Benghazi mess is indicative of what is wrong in the White House

[Quantum Windbag]

It's important to remember we're out of Iraq and we didn't get entangled in Libya. Well done Mr. President.

I think the important thing to remember is why we aren't entangled in Iraq and who signed the agreement. That was Bush, not Obama.

As for Libya, since we are currently hunting down the people who attacked our embassy, I think we are at least a little entangled there. Funny thing is, we weren't until Obama decided to interfere with the sovereign government of a foreign country.

Obama got us out of Iraq and kept us from being entangled in Libya. Well done Mr. President.

He did not get us out of Iraq, Bush did.

He got Ambassador Stevens killed because of the way he handled Libya, if you want to praise him for that, feel free, I don't.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

What a mess... Obama declares Al Qaeda dead, then Al Qaeda mounts attack on US Embassy and four Americans die...

Obama then blames it on a movie that nobody's even heard of.

 

[candycorn]

I think the important thing to remember is why we aren't entangled in Iraq and who signed the agreement. That was Bush, not Obama.

As for Libya, since we are currently hunting down the people who attacked our embassy, I think we are at least a little entangled there. Funny thing is, we weren't until Obama decided to interfere with the sovereign government of a foreign country.

Obama got us out of Iraq and kept us from being entangled in Libya. Well done Mr. President.

He did not get us out of Iraq, Bush did.

He got Ambassador Stevens killed because of the way he handled Libya, if you want to praise him for that, feel free, I don't.

Ahh...Bush gets credit but no blame; basically that's you're entire modus operandi; right? Obama gets all the blame if something goes wrong and none of the credit for anything that went right.

Pretty much sums you up, right?

 

[candycorn]

I think the important thing to remember is why we aren't entangled in Iraq and who signed the agreement. That was Bush, not Obama.

As for Libya, since we are currently hunting down the people who attacked our embassy, I think we are at least a little entangled there. Funny thing is, we weren't until Obama decided to interfere with the sovereign government of a foreign country.

Obama got us out of Iraq and kept us from being entangled in Libya. Well done Mr. President.

Kept us from "being entangled in Libya"????
You do realize, don't you, that we had no national security interest in Libya when Obama took it upon himself to aid the rebels in their bid to oust Gaddafi.

Why the deception? Because if you conclude the Benghazi massacre had nothing to do with a cockamamie video no one has seen, you soon realize Obama’s favorite campaign theme — namely, that killing bin Laden decimated the terror network — is nonsense. And you realize that what happened in Benghazi on September 11 is directly traceable to Obama’s Middle East policy.

As noted above, the recent intelligence we’ve just reviewed arose in a historic context. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administration, echoing the Republican establishment, told Americans that Qaddafi had become a key ally of the United States against terrorism. Obama even substantially increased the American aid the Bush administration had begun providing to Qaddafi’s regime. The rationale for embracing the dictator was straightforward: Not only had Qaddafi abandoned his nuclear program; he was providing vital intelligence about jihadist cauldrons throughout his country. By percentage of population, more Libyans traveled to Iraq to wage terrorist war against American troops than did citizens of any other country. And in Libya, Benghazi was the epicenter of the jihad.

In 2011, however, President Obama initiated an unprovoked war against the Qaddafi regime. Though Qaddafi had taken no intervening hostile action against the United States, and though no vital American national interest would be served by Qaddafi’s removal, Obama chose to side with the Islamist rebellion against him. Why? As demonstrated in my new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the president was determined to sell the “Arab Spring” fantasy of a Middle East seized by the desire for freedom rather than strangled by the ambitions of freedom-killing Islamic supremacists.

In Libya, Islamists were the backbone of the rebellion: the Muslim Brotherhood partnering, as it is wont to do, with violent jihadists — in this instance, al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Toppling Qaddafi would necessarily result in their empowerment. They’d insinuate themselves into any new government. They’d set up sharia enclaves where they were strong enough to do so. And they’d strengthen themselves by seizing chunks of Qaddafi’s arsenal of high-powered weaponry. Being incorrigibly anti-American, they’d use their new influence and power against the United States.

cont.. Denying the Libya Scandal - National Review Online

Clearly, Barack Obama has plenty of motive for wanting to paper over his failure in Benghazi. Not only did the administration fail to adequately protect this facility, the whole debacle was going to invite a review of his unilateral decision to send assets into Libya after he had been warned that the rebels he was helping might turn out to be violent Jihadists. And so, here we are with four Americans violently murdered in diplomatic service to our country.

People should be OUTRAGED at the lies we've been told, which are covered more in-depth at the link above.

 

[Murf76]

What a mess... Obama declares Al Qaeda dead, then Al Qaeda mounts attack on US Embassy and four Americans die...

Obama then blames it on a movie that nobody's even heard of.

Yup. But even worse, he and Hillary have become better promoters of that formerly obscure YouTube video than Oprah and her book club. They wagged the dog, and today we see 10,000 turned out on Google's doorstep in London with more anti-free speech rallies to come.
British firm secured Benghazi consulate contract with little experience - Telegraph

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama got us out of Iraq and kept us from being entangled in Libya. Well done Mr. President.

He did not get us out of Iraq, Bush did.

He got Ambassador Stevens killed because of the way he handled Libya, if you want to praise him for that, feel free, I don't.

Ahh...Bush gets credit but no blame; basically that's you're entire modus operandi; right? Obama gets all the blame if something goes wrong and none of the credit for anything that went right.

Pretty much sums you up, right?

Yep, I have never blamed Bush for anything.

Here is a fact, the status of forces agreement signed by Bush before he left office required that all US troops be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

Here is another fact, when the last US troops left Iraq in 2011 Obama took credit for it without once mentioning that Bush's agreement forced him to pull the troops out despite him having worked since shortly after his inauguration to keep troops in Iraq past that deadline.

Being an honest person, and remembering Obama's promise to get the troops out of Iraq by the end of 2009, I refuse to give Obama credit for being forced to stick to the Bush agreement.

 

[clevergirl]

What a mess... Obama declares Al Qaeda dead, then Al Qaeda mounts attack on US Embassy and four Americans die...

Obama then blames it on a movie that nobody's even heard of.

Why not, his liberal lemmings continue to line up for more of their daily dose of the kool aid, making his job of a sell pretty easy. Especially with OMG (Obama Media Group) aiding in the propaganda job.

 

[candycorn]

Obama got us out of Iraq and kept us from being entangled in Libya. Well done Mr. President.

Kept us from "being entangled in Libya"????
You do realize, don't you, that we had no national security interest in Libya when Obama took it upon himself to aid the rebels in their bid to oust Gaddafi.

Why the deception? Because if you conclude the Benghazi massacre had nothing to do with a cockamamie video no one has seen, you soon realize Obama’s favorite campaign theme — namely, that killing bin Laden decimated the terror network — is nonsense. And you realize that what happened in Benghazi on September 11 is directly traceable to Obama’s Middle East policy.

As noted above, the recent intelligence we’ve just reviewed arose in a historic context. Beginning in 2009, the Obama administration, echoing the Republican establishment, told Americans that Qaddafi had become a key ally of the United States against terrorism. Obama even substantially increased the American aid the Bush administration had begun providing to Qaddafi’s regime. The rationale for embracing the dictator was straightforward: Not only had Qaddafi abandoned his nuclear program; he was providing vital intelligence about jihadist cauldrons throughout his country. By percentage of population, more Libyans traveled to Iraq to wage terrorist war against American troops than did citizens of any other country. And in Libya, Benghazi was the epicenter of the jihad.

In 2011, however, President Obama initiated an unprovoked war against the Qaddafi regime. Though Qaddafi had taken no intervening hostile action against the United States, and though no vital American national interest would be served by Qaddafi’s removal, Obama chose to side with the Islamist rebellion against him. Why? As demonstrated in my new book, Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy, the president was determined to sell the “Arab Spring” fantasy of a Middle East seized by the desire for freedom rather than strangled by the ambitions of freedom-killing Islamic supremacists.

In Libya, Islamists were the backbone of the rebellion: the Muslim Brotherhood partnering, as it is wont to do, with violent jihadists — in this instance, al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Toppling Qaddafi would necessarily result in their empowerment. They’d insinuate themselves into any new government. They’d set up sharia enclaves where they were strong enough to do so. And they’d strengthen themselves by seizing chunks of Qaddafi’s arsenal of high-powered weaponry. Being incorrigibly anti-American, they’d use their new influence and power against the United States.

cont.. Denying the Libya Scandal - National Review Online

Clearly, Barack Obama has plenty of motive for wanting to paper over his failure in Benghazi. Not only did the administration fail to adequately protect this facility, the whole debacle was going to invite a review of his unilateral decision to send assets into Libya after he had been warned that the rebels he was helping might turn out to be violent Jihadists. And so, here we are with four Americans violently murdered in diplomatic service to our country.

People should be OUTRAGED at the lies we've been told, which are covered more in-depth at the link above.

Oldie but a goody

 

[clevergirl]

Four thousand + Americans died needlessly in Iraq because the Bush administration made up tall tales about WMD's.

You're saying that is less of a tragedy than this White House, after the fact, offering a poor explanation initially??

What kind of heartless old bag are you?

What utter bullshit... still peddling these lies we see?

Since Bush admitted there were no WMD's, I think that is compelling testimony that there were none.

Bush admitted the NOW obvious...there are no WMD's in Iraq. But you LIE when you call him a liar- no one lied- they followed years of intelligence gathering by at least 2 previous administrations-period- you flipping hack.

Syria's recent alleged use of saran gas is indicative of a link between he and Saddam...alas those satellite pictures of convoys heading into Syria pre-invasion.

But I digress- none of this has beans to do with Obama's behavior surrounding Benghazi now does it asshole?

 

[LeftofLeft]

The topic is, what is indicative of what is wrong in a presidential administration.

It's about trying to hold this administration to a standard that you and the rest of the idiots in this thread never held Bush or Reagan to.

Fail YOU FAIL

This thread is about OBAMAS FAILURE and no ammount of pointing at someone else is going to change that. It just makes you look pathetically childish

You can sputter and spit all over yourself all you want you senile old fool but unless this forum bans putting topics into relevant historical perspective,

you're fucked.

And my personal position is secure and consistent because I said we should never have gotten involved in Libya in the first place.

Please show us the following from Reagan and Bush Blunders in the Middle East:

- Where did they ignore or refuse requests for enhanced security requests in an unstable region with diplomatic personnel?

- Where did Reagan or Bush Admin tell the military to stand down?

- Where did Reagan or Bush blame the event on an obscure media production from one man mocking Mohammed as the root cause for the event?

Point this out to US and you may have some level of substance to your weak, weak analogy.