Obama's lie verses GWB's non-lie

[depotoo]

WTF is a non lie?

Something being proclaimed a lie that isn't.

 

[healthmyths]

We broke it so we bought it. And nobody has wanted to cut and run the way Reagan did. The repercussions from that were horrible and have a direct link to 9/11 and Bush's war in Iraq.
You don't do do-overs when you commit troops into a war zone. You stand behind them and you support their effort. That means standing behind the CiC as much as possible, no matter which party he belongs to or what your political feeling may be. The first priority are the troops in the field and you hope the politicians will be team players. One must also keep in mind the promises of support made to allies, including the ones that are citizens of the country that has been invaded.

yawn

wrong again leftard.
it was Carter that installed the Mullahs in Iran that blew up the barracks in Lebanon and now threaten the world with their nuke program

If Reagan hadn't cut and run the terrorism we have today would not exist.

[ame=http://amazon.com/Peacekeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commader/dp/1597974250]Peacekeepers at War: Beirut 1983— - The Marine Commander Tells His Story: Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, Gen. Alfred M. Gray Jr. USMC (Ret.): 9781597974257: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

I as an intelligent ,THINKING person, (quite the opposite of idiots like you that WILL NEVER criticize or agree with rational thought) AGREE that Reagan cut and ran.
YOU also though don't know your history too well do you?
When Beirut Marine Barracks bombing October 23, 1983 do you understand that there was a larger issue... i.e. THE COLD WAR with Russia/China?
Reagan/the country/the budget was slanted towards preventing the "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine ever occurred.
So unlike you that won't criticize the abominable,inept and destructive current administrations actions, I can say using 20/20 hind sight.. Reagan should not have cut and run.
But TERRORISM was NOT the front burner... the COLD WAR was! Even today Terrorism may destroy one or more major cities... MAD was the destruction of dozens of
cities and demise of the world's economies.

So YES unlike you zombie Obamatrons, I can criticize (using 20/20 hindsight) Reagan... but at least Reagan was worrying about the world..
Obama on the other hand has only one world i.e. himself.. to worry about!

 

[natstew]

In 2005 Bush said of the WMD's in Iraq:

there were none.

You're telling us he was lying then?

You stupid motherfucking idiot!

Everyone knew Saddam had WMD's prior to the invasion, that's why all the Democrats voted to invade.

In 200 BC everyone knew the Earth is flat! Was everyone lying?

you lack the ability to practice logic.

Obama, Hillary, and especially Susan Rice, all knew the Benghazi attacks were planned terrorist attacks and lied to the American people about it to protect Obama's claim, "Bin Laden is dead and al Quiada in diminished", campaign slogan.

Enough of your stupid lies!!

 

[BlindBoo]

The Administration did not lie. The Administration and cleared Congressmen and Senators, including Democrats, read and analyzed the same intelligence reports available to make the decision. Democrats had every opportunity not to back Administration. The majority chose to back him. Only when it became politically expedient did the accusations of lies came out.

For the record, I said then and I say now, the cause of Benghazi was not the result of a Coptic Christian camped out in LA making videos that mock Islam.

Like you they were wrong. The majority of democrats voted against making President Bush the decider of whether or not Iraq posed a significant threat to the world only super-power (or was involve in 9-11). It is a fact that is easily verified on this internet machine. I'm pretty sure they knew they were wrong when they said that Saddam was producing and stockpiling huge quantities of chemical and biological weapons. What you knew I don't care....

There is no doubt that radical Islamics go nuts over what we in the west see as really insignificant stuff. Like cartoons insulting their prophet or poorly overdubbed videos insulting their prophet

Odd the SENATE vote was 29 TO 21 IN FAVOR OF THE IRAQ RESOLUTION!

The Senate is only half of Congress.

 

[BlindBoo]

And if the Bush admin had ever found the WMDs they described they would have shouted it from the roof tops.

Anyone who says different should be prosecuted for propaganda aiding and abetting the enemy.

How about then prosecuting these people one of whom would NOT be president !!!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

The principle these people crushed was you don't give the enemy ammunition.
Each one of the above statements was used by the enemy. Yes it might have been made out of context but the enemy didn't care!
Proof that this contributed to 4,000 more deaths in Iraq?

This Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So you terrorist lovers and traitors don't seem to comprehend YOU caused those additional 6,516 deaths ARE AT YOUR FEET and traitors
like you that WANTED TO SEE Americans killed.. when you agree with the above statements!

Still pedaling those out of context quotes I see. No matter how many times the truth about them is given, like a Chatty Kathy, you keep spewing the same old lines.

 

[healthmyths]

And if the Bush admin had ever found the WMDs they described they would have shouted it from the roof tops.

Anyone who says different should be prosecuted for propaganda aiding and abetting the enemy.

How about then prosecuting these people one of whom would NOT be president !!!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

The principle these people crushed was you don't give the enemy ammunition.
Each one of the above statements was used by the enemy. Yes it might have been made out of context but the enemy didn't care!
Proof that this contributed to 4,000 more deaths in Iraq?

This Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So you terrorist lovers and traitors don't seem to comprehend YOU caused those additional 6,516 deaths ARE AT YOUR FEET and traitors
like you that WANTED TO SEE Americans killed.. when you agree with the above statements!

Still pedaling those out of context quotes I see. No matter how many times the truth about them is given, like a Chatty Kathy, you keep spewing the same old lines.

And you think the TERRORIST would repeat the above IN CONTEXT????

That is the POINT! Idiots who had no idea their words have meaning because they don't MEAN what they say SAID those words!
And the terrorists take those words OUT of context for sure and make it sound traitorous.
I'm given the above benefit of the doubt they were just plain stupid as to even making statements like the above!

 

[Camp]

yawn

wrong again leftard.
it was Carter that installed the Mullahs in Iran that blew up the barracks in Lebanon and now threaten the world with their nuke program

If Reagan hadn't cut and run the terrorism we have today would not exist.

[ame=http://amazon.com/Peacekeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commader/dp/1597974250]Peacekeepers at War: Beirut 1983— - The Marine Commander Tells His Story: Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, Gen. Alfred M. Gray Jr. USMC (Ret.): 9781597974257: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

I as an intelligent ,THINKING person, (quite the opposite of idiots like you that WILL NEVER criticize or agree with rational thought) AGREE that Reagan cut and ran.
YOU also though don't know your history too well do you?
When Beirut Marine Barracks bombing October 23, 1983 do you understand that there was a larger issue... i.e. THE COLD WAR with Russia/China?
Reagan/the country/the budget was slanted towards preventing the "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine ever occurred.
So unlike you that won't criticize the abominable,inept and destructive current administrations actions, I can say using 20/20 hind sight.. Reagan should not have cut and run.
But TERRORISM was NOT the front burner... the COLD WAR was! Even today Terrorism may destroy one or more major cities... MAD was the destruction of dozens of
cities and demise of the world's economies.

So YES unlike you zombie Obamatrons, I can criticize (using 20/20 hindsight) Reagan... but at least Reagan was worrying about the world..
Obama on the other hand has only one world i.e. himself.. to worry about!

I know some history pretty well asshole. I linked a book to my comment about Reagan. You are just so stuck on yourself and so self assured and over confident that you make your statement like you know what you are talking about, when you don't. You just have an opinion based on your lack of knowledge regarding the whole picture and/or the lame generic excuse used to defend Reagan's horrible long lasting impact of one of the worst decisions ever made by a President.

Col. Timothy J. Geraghty (Ret.) continued to serve after the Marine barracks bombing and became a key advisor and expert in counter intelligence and terrorism. He remained an important advisor and consultant on these areas of expertise long after his retirement with a position with Homeland Security.

The long title of Geraghty's book is:

PEACEKEEPERS AT WAR: BEIRUT 1983 - THE MARINE COMMANDER TELLS HIS STORY
HOW THE LACK OF RETRIBUTION LED TO THE FURTHER ATTACKS ON AMERICANS
BY Col. Timothy J. Geraghty (Ret.)

http://homeland.house.gov/sites/homeland.house.gov/files/Testimony%20Geraghty.pdf

This is a quick read and is testimony that the Col. gave to Homeland Security on 26 OCT 2011 and gives a kind of quick synopsis on how the barracks bombing led to the mess we have today.

 

[BlindBoo]

is this the same Iraq War that a majority of Dems funded for a decade?

THAT Iraq War?

We broke it so we bought it. And nobody has wanted to cut and run the way Reagan did. The repercussions from that were horrible and have a direct link to 9/11 and Bush's war in Iraq.
You don't do do-overs when you commit troops into a war zone. You stand behind them and you support their effort. That means standing behind the CiC as much as possible, no matter which party he belongs to or what your political feeling may be. The first priority are the troops in the field and you hope the politicians will be team players. One must also keep in mind the promises of support made to allies, including the ones that are citizens of the country that has been invaded.

yawn

wrong again leftard.
it was Carter that installed the Mullahs in Iran that blew up the barracks in Lebanon and now threaten the world with their nuke program

Bull shit it was the Rouge CIA under Bush(41) that set up the Ayatollah to secede the dying Shah. Of course they didn't tell Carter that he was dying. They were setting up the Carterizing treatment for the 1980 elections.

 

[BlindBoo]

How about then prosecuting these people one of whom would NOT be president !!!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

The principle these people crushed was you don't give the enemy ammunition.
Each one of the above statements was used by the enemy. Yes it might have been made out of context but the enemy didn't care!
Proof that this contributed to 4,000 more deaths in Iraq?

This Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So you terrorist lovers and traitors don't seem to comprehend YOU caused those additional 6,516 deaths ARE AT YOUR FEET and traitors
like you that WANTED TO SEE Americans killed.. when you agree with the above statements!

Still pedaling those out of context quotes I see. No matter how many times the truth about them is given, like a Chatty Kathy, you keep spewing the same old lines.

And you think the TERRORIST would repeat the above IN CONTEXT????

That is the POINT! Idiots who had no idea their words have meaning because they don't MEAN what they say SAID those words!
And the terrorists take those words OUT of context for sure and make it sound traitorous.
I'm given the above benefit of the doubt they were just plain stupid as to even making statements like the above!

No I'm sure they copy those fucking lies word for word. Useful idiot.

 

[Camp]

We broke it so we bought it. And nobody has wanted to cut and run the way Reagan did. The repercussions from that were horrible and have a direct link to 9/11 and Bush's war in Iraq.
You don't do do-overs when you commit troops into a war zone. You stand behind them and you support their effort. That means standing behind the CiC as much as possible, no matter which party he belongs to or what your political feeling may be. The first priority are the troops in the field and you hope the politicians will be team players. One must also keep in mind the promises of support made to allies, including the ones that are citizens of the country that has been invaded.

yawn

wrong again leftard.
it was Carter that installed the Mullahs in Iran that blew up the barracks in Lebanon and now threaten the world with their nuke program

Bull shit it was the Rouge CIA under Bush(41) that set up the Ayatollah to secede the dying Shah. Of course they didn't tell Carter that he was dying. They were setting up the Carterizing treatment for the 1980 elections.

We can take it back to Eisenhower. Really. We, our CIA and the British took out the Prime Minister in 1953 in a coup and put Pahlavi, the SHAH in power as a puppet dictator whose final fall put the Ayatollah in power.

 

[BlindBoo]

yawn

wrong again leftard.
it was Carter that installed the Mullahs in Iran that blew up the barracks in Lebanon and now threaten the world with their nuke program

Bull shit it was the Rouge CIA under Bush(41) that set up the Ayatollah to secede the dying Shah. Of course they didn't tell Carter that he was dying. They were setting up the Carterizing treatment for the 1980 elections.

We can take it back to Eisenhower. Really. We, our CIA and the British took out the Prime Minister in 1953 in a coup and put Pahlavi, the SHAH in power as a puppet dictator whose final fall put the Ayatollah in power.

How dare they try and nationalize all our oil under their sand......thieves.

 

[Sallow]

yawn

wrong again leftard.
it was Carter that installed the Mullahs in Iran that blew up the barracks in Lebanon and now threaten the world with their nuke program

If Reagan hadn't cut and run the terrorism we have today would not exist.

[ame=http://amazon.com/Peacekeepers-War-Beirut-Marine-Commader/dp/1597974250]Peacekeepers at War: Beirut 1983— - The Marine Commander Tells His Story: Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, Gen. Alfred M. Gray Jr. USMC (Ret.): 9781597974257: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

I as an intelligent ,THINKING person, (quite the opposite of idiots like you that WILL NEVER criticize or agree with rational thought) AGREE that Reagan cut and ran.
YOU also though don't know your history too well do you?
When Beirut Marine Barracks bombing October 23, 1983 do you understand that there was a larger issue... i.e. THE COLD WAR with Russia/China?
Reagan/the country/the budget was slanted towards preventing the "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine ever occurred.
So unlike you that won't criticize the abominable,inept and destructive current administrations actions, I can say using 20/20 hind sight.. Reagan should not have cut and run.
But TERRORISM was NOT the front burner... the COLD WAR was! Even today Terrorism may destroy one or more major cities... MAD was the destruction of dozens of
cities and demise of the world's economies.

So YES unlike you zombie Obamatrons, I can criticize (using 20/20 hindsight) Reagan... but at least Reagan was worrying about the world..
Obama on the other hand has only one world i.e. himself.. to worry about!

 

[rdean]

In his grand plan he enlisted Hillary, Kerry, William Clinton and many other democrat officials. And of course as a true liberal you sully those who VOLUNTEERED to fight for our country while you sat on you ass carping about what they were doing.

At least the objectives were met in Iraq, even though the liberals lie about that also. But Afghanistan? Obama has sent 1690 men to their death in Afghanistan, 19 this year alone. Then admits it was a failure.

Saddam was an ass who needed taken out. He used WMD against his own people. He caused and ecological disaster when he left Kuwait. His sons were rapists at best. He was much more of a threat to US interests then Serbia ever was so don't start with your two faced BS. The ones doing the lying, a plainly shown in this thread are the Bush haters. The truth is you can't help yourself it is in your blood.

Bush planned his invasion of Iraq from the day he took office. His problem was he needed a pretext to invade. As soon as 9-11 occurred, Bush asked if it could be tied to Saddam Hussein. When the answer came back no, he needed another way to tie Iraq to his war on terror
America gave Bush a War on Terror Card. Anything Bush claimed was needed to fight terrorism was approved. Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Gitmo...you name it, you got it

So Bush started planting rumors. Iraq, without question had WMDs. They would pass these WMDs on to terrorists and we would pay the price. We didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud do we?
We need to invade before it is too late

Most Democrats in Congress had the guts to tell Bush NO!. Some were afraid to be labled "soft on terrorism" so they gave Bush his war

It cost over 5000 Americans their lives

YAWN
so how IS the war crimes trial and proving the "lies" going?

Obama said when he came into office, no trial. He felt we need to heal the country and stop dividing. He felt we need to move beyond Bush and what Republicans did.

I wonder if he feels that way today?

 

[Sallow]

In 2005 Bush said of the WMD's in Iraq:

there were none.

You're telling us he was lying then?

You stupid motherfucking idiot!

Everyone knew Saddam had WMD's prior to the invasion, that's why all the Democrats voted to invade.

In 200 BC everyone knew the Earth is flat! Was everyone lying?

you lack the ability to practice logic.

Obama, Hillary, and especially Susan Rice, all knew the Benghazi attacks were planned terrorist attacks and lied to the American people about it to protect Obama's claim, "Bin Laden is dead and al Quiada in diminished", campaign slogan.

Enough of your stupid lies!!

Democrats didn't vote to invade.

They voted to give the decision to the President.

Who was telling them that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, they were ready to hit the US with a nuke, and that they would be siding with the terrorists if they didn't give him that authority.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush planned his invasion of Iraq from the day he took office. His problem was he needed a pretext to invade. As soon as 9-11 occurred, Bush asked if it could be tied to Saddam Hussein. When the answer came back no, he needed another way to tie Iraq to his war on terror
America gave Bush a War on Terror Card. Anything Bush claimed was needed to fight terrorism was approved. Homeland Security, Patriot Act, Gitmo...you name it, you got it

So Bush started planting rumors. Iraq, without question had WMDs. They would pass these WMDs on to terrorists and we would pay the price. We didn't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud do we?
We need to invade before it is too late

Most Democrats in Congress had the guts to tell Bush NO!. Some were afraid to be labled "soft on terrorism" so they gave Bush his war

It cost over 5000 Americans their lives

YAWN
so how IS the war crimes trial and proving the "lies" going?

Obama said when he came into office, no trial. He felt we need to heal the country and stop dividing. He felt we need to move beyond Bush and what Republicans did.

I wonder if he feels that way today?

Republicans felt no need to hold back on endless Fast and Furious and Benghazi hearings

 

[healthmyths]

If Reagan hadn't cut and run the terrorism we have today would not exist.

Peacekeepers at War: Beirut 1983— - The Marine Commander Tells His Story: Col. Timothy J. Geraghty, Gen. Alfred M. Gray Jr. USMC (Ret.): 9781597974257: Amazon.com: Books

I as an intelligent ,THINKING person, (quite the opposite of idiots like you that WILL NEVER criticize or agree with rational thought) AGREE that Reagan cut and ran.
YOU also though don't know your history too well do you?
When Beirut Marine Barracks bombing October 23, 1983 do you understand that there was a larger issue... i.e. THE COLD WAR with Russia/China?
Reagan/the country/the budget was slanted towards preventing the "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine ever occurred.
So unlike you that won't criticize the abominable,inept and destructive current administrations actions, I can say using 20/20 hind sight.. Reagan should not have cut and run.
But TERRORISM was NOT the front burner... the COLD WAR was! Even today Terrorism may destroy one or more major cities... MAD was the destruction of dozens of
cities and demise of the world's economies.

So YES unlike you zombie Obamatrons, I can criticize (using 20/20 hindsight) Reagan... but at least Reagan was worrying about the world..
Obama on the other hand has only one world i.e. himself.. to worry about!

I know some history pretty well asshole. I linked a book to my comment about Reagan. You are just so stuck on yourself and so self assured and over confident that you don't even you make your statement like you know what you are talking about, when you don't. You just have an opinion based on your lack of knowledge regarding the whole picture and/or the lame generic excuse used to defend Reagan's horrible long lasting impact of one of the worst decisions ever made by a President.

Col. Timothy J. Geraghty (Ret.) continued to serve after the Marine barracks bombing and became a key advisor and expert in counter intelligence and terrorism. He remained an important advisor and consultant on these areas of expertise long after his retirement with a position with Homeland Security.

The long title of Geraghty's book is:

PEACEKEEPERS AT WAR: BEIRUT 1983 - THE MARINE COMMANDER TELLS HIS STORY
HOW THE LACK OF RETRIBUTION LED TO THE FURTHER ATTACKS ON AMERICANS
BY Col. Timothy J. Geraghty (Ret.)

SEE YOU proved my point!
I agreed with you. Reagan shouldn't have cut and run... but you wouldn't even accept the FACT there were MORE important issues at play in 1983!
HOW MANY TERRORISTs attacks had occurred?
Why don't you use your same convoluted butt kissing to explain Clinton's 1993 WTC attack?

 

[Camp]

I as an intelligent ,THINKING person, (quite the opposite of idiots like you that WILL NEVER criticize or agree with rational thought) AGREE that Reagan cut and ran.
YOU also though don't know your history too well do you?
When Beirut Marine Barracks bombing October 23, 1983 do you understand that there was a larger issue... i.e. THE COLD WAR with Russia/China?
Reagan/the country/the budget was slanted towards preventing the "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine ever occurred.
So unlike you that won't criticize the abominable,inept and destructive current administrations actions, I can say using 20/20 hind sight.. Reagan should not have cut and run.
But TERRORISM was NOT the front burner... the COLD WAR was! Even today Terrorism may destroy one or more major cities... MAD was the destruction of dozens of
cities and demise of the world's economies.

So YES unlike you zombie Obamatrons, I can criticize (using 20/20 hindsight) Reagan... but at least Reagan was worrying about the world..
Obama on the other hand has only one world i.e. himself.. to worry about!

I know some history pretty well asshole. I linked a book to my comment about Reagan. You are just so stuck on yourself and so self assured and over confident that you don't even you make your statement like you know what you are talking about, when you don't. You just have an opinion based on your lack of knowledge regarding the whole picture and/or the lame generic excuse used to defend Reagan's horrible long lasting impact of one of the worst decisions ever made by a President.

Col. Timothy J. Geraghty (Ret.) continued to serve after the Marine barracks bombing and became a key advisor and expert in counter intelligence and terrorism. He remained an important advisor and consultant on these areas of expertise long after his retirement with a position with Homeland Security.

The long title of Geraghty's book is:

PEACEKEEPERS AT WAR: BEIRUT 1983 - THE MARINE COMMANDER TELLS HIS STORY
HOW THE LACK OF RETRIBUTION LED TO THE FURTHER ATTACKS ON AMERICANS
BY Col. Timothy J. Geraghty (Ret.)

SEE YOU proved my point!
I agreed with you. Reagan shouldn't have cut and run... but you wouldn't even accept the FACT there were MORE important issues at play in 1983!
HOW MANY TERRORISTs attacks had occurred?
Why don't you use your same convoluted butt kissing to explain Clinton's 1993 WTC attack?

HOW MANY TERRORISTs attacks had occurred, you ask with capital letters. Well, 6 months prior to the bombing of the Marine barracks, this warning attack occured.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=9OtylkmiTX0]Beirut, Lebanon on April 18,1983,killed 60 people,embassy staff members and United States Marines - YouTube[/ame]

 

[healthmyths]

I know some history pretty well asshole. I linked a book to my comment about Reagan. You are just so stuck on yourself and so self assured and over confident that you don't even you make your statement like you know what you are talking about, when you don't. You just have an opinion based on your lack of knowledge regarding the whole picture and/or the lame generic excuse used to defend Reagan's horrible long lasting impact of one of the worst decisions ever made by a President.

Col. Timothy J. Geraghty (Ret.) continued to serve after the Marine barracks bombing and became a key advisor and expert in counter intelligence and terrorism. He remained an important advisor and consultant on these areas of expertise long after his retirement with a position with Homeland Security.

The long title of Geraghty's book is:

PEACEKEEPERS AT WAR: BEIRUT 1983 - THE MARINE COMMANDER TELLS HIS STORY
HOW THE LACK OF RETRIBUTION LED TO THE FURTHER ATTACKS ON AMERICANS
BY Col. Timothy J. Geraghty (Ret.)

SEE YOU proved my point!
I agreed with you. Reagan shouldn't have cut and run... but you wouldn't even accept the FACT there were MORE important issues at play in 1983!
HOW MANY TERRORISTs attacks had occurred?
Why don't you use your same convoluted butt kissing to explain Clinton's 1993 WTC attack?

HOW MANY TERRORISTs attacks had occurred, you ask with capital letters. Well, 6 months prior to the bombing of the Marine barracks, this warning attack occured.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=9OtylkmiTX0]Beirut, Lebanon on April 18,1983,killed 60 people,embassy staff members and United States Marines - YouTube[/ame]

ONE! ONE!
AGAIN Reagan was wrong.. NO question just shut idiots like you up!@
BUT AGAIN... the BIGGER PICTURE here you idiot!
Hmmmmm which is worse... one city terrorized with possibly worst case nuclear dirty bomb.. OR you dumb f...k!
20 major USA CITIES demolished because SOME idiot like you on the other side pushed the MAD doctrine...
Geez what is so wrong with seeing the BIGGER picture here? I KNOW you are too young to know anything and they aren't teaching about the
COLD WAR to you mush heads! YOU can't get it through your skull... THERE WAS A COLD WAR going on and THAT consumed a lot of $$ and
DoD PLUS you idiot... THERE was NOT a HOMELAND SECURITY at that time...surprise surprise!
Get your messiah to walk and chew gum which it is evident HE CAN'T!!
OH in case you don't comprehend that above "walk and chew gum" slur.. look it up!!!

 

[Camp]

SEE YOU proved my point!
I agreed with you. Reagan shouldn't have cut and run... but you wouldn't even accept the FACT there were MORE important issues at play in 1983!
HOW MANY TERRORISTs attacks had occurred?
Why don't you use your same convoluted butt kissing to explain Clinton's 1993 WTC attack?

HOW MANY TERRORISTs attacks had occurred, you ask with capital letters. Well, 6 months prior to the bombing of the Marine barracks, this warning attack occured.

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=9OtylkmiTX0]Beirut, Lebanon on April 18,1983,killed 60 people,embassy staff members and United States Marines - YouTube[/ame]

ONE! ONE!
AGAIN Reagan was wrong.. NO question just shut idiots like you up!@
BUT AGAIN... the BIGGER PICTURE here you idiot!
Hmmmmm which is worse... one city terrorized with possibly worst case nuclear dirty bomb.. OR you dumb f...k!
20 major USA CITIES demolished because SOME idiot like you on the other side pushed the MAD doctrine...
Geez what is so wrong with seeing the BIGGER picture here? I KNOW you are too young to know anything and they aren't teaching about the
COLD WAR to you mush heads! YOU can't get it through your skull... THERE WAS A COLD WAR going on and THAT consumed a lot of $$ and
DoD PLUS you idiot... THERE was NOT a HOMELAND SECURITY at that time...surprise surprise!
Get your messiah to walk and chew gum which it is evident HE CAN'T!!
OH in case you don't comprehend that above "walk and chew gum" slur.. look it up!!!

You are so silly. Maybe it is Reagan that couldn't walk and chew gum. You seem to imply he couldn't concentrate on the Cold War and terrorist attacks at the same time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How about then prosecuting these people one of whom would NOT be president !!!
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

The principle these people crushed was you don't give the enemy ammunition.
Each one of the above statements was used by the enemy. Yes it might have been made out of context but the enemy didn't care!
Proof that this contributed to 4,000 more deaths in Iraq?

This Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT"

asked: "Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?

The short answer is YES!!! according to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy
research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. (wouldn't you conclude the next president accusing the US military of methodically and systematically air raiding villages killing civilians.. dissent???) We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So you terrorist lovers and traitors don't seem to comprehend YOU caused those additional 6,516 deaths ARE AT YOUR FEET and traitors
like you that WANTED TO SEE Americans killed.. when you agree with the above statements!

Still pedaling those out of context quotes I see. No matter how many times the truth about them is given, like a Chatty Kathy, you keep spewing the same old lines.

And you think the TERRORIST would repeat the above IN CONTEXT????

That is the POINT! Idiots who had no idea their words have meaning because they don't MEAN what they say SAID those words!
And the terrorists take those words OUT of context for sure and make it sound traitorous.
I'm given the above benefit of the doubt they were just plain stupid as to even making statements like the above!

Nope, you loser You, hm, are out of context, and you are not given the benefit of the doubt because you are not trustworthy.

Trot on home, please.