The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Will the important questions be asked of Hillary about 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 607 times Debate No: 81371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Will the important questions be asked of Hillary about 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya
I am agreeing with the question asked in the Title of this new subject and am anxious to find out if the important questions will be asked. If possible, these questions will never come up when Hillary Clinton is taking part in the hearings and if they do they will be answered in lawyer legalese.
Questions that should have been asked but probably won't be.
Secretary of State was asked by Ambassor Stevens for more security at the American Ambassy in Benghazi, Libya and was ignored... Why was the requests for more security as the Documents Back Up Claims of Requests for Greater Security in Benghazi ignored.
"Issa and Chaffetz say they've "been told repeatedly" that the Obama administration not only "repeatedly reject(ed) requests for increased security despite escalating violence, but it also systematically decreased existing security to dangerous and ineffective levels," and did so "to effectuate a policy of 'normalization' in Libya after the conclusion of its civil war."
( B ) When other countries were withdrawing their ambassy personal and closing down their ambassies did the secretary of state not provide more security or also close the the American ambassy in in Benghazi,Libya as other countries were doing so.
"This "normalization," the GOP congressman write, "appeared to have been aimed at conveying the impression that the situation in Libya was getting better, not worse. The administration's decision to normalize was the basis for systematically withdrawing security personnel and equipment - including a much-needed DC-3 aircraft - without taking into account the reality on the ground...."
( C ) Why was security for the American Embassy provided by Libyan personal instead of American military forces ...
The panel faulted the department for ignoring requests from U.S. diplomats in Tripoli for security assistance and for relying on ill-prepared local militias and inadequate equipment to protect the mission in Benghazi....."
( D ) QUESTION....Why were the Military told to stand down when the American ambassy in Benghazi, Libya were under attack and were asked to come to their assistance.
[Forbes, October 2012]
Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives. "
The attacks by dozens of Islamist militants killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans and set off a broad reexamination of how the U.S. government protects its thousands of diplomats in dangerous parts of the world"
These are questions that need to be answered, the American citizens need to know who in the Obama administration were responsible


Although I would go on your side,

Before I will go on to my argument, i would like to say, that it is very unlikely for Hilary to answer the questions, why, because she is using her fathers influence, otherwise, using her fathers reputation to boost herself, and protect herself.

Secondly, although I am not a conspiracy theorist, I somehow have the feeling that the U.S. let the ambassador die to use it as propaganda against the terrorist group. It has happened before, the US government was planning an attack on US citizens, sink Cuban refugee boats, and blame it on Castro as part of a propaganda to rally more public support.

For the security, I believe that the government did not want to risk any other assets they could use at a future date, so they only used mercenaries, or private military contractor.

This shows the proof that the Americans tried, but they didn't put their minds to it, otherwise, they would've suceeded.

According to Operators with the Annex Security Team, they had become aware of the consulate attack after 9:30 pm local time, and were ready to respond within five minutes, however, they were delayed from responding by "the top CIA officer in Benghazi".[84] The Regional Security Office sounded the alarm and placed calls to the Benghazi CIA annex and the embassy in Tripoli, saying, "We're under attack, we need help, please send help now ..." Then the call cut off. After some discussion, the CIA's Global Response Staff (GRS) at the CIA annex, which included senior security operative Tyrone S. Woods, decided to implement a rescue. By 10:05 pm, the team was briefed and loaded into their armored Toyota Land Cruisers. By this time, communicators at the CIA annex were notifying the chain of command about current developments, and a small CIA and JSOC element in Tripoli that included Glen Doherty was attempting to find a way to Benghazi.

The GRS team from the CIA annex arrived at the consulate and attempted to secure the perimeter and locate the ambassador and Sean Smith. Diplomatic security agent David Ubben located Smith, who was unconscious and later declared dead, but the team was unable to find Stevens in the smoke-filled building. The team then decided to return to the annex with the survivors and Smith's body. While en route back to the annex, the group's armored vehicle was hit by AK-47 rifle fire and hand grenades. The vehicle was able to make it to its destination with two flat tires, and the gates to the annex were closed behind them at 11:50 pm.

Abdel-Monem Al-Hurr, the spokesman for Libya's Supreme Security Committee, said roads leading to the Benghazi consulate compound were sealed off and Libyan state security forces had surrounded it.

A U.S. Army commando unit was sent to Naval Air Station Sigonella in Sicily, Italy the night of the attack but did not deploy to Benghazi. U.S. officials say the team did not arrive at Sigonella until after the attack was over.

The section above shows that more proof that they could've made it, but they didn't. The distance between the two if they use a plane is 469 miles. They would've arrived, but they didn't

I did not put my mind into this, but yeah.
Debate Round No. 1


The debacle that resulted in the death of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, and the embarrassment to America in the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's lack of ability to function in that office effectively demonstrates that she is unqualified to be the president of this country. The question that was once asked, " Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00AM at the White House," was definitely answered, I believe, and it certainly has been revealed that it isn't Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton, in her refusal to take the necessary actions needed to save the four lives of the four Americans in Benghizi, Libya showed that she placed personal politics above the lives and interests of America when she failed to respond to the warnings about conditions in Libya in a timely manner even though she had received plenty of warnings and had received several calls for more security by Chris Stevans from the embassy there in Libya.
The personal politics of Hillary Clinton almost guaranteed that no military help was going to be sent to secure the safety of the four Americas who were at the embassy in Benghazi. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State wanted to make it appear that Libya, under her time in office as Secretary of State, was becoming more stable when the opposite was true.
Hillary Clinton and Obama wanted to protray the image to the world that Libya was progressing under their leadership,into a better, more stable and peaceful country and that all was running smoothly and Hillary Clinton,as the Secretary of State wanted to take the credit for Libya's improving conditions when the opposite was true.
The author of a Book, title," "Hillary Clinton's failed Choices.. A critiqe of the Hillary Clinton State Ddepartment," the author wrote this about Hillary Clinton desire to give a " rosy assessment" of what was happening in Libya,the Author reported what Hillary Clinton had said was taking place in Libya, " Over the last four months, the prime minister and this interim government have provided essential and effective leadership and they've begun the hard work of putting Liby back together, we've seen progress in each of the three key areas of democratic society- building an accountable, effective government, promoting a strong private sector, and developing a vibrant civil society...." That the State department was playing politics with their efforts to make Libya look like a success story when in fact it had become a more unsettled and a dangerous place, The Author of the book said, When regional Security officer Eric Nordstrom inquired why a security request was an issue, deputy assistant secretary for international programs Charlene Lamb shot back; Well, you know, this is a political game. you have to not make us look bad..." There it was, This is a political game, and no attack on an embassy in Libya, with the lost of four American lives was going to foul up Hillary's success story. Why weren't those directly responsible, one has to ask, for the tragic blunders and the political game players made to pay for the results of politics, over duties, made to answer for their responsibility in this debacle, again,party politics got in the way of any consequences to those who were responsible


rpopcorn6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


. I KNOW that you, like myself and many others are undecided at this time and we're waiting to find out more about each republican candidate that we feel would make a great president.
Its absolutely critical to the future of this country that we elect a person to be president of this country who can bring America back from the decline in the countries position in the world to where it use to be before Obama,the apologetic president, determined that America needed to be brought down a peg and went about the business of doing just that.
We need a president who sees America as "That shining city on the hill"and as the "last great hope of the world" a president who knows the goodness of America and its people and will refuse to ever apologize to anyone for either.
Ronald Reagan in his farewell address spoke of the America he knew, "Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the People." "We the People" tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. "We the People" are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.
Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the People" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the People" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past 8 years."
Obama and the democrat party has forgotten that Its "we the people "....who..."tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us"
America is looking for another president who will restore America's pride in its self, If we're fortunate there is such a man who sees America as Ronald Reagan saw America,as"That shining city on the Hill" "the last great hope of the world."


rpopcorn6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture