Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on May 08, 2013, 01:20:17 PM

Title: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Scout26 on May 08, 2013, 01:20:17 PM
The R's are asking the right (and tough) questions.  The D's are circling the wagons and parsing quotes and accusing Rep Issa about lying about Sec Clinton's lies.

It just completely pisses me off that we failed to mount any type of operation to save Americans.


Where was the president during this time and what did he know?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: makattak on May 08, 2013, 01:42:46 PM
Where was the president during this time and what did he know?

Sleeping. He knew he was going to Vegas the next day and nothing was as important as that.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 08, 2013, 01:51:07 PM
The R's are asking the right (and tough) questions.  The D's are circling the wagons and parsing quotes and accusing Rep Issa about lying about Sec Clinton's lies.

It just completely pisses me off that we failed to mount any type of operation to save Americans.


Where was the president during this time and what did he know?

Honestly, I'm more pissed about the cover up.  The lies, blaming it on some demonstrations that didn't even happen.
Presidents make decisions every day, some of them quite tough.  To lie like this about a bad decision, because it doesn't fit some narrative?  Unforgivable. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Tallpine on May 08, 2013, 02:19:14 PM
Honestly, I'm more pissed about the cover up.  The lies, blaming it on some demonstrations that didn't even happen.
Presidents make decisions every day, some of them quite tough.  To lie like this about a bad decision, because it doesn't fit some narrative?  Unforgivable. 


My recollection is that even JFK took responsibility for the failed Bay of Pigs operation  =|
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 08, 2013, 02:32:55 PM
My recollection is that even JFK took responsibility for the failed Bay of Pigs operation  =|

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#Political_reaction

Honestly the more I learn about Kennedy, the more I like him.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: charby on May 08, 2013, 02:34:57 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#Political_reaction

Honestly the more I learn about Kennedy, the more I like him.

He had a lot more "class" than a lot of other presidents.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 08, 2013, 02:44:57 PM
Honeybooboo has more class than the current president.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Tallpine on May 08, 2013, 02:46:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion#Political_reaction

Honestly the more I learn about Kennedy, the more I like him.

He had his faults.  He wasn't quite the saviour that we all believed (I wasn't quite ten when he died so I get a pass for my folly).

But he was a far right wing conservative compared to BHO or even GWB   ;/  
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: slugcatcher on May 08, 2013, 02:48:52 PM
Honeybooboo has more class than the current president.

Which is odd since they both seem to have the same level of maturity.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 08, 2013, 02:51:31 PM
Where was the president during this time and what did he know?

 http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/LimbaughLetterPDF/011_1112TLL_PMSDv3.pdf
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Blakenzy on May 08, 2013, 02:52:52 PM
What about questions regarding their involvement in material support for Al Qaeda and other extremists during the overthrow of the Libyan government, enabling said extremists turn around and kill the ambassador? What about questions regarding our involvement and support of Al Qaeda and other extremists in Syria, as we speak? Forget about the 'response' to Benghazi, there shouldn't have been a Benghazi in the first place.

"Either with us, or with the terrorists"... ;/
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Gowen on May 08, 2013, 04:46:42 PM
Benghazi???  what's that?  The news is all about failed gun control, immigration, Israel bombing Syria.  They don't want us to know about this stuff or care about it.  Next thing you know someone will bring up fast and furious.  Like that ever amounted to anything. =|
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Boomhauer on May 08, 2013, 04:59:14 PM
Sleeping. He knew he was going to Vegas the next day and nothing was as important as that.

What we have a problem with is the unwillingness to take action. If the president is unavailable, then those under him need to make a decision instantly that is supportive of our people, rather than kick back and watch them slaughtered. Do it and ask forgiveness later.

But then that's you know, leadership...which is exceedingly rare these days.

Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: roo_ster on May 08, 2013, 05:32:39 PM
What we have a problem with is the unwillingness to take action. If the president is unavailable, then those under him need to make a decision instantly that is supportive of our people, rather than kick back and watch them slaughtered. Do it and ask forgiveness later.

But then that's you know, leadership...which is exceedingly rare these days.

I would think that the default position if the USA would be "Defend Americans, American officials, and American facilities to the utmost."
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Fitz on May 08, 2013, 05:37:30 PM
I guarantee that no negative consequences will come from this

America is too blinded by their love of BHO
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Fitz on May 08, 2013, 05:38:00 PM
I would think that the default position if the USA would be "Defend Americans, American officials, and American facilities to the utmost."

Lol

You are a funny guy
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Monkeyleg on May 08, 2013, 05:49:28 PM
I was listening to Hannity on the way back from the post office. An ROTC cadet called in, and said he'd been to the embassy in Aman, Jordan three months prior to Benghazi. He said that the protection around the embassy there was extremely heavy, with armored vehicles and lots and lots of guns. He made a good point in asking why we have such heavy security in a friendly country, yet had very little in a very hostile country, and the security that was requested was denied.

I can only see one reason why security was denied, was help was denied, why CIA talking points were re-written, and why the president, secretary of state, UN ambassador, and other administration officials peddled a lie for nearly three weeks. It was to not interrupt the "Obama killed bin Laden and eliminated al Queda" narrative of the campaign. Even acknowledging a deadly terror attack on one of our consulates just weeks before the election would call into question the picture that had been painted of Obama for the election.

Does anyone have a better idea?
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: lupinus on May 08, 2013, 05:51:50 PM
No, because that about sums it up.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: RocketMan on May 08, 2013, 05:55:59 PM
You nailed it, MonkeyLeg.  And unfortunately, nothing will come of these hearings.  Nothing ever comes of the hearings Issa has chaired.  Lots of smoke and noise, no fire.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: lupinus on May 08, 2013, 06:08:12 PM
You nailed it, MonkeyLeg.  And unfortunately, nothing will come of these hearings.  Nothing ever comes of the hearings Issa has chaired.  Lots of smoke and noise, no fire.
Well, it is the stupid party after all.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: grampster on May 08, 2013, 06:19:44 PM
The Republican party is the Stupid Party.  The Democrat party is the Quisling party.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Dannyboy on May 09, 2013, 10:08:06 AM
If the only thing that comes from this is that it ruins Hillary's plans for 2016, I'll be happy. 
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 09, 2013, 10:42:32 AM
If the only thing that comes from this is that it ruins Hillary's plans for 2016, I'll be happy. 

I can't say I'd be happy to settle for that, but it would certainly make the hearings worthwhile.
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: HankB on May 09, 2013, 10:44:17 AM
. . . Does anyone have a better idea?
An air of weakness (or "trust" in the new Libyan "government") suited this administration's narrative & accomodation/appeasement policy with radical Arabs. Sending help would have resulted in more Arab than American casualties, which again wouldn't suit this administration's narrative with the radicals. When we lost an actual ambassador before the election, a cover-up was indicated.

You nailed it, MonkeyLeg.  And unfortunately, nothing will come of these hearings.  Nothing ever comes of the hearings Issa has chaired.  Lots of smoke and noise, no fire.
They prosecuted Roger Clemens for "false" testimony before Congress regarding alleged steroid use, and that's pretty trivial compared to Benghazi, so are you saying Issa didn't follow up with prosecution and imprisonment when administration officials failed to produce subpoenaed documents or were cited for contempt?

Why . . . that would mean the hearings were nothing more than ineffectual posturing for the cameras!   :O
Title: Re: Benghazi Hearings
Post by: SADShooter on May 09, 2013, 11:26:27 AM
I was listening to Hannity on the way back from the post office. An ROTC cadet called in, and said he'd been to the embassy in Aman, Jordan three months prior to Benghazi. He said that the protection around the embassy there was extremely heavy, with armored vehicles and lots and lots of guns. He made a good point in asking why we have such heavy security in a friendly country, yet had very little in a very hostile country, and the security that was requested was denied.

I can only see one reason why security was denied, was help was denied, why CIA talking points were re-written, and why the president, secretary of state, UN ambassador, and other administration officials peddled a lie for nearly three weeks. It was to not interrupt the "Obama killed bin Laden and eliminated al Queda" narrative of the campaign. Even acknowledging a deadly terror attack on one of our consulates just weeks before the election would call into question the picture that had been painted of Obama for the election.

Does anyone have a better idea?

I recall hearing/reading rumors that Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi to meet inconspicuously with the Turkish Ambassador, potentially in relation to intel/support for the rebels in Syria. Has any of that been substantiated?