Those responsible for Benghazi where Four Americans Died should be made to answer for the debacle.

Dera Pro 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. Nathan