• 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!

Which was a bigger scandal?

Which was a bigger scandal?


  • Total voters
    49
Number of US Ambassadors who were killed and dragged through the streets of a foreign city while superiors dithered in Watergate: 0

And all this, after we made their rebellion a success. What wonderful friends we have, that these ungrateful little ****s not only tell us they don't need our help while we pummel their governments artillery and armor so they don't get massacred, now the ****ing animals turn around and murder our people. I guess that's how Libyans show gratitude. We should show them gratitude the old fashioned way, with napalm and incendiary rounds, dropped by the tons, in amounts not seen since the Second World War.
 
send in a airborne assault squad-a couple miniguns on an apache would have cleaned things up a bit
From what I understand there were Hercs ready to roll too.
 
You think losing a high ranking official, his aide, and two Navy SEALS is something to be "faux" outraged about? I don't think you get it, that was a very bad day and we lost four good people in something that could possibly have been prevented. People have every right to be pissed.

I have no idea where your coming from. Actually I do. But lets get to the point of my post.

My comments were directed at Navy Pride and his very very very obvious partisan desires and this is only a tool for him to exploit partisan divisions and try to whip up hatred of the President.

I simply told it like it is.
 
I have no idea where your coming from. Actually I do. But lets get to the point of my post.

My comments were directed at Navy Pride and his very very very obvious partisan desires and this is only a tool for him to exploit partisan divisions and try to whip up hatred of the President.

I simply told it like it is.
You don't think a former Naval member would be pissed that 2 SEALs were killed? Really?
 
From what I understand there were Hercs ready to roll too.

Wouldn't have done much without ground support. Ground support they could have had some time ago if the warnings were taken seriously. Of course, this blatant declaration of war won't be taken seriously, either.
 
Wouldn't have done much without ground support. Ground support they could have had some time ago if the warnings were taken seriously. Of course, this blatant declaration of war won't be taken seriously, either.
True enough. I guess the overall point is that four Americans could have been extracted safely had anything been done, and the resources were in the area.
 
Clinton was impeached for lying about an affair.

Obama lied to the American people about the terrorist attack. His administration led us to believe it was a mob riot due to some video. We know now that he knew from day 1 that it was a terrorist attack.

We know that he watched the attack live, as it happened. We had troops stationed in Italy, 1 hour flight away. Obama watched and did nothing.

He sat by, watched people die, and did nothing. He lied about it to the American people. Don't let a good crisis go to waste, right?

Now, he refuses to answer questions about it. What is he hiding? Why have the hearings been pushed back till after the election?

It's a lot like Obamacare: you'll find out after you pass it. Benghazi: you'll find out after he's re-elected.

Scary.

firstly it is moot as to whether HE actually lied to anyone.
Secondly, Clinton was impeached by a partisan congress and I believe that failed.
thirdly, even if he did lie, it certainly didn't cover up anything, nor did the lie get anyone killed.
fourthly, using your logic, then Bush and his entire cabinet should have been impeached and actually should stand trail since their lies led directly to the deaths of thousands of US citizens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

Watergate was the president of the United States breaking all kinds of federal laws, in an effort to cover up all the dirty tricks his operatives were carrying out to sabotage his opposition.

Still trying to manufacture a scandal out of thin air. Its sad that this is the best the right has.
 
The Ambassador died of smoke inhalation in the safe room. Who sodomized him BEFORE he died?

In the Clinton political stunt major senators on both sides of the aisle refused to hear the case.

Nixon was told in no uncertain terms major senators would vote to convict him guilty if the House started the process.

If brave men dying over trumped up intel, failure to act in everyway the critics demand on monday morning, or lies told by an administration then where is BushII's trial?

Now I know many of the never been monday morning quarterbacks think the denials are criminal but let me assure the civilian armchair generals, denials come all the time, even in pitched battle. Help was sent and as in every actual situation friction slowed the action. (If you think the denied actions would have been any better at beating the friction keep your day jobs)

Now let's look at what was being done, an attack on a safe house that was supposed to be safe against smoke infiltration... ya want to try someone that would be a place to start, but that contractor isn't running for President in a party most of the howlers can't stand.

Anyways the bait was howling in a safe house screaming for help, the terrorists were counting on a huge and violent reaction to the attack like BushII and his puffy cowboy swagger would have done causing major civilian deaths. The reaction was to send a Libyan presence to secure the safe house and free the ambassador but the poorly designed safe house smothered him.

Now back to the regularly scheduled rant, whine and bitch session by the extremely selective experts... :roll:

Need to ad- the ambassador wasn't drug through the streets, he was rushed to the hospital, THAT right wing lie has been disproven days ago... for all some want to rant over lies, they sure use them to stir the pot...
 
Last edited:
firstly it is moot as to whether HE actually lied to anyone.
Uhm. No, lying under oath is perjury which is a crime and impeachable.
Secondly, Clinton was impeached by a partisan congress and I believe that failed.
He was impeached, not removed. His bar license was revoked because of the impeachment.
thirdly, even if he did lie, it certainly didn't cover up anything, nor did the lie get anyone killed.
He committed a crime, no one died.
fourthly, using your logic, then Bush and his entire cabinet should have been impeached and actually should stand trail since their lies led directly to the deaths of thousands of US citizens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.
No lies proven. Intelligence may or may not have been faulty, not a crime.

Watergate was the president of the United States breaking all kinds of federal laws, in an effort to cover up all the dirty tricks his operatives were carrying out to sabotage his opposition.
He broke a law, Obstruction. He resigned as president, found guilty, pardoned by Ford so as to be done with it. The end.

Still trying to manufacture a scandal out of thin air. Its sad that this is the best the right has.
If you are going to speak of partisanship it helps not to say "That side only has................"
 
You don't think a former Naval member would be pissed that 2 SEALs were killed? Really?

What I clearly said without all the right wing translation and self serving double talk is that this thread participation from Navy Pride is trying to whip this up to a ridiculous level in a blatant attempt for political gain simply because he has a mountain of vitriolic hate for President Obama.

He and others are obviously willing to use ANYTHING to exploit that.

Got that?
 
What I clearly said without all the right wing translation and self serving double talk is that this thread from Navy Pride is engaged in trying to whip this up to a ridiculous level in a blatant attempt for political gain.

Got that?
1 dead ambassador, 1 dead ambassador's aide, 2 dead SEALs is hardly right wing.
 
1 dead ambassador, 1 dead ambassador's aide, 2 dead SEALs is hardly right wing.

Please read what I write here.

Navy Pride and others in this thread are attempting to use this event for their own partisan purposes because they have long demonstrated hatred for Obama as President and they are hoping this will catch on and help defeat him in the election next week.

Now please do not reply to anything else and direct it to me.
 
Please read what I write here.

Navy Pride and others in this thread are attempting to use this event for their own partisan purposes because they have long demonstrated hatred for Obama as President and they are hoping this will catch on and help defeat him in the election next week.

Now please do not reply to anything else and direct it to me.
So? He doesn't have a right to be pissed? 1 dead ambassador, his aide, and 2 NAVY SEALs.
 
A better comparison would be Watergate v. Operation Fast and Furious

And even then that's not really comparable.

FF is incompetence and a cover up.
Watergate was direct illegal behavior and a cover up.

A better comparison would be Clinton's alleged military transfers to China for campaign donations and the cover up and Watergate.
 
So? He doesn't have a right to be pissed? 1 dead ambassador, his aide, and 2 NAVY SEALs.

Who said he did not? What I said was that this was a blatant exploitation of the event for pure political advantage.
 
by the way - I think almost every American is angry about the loss of American life in this event. This is NOT something that only gets the right angry.
 
No intent in action. Just poor management of a situation. Nothing close to Watergate.

There was absolutely intent - you don't send the Ambassador out to five different talk shows on the same day by accident. "Lying to the American people about a terrorist attack in which a US Ambassador was murdered and his body dragged through the streets" is not "poor management". That is deliberate mismanagement.
 
by the way - I think almost every American is angry about the loss of American life in this event. This is NOT something that only gets the right angry.


Really? I thought that since Obama was president now, being angry about dead Americans overseas was sort of passe? Or are the massive anti-war protests still going on and I'm just missing them.
 
Really? I thought that since Obama was president now, being angry about dead Americans overseas was sort of passe? Or are the massive anti-war protests still going on and I'm just missing them.

You thought wrong.

btw - the last time I saw "massive anti-war protests" I did not even have kids yet. I now have three grandchildren. So this has very little to do with just Obama.
 
There was absolutely intent - you don't send the Ambassador out to five different talk shows on the same day by accident. "Lying to the American people about a terrorist attack in which a US Ambassador was murdered and his body dragged through the streets" is not "poor management". That is deliberate mismanagement.

Which is all irrelevant since it is not a crime to lie about what happened. Watergate was ultimately about Nixon using illegal abuse of power to hide the fact that his cronies were doing everything possible to sabotage the opposition in the 1972 Presidential election. No matter how you slice it, comparing this particular incident to Watergate is nothing but partisan stupidity.
 
Let's see, Conservatives chose Benghazi and Liberals chose Watergate.
 
Let's see, Conservatives chose Benghazi and Liberals chose Watergate.
It's not really about the ideology but rather what the real damage was. To me being obstructive about the Watergate break in was very dishonest and Nixon was in the wrong, he left office. People were killed in Benghazi and we aren't getting the truth, I don't think there was a crime committed but there is gross incompetence and we deserve to know if we failed those killed in the attack.
 
It's not really about the ideology but rather what the real damage was. To me being obstructive about the Watergate break in was very dishonest and Nixon was in the wrong, he left office. People were killed in Benghazi and we aren't getting the truth, I don't think there was a crime committed but there is gross incompetence and we deserve to know if we failed those killed in the attack.

I don't think we will ever get the real pictutre with the media we have in this country. Each station is gonna broadcast to its bias and paint the picture they want.
 
I don't think we will ever get the real pictutre with the media we have in this country. Each station is gonna broadcast to its bias and paint the picture they want.
Yeah, and that's unfortunate. The administration isn't helping out either.
 
It's not really about the ideology but rather what the real damage was. To me being obstructive about the Watergate break in was very dishonest and Nixon was in the wrong, he left office. People were killed in Benghazi and we aren't getting the truth, I don't think there was a crime committed but there is gross incompetence and we deserve to know if we failed those killed in the attack.

Though I agree with what you said from your second sentence on, for many it IS about ideology and nothing else.
 
Back
Top Bottom