Forum Thread

House Republican Report Blows Their Own Benghazi Narrative Apart

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 83 1 2 3 4 5 .. 6 Next
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The House Republicans have found themselves in a bit of a pickle after their own investigation revealed exactly what anyone with a sane mind has known the entire time: there was nothing that could have been done militarily to prevent the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi back in November of 2012. The Armed Services Committee report, which you can read in its entirety if you wish, concludes that “given the military’s preparations on September 11, 2012, majority members have not yet discerned any response alternatives that could have likely changed the outcome of the Benghazi attack.”

    For anyone who continues to say that this is a scandal that reaches the upper echelons of our Federal Government, I ask you to read this report before continuing to push this false theory that the right wing continues to propagate. The Report was conducted entirely by the Republicans on the panel, so it is still a partisan document that is full of hearsay, but the final conclusion that there is nothing the military could have done directly contradicts what the right has been insisting since day one.
  • Democrat
    Missouri
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    For the reasons why Sen. Paul is bringing up discussions on Hillary keeping Bill after the Lewinsky affair. Paul is so devious in the play of words and you can tell that he is hell bent on bringing Hillary down. Paul knows Benghazi is now a dead issue, so he's getting more mileage out of calling Bill a pedophile and Hillary possibly supporting him. The Lewinsky affair may backfire on Paul just like Benghazi. Those pesky Republicans, can't they find something more useful to America like "WORKING" for the country in Congress. Republicans find more time to look into scandals than promoting health, benefits, infrastructure improvements, education, and general aid to Americans trying to make a living. Republicans are just despicable and anti-social in helping the middle class and the poor in America.


  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I think the issue is the lack of response and not the preventive measures that would have prevented the attack, the warning signs were there , but our people failed to recognize them, that's all.
  • Liberal
    Independent
    Durham, NH
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    And, the Republicans refused to fund any more security for them! It all goes back to the Republican cheapskates being responsible for not enough security in the first place.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Again I am referring to the report that does not go into the lack of response from our leaders, funding or no funding, there still wouldn't have a been proper response if the administration's people paid no heed to the warning signs.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Again I am referring to the report that does not go into the lack of response from our leaders, funding or no funding, there still wouldn't have a been proper response if the administration's people paid no heed to the warning signs.
    This is the argument that drives me nuts. House Republicans refused extra funding that the White House requested. Not only that--they cut funding for security at our diplomatic agencies throughout the world. House Republicans shaved off $128 million dollars that the White House requested for extra security funding for fiscal year 2012, for a total cut of $331 million dollars because of our never ending austerity measures. That is a fact. You may not like it, but it is a fact.

    And what response are you suggesting was supposed to have transpired? Are we supposed to preemptively invade a foreign, sovereign country? I know our previous President thoroughly enjoyed doing that, but that is an act of war. We can't just send armed military units into a country on the drop of a dime. That's not how things work.

    Where is your vitriol against the House Republicans for their never ending drive to slash Government spending? Do they share zero blame in this? Or is it just President Obama's fault because that's the easy thing to say?
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Budget talks and who cuts what is all just smoke and mirrors in my opinion, you accuse republicans of slashing the budget and do not cite the reasons given the slashing or the reasons why the house democrats couldn't or wouldn't come to a comprimise , the Senate until just recently wouldn't even entertain a floor vote or even a debate on any House bills, I still believe that this entire Congress is nothing more that fat cats still trying to fatten themselves just a little bit more, the democrats moaning about all the wealthy people and their not sharing fairly and yet very few of them give to charity and they themselves are millionaires. The Armed Services report also cites the many times that White House personnel were told of the attack being of a terrorist nature and carried out by terrorists, the cherry picking of budgets cuts was and is of no consequence now because the Administration was not going to respond to the attacks. period.
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Budget talks and who cuts what is all just smoke and mirrors in my opinion, you accuse republicans of slashing the budget and do not cite the reasons given the slashing or the reasons why the house democrats couldn't or wouldn't come to a comprimise , the Senate until just recently wouldn't even entertain a floor vote or even a debate on any House bills, I still believe that this entire Congress is nothing more that fat cats still trying to fatten themselves just a little bit more, the democrats moaning about all the wealthy people and their not sharing fairly and yet very few of them give to charity and they themselves are millionaires. The Armed Services report also cites the many times that White House personnel were told of the attack being of a terrorist nature and carried out by terrorists, the cherry picking of budgets cuts was and is of no consequence now because the Administration was not going to respond to the attacks. period.
    Well, unfortunately for you we have coequal branches of Government where our Congress passes laws that the Executive must enforce. You may not think that's how it works, but that is exactly how it works. Your opinion means nothing with regards to the budget. Federal spending levels are set forth by the Congress and has to be followed by the executive. There are no if's and's or but's about it. If the Executive decided to not follow the spending levels set forth by the Congress, then we would be talking about articles of impeachment being handed down. So, yes, budget talks and who cuts what is much, much more than smoke and mirrors.

    The House Democrats didn't have to compromise. The House is majority rule where the minority has zero rights. It doesn't matter what they say or do. Your statement can be flipped and say that House Republicans refusing to compromise with Senate Democrats is a travesty. The Senate is not majority rule and the minority has far more power in that chamber. Should House Republicans have negotiated with the Senate to actually pass something that could have passed both chambers?

    Please give me specific numbers about fat cat Democrats not giving to charity. Where are your sources for this accusation? Or are you just accusing them of this without knowing anything specific?

    President Obama called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack on the very day that it happened. Do you not recall his statement from the White House Rose Garden? Here it is, in case you haven't seen it before.

    Who are you to suggest what the Administration would or wouldn't do? Are you in his inner circle? Do you receive daily briefings from the military brass? How were they supposed to respond to the attacks? Should they just have started an indiscriminate bombing campaign out of spite? That might have drawn in Russia or China. Would it be worth it then?
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Are you kidding me, this government hasn't run legit for quite sometime now, no one in this congress has run anything by the rules, the rules say that the Nation needs a budget every year, well it took them what 5 years to get a budget, made up that continuing resolution bullcrap, both Houses are paralyzed by party line votes and selfish needs, you have the chief executive being accused of being lawless because of his 28 changes to a law without the consent of Congress, hell if that's what he is doing then bring charges but they won't because they want to keep their little piece of the pie, and it's better to just stir the pot, this is what this congress is all about, negative politics, attacking each other, this is both parties method of .governing . I don't believe there is one member of Congress who knows how to govern and that goes for the White House also, both parties have the people be damned attitude and it's more about maintaining political party power and politics then governing a nation. We have now an established permanent political party class in Washington and they are the ones who write the rules. BTW, the President did not call that incident a terror attack ,what he said in the White House garden was that all terror attacks are terrible, he then went on the TV talk shows for a week or more saying that there was not enough evidence as of yet to prove that this was a terror attack, he hung his UN Ambassador out to dry when he allowed her to make the Sunday talk show circuit with a absurd story about a You Tube video, that no one saw. Give me a break. As someone once said, " don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining"
  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You are stating your opinion, but I am stating fact. I agree that our Government is paralyzed, but that doesn't mean that we are a lawless nation where the Executive gets to invade whoever he wants and gets to run around Congress.

    Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Numerous court opinions have stated that "the President possesses wide discretion in deciding how and even when to enforce laws. He also has a range of interpretive discretion in deciding the meaning of laws he must execute. When an appropriation provides discretion, the President can gauge when and how appropriated moneys can be spent most efficiently. However, the President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress." This was settled with Mississippi v. Johnson back in 1867, so it's nothing new.

    So, as I stated before, we are a Constitutional democracy grounded in law. I'm sorry you don't like our President and our Congress, but that does not mean they are lawless. You may not like the way things are, but that's just the way they are right now. The system may be at a standstill, but that is not the first nor will it be the last time in our nations history that happens.

    And you never answered my direct question about what exactly the President should have done with regards to Benghazi. Was he supposed to invade before the attack? Was he supposed to do an indiscriminate bombing afterwards? What do you, as Joe citizen, suggest that he should have done?
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The simple answer to your question on what should have the President have done is that he should have authorized the immediate rescue and recovery of our people ,Embassies and Consulates are sovereign territories to that particular Nation .
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sorry you all got it wrong; first of all why have an Embassy "staffed" while a Muslim country is in turmoil as well know certain groups hate Americans.
    Furthermore we are creating more and more hate against us worldwide on a daily basis by meddling everywhere; so things like this will likely happen again.
    So talking afterwards sure is nice, but did we learn from it is the major question.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You know Dutch, hindsight has always been 20/20, we should have, we could have, etc, etc. but we didn't and now 4 men are dead.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: You know Dutch, hindsight has always been 20/20, we should have, we could have, etc, etc. but we didn't and now 4 men are dead.
    Sure, but did we learn from it? Starting at "a" not starting at "z"? I bet that we keep doing the same stupid things as long as we keep thinking that we can run the whole world and protect all our personel which we place all over the globe etc. and keep on playing with our drones and interfere in all possible conflicts.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Did we learn from it? No, we will continue with this maddening idea that everyone wants to be like us, they may like and appreciate some of our freedoms but they want to maintain their own sense of identity, we appear to many other nations as a bully, who knows what is best for everyone, and this is why we will never learn from our mistakes and we will continue to lose friends, and more importantly respect.