Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

The Truth About Benghazi


Shady

Recommended Posts

It was clearly about confusion given that they had no one at the scene to give them accurate information. Duh.

And the apology thing is getting old. Condemning something and saying it shouldn't be done is not the same as apologising for it.

It had nothing to do with confusion, and everything to do with obfuscating the political decisions Obama made towards maintaining a "low profile" in Libya which left the consulate in Benghazi vulnerable to attack. This was why the "Innocence of Muslims" film was dishonestly blamed for causing a spontaneous eruption of rage, in order to shield Obama from questions about decisions that had been made regarding security in Libya, left his incompetence be further exposed and his false narrative of being tough on security further eroded.

I love your leftist spin as you pretend to be a conservative. You even have socialists agreeing with you, how surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said earlier, comparing those two incidents is absurd.

But if you want me to put on my stupid hat in order to get down to your level, more American have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since Obama took office than during Bush's tenure. And Bush oversaw these two wars for seven and five years, respectively, whereas Obama has overseen them both for just under four years. Although tangential, Obama's also spent more money on both conflicts than Bush did during his tenure.

Makes sense. Blame Obama for the recession caused by the Republicans, and blame him for the war the Republicans started...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, I was wrong about Iraq. Remember that I prefaced the statement with an acknowledgement that it was as stupid as your original comment to which I was replying. Comparing 9/11 and the attack on the consulate in Benghazi is beyond stupid.

Why??

You really think this was the first successful terrorist attack murdering Americans since Obama took office? Wow.

Again lets look at the record. Obama has the lowest American deaths due to terrorism in 30 years. RECORDS AND FACTS MATTER. Your Romnesia doesn't matter because I know the facts and my ballot is in the mail. My vote is going to count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It had nothing to do with confusion, and everything to do with obfuscating the political decisions Obama made towards maintaining a "low profile" in Libya which left the consulate in Benghazi vulnerable to attack.

You honestly think Obama, or even Clinton makes decisions at that level? You think some guys show up at their office with a list of consulates in small countries and they discuss how many guards they should have?

I love your leftist spin as you pretend to be a conservative. You even have socialists agreeing with you, how surprising.

I hate that you keep calling yourself conservative. Uneducated zealots give us a bad name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, the people who actually are good at trashing other people's arguments don't brag and swagger about it. Normally it's the ones who only THINK they're good at it who have to preen and brag about their alleged accomplishments.

From where I sit, you suck at political discussion. You're too extreme, too crass, and come across like a bloward.

I'm not trying to make friends, here. It's just fun to swim in the kiddie pool once in awhile. Why don't you tell us more about the "confusion" over the RPG, mortar, and AK-47 attack on the consulate in Benghazi and the belief that it was associated with a protest (that never happened) against some obscure YouTube film?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to make friends, here. It's just fun to swim in the kiddie pool once in awhile. Why don't you tell us more about the "confusion" over the RPG, mortar, and AK-47 attack on the consulate in Benghazi and the belief that it was associated with a protest (that never happened) against some obscure YouTube film?

Why don't you tell us more about all those WMDs in Iraq. THAT IS THE REPUBLICAN RECORD. I'll take a guy taking a week to get things right then a guy who NEVER GOT IT RIGHT EVER!!! That is the republican record.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. The left is all about greater governmental control at the expense of the individual's sovereignty. That is the left by definition in its purest sense. I understand that it makes you uncomfortable because it may cause you to revisit some fantasies you've been entertaining for many years.

Nope. The left is all about empowering the individual through redistribution of the means of production. That is the left by definition in its purest sense. I understand that it makes you uncomfortable because it may cause you to revisit some fantasies you've been entertaining for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You honestly think Obama, or even Clinton makes decisions at that level? You think some guys show up at their office with a list of consulates in small countries and they discuss how many guards they should have?

I don't think he did, I know he did. It shouldn't be surprising considering the events in Libya were unlike events in, say, Norway. Reports confirmed it, anyways. Obama made a clear decision to maintain a "low profile" in Libya, and this policy was dutifully executed by Clinton. And this is what laid the foundation for the vulnerability of the Benghazi consulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. The left is all about empowering the individual through redistribution of the means of production.

That's a contradiction in terms. You're using Marxist ideology ("means of production" is a nonsensical Marxist term), so you might as well admit that you're willing to accept significant erosion of individual freedom in order to spread equality. Equality matters more to you than prosperity. You're concerned with equality of result rather than equality of opportunity. Thanks for coming out as a communist, though. It doesn't surprise me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he did, I know he did. It shouldn't be surprising considering the events in Libya were unlike events in, say, Norway. Reports confirmed it, anyways. Obama made a clear decision to maintain a "low profile" in Libya, and this policy was dutifully executed by Clinton. And this is what laid the foundation for the vulnerability of the Benghazi consulate.

NO THE REPORTS SAY they asked for more security at the embassy. I am not sure what more security 300 miles away would have done. Want to stop lying again or link to the report that doesn't exist?

This is more Republican acting like Americans are dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO THE REPORTS SAY they asked for more security at the embassy. I am not sure what more security 300 miles away would have done. Want to stop lying again or link to the report that doesn't exist?

Reports confirmed that Obama had laid out a "low profile" policy in Libya, which is why there was no real security at the consulate in Benghazi. Moreover, all embassies are supposed to have access to emergency security via a fast-responding detail of Marines. This wasn't provided, because of the commitment to the "low profile" policy. EDIT - This should've received close attention, considering the volatility in Libya, but of course ideology came first.

Of course requests were made by Ambassador Stevens for more security, and they were denied because Obama's policies couldn't be reconciled with them.

Edited by kraychik
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reports confirmed that Obama had laid out a "low profile" policy in Libya, which is why there was no real security at the consulate in Benghazi. Moreover, all embassies are supposed to have access to emergency security via a fast-responding detail of Marines. This wasn't provided, because of the commitment to the "low profile" policy.

Of course requests were made by Ambassador Stevens for more security, and they were denied because Obama's policies couldn't be reconciled with them.

Want to tell me how more security 300 miles away would have help in anyway? No you can't. PS citation needed for your claims your lies are to often to trust anything you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Want to tell me how more security 300 miles away would have help in anyway? No you can't. PS citation needed for your claims your lies are to often to trust anything you say.

I'm not here to spoonfeed you information, and it's not like you've got a semblance of honesty to begin with. So what would be the point? My integrity isn't in question, either. I acknowledge mistakes if and when I make them. All you do is shout "lie!" over and over like a petulant little child, which is actually typical of the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. The left is all about empowering the individual through redistribution of the means of production. That is the left by definition in its purest sense. I understand that it makes you uncomfortable because it may cause you to revisit some fantasies you've been entertaining for many years.

Redistribution of the means of production? That relates to ability, I doubt you can redistribute ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has gone to far. Now Republicans are helping kill off people in Libya who inform American Intel on Terrorist cells.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/19/issa_s_benghazi_document_dump_exposes_several_libyans_working_with_the_us

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"According to Obama admin officials". I'm afraid that everything the Obama admin does at this point is nothing more than politicial grand standing. But if they want to talk about outing Libyans working with the US gov., when the 4 Americans were killed, sensitive documents were taken which also mentioned Libyans working with the US.

No doubt Obama will attempt to use this at the next debate and get hammered again by Romney.

Edited by sharkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"According to Obama admin officials". I'm afraid that everything the Obama admin does at this point is nothing more than politicial grand standing. But if they want to talk about outing Libyans working with the US gov., when the 4 Americans were killed, sensitive documents were taken which also mentioned Libyans working with the US.

No doubt Obama will attempt to use this at the next debate and get hammered again by Romney.

No not "according to Obama officials" do you think you guys get to lie and no will call you out on it? No according to Foreign Policy journals reporting. Just because you say something you want to believe doesn't make it true.

One of the cables released by Issa names a woman human rights activist who was leading a campaign against violence and was detained in Benghazi. She expressed fear for her safety to U.S. officials and criticized the Libyan government.

http://thecable.fore...ing_with_the_us

Republicans are putting politics over national security and if it was Democrats doing it you Shady and every conservative here would be pissed. You are going to let Republicans basically putting out a list of names of those who help the US in Libya so no one in Libya will ever help the US again and out friends are killed because you don't like a Black man. You are so wrong here it isn't funny it is scary. THIS IS REPUBLICAN FOREIGN POLICY in a nut shell endanger our friends help our enemies to keep Americans scared. They don't want the problems solved they need an enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Along with Republicans helping extremist target friends to America the question becomes why does Obama have to scale back security in these high security places? Were Republicans warned of repercussions in 2011 and yet told Obama they still wanted security cuts? Well yes of course they were, they have blood on their hands that is obvious.

House Republicans cut the administration’s request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and $331 million in fiscal 2012....Last year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned that Republicans’ proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to America’s national security” — a charge Republicans rejected.

Ryan, Issa and other House Republicans voted for an amendment in 2009 to cut $1.2 billion from State operations, including funds for 300 more diplomatic security positions. Under Ryan’s budget, non-defense discretionary spending, which includes State Department funding, would be slashed nearly 20 percent in 2014, which would translate to more than $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security.

If you cared about security you wouldn't have cut it by half a billion dollars. You did though, your party did that.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/10/breaking-protecting-our-embassies-costs-money#13507458801981&action=collapse_widget&id=2170001money#13507458801981&action=collapse_widget&id=2170001

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking points Memo breaking down the Republican LIE that people keep posting on this board as fact. I know that conservatives on this board don't care about actual facts but I thought I would post them for the members that actually want to know what happened and why people on this board seem just fine with lying as long as Romney says it first.

One reason the Benghazi controversy has always seemed so bogus to me is that I’ve never bought the core premise, which is that the administration had any clear political reason or advantage to gain by claiming the attack was tied to the video as opposed to a pre-planned assault. (Here’s our look at how Benghazi evolved into a GOP talking point.) In addition to a great number of hacks peddling this idea, some people I respect a great deal seem to credit the idea too. But again, it doesn’t add up to me.

However that may be, the factual premise itself now seems to be coming apart. In this morning’s Washington Post, David Ignatius comes forward with new evidence suggesting that Susan Rice’s now notorious claims about the centrality of the video were pretty much verbatim from CIA talking points prepared that day for administration officials......

My global take remains the same: only in the final weeks or a presidential campaign, with one candidate desperate for a America under siege Carteresque tableau to play against, would this ever remotely have been treated like a scandal. A bunch of reporters basically got played and punk’d.

There is lots of things I didn't post, (fair use and all) but if those who actually care about what truly happened and don't think that outing the US's friends and Inormants in the middle is a good idea there is a lot of good well reported and cited facts. For the Romney supports I already know they don't care about the truth they would rather live in their fantasy world then look at real facts anyway.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/more_problems_for_romney.php?ref=fpblg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one will probably feature in the debate. I'm betting Obama will be on the defensive most of the night.

]Suspect in Benghazi attack, in plain sight, scoffs at U.S.[/b]

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

| New York Times News Service

First Published Oct 18 2012 08:25 pm • Last Updated Oct 18 2012 08:26 pm

Benghazi, Libya • Just days after President Barack Obama vowed to hunt down and bring to justice those responsible for the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound here, Ahmed Abu Khattala — one of those considered a ringleader — spent two leisurely hours Thursday evening at a luxury hotel full of journalists, relaxed in a red fez and sandals, sipping mango juice on a patio overlooking the Mediterranean and scoffing at the threats coming from both the American and Libyan governments.

Libya’s fledgling national army was a "national chicken," Abu Khattala said, using an Arabic rhyme. Asked who should take responsibility for apprehending the mission’s attackers, he chuckled at the weakness of the Libyan authorities. And he accused U.S. leaders of "playing with the emotions of the American people" and "using the consulate attack just to gather votes for their elections."

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/55110322-68/abu-khattala-attack-libya.html.csp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Exegesisme
      2016 Election Should Debate For Real Solution On Real Issue​s
      By Exegesisme
      1 the moods of peoples may be driven by many transient factors, the social institutions have the duty to rule the moods of peoples into the efforts for a real solution of real issues.
      2 safety is always a fundamental concern for all existence, which should not be twisted to lose balance by momentum from any transient factors.
      3 a strategy of safety should always be considered as a whole solution on all issues of safety, any special issue of safety should be considered on its relative importance to the whole solution.
      4 for a whole solution of all issues of safety, I think all these factors should be considered on its importance.
      http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/suicide
      5 even only to the categories of homicide, suicide and accidents, there were 180,000 deaths in 2013 in USA. The 2016 election should debate how to decrease this number as most as possible, and should not be twisted to a few rare but striking events. If the attention is twisted, a solution may be good for one reason but bad for other reasons, then as a whole the solution may not make a proper contribution to the decrease of the whole number.
    • By Mighty AC
      It seems that Harper's office is in hot water for hiding information, yet again. During the investigations into senators Duffy, Harb, Brazeau and Wallin, which has had Harper tripping over his own lies, requests were made for 28 pages of emails relating to the fab four. However, Harper's office, in usual fashion, simply withheld 27 of the pages.
      The federal information commissioner will now ask a federal court to order the documents released.
      http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/09/14/news/information-commissioner-taking-pmo-court-over-withholding-senate-documents
      When discussing Harper's penchant for lying Preston Manning once said "words don't mean much to Stephen." When voters support a party and PM already proven to be a corrupt, lawbreaking, liar, aren't we basically sanctifying their immoral and illegal acts?
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...