Benghazi – It Just Won't go Away!

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by longknife, May 2, 2014.

  1. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet it is not the right wing that is demanding the entire situation go away and any responsibility be swept under the rug far from public view...
     
  2. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sometimes one has to stand above the law when that law is simply partisan politics all gussied up in legal language...
     
  3. CowboyBob

    CowboyBob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's Fox Propaganda and right winger Issa are exploiting BENGHAZI!!! for political gain.
     
  4. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hillary Clinton's State Dept actually REDUCED security in Benghazi, despite pleas from Ambassador Steven's and others to INCREASE it. Face it Hillary Clinton's State Dept botched the whole Benghazi situation from start to finish as badly as her husband's administration did with 2 years of definitive Intel before the OTHER 9/11 attacks. If she couldn't handle the State Dept well enough to ensure the first American Ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979 ...WASN'T, why would anyone even dream she could handle being President of the United States?
     
  5. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Isn't it amazing that when someone or a media source reports on an incident involving the far left and its politicians, it is 'exploiting for political gain' but when other politicians defend the indefensible and other media refuse to report it is in some way a principled stand and responsible journalism...

    I guess the folk reporting and speechifying over Watergate and Iran Contra were also 'exploiting for political gain....
     
  6. Talon

    Talon Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    46,665
    Likes Received:
    26,222
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Obama lied about the cause of their deaths and exploited the trust of the American people for political gain. Now, another one of Obama's lies are catching up with him. Boo-hoo...:blownose:
     
  7. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The "mission" was undermined the moment your government lied about Iraq's WMD's.
     
  8. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,330
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree that it was undermined when we didn't find WMD's. But that in itself wasn't enough to lose the war for us. No no, it took the MSM and Reid, and Pelosi, and many others to make that happen.
     
  9. wolfin

    wolfin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This defies logic in a minor respect. Obama and his advisers supposedly watched the murder of Ossama bin Ladin, and the president bragged that he had done what Bush could not. Obama led us to believe that his courage and determination were so strong he virtually pulled the trigger. He made brave decisions which had decimated al Quaeda. Obama was in control and understood the details.

    Our men, including our ambasador were attacked and murdered on American territory, part of the embassy. The violence lasted on an off for hours. Yet, Obama could not be bothered to appear in the situation room. We still don't know where he was.

    The logic of the two events is that if Obama was so engaged with the first why wasn't he in charge during the second? Could it be that Obama's taking charge during the dispatch of bin ladin was a lie? Or did Obama care so little for our men at Benghazi that he felt the need to prepare for the next night's fund raiser?

    We don't know the answers yet, but the two events are discordant, unless Obama is truly Present Nothingburger.
     
  10. wolfin

    wolfin Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2013
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Why have several people thrown in Iraq, Watergate, and other issues which are irrelevant to this thread? Could it be they know their case is weak, and they are trying to change the subject?
     
  11. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,330
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Get used to it. In every thread that I have tried to convince people that someone f'ed up in Benghazi, I have to defend the Iraq war, Bush's handling of 9/11, and embassy attacks on Bush's watch.
     
  12. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the purpose of the war was to remove WMD's, then you lost.

    If the purpose of the war was to give the final blow to Iraq, occupy and destroy the country, and kill hundreds of thousands of people, then congratulations, you won.

    I didn't think people still supported the Iraq war....
     
  13. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,330
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The purpose was to remove Saddam and provide a stable environment so that Iraqis could establish law and order. I supported us winning these objectives, because I know we are going to have to send our kids right back. Hopefully the next time, their country will allow them to win.
     
  14. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Has America ever accomplished this in any country in the Middle East or Africa that they got involved with?

    The war should have never happened and be considered a war crime IMO.
     
  15. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When you have one entity controlling the flow of information, and obviously cherry picking the information being released, there has to be a reason why. The Administration released redacted emails and documents to Congress in response to a Congressional Subpoena. Now, redacting is supposed to protect source material. Not to keep material that makes the President look bad out of the Congress' hands. Judicial Watch made a request for the same information through a FOI request. Naturally, the Obama Administration denied the request, but a Federal Judge order it granted. On April 18, the material was turned over to Judicial Watch. Three days later the Whitehouse announced that they had hired Neil Eggleston to replace Kathryn Ruemmler as Whitehouse council to the President. Eggleston was President Clinton's council during Whitewater, and represented Rahm Emanuel in the pay-for-play schemes involving former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. The question is, why the Whitehouse felt the President needs a criminal attorney as the Council to the President? Eight days later, Judicial Watch told us why. It seems that their copies of the emails and documents had different redacting. One email showed that Ben Rhodes, the current deputy national security adviser for strategic communication for U.S. President, led a coordinated effort to blame the attack on a video, and away from Obama's foreign policy.

    You might remember that Obama used the US military in support of NATO operations to overthrow Kaddafi. That action was without Congressional support, and a clear violation of the War Powers Act. After claiming that no ground troops would be involve, it was later learned that US ground forces had intercepted a convoy carrying the Libyan President. The Libyan President was then killed. The result was a political vacuum that allowed radical terrorists to gain a strong hold on the country. So, I can understand that Obama might not want links made between his illegal actions and the Benghazi attack. Especially so close to the elections.

    You claimed there was absolutely no evidence of collusion by the Obama Administration, but that is just not true. Days after the attack, Senior Whitehouse Advisor David Plouffe claimed that Obama never made any phone calls the night of the attack. Now, that seemed like a strange revelation. A US Consulate is under attack, the Ambassador is unaccounted for, and the President chooses not to put the weight of his office behind reliving the situation. What's even stranger is that Plouffe lied. We now know that Obama made at least two phone calls that night. One was to the Israeli President. It seems that Obama had snubbed him earlier, and Obama still needed the Jewish vote for his reelection. The Second call was at 10:00 pm. That was to the then Sec of State Hillary Clinton. As I had already pointed out, Hillary had emailed the Situation room that Ansar al Sharia had claimed responsible for the attack, and that the State Department had informed the Libyan Ambassador that they believed that they were involved. Further, less then a year later, the Obama Administration indicted the leaders of Ansar al Sharia for the attacks. So, there is no doubt who was behind the attack. An hour before Hillary received the President's call, she was on the phone with Gregory Hicks in Tripoli. During that call there was no talk about protests. Right after the President's call, Hillary issued a statement blaming the attack on a video.

    Now, given the facts, the lies, and the timeline, there is no doubt that there was a politically motivated coordinated effort to lie about the nature of the attack. You are so politically biased that you can no longer see real facts. You can only see the Administration's lies. But, what I find most interesting is that you have not offered any proof that I am wrong. All you have done is to claim this is a false story, and say that everything is just my own opinion. You are right. This is just my opinion, but at least I have supplied facts to support my opinion. I have offered several of what I believe are "not debatable" points, and you chose only one section on one point to address. You claimed that it was wrong, but you offered nothing but your personal opinion to back your statement. What's the matter, no facts to call up? All you have is Hillary's "what does it matter" statement that you parroted?

    One final point, you claim this topic is a non-starter, but you spend so much time posting on it. Why is that? Why spend so much time posting on a non-starter story?
     
  16. Dutch

    Dutch Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Messages:
    46,383
    Likes Received:
    15,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope. Has not been done and can not be done, not with Islamic countries. Still, we try...
     
  17. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting post for someone claiming your background. This topic is about Muslim terrorist attack on a US Consulate. That attack was brought about by a political vacuum created by NATO's overthrow of the countries government. An overthrow that Canada took part in. So, maybe you might want to work within your own religion, or your own country, before you start pointing fingers at other countries.
     
  18. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So as a Canadian Muslim, I can't criticize US foreign policy?

    Canada doesn't have the army to do what the US does. And I don't support the Canadian government, for that matter. Nor many of the so-called Islamic governments. Last I checked, it was America that was invading other countries, American funding and supporting coups against governments it doesn't like, and America sanctioning countries which don't do what it says. Not Canada or Islamic states.

    - - - Updated - - -

    We finally agree on something. I'm scared... :eekeyes:
     
  19. Professor Peabody

    Professor Peabody Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2008
    Messages:
    94,819
    Likes Received:
    15,788
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lost, really?
     
  20. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So... where were they in Syria? That what you got for me? A former general who supported the war and clearly has no political bias whatsoever.

    Why wait until 2006 to leak this information? Let's see the weapons. Oh wait, they got lost on their way to Syria. So yeah, no big deal, Iraq's entire weapons arsenal got lost in 2004 and Sada just remembered in 2006.

    Thanks for the laughs.
     
  21. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,330
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Has America ever accomplished it in countries outside the Middle East? Yes. In Germany, Japan, and the Balkans. Is there some reason to think the mission was not winnable in the Middle East? Those people are inferior in some way?
     
  22. GlobalCitizen

    GlobalCitizen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    8,330
    Likes Received:
    1,209
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well you should "check" a little harder. You forget the Cold War? The US isn't the only one that knows how to destabilize countries and then invade them. You not watching what's happening in Ukraine? You didn't see the latest Hamas/Hezbollah rocket offensives on Israel? You think the Palestinians built weapons plants and built those 10,000 rockets inside Palestine? No, other nations put those there, and it wasn't the US! You think North Korea's Kim invades the south without the thumbs up from the Chinese?
     
  23. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It has nothing to do with the people. It has to do with intentions.

    The US only does what's in it's own interests, first and foremost. Everywhere it goes in the Middle East, death and instability seem to follow. It's aided the overthrow of countless stable governments and has installed dictators and puppets. For example, helping establish the Taliban in Afghanistan, only to invade and remove them afterwards. Giving Saddam weapons to fight Iran, only to invade and remove him afterwards for "having WMD's". Fighting al-Qaida everywhere, only to support them in Libya and Syria. The list goes on and on.
     
  24. OJLeb

    OJLeb New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What about it? I'm speaking about recently. The only countries war-crazy today are the United States and "Israel".

    Never said they were. Only that they are the only ones doing it.

    Euromaidan destabilized the country, not Russia. And there has been more then enough reports of CIA meddling.

    Haha... offensive, huh? No, I didn't. Which one, Cast Lead where "Israel" killed 1400 people, or the 06 Lebanon war where "Israel" killed 1000 people?

    lol Palestinians use weapons from WWII with some weapons from Iran. It goes both ways, however, considering that the US - actually you and all the other taxpayers - bought "Israel" the second best modern army US taxpayers money can buy with billions of your taxes annually.

    Who split up Korea to begin with? Oops...


    I never said the US was the only country to meddle in other countries affairs. Only that it's the only one doing it so much present day. Don't be angry at me, be angry at your government. There was nothing past-tense about my post. Yesterday, it was US and Russia. Today, it's the US. Tomorrow, well I don't think the US will be able to do it.
     
  25. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, Islamic state invades another country? Either you are completely ignorant of history, or some Imam is seeing how far his lies will go. History is full of Muslims attacking other nations from Mohammed's attack on Mecca to the present day armies fighting in Syria. Heck, didn't Desert Storm start with Iraq attacking Kuwait? And Canada has fought alongside the US in almost every modern day war. So, either brush up on history, or expect to be called on your ignorance.
     

Share This Page