Those responsible for Benghazi where Four Americans Died should be made to answer for the debacle.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com...
Thank you for posting a debate and sharing your opinion and I accept your debate and look forward as to how you will justify your opinion and make you claim. I also look forward to debating this issues as it had been repeatedly talked about ad nausea and no one I know personally shares the same opinion so it will be nice to examine your point of view. My only question would be you started off with "my opinion" however what specifically is your "claim"
What really happened and who those were who were to blame for Benghazi will only be discovered if we can determine what led up to that day and why American officials allowed the tragic incident to occur in which the countries embassy and its citizens were abandoned and left to their fate.
As a consequence, the American embassy was destroyed and four Americans lost their lives at the hands of this countries enemies. Another serious consequence of America's government officials not sending immediate military aid to the Americans who's lives were needlessly lost was the stain on America's soul and on the dignity of the countries people by the image cast by America's passively accepting what happened in Benghazi.
The blame for what was allowed to happen and what did happen there lays squarely on the Obama administration and certainly on the state department officials who were in charge at the State Department.
j25;September 21 -- Hillary Clinton
"What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans." But time has pasted and no one has been made to answer for this debacle.
"The administration's response to the events in Benghazi is completely incoherent, and has been from the start."
"CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend reports that a law enforcement source told her that "from day one, we had known clearly that this was a terrorist attack." Obama and his State department knew but didn't hold anyone accountable.
"Republicans have said that the Obama administration's changing talking points, and the inconsistent nature of the White House's explanation for the attacks, is evidence of a wide-reaching, potentially criminal cover up-"
".....-Obama thought that terrorist involvement in the attack on the embassy would reflect badly on him, so he and members of his staff did whatever they could to hide the truth...."
"In fact, the State Department and the Obama administration's flip-flopping, and the scrubbing of references to terror from the talking points, makes their goal quite clear--to avoid inconvenient questions about the responsiveness of the White House and the State Department..... to reports of (an Al Qaeda-related threat before the attack), and, it follows, potentially fatal negligence on the part of those involved."
("Al Qaeda-related threat before the attack, and, it follows, potentially fatal negligence on the part of those involved."
Quotes from a Fox News article By Douglas E. Schoen
Published May 16, 2013
I want to believe as many rational things as possible and as few irrational things as possible. Also hopefully hold up truth & accuracy not only a priority but a requirement of a functioning modern society. I also believe to live in a world of information and remain ignorant is not only a horrible way to live, but it’s an obvious choice. Lastly, I believe if there are two rooms to stand in, you want to be in the room with the best choices and least amount of evil. That will come in later in my closing about the rooms but I’m sure it will further my point and I hope you remember it at the end.
Though late in the post, thank you for your response. . . . however before we go to the debate I would like to put in a few things that are quite simple, straight forward, and easy to understand. You as pro have a number of things you are required to do. The first is to make a claim. The second it support it. My job as con is to take your claim apart. If at the end of this debate, if you have made your claim you win. However so far I haven’t really seen you put forth a claim. Just a lot of ranting, whining and completely ignorant statements that are apparently from a biased, racist and inaccurate sources. (Please note I didn’t call you racist, just your sources)
I assume your claim “My opinion is that The State department heads are responsible for what happened in Benghazi because they were more worried about not offending Muslim officials than they were about protecting the Americans in the embassy.” (Sorry I spelt checked your argument claim.)
Since you seem instance on blaming the state department, run by a woman, taking “marching orders” from a black man in the white house I was wondering if you were aware the congress actually defunded the security for the embassies and it was done by republicans? That adequate security was request in the form of additional personal and funds, the funds request by Obama were denied despite the state department warning that it may have ill effects, and even the white house press department saying this puts our people (American embassy works) in harm’s way? Probablly not. So the state department had a report saying defunding them would put people at risk. Did you also know that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) actually claimed in a news report that he and republican party gut embassy security by 300 million and they were glad to do it. Which by the way got wide support from the Republican Party including several presidential candidates. That a number of the funds also got shifted to supported oil rich countries embassy and not embassy for 3rd world nations with limited resources. So as the funds to secure embassy is actually the job of congress and congress cut them and reprioritised them, why are you blaming the president, state department and Hillary? That’s like blaming the neighbor’s cat when your dog pooped in your bed, twice, and bragged about it.
Your further claim – “Will the heads of the State department be made to answer for their role in that shameful debacle.”
As anyone with a modicum of time and an interest in accuracy can find out, as I’m sure you did, that there have a been a number of reports from congress on the subject, at least 7 finished and 2 more coming as of this time. The state department has done a major report. Non-partisan reports have been published. However I’m sure in your research you were as amazed as I was to find not a single bi-partisan report, independent report and all the hearings, not one has found any wrong doing on the fault of Hillary Clinton, the state department and the current administration. I was so shocked to find out that them despite this mountain of evidence that people are still using a number of fox news talking points as if they were still factual which your non-sourced quotes in r2 all sourced tol.
Your other claim is – “Shameful, that Americans weren't protected but instead of concern for American lives the state Department was more concerned about possibly offending Muslim officials in Benghaz.”
This would be horrible if true, do you have any information beyond http://lastresistance.com...... The front page symbol is a well-known symbol of documented hate groups. I’m sure you didn’t know this, because I doubt any one presenting a reasonable thoughtful argument would post a link to a page which proudly displays a symbol of racism and slavery. I mean could you imagine sourcing a web page with a swastika as its symbol when talking about a Jewish issue? Also the person you sourced as your article writer wrote several articles none of which were actually reporting. They were op ed’s which at times ranged from personal biased to bigoted views without support and laughable conspiracy’s. “Evidence shows White house involved in Irs targeting scandal from beginning. “ Are blacks demanding total immunity from being arrested?” “Human rights campaign spending millions to brain wash southern Christians” I have to wonder if you looked at the actual author.
In addition, you quoted a media reporter Townsend. She as a member of CNN was a major player in getting the Boston marathon bombing wrong and putting the general public at risk. In addition while arguing going to war working for republicans as a former homeland security Advisor to the president she had no idea in which country the terrorist were actually in. Again, how do you go war on terror and you not only don’t know what country they are in, but choose to support a war against a country you can’t place on a map. I call your authority biased, partisan and let’s face it . . . kind of stupid. Homeland security and you don't know what country the terrorist are from? I do not accept her as a source since this is routine for her. she claimed that 2008 terrorist were planning to interrupt voting in USA despite having not a single rational piece of evidence to support her and this is part of her routine
Also since you didn’t source your quotes from r2 properly i did not address them compleatly. I read your other debate to see if you had a favored website or tv show, but your previous other debate also looks like ranting. Perhaps if you could for the next round present some evidence and source it for me properly I could have an actually articulate debate to respond to other then pointing out your sources as biased and untrustworthy and conspiracy driven ranting’s.
Apparently you placed more importance on identifying, and segregating the participants as you have done because of personal objectives. For instance, "....A woman taking "marching orders....," perhaps this was done for the purpose of showing your unity with the feminists, in other words, "I'm with you in the struggle," then you continued, "being dictated to by.." A Black man,...In so many words saying, I'm not a racist bigot," interjecting a note of "political correctness" into the debate instead of focusing on the tragic incidents that took place in Benghazi nor addressing the main issues I brought up in the debate.
You brought up the State Department in your reply to me as if it was some noble institution who's motivations weren't to be questioned when the history of the State Department and its personnel
loyalties' and reputations have long been known and weren't stellar or without blemish.
You replied," I was wondering if you were aware the congress actually defunded the security for the embassies and it was done by republicans..."
Article from the Hill web site: Title of article....GOP cuts to embassy security draw scrutiny, jabs from Democrats
From the Daily Caller 10/10/2012
"House Democrats opened Wednesday"s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing by attacking Republicans for cuts to embassy security funding " cuts that only happened thanks to overwhelming support from House Democrats, including House Oversight Committee Ranking Democratic member Rep. Elijah Cummings. In fact, more House Democrats " 149 of them " voted for the cuts than did House Republicans, of which 147 voted for them."
You Responded," So as the funds to secure embassy is actually the job of congress and congress cut them and reprioritised them, (why are you blaming the president, state department and Hillary...." Why, indeed!
BREAKING: "Obama Proposes $129M Cut From 'Embassy Security ""
"BREAKING: Obama Proposes $129M Cut From 'Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance'
by Ben Shapiro14 Sep 2012"
"Today, President Obama released the long-awaited "sequestration report," detailing the cuts the White House would make to the budget under last year"s Budget Control Act if no deal is reached in Congress."
"And there, buried on page 136, is the White House"s proposed cuts to "Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance." $129 million. That"s a full 8.2 percent of the possible sequestrable amount. It"s a massive slash of the budget for our embassies, consulates, and security abroad."
"That"s just part of the White House"s ridiculously destructive sequester proposal, which takes a chainsaw to the defense budget. Most defense programs would get a 9.4 percent cut, and a 10 percent cut to other Pentagon accounts....." that the sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments and core government function."
"President Obama brought about this sequestration himself when he refused to cut the budget, and his Democratic allies in Congress did the same. Republicans didn"t want to tie cuts to tax increases..."
"Obama did. Democrats" default position was that cuts had to come from defense. And thus we ended up with the Budget Control Act, which left Congress in the position of watching President Obama slash the military budget if they couldn"t reach some sort of arrangement."
"In the aftermath of worldwide attacks and assaults on our embassies and consulates, it certainly looks incredible for the President to insist on deep slashes to our embassy security budget, let alone our overall defense budget. But that"s what this administration is all about: cutting defense, and leaving America and her emissaries more vulnerable."
You replied," Non-partisan reports have been published. However I"m sure in your research you were as amazed as I was to find not a single bi-partisan report, independent report and all the hearings, not one has found any wrong doing on the fault of Hillary Clinton, the state department and the current administration....."
Do you find it peculiar that Hillary and the State Department, after receiving notices from Ambassador Stevens
that the Embassy wasn't secure and that he felt that he and his staff weren't safe from attack, and that his many requests for better security were ignored.
Wasn't it peculiar that when other countries Ambassadors and their staff in Benghazi Libya were closing down their Embassies and removing their representatives out of concern for their safety that Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, wouldn't, after being made aware of these other countries closing down their Embassies over concerns for their countries Ambassador and their staff that Hillary Clinton, "Leon Edward Panetta who served in the Barack Obama administration as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2009 to 2011" that Obama's "Director of the Central Intelligence ...." wouldn't be aware of the imminent dangers to the embassy and would have provided military protection needed to protect it. Leon Panetta commented, Panetta on Benghazi attack:
Oct 26, 2012 " "You don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on," Panetta said.
Doesn't this sound quite similar to another democrats words, Nancy Pelosi, when she said this about" Obamacare," You have to pass it to find out Whats in it..." Obama, Hillary Clinton, the State Department, Leon Panetta had been told what was going on at the Benghazi embassy and the military was told to stand down ,Americans and the American embassy were being attacked and taken over by Muslims/ terrorists, and all those who should have done something just " stood down and waited to see how it all shacked out in Benghazi. After our embassy was destroyed and (4) Americans lost their lives there, the last word was, " At this point, What difference does it make.."
Thank you for your response and sorry for taking so long but I had RLI and wanted to enjoy things. Normally Im’ quite quick to respond. Thank you for following up your opinion. Your original premise was that not specific was responsible for an attack. I pointed out that your premise is fueled by misinformation and bias. I pointed to racist, false and completely biased sources and illogical statement and what I thought was humour dog poop example, which you didn’t refute though. I stand by you blaming the cat for dog poop and should win by default. However . . .
Before we begin a basic in logic.
You claimed “SD is responsible for A” and provided sources. I claimed the sources you claim are inadequate, I also showed you that “Rep” may have a burden to bear. I also showed the means by which you arrived at “SD is responsible for A” are faulty by your inability to make a clear statement. I also showed you “Rep is also responsible for A”. You did not respond to anything that furthered your claim or refute my claims but instead said well democrats suck to, that’s not furthering “SD is responsible for A”. By default you have shown your argument is unclear, biased and you even proved my point because you more interested in pointing out that democrats are just as bad as republican then furthering your original claim. You’re more interested in ranting and raving then actually proving your point and you’re easily prodded into blame raging.
In my opening response I said two rooms argument. In one room is your sources, in the other room is everyone else. Let’s apply this two the second round just to your opening paragraph
In my response (and your rebuttal) I referred to Black man in the white house and talking marching, and you and I agree that this is biased and stupid talking point. I agree, but not in the way you automatically assumed though. There is two rooms, one group uses those words and another that doesn’t. I’m assuming from your response you object to those words and want to be in the other room. These are terms from a simple google search from “don’t tread on me” websites. Thank you for confirming the bias of your website, the people with which you stand and your inability to recognize your own personal biased. Though from your other statements on debate.org I double you’ll join the room the rest of modern rational society is in.
However trickery to show your biased point aside. Again two rooms, people who agree with equal rights, support equal pay, who are about equal just and fair, and equality, that’s actually feminism. Another room full of people who do not believe in equal rights, equality and social justice. Since you have no idea what actually feminism is, and believe its something derogatory and detriment you have chosen your room. Its ok, I understand your ignorance because in the following sources you listed, I found two articles who completely are misleading on what feminism is. You can search debates on your position here on debate.org for research.
As for your claim of Political correctness, it was started before bill Maher got his tv show based on the term. It was coined by people pointing out that white racist using politically correct terms, such as no longer dropping the n word but urban youth to describe blacks. Thank you again for showing you have no history or context of what its actually about and are more interested in ranting and raving then furthering your debate.
The daily caller is biased, slightly racist and factually wrong. Today the first three articles of the day are “extremely misleading - Gallup pool destroys obamas positive job growth”, “People committed terrible deeds in the name of democrats.” And lastly “teacher of the year took boy into her home had lots of sex with him.” Ok. Sure the sex article was fun to read, but the other two were biased and completely factually inaccurate. So again the places you go will confirm your bias, so again I refute you claim. Also the various pictures are all showing Obama with charged accusations and him pointing his figure and republicans showing standing up for the little guy, constitution and a blond with really big boobs and smiles. Ok the blond was looking sultry/slutty but could you try to find a website that didn’t have raving racist article in it or completely misleading and outright lies about simple facts.
So again, I’m not saying there is no evidence that Obama is not evil, the state department is wrong, or that Hillary may be a man, but could you find a non-biased room to source that. You have yet to show me that room, instead you’re standing in a room with people that have racist roots, are politically biased and only show happy shiny white people and black people pointing and yelling. So if there was another round you could have provided a non-bias source, but right now you’re standing with . . . well its quite apparent.
I also put forth how simple it was to get simple accurate knowledge of the attack and the 6 reports from congress and 2 reports still pending. In not a single report did it blame the state-department as you claim. You did not refute this or even bother to acknowledge it showing again personal bias and living in your own information bubble. You failed to refute anything of substance.
Also you posted this “Your statement about the White man being responsible for the suggested blights of the black man is refuted by other black men and women who lived under the same social environments of life under the white man’s position. If black people have been denied because of their race how then do you explain the success of those other black people down through history who were successful while being black in a White mans world.”
This was posted by you which is a logical fallacy often repeated. Just because one person wins the lottery out of poverty doesn’t mean that all people do. It also shows a lack of understanding or lack of acknowledgment of facts, context and well simple understanding of economics and history. Also yoru confirming your bias that you’re not living in a racist society by using agreeing with people who confirm your bias.
You also posted this
“The State of the Union Address exposed a not so well hidden narcissistic attitude of this president, a attitude that has too often been displayed by him while attending to functions of the office of president. On one occasion, of many, when he was challenged to debate an issue by a representative from the republican party Obama couldn't seem to help himself from touting his superior position by inserting the comment that "the election is over and I won..." and Obama's State of the Union speech last night was no exception of Obama's narcissistic need to aggrandize himself whenever the opportunity availed itself. Instead of being humbled by the honor of being chosen by the citizens to be their president this president has taken the position that he was elected to deliver his edicts to the people's representatives and their duty, to meekly obey and pass his edicts without question, apparently Obama was serious when he said, " I can do anything I want,"I'm the president."
I think it’s very clear who and what you are, what you represent and in part what you believe. Which is fine, however your have to prove you claim, which you have not.
Dear audience and voters, Pro has made an unclear claim, provided biased sources that are clearly have racist roots and political bias. Also instead of refuting the claims that there are others part of the problem, he denigrates someone else in hopes of shifting the burden of proof. Please vote con. . .