and the military to get the answer of why four Americans are dead and why their was no response by the White House when Americans in Benghazi were requesting help while fighting for their lives and no help came.
Click to expand...

All that diatribe isn't going to move you away from the fact that nobody cares and it isn't going to get Obama impeached. :shrug:
 
APACHERAT said:
Congress and Most of the "informed Americans" wanted answers about Benghazi six weeks before the elections. It was the Democrats who wanted to hold off on any Congressional hearing on Benghazi until after the elections.

Well the elections were held and 52 % of Americans decided to give Obama a second chance.

The Senate held hearings after the elections and the Obama administration refused to answer the questions.

Now the House are holding their hearings.

Just doing what the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress demanded, hold the hearings after the elections.

If Obama, Clinton and Rice don't want to answer the questions then I guess we have to turn to non political appointees with in the State Department and the military to get the answer of why four Americans are dead and why their was no response by the White House when Americans in Benghazi were requesting help while fighting for their lives and no help came.
Click to expand...

Apache if help was going to come it had to be locally based. If any help was going to come via plane it had to fly into Libya, and since Libya is a sovereign country we needed permission if we are going to fly in reinforcements .
 
Hatuey said:
All that diatribe isn't going to move you away from the fact that nobody cares and it isn't going to get Obama impeached. :shrug:
Click to expand...

A lot of people care.....especially those working overseas that have to worry if Team Obama has their back or not.

Moreover no one said Obama would get Impeached. But make no mistake.....it will be part of his Record.

As well as prevent Hillary from gaining any other Office.
 
Fisher said:
Nixon did not resign out of respect for the office of the Presidency. He did it because he knew he was going to be kicked out in pretty short order and he delayed and delayed and delayed up until the point he finally left.
Click to expand...

Nixon wasn't going to put America through a Constitutional crisis.

If you remember back in 1960 when the corpses of Cook County, Ill. rose out of their graves and voted for JFK and Nixon lost the election, Nixon was asked "you know you actually won the election, why don't you contest the election" ? Nixon said he wasn't going to put America through such a crisis.

It's sad that Al Gore didn't have the dignity that Nixon had.

If you were around in 1974 you know there were many Americans who wanted Nixon to fight the charges. They believed Nixon should have allowed himself to be Impeached in the House and then fight the charges in the Senate. Many believed that Nixon would be found not guilty.

Remember, Nixon committed no crime, unlike President Clinton, Nixon never lied under oath. Nixon like Obama lied to the American people get reelected.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Apache if help was going to come it had to be locally based. If any help was going to come via plane it had to fly into Libya, and since Libya is a sovereign country we needed permission if we are going to fly in reinforcements .
Click to expand...

Do you think it is possible that help could have come from some other sort of Ally. Or was that just dropped from the equation?
 
MMC said:
A lot of people care.....especially those working overseas that have to worry if Team Obama has their back or not.

Moreover no one said Obama would get Impeached. But make no mistake.....it will be part of his Record.

As well as prevent Hillary from gaining any other Office.
Click to expand...

Part of his record on what? Faux outrage from people trying to compare Nixon's unlawful use of government to a government screw up? Government screw ups are a dime a dozen. I'm sure Iraq, Kosovo and Iran-Contra will be far more memorable than this. In 5 years nobody will even know about Benghazi. Most people will know about Iran-Contra and no WMDs.
 
APACHERAT said:
Nixon wasn't going to put America through a Constitutional crisis.

If you remember back in 1960 when the corpses of Cook County, Ill. rose out of their graves and voted for JFK and Nixon lost the election, Nixon was asked "you know you actually won the election, why don't you contest the election" ? Nixon said he wasn't going to put America through such a crisis.

It's sad that Al Gore didn't have the dignity that Nixon had.

If you were around in 1974 you know there were many Americans who wanted Nixon to fight the charges. They believed Nixon should have allowed himself to be Impeached in the House and then fight the charges in the Senate. Many believed that Nixon would be found not guilty.

Remember, Nixon committed no crime, unlike President Clinton, Nixon never lied under oath. Nixon like Obama lied to the American people get reelected.
Click to expand...

Nixion tried to withhold evidence implicating him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom