• 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!

Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?


  • Total voters
    79
Not even close buddy. I wonder if you have figured out this isn't going away yet.
Yeah, I figured it out. The Republicans on that committee won't have anything better to offer than you do. Just a bunch of lame nonsense about buzzing jets and quick reaction forces, and of course huffing and puffing about how Obama misled the electorate and thereby stole the election with a supposed coverup, one that was "exposed" six weeks before the voting took place.

Of course you still have Black Panther intimidation. Maybe you can catch 'im by the toe on that one.
 
THe jets buzzing the consulate to "scare" the terrorist is laughable. Just sayin.
 
Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

"Democrats are angered not just by the House GOP's creation of a special committee to probe the 2012 terrorist attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead but by Republican fundraising in connection with the Benghazi probe.

Raising money in the wake of tragedy certainly isn't new; both parties have engaged in it to greater or lesser degrees.

But the latest dust-up arrives during a 2014 midterm election year in which both parties are trying to energize their respective voter bases and control of Congress hangs in the balance.

It also comes with the 2016 presidential race fast approaching, with Republicans doing what they can to dent the Democratic front-runner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Democrats trying to protect her.

Republican leaders understand that the idea of Benghazi-linked fundraising is distasteful to many voters.

For instance, Speaker John Boehner was asked several times at a news conference Thursday about the National Republican Congressional Committee using the probe to raise money. Three times he declined to answer directly, instead opting for: "Our focus is on getting the answers to those families who lost their loved ones, period," or a variation of that.

When It's All Politics asked an NRCC spokesman if the organization whose job is to increase Republican seats in the House intended to continue using the probe for fundraising, his emailed statement also failed to directly or even indirectly answer the question:



"The Obama administration has not been honest with the American people with regards to Benghazi, and if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker the American people will never know the truth. Our goal is to hold Democrats in Congress accountable who vote against creating the select committee on Benghazi and who continue to try to sweep this controversy under the rug."

Not exactly on point, but even after a follow-up question, that's as far as he would go."

Latest Partisan Flashpoint: GOP Benghazi Fundraising : It's All Politics : NPR

nrcc-screenshot-1-32aa5a0e2dd6cb3eea2f4981f922900dfaa15836-s2-c85.jpg


Ayup........
 
"If the host country will not or cannot protect foreign diplomats, then the physical security measures mandated by security standards can do little more than provide slight delay -- which is what they are designed to do. No physical security measures can stand up to a prolonged assault. If a militant group armed with heavy weaponry is permitted to attack a diplomatic facility for hours with no host government response -- as was the case in Benghazi -- the attack will cause considerable damage and likely cause fatalities despite the security measures in place." — The Benghazi Report and the Diplomatic Security Funding

"Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi 'consulate' was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.

This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA. In other words, the final version of the talking points may have been so wan [sic — wanting?] because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing. From a bureaucratic perspective, it may have seemed like the best possible solution at the time. From a political perspective, it turned out to be a disaster" — "An alternative explanation for the Benghazi talking points: Bureaucratic knife fight," Washington Post, May 10, 2013

A post so nice, it should be seen twice.
 
Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

Of course; it is politics as usual, especially when they have no fiscally responsible solutions.
 
Yeah, I figured it out. The Republicans on that committee won't have anything better to offer than you do. Just a bunch of lame nonsense about buzzing jets and quick reaction forces, and of course huffing and puffing about how Obama misled the electorate and thereby stole the election with a supposed coverup, one that was "exposed" six weeks before the voting took place.

Of course you still have Black Panther intimidation. Maybe you can catch 'im by the toe on that one.

The whitehouse has been anything but up front and transparent on the deaths of 4 Americans. They have stalled, lied, and evaded for too long.
Now's the time for the truth-so that it doesn't happen again. This is a republic, is it not?
 
THe jets buzzing the consulate to "scare" the terrorist is laughable. Just sayin.

Not really, its a sign that we are able to get firepower on scene quickly, and will STAY until we get every American.

It was something-in contrast to Obama's nothing.
 
Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

Of course; it is politics as usual, especially when they have no fiscally responsible solutions.

Said as if the democrat party isn't going to take a massive beating in november BECAUSE of its lack of solutions.
Careful, or you will be mugged by reality. :cool:
 
I seriously doubt the Republicans who keep harping about Benghazi care about the four people who died September 11, 2012. They are in my opinion using their deaths for political gain, they want to use this tragedy to weaken the chances of Hillary Clinton should she decide to run for president in 2014. They misquote what Clinton said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013, they say she said "What difference does it make?" Here is what she actually said:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."​

It would be real easy for saint Hillary to go before the select committee and put all the question to rest, wouldn't it? Why not cooperate and put the speculation to a stop?
 
Not even close buddy. I wonder if you have figured out this isn't going away yet.

But hopefully the people that are running this Mcarthyesque witch hunt will be. The radical right has again taken farce to new heights. I smell a lot of campaign ads in the making, just in time for November. Cant' tackle immigration, minimum wage or jobs but we have oodles of time for this?
 
It would be real easy for saint Hillary to go before the select committee and put all the question to rest, wouldn't it? Why not cooperate and put the speculation to a stop?
You got to be kidding me, many on the right would take what she said out of context, like: "What difference does it make."
 
The whitehouse has been anything but up front and transparent on the deaths of 4 Americans. They have stalled, lied, and evaded for too long.
Toward what end? What were they trying to accomplish?

You've said that the administration's response during the attack was inadequate, that militarily assets should have been sent to the scene in the hope that American lives could have been saved. And yes, there are some people with knowledge and experience regarding this issue who make that claim. But there are many more, from what I can see a strong majority, who believe that nothing useful could have been done.

"Pentagon leaders knew of the September 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi an hour after it began, but were unable to mobilize reinforcements based in Europe in time to prevent the death of the U.S. ambassador." Reuters, Nov 10, 2012

You argue that the administration was concerned that its "Al Qaeda is on the run" campaign slogan would be undermined if that organization became linked to the attack. But as I indicated, within two weeks of Sept 12, WH officials in congressional testimony and Secretary Clinton in a speech at the UN made public statements pointing to exactly that. Intelligence indicated that Libyan terrorists linked to Al Qaeda had participated in and perhaps led the attack. So what coverup are you talking about?

I suppose you'll say "Susan Rice, Sunday morning news shows, talking points edits, document withheld until FOIA request" and argue that we need more subpoenas and more sworn testimony and no five-minute limits on questioning so we can finally dig up and expose all the terrible, cynical things those people did to cover up their incompetence that cost these four brave Americans their lives, and the partisan chicanery that misled voters in the weeks leading up to the election, and the callous indifference they showed to the grieving families as they lied to their faces and pretended to care.

It's all a bucket of hogwash. Yes, security at the facility was such that Stevens should not have been there. But you can easily make the argument that he did a lot of things to make himself a target. He went around Libya the way he felt he had to, showing the flag and working hard to advance our interests and those of the Libyan people. He could have been killed on many occasions — walking down the street, buying a newspaper, or sitting in a restaurant.

Some administration critics have vehemently opposed Obama's foreign policy objectives and efforts in the Middle East, with their description of an "analogy tour" that supposedly set the stage for the Arab Spring that is held to have been so detrimental to our interests. They claim we made a huge error in not offering more support to Mubarak, thereby opening the door to a government heavily influenced if not controlled by Islamic extremists, and displayed weakness toward Iran, abandoning our allies, most notably Israel, leaving them to be threatened by nuclear weapons.

Let me respectfully ask: what would they have said about a Berkeley-educated career Foreign Service officer who started out in the Peace Corps, loved and supported Muslim culture, was sharply criticized when he was posted at our consulate in Jerusalem for his support of the Palestinians, was a great friend of Secretary Clinton, wanted to be our Ambassador to Iran, played an important role in persuading Obama to go after Gaddafi, and put State in a very difficult position because he insisted on continually risking his life by making himself such a public figure, refusing to hide in safe locations under heavy security to be protected from the gangs of murderous thugs who had repeatedly threatened his life … BEFORE he was killed? Just another misguided utopian liberal actively undermining our national security, that's my guess.

I mourn the death of those other three guys as much as anyone, but they wouldn't have gotten as much attention if they'd been killed in some run-of-the-mill, terrorist street slaughter. When an ambassador is assassinated, it's big news. And the Right howls for impeachment. We should ignore partisan hacks that don't give a damn about our foreign service officers unless it serves their narrow political interests.
This is a republic, is it not?
Yes, a constitutional democratic republic.
 
Last edited:
I got your difference right here:

Terrorist-Attacks-Bush_Deaths-at-Embassy-Consulates_List_Benghazi-obama-hillary-clinton.jpg

To be sure some bad stuff happened on Bush's watch. However, I once googled each one of these incidents, and in some cases, the number of dead actually include the people doing the attack. Also, in only one case was an actual US official targeted. They were basically targeting American interests.

I would be remiss however, if I did not mention Benghazi was a **** up . . . period. No evil intent, no coverups . . . just a cluster **** . . . like so many of GW's chess moves . . . just not as bad. BUT . . . most people bitching about the 4-dead . . . really believe they are on the moral high ground. Seriously, they do. Boy oh boy though, don't you ever mention a GW screw up . . . he's not president anymore. Yep . . . for some reason, asking why they were not outraged by the Iraq war Clinton made us get into (remember, when it was going good it was Bush's war . . . when it was bad it was Clinton's fault).

Reagan runs up the deficit and shrinks the size of our military? Carter & Clinton's fault.

1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon? Carter's fault.

Bush 1 screws up his own presidency, continues shrinking the military, and raises taxes? Carter's fault.

Bush-43 experiences the first recession of his presidency early on? Clinton's fault.

Obama experiences the first recession of his presidency early on? Obama's fault (Carter & Clinton may have had a hand in it though).

Bush-43 is president when almost 3000 are killed on 9/11? Clinton's fault.

Bush ignores the August 2001 PDB about Al Qaeda using planes as missiles? Clinton's fault.

Bush-43 decides to invade Iraq because Bill Clinton said there was WMD there? Obviously Clinton's fault.

Nairobi and Tanzania Embassy bombings under Clinton's watch? Not only Clinton's fault, but one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11, proving once again 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

All the embassy and American interest's attacked under Bush-43? Guess who is responsible? Not George . . . that's all I am going to say . . . plus the Bush-43 administration was so honest. I mean for cryminy sake. . . Jesus was his hero and that's good enough for me.
 
But hopefully the people that are running this Mcarthyesque witch hunt will be. The radical right has again taken farce to new heights. I smell a lot of campaign ads in the making, just in time for November. Cant' tackle immigration, minimum wage or jobs but we have oodles of time for this?

Ah yes this old chestnut. So, Obama expanded surveillance of nearly every American. He demonized his political opposition, and his agencies targeted any adversarial media, and targeted conservative groups. His actions (and his sec of states) led to the deaths of 4 American heros, by AQ, ON 9/11, and he lied about it to the American people...but its the persecuted minority that are on the which hunt. Brilliant. :roll:
 
Toward what end? What were they trying to accomplish?

For a start, we are going to find out what happened, and when. Who knew what, and when. Why weren't security concerns addressed? Who pushed the video? Who made the decisions here? Why did the administration seek to obfuscate, and hide information until it was FORCED to provide it? What should have been done. What needs to be done so it does not happen again.

Hows that for a start?
 
You got to be kidding me, many on the right would take what she said out of context, like: "What difference does it make."


I watched that remark in its full context. It was a despicable response to a serious inquiry designed to deflect attention from the question and drive people to an emotional visceral political stance, where the focus shifts to taking sides instead of finding answers. She achieved this goal to some extent as evidenced by all the folks on this board who do not want answers.
 
I watched that remark in its full context. It was a despicable response to a serious inquiry designed to deflect attention from the question and drive people to an emotional visceral political stance, where the focus shifts to taking sides instead of finding answers. She achieved this goal to some extent as evidenced by all the folks on this board who do not want answers.

I still can not get an answer as to whether or not there were any direct orders to hold that understaffed, diplomatic mission, at Any cost.
 
To be sure some bad stuff happened on Bush's watch. However, I once googled each one of these incidents, and in some cases, the number of dead actually include the people doing the attack. Also, in only one case was an actual US official targeted. They were basically targeting American interests.

I would be remiss however, if I did not mention Benghazi was a **** up . . . period. No evil intent, no coverups . . . just a cluster **** . . . like so many of GW's chess moves . . . just not as bad. BUT . . . most people bitching about the 4-dead . . . really believe they are on the moral high ground. Seriously, they do. Boy oh boy though, don't you ever mention a GW screw up . . . he's not president anymore. Yep . . . for some reason, asking why they were not outraged by the Iraq war Clinton made us get into (remember, when it was going good it was Bush's war . . . when it was bad it was Clinton's fault).

Reagan runs up the deficit and shrinks the size of our military? Carter & Clinton's fault.

1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon? Carter's fault.

Bush 1 screws up his own presidency, continues shrinking the military, and raises taxes? Carter's fault.

Bush-43 experiences the first recession of his presidency early on? Clinton's fault.

Obama experiences the first recession of his presidency early on? Obama's fault (Carter & Clinton may have had a hand in it though).

Bush-43 is president when almost 3000 are killed on 9/11? Clinton's fault.

Bush ignores the August 2001 PDB about Al Qaeda using planes as missiles? Clinton's fault.

Bush-43 decides to invade Iraq because Bill Clinton said there was WMD there? Obviously Clinton's fault.

Nairobi and Tanzania Embassy bombings under Clinton's watch? Not only Clinton's fault, but one of the reasons we were attacked on 9/11, proving once again 9/11 was Clinton's fault.

All the embassy and American interest's attacked under Bush-43? Guess who is responsible? Not George . . . that's all I am going to say . . . plus the Bush-43 administration was so honest. I mean for cryminy sake. . . Jesus was his hero and that's good enough for me.

Why justify avoiding answers in this case? The past occurrences have nothing to do with the question at hand, it's just a diversion. Focus.
 
So noted.
That tells us a lot about you.

Actually, it says a lot more about you. Why does it matter if the attackers were motivated by anger over a youtube video or anger over something else? Why would it be worse if it was a coordinated al Qaeda attack timed to "commemorate" 9/11? Does it make the security lapse any more egregious? Does it make anyone more dead?
 
I seriously doubt the Republicans who keep harping about Benghazi care about the four people who died September 11, 2012. They are in my opinion using their deaths for political gain, they want to use this tragedy to weaken the chances of Hillary Clinton should she decide to run for president in 2014. They misquote what Clinton said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013, they say she said "What difference does it make?" Here is what she actually said:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."​

The difference is that the President and his cabinet lied to us for two weeks and planted a false story about the attacks on Benghazi were inspired by a youtube video.
 
Back
Top Bottom