• 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!

Huckabee: Benghazi will drive Obama from office

Your opinion


  • Total voters
    79
Obama can't run for a third term and I highly doubt he'll be impeached over it.

If Obama isn't impeached, he certainly should be. Why even have the ability to impeach if it is not to punish criminal negligence, a premeditated coverup of incompetence leading to 4 deaths, threatening patriotic and exemplary civil servants, demoting them just because they want the rest of of us to know the actual story???

Much worse stuff going on here than with Nixon and Watergate, at least Nixon had the good sense to step down. Problem is that democrats still defend their criminals after found guilty... just why is that?
 
I'm glad to hear you chose the 4 Americans alive, even if it means Hillary becomes president, because the way you made it sound, was like you were thrilled to have those pictures to use against her.

As for me? I pick the 4 Americans alive. I couldn't care less about Hillary's politcal ambitions.

I care about her political ambitions, people like that should not be in positions of power, she has already proved what she is capable of... and even more, what she is incapable of...
 
It does appeal to their base but that doesn't get any extra votes on election day; it only intensifies the passion of those who were going to vote that way anyway. If on the passion scale from 0 to 10 your passion is a 10 and Suzie's is a 3, each vote still only counts as 1 each. We in the GOP have yet to figure out this simple math.

BTW: I haven't tried to confirm this but heard it more than once. The reason Fox News is so popular is they have a lock on the 65 to 70 year old male TV audience by an overwhelming margin. Take away senior citizen males and they are on parity with the other news channels and MSNBC near the bottom overall actually beats all of them with younger viewers in their 20s. Again, I haven't tried to verify this and hope to be a senior citizen male myself one day. ;)


Didn't get any votes on election day because Obama lied about it and the gullible fell for the lies. Nobody really wanted to believe it could be true...

Nixon lost his place in history for a whole lot less, nobody died in the Watergate Scandal. We have a cover up and it goes right up to the very top... 8 months later and we still have no idea what Obama was doing that night, excepting ignoring the problem, as our people, our good people out there representing us in the dangerous parts of the world, as our people were under fire, expecting what every good American expects, that someone, some fellow Americans, would come help them. And we have millions of Americans that would do it in a heartbeat, not even a conscious choice, already decided, just work out the details of how to get them there.

But these fine people, ready to go, were told, ordered, to stand down. We, unfortunately, have one of the few Americans in power who does not believe in Americans rescuing Americans. Question is, why do folks on that side... and the mainstream media... support that kind of dismantling of American tradition?

Why would ANY age group ignore this obscenity perpetrated upon and to us all?
 
Oh, that one, well, I was sitting in a noisy Starbucks drinking my cafe latte with my iPad mini and I couldn't hear the sound very well. Now would you please watch the first video clip in the following Media Matters post? I think it will serve t clear some things up.

Fox Ignores Benghazi Witness Testimony Proving Obama Did Not Order Troops To "Stand Down" | Blog | Media Matters for America

Okay.....and now a response back. Which this one has the Video Footage straight from the Library of Congress. ;)

(4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.

(5) The US' security chief in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, averred that Sec. Clinton "absolutely" would have been briefed on his (and Stevens') repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. This claim undercut committee Democrats' nitpicking over whether Clinton's signature appeared on the memo denying those requests:

(7) Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia group tasked with protecting the consulate were "certainly" complicit in the attacks. No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during the attack. Eight months later, zero arrests have been made.

(9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it on time?" argument largely irrelevant -- the facts in item #4 notwithstanding. Another important point about the "they wouldn't have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last? How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the way. It was never sent.

(11) Oversight Democrats tried to cast doubt on Mark Thompson's credibility, suggesting that he'd declined to participate in the administration's ARB probe. Thompson corrected the record, noting that he "offered his services" to those investigators, who in turn did not invite him to testify. Democrats also claimed that the House hearings were slanted because the leaders of the ARB investigation were not invited to participate. In fact, Chairman Issa explicitly did invite them, as confirmed by letters obtained by ABC News. They chose not to participate. Democrats were dead wrong on both counts.

(12) During her Congressional testimony on Benghazi, Sec. Clinton memorably asked, "what difference does it make?" in regards to the provenance of the administration's incorrect talking points. Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrom both attempted to answer that question. Hicks did so in granular detail (the false explanation opened a nasty rift between the US and Libyan governments, impeding the FBI's investigation for weeks). An emotional Nordstrom was more general (we lost friends; the truth matters):....snip~

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson
 
It does make me very uncomfortable to watch Republicans delight in the misfortunes of our country. It does seem to me they have put party ahead of country.

Can you explain yourself, sounds a bit offensive... can you cite some instances where "Republicans delight in the misfortunes of our country"?

And if you watched any of the hearings, knowing what you know now about what was going on behind the scenes, the intimidation of our people in locale by the higher ups in the administration, our people in the danger zones on the ground right there in one of the world's most dangerous of areas, couple that with the now known to be absolute fabrications regarding the "the offensive video", prevarications pushed for weeks so as to get the "right" election results, the stand down order to those good Americans chomping at the bit to go to the rescue of fellow Americans....in light of that information.....whose party might democrats be protecting, placing party way ahead of country?
 
Okay.....and now a response back. Which this one has the Video Footage straight from the Library of Congress. ;)

(4) A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.

(5) The US' security chief in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, averred that Sec. Clinton "absolutely" would have been briefed on his (and Stevens') repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. This claim undercut committee Democrats' nitpicking over whether Clinton's signature appeared on the memo denying those requests:

(7) Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia group tasked with protecting the consulate were "certainly" complicit in the attacks. No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during the attack. Eight months later, zero arrests have been made.

(9) The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it on time?" argument largely irrelevant -- the facts in item #4 notwithstanding. Another important point about the "they wouldn't have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last? How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the way. It was never sent.

(11) Oversight Democrats tried to cast doubt on Mark Thompson's credibility, suggesting that he'd declined to participate in the administration's ARB probe. Thompson corrected the record, noting that he "offered his services" to those investigators, who in turn did not invite him to testify. Democrats also claimed that the House hearings were slanted because the leaders of the ARB investigation were not invited to participate. In fact, Chairman Issa explicitly did invite them, as confirmed by letters obtained by ABC News. They chose not to participate. Democrats were dead wrong on both counts.

(12) During her Congressional testimony on Benghazi, Sec. Clinton memorably asked, "what difference does it make?" in regards to the provenance of the administration's incorrect talking points. Gregory Hicks and Eric Nordstrom both attempted to answer that question. Hicks did so in granular detail (the false explanation opened a nasty rift between the US and Libyan governments, impeding the FBI's investigation for weeks). An emotional Nordstrom was more general (we lost friends; the truth matters):....snip~

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson

WTF is this? A document dump?
 
I don't think this will have anything to do with Obama in the end. He slept through it. Hillary, however, is having a carrot fitted to her nose as we speak. I've also heard a rumor that a carpenter on the WH maintenance staff changed the talking points himself while repairing some trim in the Oval Office. I swear, you just can't make this stuff up.

How can one go to sleep with people you sent out there fighting for their very lives? Ice water in veins maybe, compassionate and caring? Only when it suits his ambition.
 
Looks like your assumption wasn't so accurate.
It was. I haven't seen anything to support your claim that Clinton sent al-Magariaf a cable on 9/12, categorically stating "it was terrorists."


The US and the West took out Gadhafi.....they had no End game.
The US had almost no involvement. Nor would Libyans take it well if a bunch of Europeans showed up and tried to organize their country well. The "end game" is to let Libyans determine their own fate, and supply support if they ask for it.

And really, this claim is just an attempt to co-opt the massive failure by Bush to properly handle the regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan.


The search for these answers is about much more than doling out bureaucratic blame or seeking political advantage.
No, it isn't. The focus is almost entirely on the Blame Game and the alleged cover-up, not detailed methods to figure out how to protect diplomatic missions without turning them into miniature fortresses.

The reality is that there will always be a balancing act between security and openness for such establishments. As the GAO reminds us, as long as we have any government presence in a volatile region, there's always the possibility they could be attacked. Nor is it beneficial to turn them into miniature fortresses -- unless you think nothing says "diplomacy" better than high concrete walls topped with concertina wire, tire spike strips, a couple of machine gun nests and a tank (for good measure).

Even if we could, there are plenty of other non-governmental "soft targets" in highly volatile regions. If they hadn't gone after a diplomatic mission, they would have gone after an oil field or a hotel that caters to foreign journalists.

This is not about safety. It's about elections.
 
It's pretty clear that Obama did not do anything impeachable here.

I seriously doubt it will do anything to Hillary. She already testified, it's unlikely new material zinging her will show up. And anyone who cares deeply about Benghazi wasn't likely to vote for a Democrat -- any Democrat -- in the first place.

However, I don't think the Republicans are "nuts," they're just using it as a political cudgel. In particular, switching their ire from blaming Obama (before the election) to Clinton (after the election) is a bit... obvious.

Just wondering, what is it that Obama or Hillary would have to do for you to actually believe they should be impeached? Sounds like you practically will go along with just about anything. So negligence before the fact doesn't do it, deaths doesn't do it, threats and intimidation doesn't do it, lying doesnt do it, incompetence doesn't do it...so anything the party does?

Some of us out here actually care, want bad folks on our side thrown out, put in jail if necessary and certainly do not want your folks getting off easy just cause they are democrats since your folks just do not seem to really mind about all this kind of stuff... as is evidenced by the fact that you are not addressing what happened in Benghazi, but seem content to just be slinging against Republicans...

Think that's not obvious too?
 
It was. I haven't seen anything to support your claim that Clinton sent al-Magariaf a cable on 9/12, categorically stating "it was terrorists."



The US had almost no involvement. Nor would Libyans take it well if a bunch of Europeans showed up and tried to organize their country well. The "end game" is to let Libyans determine their own fate, and supply support if they ask for it.

And really, this claim is just an attempt to co-opt the massive failure by Bush to properly handle the regime changes in Iraq and Afghanistan.



No, it isn't. The focus is almost entirely on the Blame Game and the alleged cover-up, not detailed methods to figure out how to protect diplomatic missions without turning them into miniature fortresses.

The reality is that there will always be a balancing act between security and openness for such establishments. As the GAO reminds us, as long as we have any government presence in a volatile region, there's always the possibility they could be attacked. Nor is it beneficial to turn them into miniature fortresses -- unless you think nothing says "diplomacy" better than high concrete walls topped with concertina wire, tire spike strips, a couple of machine gun nests and a tank (for good measure).

Even if we could, there are plenty of other non-governmental "soft targets" in highly volatile regions. If they hadn't gone after a diplomatic mission, they would have gone after an oil field or a hotel that caters to foreign journalists.

This is not about safety. It's about elections.

◾Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
◾Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”

Sept. 13: Clinton meets with Ali Suleiman Aujali — the Libyan ambassador to the U.S. — at a State Department event to mark the end of Ramadan. Ambassador Aujali apologizes to Clinton for what he called “this terrorist attack which took place against the American consulate in Libya.” Clinton, in her remarks, does not refer to it as a terrorist attack. She condemns the anti-Muslim video, but adds that there is “never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”......snip~

FactCheck.org : Benghazi Timeline

(3) Secretaries Clinton and Rice (the president's hand-selected messenger on Benghazi to the American people) repeatedly stated that the attack arose from "spontaneous protests" over an obscure YouTube video. This was never true. Hicks called the YouTube a "non-event" in Libya. He and others on the ground -- including Amb. Stevens -- recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very beginning. Hicks testified that he personally told Sec. Clinton as much at 2 am on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff. [UPDATE - Rep. Trey Gowdy also revealed an email sent on 9/12 in which Assistant Sec. Jones confirmed to a Libyan official that the attack had been carried out by terrorist organization Ansar al-Sharia]. Days later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the flag-draped coffins of the fallen. Hicks said there he never mentioned any "spontaneous demonstrations" related to a video in his phone call with Clinton:....snip~

The Damning Dozen: Twelve Revelations from the Benghazi Hearings - Guy Benson

That's another point. They went after the Brits Ambassador. The Italians. The Red Cross Offices. Conducted assassinations of local leaders or police chiefs. Hit The Consulate twice before......then as you say just recently hit the Oil refinery in Algeria. With us losing American lives there.

I would look into the Fact checkers Timelines a bit more closely.....since most complain about each other's new sources. ;)
 
Oh, that one, well, I was sitting in a noisy Starbucks drinking my cafe latte with my iPad mini and I couldn't hear the sound very well. Now would you please watch the first video clip in the following Media Matters post? I think it will serve t clear some things up.
...

The player wouldn't load at the MM site ... or I may have read the message wrong and it really said the MM site is a load ... but in any event it has been alleged that only a POTUS could have ordered the military to issue a stand-down order under those circumstances. If you have something authoritative that says different we can wait ... for a little while.

In the meantime there's this ... Stand-Down Order In Benghazi Consulate Terrorist Attack A Mystery - Investors.com
and this ... Issues On Call: POTUS Had to Give the "STAND DOWN" ORDER In Benghazi. Messages Watched 24/7/365. No Way Obama Didn't Know.

... from last October that appear to be on point.
 
The player wouldn't load at the MM site ... or I may have read the message wrong and it really said the MM site is a load ... but in any event it has been alleged that only a POTUS could have ordered the military to issue a stand-down order under those circumstances. If you have something authoritative that says different we can wait ... for a little while.

In the meantime there's this ... Stand-Down Order In Benghazi Consulate Terrorist Attack A Mystery - Investors.com
and this ... Issues On Call: POTUS Had to Give the "STAND DOWN" ORDER In Benghazi. Messages Watched 24/7/365. No Way Obama Didn't Know.

... from last October that appear to be on point.
In the video Hicks says the order for the four military people not to board the plane came from Special Operations Africa.

Edit: Nobody uttered the words "stand-down order" at the proceedings yesterday.
 
Last edited:
In the video Hicks says the order for the four military people not to board the plane came from Special Operations Africa.

Edit: Nobody uttered the words "stand-down order" at the proceedings yesterday.

Wait ... are you differentiating between "stand down order" and "ordered to stand down"?

And the order coming from Africa could simply mean that's who relayed the order. I'm sure that hasn't escaped you.
 
wait ... Are you differentiating between "stand down order" and "ordered to stand down"?

and the order coming from africa could simply mean that's who relayed the order. i'm sure that hasn't escaped you.

BS... :failpail:
 
Then I guess it has escaped you because of your irrational defense of Barack Obama.

What has escaped me? For what rational reason would President Obama issue a stand down order?
 
Unless a case is successfully made that te potus acted in a way that is criminal (not a figure of speech but violated federal law) as much as his opposition want Joe Biden to be President instead, I cannot see how the democrat controlled senate is going to vote to impeach a democrat President. Does anybody really think that's going to happen, seriously?
 
What has escaped me? For what rational reason would President Obama issue a stand down order?

The personnel were from SOCAF, the special operations element of AFRICOM. Therefore, that's where the order to stand down would have come from. That is not to say whether there might or might not have been other discussions between AFRICOM and Washington. AFRICOM would certainly have been in touch with Washington, but we don't know whether those four people were mentioned.:cool:
 
Just wondering, what is it that Obama or Hillary would have to do for you to actually believe they should be impeached?
Gosh, I dunno. How about... violate the law?

Somehow that didn't make your list. I wonder why.


So negligence before the fact doesn't do it, deaths doesn't do it, incompetence doesn't do it...
It didn't for Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter Ford Nixon etc. Heck, by these standards Bush 43 should've been thrown out of office a dozen times over.


lying doesnt do it
What are you, new?

Politicians lie. So do citizens. Everyone lies, constantly, routinely, when it matters, when it doesn't.

I don't mind politicians being taken to task for their mistakes or a lack of transparency. But there is nothing impeachable here.
 
The personnel were from SOCAF, the special operations element of AFRICOM. Therefore, that's where the order to stand down would have come from. That is not to say whether there might or might not have been other discussions between AFRICOM and Washington. AFRICOM would certainly have been in touch with Washington, but we don't know whether those four people were mentioned.:cool:
Thanks for the information about the personnel, I believe it's correct. One thing of note from my understanding the words order to stand down was not uttered by anyone in the hearings. As for the four people please watch the first video at the following link:
Fox Ignores Benghazi Witness Testimony Proving Obama Did Not Order Troops To "Stand Down" | Blog | Media Matters for America
 
bubbabgone said:
wait ... Are you differentiating between "stand down order" and "ordered to stand down"?

and the order coming from africa could simply mean that's who relayed the order. i'm sure that hasn't escaped you.
BS... :failpail:

Um... no. For example, my battalion commander once ordered me to go to Iraq. He didn't come up with that policy on his own, and decide to invade Fallujah, but rather the orders came on from high and he related them. In the military chain of command, AFRICOM can have or not have what is called OPCON (Operational Control) vice ADCON (Administrative Control) over the JSOC elements in its' area. Tier One units, for example, will often move for the national command authority - in this case both COCOM and the unit are responding to the same power, and the COCOM commander might be read in, but may or may not have operational veto power.

In this instance, it is (I would wager) very unlikely that AFRICOM first stood up and then halted their rapid response units not once but twice.
 
Um... no. For example, my battalion commander once ordered me to go to Iraq. He didn't come up with that policy on his own, and decide to invade Fallujah, but rather the orders came on from high and he related them. In the military chain of command, AFRICOM can have or not have what is called OPCON (Operational Control) vice ADCON (Administrative Control) over the JSOC elements in its' area. Tier One units, for example, will often move for the national command authority - in this case both COCOM and the unit are responding to the same power, and the COCOM commander might be read in, but may or may not have operational veto power.

In this instance, it is (I would wager) very unlikely that AFRICOM first stood up and then halted their rapid response units not once but twice.
I know something about the chain of command in the military, in 1964 I was ordered to go to South Korea from Ft. Gordon, Ga.

From my understanding those four people were needed in Tripoli as they feared an attack and it would be too late to get to Benghazi to do any good.
 
Back
Top Bottom