• 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!

Vets Want Benghazi Testimony Made Public

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By Emily Stanton
June 25, 2013

With a former head of U.S. Africa Command scheduled to testify at a closed-door hearing Wednesday about the events surrounding last year's attack on an American outpost in Benghazi, former members of the military are demanding the hearings be made public.

OPSEC, a grassroots advocacy organization composed of former members of the intelligence community and special operations forces, has launched an online petition calling for an end to closed-door hearings on the Benghazi attacks.

"Americans have been demanding answers on the lack of a U.S. military response to the attack in Benghazi, but what they're getting in reply are committee room doors slammed in their faces," Scott Taylor, president of OPSEC, said in a press release.


(Excerpt)

Read more:
Vets Demand Public Benghazi Testimony With Online Petition - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

I would like to see both General Carter Ham and Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette testify before the public regarding the events of 9/11/12. They may have the answers as to who relieved them of duty and why these four heros and the rest of the personnel were abandoned and left to die.
 

I'd prefer answers regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq and justification for American WIA and KIA.
 
see how wolf tries to perpetuate the "stand down" lies (yes lies, plural) from republicans. Hey good news cons, when you donate to OPSEC just say its for the "education fund" and all donations will be 'non disclosed'. Secrecy seems to be important in your battles to save America from democracy.
 
Risky Thicket said:
I'd prefer answers regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq and justification for American WIA and KIA.
Click to expand...

Hmm..., would that give any answers at to why Ambassador Stevens and three others were abandoned by Obama/Clinton?
 
Wehrwolfen said:
Hmm..., would that give any answers at to why Ambassador Stevens and three others were abandoned by Obama/Clinton?
Click to expand...

We are not going to get answers for either. But the question does put Bengahzi in context, doesn't it?
 
Risky Thicket said:
I'd prefer answers regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq and justification for American WIA and KIA.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, you should have read the responses of Kerry, Daschle, and Clinton said during the discussion within the Senate voting for invasion of Iraq.


Kerry’s Support for the Invasion of Iraq and the Bush Doctrine Still Unexplained

by Stephen Zunes

As casualties mount and disorder continues in Iraq, and as the lies that were put forward to garner support of the invasion are exposed, Massachusetts senator John Kerry and his supporters have desperately sought to defend his decision to back the U.S. invasion and occupation. Their failure to make a convincing case may spell trouble for Senator Kerry�s dreams of capturing the White House in November.

Senator Kerry, like President Bush, believes that while it is okay for the United States and a number of its regional allies to possess a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction, countries the United States does not like must be prevented, by military force if necessary, from doing the same. And Senator Kerry � like President Bush � apparently believes that unilateral military intervention, not comprehensive arms control treaties, is the way to deal with the threat of proliferation.
Read more:
Kerry’s Support for the Invasion of Iraq and the Bush Doctrine Still Unexplained
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Resolution sharply divides Democrats

The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.

Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment."
Read more:
CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11, 2002
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Why Hillary Clinton’s Iraq vote does matter - Spero News

Why Hillary Clinton’s Iraq vote does matter

Hillary Clinton’s decision to vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq in fact is of critical importance and should disqualify her - along with Senator John McCain ...
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hillary Clinton's Iraq Lies - by Stephen Zunes - Antiwar.com

Hillary Clinton's Iraq Lies - by Stephen Zunes

... she continued to refuse to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the invasion, ... they may not have been in Iraq before the ... Hillary Clinton's Iraq Lies

If you manage to read any of this, you may realize that the majority of Democrats were in favor of the invasion of Iraq during 2002, regardless of the fact that they voted for the invasion before the voted against it. After this period of time there are no do overs.
 
Wehrwolfen said:
Hmm..., would that give any answers at to why Ambassador Stevens and three others were abandoned by Obama/Clinton?
Click to expand...

again thank you for proving you cant criticize President Obama without lying. keep up the work.
 
It's rather sweet to see Wehr trying to revive the Benghazi meme after it crashed in flames when the military testified that thinking they could send bombers to from Europe to bomb a Libyan crowd in 15 minutes was the type of delusional thinking only tea partiers and madmen engage in.
 
E
Let me help you. I'm not into gotcha politics. I'm not a partisan. One difference between you and I is that I believe wrong is wrong no matter which party is involved. You see it all as a big fun game where your side scores points. How about neither party is good for this country.

Anyone who supported the invasion of Iraq was wrong to do so.
 

am in agreement. It's not who's up in points it's the truth that I'm interested in. When Democrats claim they were against the war in Iraq, perhaps they were. Their representatives and those they revere in both Houses voted to go to war. There should be no parsing about it. I certainly agree that the representatives of the American people in D.C are not seeking the benefit of the PEOPLE. They are looking at how to win the next election. Just for the heck of it, look at the Senate Immigration Bill. Why all those Christmas tree presents in it and over 1,000 pages long?
 

Complexity frightens the conservative mind.
 
head of joaquin said:
Complexity frightens the conservative mind.
Click to expand...

It's not complexity it's all that Progressive "Pork". Is it like ObamaCare? You have to pass it to see what's in it. Garbage .....
 
Benghazi was a CIA operation.


shhh, it's supposed to be a secret.
 

At least get one thing right. The only thing Congress voted for was AUTHORIZATION to go to war with Iraq. There was no vote on whether it was the correct thing to actually DO so don't pretend there was. The only ones responsible for the decision to invade Iraq were GW Bush and Dick Cheney. I don't think Bush would argue that point either.
 
Last edited:
Wehrwolfen said:
Hmm..., would that give any answers at to why Ambassador Stevens and three others were abandoned by Obama/Clinton?
Click to expand...
It amazes me how easily you could find out how completely wrong this statement is, but you clearly do not care. Heck, I think I even showed you it was wrong, if I'm not mistaken.
Vern said:
again thank you for proving you cant criticize President Obama without lying. keep up the work.
Click to expand...

It really is amazing how completely they come to believe the lies.

Moot said:
Benghazi was a CIA operation.


shhh, it's supposed to be a secret.
Click to expand...
This is my current belief on why we promoted the YouTube video story for a couple of weeks.
 
Slyfox696 said:
This is my current belief on why we promoted the YouTube video story for a couple of weeks.
Click to expand...
The US embassy/consolate is in Tripoli, not Benghazi. That's an important point to remember since the compound where Stevens was staying at in Benghazi was actually a CIA annex and not a US state department embassy or consoluate. Stevens was working with the CIA to try communicate with the local militias so they clear the area of weapons. That also helps explain why the State Department requested the CIA edit out the word "consolate" in the emails and change it to "diplomatic facility".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…