• 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!

Benghazi scandal deepens

sawyerloggingon said:
Nonsense from beginning to end, put the bong down!
Click to expand...

Explain why. Come on man, think a bit. Try to think aout why Obama would not do a better job covering up his grand conspiracies and scandals.
 
windowdressing said:
I'm afraid so ... he even got away with causing solar flares a year or two back ... but he will have a ways to go to match W ... lying to take us into a war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including over 4000 U.S. military -- and how many more maimed?
Click to expand...

Like I said, we agree. Obama will get away with this Benghazi mess and 4 dead Americans.
 
I can imagine he might be a bit more willing to talk to a news agency than the CIA. I dont think I would have wanted to do the interview, might have been a drone in the area. Why do you think?
sawyerloggingon said:
Why do you think CNN can find him but Obama "can not"?
Click to expand...
 
Heck...not only arent they going after the attackers, they still cant figure out who in the Hillary Clinton State Department was feeding the false stories about the demonstrations.
 
Why would they not go after the attackers?
VanceMack said:
Heck...not only arent they going after the attackers, they still cant figure out who in the Hillary Clinton State Department was feeding the false stories about the demonstrations.
Click to expand...
 
mak2 said:
Osama is dead, as are alot of AlQaeda. Do you not beleive that? Who is GM?
Click to expand...

General Motors. Sure a lot of Al Qaeda are dead, but look what only a couple dozen were able to pull off, simply taking advantage of how easily one could take control of U.S. commercial aircraft. We saw what one "sympathizer" could do with only their personal weapon at Fort Hood. Imagine what they could do with real weapons.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Obviously you didn't watch the video in the link given in the op. :roll:
Click to expand...

I did watch the video...The News is fake...How do I know...Hint...No second source....Not by Routers nor AP or even CNN. Not picked up by Le Mond, Spiegle or BBC, and they pickup freaking everything.

The only source that are parroting are ultra Right wings and they are sourcing The Weekly...That is a classical tactics....


Diving Mullah
 
I agree, I dont think we will ever wipe all all of AlQueda. A nut with an IED can be very destructive. But what exactly does that mean? Did you think Obama said they were all dead, the threat was gone. I was never under the impression anyone ever said that.
ttwtt78640 said:
General Motors. Sure a lot of Al Qaeda are dead, but look what only a couple dozen were able to pull off, simply taking advantage of how easily one could take control of U.S. commercial aircraft. We saw what one "sympathizer" could do with only their personal weapon at Fort Hood. Imagine what they could do with real weapons.
Click to expand...
 
Diving Mullah said:
I did watch the video...The News is fake...How do I know...Hint...No second source....Not by Routers nor AP or even CNN. Not picked up by Le Mond, Spiegle or BBC, and they pickup freaking everything.

The only source that are parroting are ultra Right wings and they are sourcing The Weekly...That is a classical tactics....


Diving Mullah
Click to expand...

The video has a clip of CNN talking about the interview, are you OK? :lol:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Like I said, we agree. Obama will get away with this Benghazi mess and 4 dead Americans.
Click to expand...

I can only imagine how you feel about Bush getting away with the Iraq mess and over 4000 dead Americans and over 30,000 wounded ... I'm sorry ...
 
windowdressing said:
I hope that that was a bad joke Maggie ... a lot of families in this country and in Iraq might take issue with the notion that it was a cake walk ...
Click to expand...

No. And if it made you stop and think, that's good.

It took three weeks maximum to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. It was the nation-building we engaged in that cost over 4,000 lives and countless casualties.
 
MaggieD said:
No. And if it made you stop and think, that's good.

It took three weeks maximum to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. It was the nation-building we engaged in that cost over 4,000 lives and countless casualties.
Click to expand...

what was there to think about? ... it was a callous and ignorant statement and separating the toppling of the dictator and the aftermath doesn't wash, other than in you mind ...
 
windowdressing said:
what was there to think about? ... it was a callous and ignorant statement and separating the toppling of the dictator and the aftermath doesn't wash, other than in you mind ...
Click to expand...

Oh, stop it. The next time Americans "go to war" with some dinkey-assed country and think our military dwarfs everyone/everything on planet earth, perhaps we'll realize that toppling a dictatorship is just the beginning. It wasn't callous and ignorant. It was purposeful.
 
windowdressing said:
I can only imagine how you feel about Bush getting away with the Iraq mess and over 4000 dead Americans and over 30,000 wounded ... I'm sorry ...
Click to expand...

The fact that you desperately want to change the subject makes it obvious how uncomfortable THIS subject makes you. :lol:
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, stop it. The next time Americans "go to war" with some dinkey-assed country and think our military dwarfs everyone/everything on planet earth, perhaps we'll realize that toppling a dictatorship is just the beginning. It wasn't callous and ignorant. It was purposeful.
Click to expand...

I was for the war and it was an overwhelming and quick victory, I was against the nation building and it went even worse than my worst fears.
 
So tell me, why do you think Obama would not go after the perps?
sawyerloggingon said:
The fact that you desperately want to change the subject makes it obvious how uncomfortable THIS subject makes you. :lol:
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
No. And if it made you stop and think, that's good.

It took three weeks maximum to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. It was the nation-building we engaged in that cost over 4,000 lives and countless casualties.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like any intelligent president didn't see that coming. Remember Rumsfeld and Cheney saying it would be a cakewalk and Iraqis would put flowers in our soldiers rifle barrels.

You must have a selective memory.

Smart presidents don't do stupid things like invade a nation in turmoil, especially on false pretenses. Clinton totally contained and degraded Saddam's army (armed by Reagan of course), with sanctions and no-fly zone. It hardly cost anything. Bush spent $3T and caused chaos in the middle east and gave Iran hegemony over the region.

See the difference?
 
Oh, ok that splains it.

Do you really think that makes much sense? The CIA could nab someone, throw him in gitmo, have a trial hang him and tell every one any story they want to. With all this other scandal, if Obama was as evil and kniving as the RWers claim, why wouldn't he? Kinda make him self look like a terrorist killer at the same time.
sawyerloggingon said:
Just a guess but I think he wants this whole Benghazi fiasco to just go away and catching the guys that did it will put the spotlight on the original event and his horrible mishandling of it.
Click to expand...
 
thinkforyoursel said:
When you guys find the WMD that 100,000 innocent Iraqis died for .....we'll start paying attention to your cause.
Until then ....the American people will continue to tune out your phony political jihad ....you're hypocrisy is fooling no-one........zzzzzzzzzz :roll:
Click to expand...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Cmon man, with a handle like " think for yourself" you have to be smarter than that. Only simpletons bought into the "Bush lied people died' false narrative, people that were easily manipulated, who COULD NOT think for themselves.

So speaking of hypocrisy, it looks like Democrats prior to voting YES on the Iraq Resolution agreed that Saddam had WMD's, not to mention he wiped out a village full of Kurds.

So what's your problem ? Do you ACTUALLY believe Bush lied and took us into war ?
 
sangha said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that none of those people you quoted actually invaded Iraq?
Click to expand...

Democrats are often more concerned with the next election than with doing the right thing. Even so, 82 Democrats voted for the invasion in the House. And 58% of Dems in the Senae voted for it as well. Couldn't have done it without them.
 
He did commit our troops to die going after nonexistent WMD. It was his decision and, lie or not, it is on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom