• 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!

Where do you stand?

What’s your take on Benghazi?

  • A stupid video incited localized terror

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    34
  • Poll closed .

Dooble

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What’s your take on Benghazi?
 
Like most of what Obama does, I consider it to be unintentional, stupid, and a bad decision.
 
The only worthwhile part of this thread is "Let's not forget the atrocities of George W. Bush."
Why is it that "Libertarians" don't sound any different than Liberals?
 
What’s your take on Benghazi?

A preplanned terrorist attack that happened on the anniversary of 9-11 that had nothing to do with what some film maker.
 
Major league f-up. Not criminal.

The more I look into this matter, the more I'm convinced this was Pres. Obama's lesser involved version of Reagan's Iran/Contra. The investigation will likely fade away because Rep. Issa and the Republican Party can't find that smoking gun that directly connects the President to arms dealing (they didn't find it with Fast and Furious, they won't find it with "Benghazi-Gate"), but I suspect there are similarities. Only the dirty cream didn't rise all the way to the top. Instead, it stopped at Sec. Clinton.
 
This is not a good poll. None of the responses accurately represent the situation.
 
This is not a good poll. None of the responses accurately represent the situation.

Hi Don, nice to see you as always. How would you summarize the situation? You tend to have a refreshingly honest, straightforward, balanced view and I am really curious as to hear your thoughts.
 
Libertarians can trash both Bush and Obama. It's allowed.

Well, actual Libertarians can. It's the ones that think the word "libertarian" is just a cooler sounding way to say "Republican" that you have to watch out for.
 
I agree that the poll doesn't accurately reflect the situation, so I didn't respond on the poll.

My take on Bengazi is that it was a time of chaos, with riots in Egypt and US embassies being attacked in Egypt and one other country (can't recall which), wild protests in other countries about some stupid film, all at the same time the consulate was attacked in Bengazi. Nobody knew what the heck was going on in Libya, because the Libyan government did not secure the scene, which was burned and looted, and refused to allow US investigators into the country for weeks.

Since then, Bengazi has been used as a political football, with investigation after investigation trying to find a smoking gun to prove "Obama's" involvement in... something shady. What we have learned is that the CIA annotated talking points, changing some verbiage since facts were still in the process of being confirmed, and Susan Rice repeated those talking points, which was her job. Election fever then took over, tarnishing Rice in an attempt to lower Obama's re-election potential.

Now we pretty well know that it was a planned attack by Libyan terrorist groups. You'd think the focus would then shift to finding those involved, but no. Somehow, someway this attack is Obama's fault, and looks like his political opponents are going to spend the next four years trying to prove it.

In closing, this poll sucks. :)
 
Hi Don, nice to see you as always. How would you summarize the situation? You tend to have a refreshingly honest, straightforward, balanced view and I am really curious as to hear your thoughts.

It's complex. But based on the information currently available, I'd summarize it as follows:

1) Planning for security, etc., was somewhat chaotic and disorganized prior to the attacks.
2) Once the terrorist attack was underway, there was no effective way to do more to rescue those under attack. U.S. fighter jets were in Italy.
3) The messaging afterwards was not very good. Subsequent accounts had to be revised. The gap between the early accounts and later accounts had an impact on credibility. That gap was also exploited in the partisan jockeying, both in Washington and by political pundits along idealogical or partisan lines.
4) There was an investigation and recommendations were made. The focus should be on learning from what happened, not tilting at windmills aimed a politicizing what was a terrible tragedy.

In terms of long-term political impact, I do not believe the Benghazi attacks will have any serious adverse impact should former Secretary of State Clinton seek the Presidency.
 
I think the administration was upset about the internet video, and had pre-determined to attack it (and the first admendment) at the earliest sign it had caused repercussions in middle east.

So! They jumped in, and found themselves in deep doodoo, and no easy way to extricate themselves.


They shouldn't have been looking for an opening to bash 1st amendment anyway. Obama admin deserves whatever censure it gets!
 
I stand right here, in my hometown, thinking that maybe it would be best if we just stayed the hell out of the Middle East entirely and let them kill each other to their hearts' content. If they commit terrorism HERE, we should find out where the tangos came from/who aided and supported them, bomb that town to dust, and say "don't do that again or next time the bombing zone doubles in size."


There's too many crazy people in that part of the world.



(But yeah, I think somebody dropped the ball on Bengazi and yeah, it was covered up as long as possible mainly because of the elections. Sucks. )
 
None of those. A attack on a embassy/cia compound in which 4 Americans died, where there was no cover up and the conservatives tried to run with this for a while and it didnt really work.
 
Libertarians can trash both Bush and Obama. It's allowed.
Or they can simply trash George Bush on a Barack Obama related thread. It's allowed, and it's also liberal. ;)
 
my take is that we should have zero embassies in hostile or unstable nations.
 
my take is that we should have zero embassies in hostile or unstable nations.

A lesson we should have learned some 30 years ago in Tehran.
 
This is not a good poll. None of the responses accurately represent the situation.
This is not a good response. You fail to explain how this is not a good poll.
 
This is not a good response. You fail to explain how this is not a good poll.

I do. The 2nd sentence explains it. In general, putting aside wording of questions, a useful poll should contain a response that accurately reflects the situation about which a question is being asked. That is not the case with this poll.
 
It's complex. But based on the information currently available, I'd summarize it as follows:

1) Planning for security, etc., was somewhat chaotic and disorganized prior to the attacks.
2) Once the terrorist attack was underway, there was no effective way to do more to rescue those under attack. U.S. fighter jets were in Italy.
3) The messaging afterwards was not very good. Subsequent accounts had to be revised. The gap between the early accounts and later accounts had an impact on credibility. That gap was also exploited in the partisan jockeying, both in Washington and by political pundits along idealogical or partisan lines.
4) There was an investigation and recommendations were made. The focus should be on learning from what happened, not tilting at windmills aimed a politicizing what was a terrible tragedy.

In terms of long-term political impact, I do not believe the Benghazi attacks will have any serious adverse impact should former Secretary of State Clinton seek the Presidency.
I think your final sentence reflects your concerns.
 
That's an analytical statement based on polling data and the actual events as to what happened at Benghazi (based on the latest info.), not concerns.

Election 2016
No doubt. My statement is an evaluation of your concerns, which are reflected in your last sentence. Clinton's future political prospects have nothing whatever to do with the events which transpired in Benghazi. That you addressed her future while analyzing Benghazi speaks to exactly what I mentioned.
 
Back
Top Bottom