Remember our little chat about dingbat platitudes? You really need to work on that. Lots of other stuff too, truth be told. But ya gotta start somewhere.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stupid Liberals Don't Understand History!
- Thread starter Seawytch
- Start date
- May 20, 2009
- 144,559
- 66,974
- 2,330
I find it odd that Bush and the Republicans were "warned" about 9/11 and there was no outrage.
I find it even more odd that Republicans stopped looking for Bin Laden a mere six months after 9/11 and invaded the wrong country.
I'm sure there must have been an investigation. What did they found out?
Well to his credit, Bush made sure that the crack Intelligence team that spent 8 years following Al Qaeda and delivered the stunningly vague "AQ determine to attack the USA" report stayed on when the shit hit the fan.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
- Thread starter
- #24
I find it odd that Bush and the Republicans were "warned" about 9/11 and there was no outrage.
I find it even more odd that Republicans stopped looking for Bin Laden a mere six months after 9/11 and invaded the wrong country.
I'm sure there must have been an investigation. What did they found out?
Well to his credit, Bush made sure that the crack Intelligence team that spent 8 years following Al Qaeda and delivered the stunningly vague "AQ determine to attack the USA" report stayed on when the shit hit the fan.
How Bin Laden Escaped in 2001The lessons of Tora Bora
Bush 'Not Concerned' About Bin Laden in '02
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #25
I hope Obama is Impeached over this...this was an all out effort to cover up this terrorist attack for Obama's re-election
just amazing people will excuse this by bringing Bush, Reagan, the Tea Party, etc
You hope that he's impeached? What if he is exonerated by the investigation? Would you still wish him impeached or would you simply accept the outcome and move on?
Your statement is very telling about your actual motives, here.
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #26
It's too bad Billy Clinton take action to prevent the First World trade center bombing AND then did nothing afterwards to see it didn't happen again
we might not of had, 9/11
How? He knew that the WTC was getting demo'd? I don't see how either Clinton or Bush, was supposed to prevent something that we had no idea was even possible.
It's too bad Billy Clinton take action to prevent the First World trade center bombing AND then did nothing afterwards to see it didn't happen again
we might not of had, 9/11
Hey lets double down on stupid eh Steph. Don't you know how you right wingers HATE every time Bush is brought up as a cause for our troubles. Now here you are, trying to blame Clinton for the 9/11 attack.
Which way you want to go here steph. Past Presidents ARE to blame for problems or they are not.
Which way will you choose?
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
- Thread starter
- #28
More proof that history began Jan 20, 2009? Okay...
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That mornings presidential daily brief the top-secret document prepared by Americas intelligence agencies featured the now-infamous heading: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief and only that daily brief in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack.
Administration officials dismissed the documents significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaedas history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administrations reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The Deafness Before the Storm
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That mornings presidential daily brief the top-secret document prepared by Americas intelligence agencies featured the now-infamous heading: Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief and only that daily brief in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack.
Administration officials dismissed the documents significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaedas history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administrations reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
The Deafness Before the Storm
paperview
Life is Good
Excellent OP.....
It began January 20th 2009!
Beirut Barracks vs. Benghazi
[...]Around dawn on October 23, 1983, I was in Beirut, Lebanon, when a suicide bomber drove a truck laden with the equivalent of twenty-one thousand pounds of TNT into the heart of a U.S. Marine compound, killing two hundred and forty-one servicemen. The U.S. military command, which regarded the Marines presence as a non-combative, peace-keeping mission, had left a vehicle gate wide open, and ordered the sentries to keep their weapons unloaded. The only real resistance the suicide bomber had encountered was a scrim of concertina wire. When I arrived on the scene a short while later to report on it for the Wall Street Journal, the Marine barracks were flattened. From beneath the dusty, smoking slabs of collapsed concrete, piteous American voices could be heard, begging for help. Thirteen more American servicemen later died from injuries, making it the single deadliest attack on American Marines since the Battle of Iwo Jima.
Six months earlier, militants had bombed the U.S. embassy in Beirut, too, killing sixty-three more people, including seventeen Americans. Among the dead were seven C.I.A. officers, including the agencys top analyst in the Middle East, an immensely valuable intelligence asset, and the Beirut station chief.
There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials feet. But unlike todays Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip ONeill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like todays opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigationbut a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding very serious errors in judgment by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The reports findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)
In March of 1984, three months after Congress issued its report, militants struck American officials in Beirut again, this time kidnapping the C.I.A.s station chief, Bill Buckley. Buckley was tortured and, eventually, murdered. Reagan, who was tormented by a tape of Buckley being tortured, blamed himself. Congress held no public hearings, and pointed fingers at the perpetrators, not at political rivals.
If you compare the costs of the Reagan Administrations serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, its clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. Its not the security of American government personnel working abroad. Its the behavior of American congressmen at home.
The story in Beirut wasnt over. In September of 1984, for the third time in eighteen months, jihadists bombed a U.S. government outpost in Beirut yet again. President Reagan acknowledged that the new security precautions that had been advocated by Congress hadnt yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadnt quite been completed on time. As he put it, Anyone whos ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would. Imagine how Congressman Issa and Fox News would react to a similar explanation from President Obama today.
Thank you.
Wildman
Gold Member
gotta cover the dear leaders ass, gotta cover the dear leaders ass
so what they lied about Benghazi and blamed it on an American's citizens video...so what they left an American citizen (Stevens) without protection and he and three others died because of it....but they'll crawl all the way back to 80's to do what they can to cover for this man...
good grief
God, you are stupid.
please dear idiot fucktard.., GOD is NOT an idiot, that title belongs to all liberfools !!
Mad_Cabbie
Gold Member
- Banned
- #32
If President Ronald Reagan and his administration had been as morally bankrupt, compulsive liars as President Obama and his administration....
... IranContra.
Seawytch
Information isnt Advocacy
- Thread starter
- #33
Know how we keep hearing that the RW is just upset because the terror attack was reported as a terror attack precipitated by the video that was causing terror attacks all over the Middle East? Here's some prior to 2009 history the RW keeps forgetting about.
Read the whole thing, really.
Rumsfeld 9/11 Timeline
9:39 a.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Is Wanted at Pentagon Teleconference but Cannot Be Reached
(10:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Missing Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finally Enters NMCC
(10:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Works on Rules of Engagement for Fighter Pilots, Too Late to Be of Any Use
10:39 a.m. September 11, 2001: Vice President Cheney Brings Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Up to Date, but Errs about Pilot Knowledge of Shootdown Order
12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finds Evidence of Al-Qaeda Role Not Good Enough
CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfelds assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfelds thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, Rumsfeld felt it was vague, that it might not mean something, and that there was no good basis for hanging hat. In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden. [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).
Entity Tags: Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen A. Cambone, Al-Qaeda, George J. Tenet
(10:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Missing Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finally Enters NMCC
(10:30 a.m.-1:00 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Works on Rules of Engagement for Fighter Pilots, Too Late to Be of Any Use
10:39 a.m. September 11, 2001: Vice President Cheney Brings Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Up to Date, but Errs about Pilot Knowledge of Shootdown Order
12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld Finds Evidence of Al-Qaeda Role Not Good Enough
CIA Director Tenet tells Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about an intercepted phone call from earlier in the day at 9:53 a.m. An al-Qaeda operative talked of a fourth target just before Flight 93 crashed. Rumsfelds assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfelds thoughts the time, and the notes taken will later be leaked to CBS News. According to CBS, Rumsfeld felt it was vague, that it might not mean something, and that there was no good basis for hanging hat. In other words, the evidence was not clear-cut enough to justify military action against bin Laden. [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002] A couple of hours later, Rumsfeld will use this information to begin arguing that Iraq should be attacked, despite the lack of verified ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq (see (2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001).
Entity Tags: Donald Rumsfeld, Stephen A. Cambone, Al-Qaeda, George J. Tenet
Read the whole thing, really.
Rumsfeld 9/11 Timeline
- May 17, 2013
- 67,778
- 32,936
- 2,290
U.S. Weapons are now being used in Syria. The rebels have them.
What were you guys and gals saying about Iran Contra.
Carry on.........
What were you guys and gals saying about Iran Contra.
Carry on.........
- May 17, 2013
- 67,778
- 32,936
- 2,290
Syrian rebels have US-made Stinger missiles: Russia - Latest News - DAWN.COM
MOSCOW: The Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have shoulder-launched missile systems, including Stingers made by the United States, Russia’s top general said on Wednesday.
Russian chief of staff General Nikolai Makarov, whose country is the Syrian regime’s top arms supplier and has refused to back the rebels, said it was not clear who had delivered the weapons.
“We have information that the rebels fighting the Syrian army have shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles of several states, including Stingers made in the United States,” he said quoted by the Interfax news agency.
“We need to still find out who has delivered them,” he said.
Makarov said it was possible that these and other weapons could have been delivered to the rebels from abroad on several means of transport, including passenger planes.
“For this all kinds of transport could be activated, including civil aviation. This is a serious matter,” Makarov said.
NBC News of the United States had reported in July that the rebel Free Syrian Army had obtained two dozen surface-to-air missiles (man-portable air-defence systems known as MANPADS) that were delivered via Turkey.
MOSCOW: The Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have shoulder-launched missile systems, including Stingers made by the United States, Russia’s top general said on Wednesday.
Russian chief of staff General Nikolai Makarov, whose country is the Syrian regime’s top arms supplier and has refused to back the rebels, said it was not clear who had delivered the weapons.
“We have information that the rebels fighting the Syrian army have shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles of several states, including Stingers made in the United States,” he said quoted by the Interfax news agency.
“We need to still find out who has delivered them,” he said.
Makarov said it was possible that these and other weapons could have been delivered to the rebels from abroad on several means of transport, including passenger planes.
“For this all kinds of transport could be activated, including civil aviation. This is a serious matter,” Makarov said.
NBC News of the United States had reported in July that the rebel Free Syrian Army had obtained two dozen surface-to-air missiles (man-portable air-defence systems known as MANPADS) that were delivered via Turkey.
- May 17, 2013
- 67,778
- 32,936
- 2,290
CIA Whistleblower faces the ire of an angry Justice Department over Benghazi questions
The questions asked by Mr. Plumlee that the government wants so badly to censor remain, at least for now, on his Facebook page. They are reprinted here for your review. I suggest that everyone reading this demands answers, if not for the sake and future of Mr. Plumlee, then for the sake of our future.
Is the United States secretly arming and supporting various factions of the Syrian Rebels with high caliber impact weapons from The United States arsenals?
Is the United States little known Direct Commercial Sales Program, also known as ʻThe Blue Lantern Report, being used as a ʻcutoutʼ to secretly aid both sides of a Middle Eastern civil war?
Is America again playing both sides against the middle for corporate gain as previously demonstrated by the Cuban Project of the fifties and sixties, as well as the Iran Contra fiasco of the eighties and the South AmericanMexican Drug Wars of the nineties?
It has been established via some field reports from the Middle East and some isolated media reports that the Direct Commercial Sales Program (DCSP) an American international program, which legally allows the United States to sell weapons to a host of foreign countries without monitoring those weapons after leaving our arsenals, stockpiles, and jurisdiction, has shipped High Impact weapons to Syrian Rebels during the last two years.
I have to ask. What happens to those weapons after legally being sold via this program and they leave our control?
Are they being monitored, traced, certified, and inventoried after arriving in other countries?
Will our troops one day again face these American made weapons on some foreign battlefield?
Is this Direct Commercial Sales program a secret cash cow for many US Corporations, International arms merchants, its insiders, or affiliates?
Is it possible this could be another ʻoff-‐‑the-‐‑booksʼ secret covert operation ran by the CIAʼs Special Tactical Unit, similar to the Iran-‐‑Contra operations of the eighties and the old Cuban projects of the fifties and sixties, where we supplied both sides weapons and escalated the conflict for personal and corporate gain?
Could we be selling and supplying dangerous high impact weapons, while aiding and financing both sides of a Civil War in Syria?
Could we be escalating the Middle East conflict either knowingly or unintentionally providing weapons to both sides of the Syrian conflict? These are simple questions. Im just asking:
Did our Ambassador and others, weeks before they were murdered, notify our State Department and CIA that Syrian Rebels had obtained US Weapons, including Stinger missiles from Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, shipped from CIA safe houses?
Were they told to Stand Down?
The questions asked by Mr. Plumlee that the government wants so badly to censor remain, at least for now, on his Facebook page. They are reprinted here for your review. I suggest that everyone reading this demands answers, if not for the sake and future of Mr. Plumlee, then for the sake of our future.
Is the United States secretly arming and supporting various factions of the Syrian Rebels with high caliber impact weapons from The United States arsenals?
Is the United States little known Direct Commercial Sales Program, also known as ʻThe Blue Lantern Report, being used as a ʻcutoutʼ to secretly aid both sides of a Middle Eastern civil war?
Is America again playing both sides against the middle for corporate gain as previously demonstrated by the Cuban Project of the fifties and sixties, as well as the Iran Contra fiasco of the eighties and the South AmericanMexican Drug Wars of the nineties?
It has been established via some field reports from the Middle East and some isolated media reports that the Direct Commercial Sales Program (DCSP) an American international program, which legally allows the United States to sell weapons to a host of foreign countries without monitoring those weapons after leaving our arsenals, stockpiles, and jurisdiction, has shipped High Impact weapons to Syrian Rebels during the last two years.
I have to ask. What happens to those weapons after legally being sold via this program and they leave our control?
Are they being monitored, traced, certified, and inventoried after arriving in other countries?
Will our troops one day again face these American made weapons on some foreign battlefield?
Is this Direct Commercial Sales program a secret cash cow for many US Corporations, International arms merchants, its insiders, or affiliates?
Is it possible this could be another ʻoff-‐‑the-‐‑booksʼ secret covert operation ran by the CIAʼs Special Tactical Unit, similar to the Iran-‐‑Contra operations of the eighties and the old Cuban projects of the fifties and sixties, where we supplied both sides weapons and escalated the conflict for personal and corporate gain?
Could we be selling and supplying dangerous high impact weapons, while aiding and financing both sides of a Civil War in Syria?
Could we be escalating the Middle East conflict either knowingly or unintentionally providing weapons to both sides of the Syrian conflict? These are simple questions. Im just asking:
Did our Ambassador and others, weeks before they were murdered, notify our State Department and CIA that Syrian Rebels had obtained US Weapons, including Stinger missiles from Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, shipped from CIA safe houses?
Were they told to Stand Down?
Wildman
Gold Member
It doesn't occur to you that those threads are a response to the innumerable threads attacking Obama and Clinton over Benghazi? Why are the conservatives free to bring up Benghazi over and over again ad infinitum, but the liberals are not allowed to respond?they should consolidate all the threads trying to make light of Benghazi...as we see, they have brought up a dead President, Boooooooosh, the tea party, etc ...not one of them will step forward to hold this administration RESPONSIBLE for Benghazi...I find it pathetic
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...appened-under-president-bush.html#post9050751
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-from-another.html?highlight=benghazi+threads
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...oney-off-dead.html?highlight=benghazi+threads
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tea-partiers.html?highlight=benghazi+threads
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-up-political.html?highlight=benghazi+threads
and on and on and on
respond all you want......, with the truth of course.
so far all we get from you libercommies is lie after lie after lie, it really is getting boring.
and to bring up Reagan and Beirut is about as low as one can go, Beirut was a "mistake" as stated, Benghazi was a planned event by the Odirtbag and Hitlery.., and all libertraitors deny it.
Yeah, Beirut was nothing like Benghazi. No ambassador was killed and Reagan didnt blame it on a video.
But you know, even if Beirut were exactly like Benghazi, does that mean it's OK for the president to lie about events in order to bolster his re-election chances? Can someone explain how that works?
But you know, even if Beirut were exactly like Benghazi, does that mean it's OK for the president to lie about events in order to bolster his re-election chances? Can someone explain how that works?
- May 17, 2013
- 67,778
- 32,936
- 2,290
Reagan's response to the Embassy Bombing.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3L_7uAVbs]Ronald Reagan Reacts to Beirut Embassy Bombing - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB3L_7uAVbs]Ronald Reagan Reacts to Beirut Embassy Bombing - YouTube[/ame]
Last edited:
- May 17, 2013
- 67,778
- 32,936
- 2,290
Beirut Memorial On Line - History | Reagan's Speech
The speech from the memorial site.
Reagan didn't try to hide Jack Squat.
He didn't blame it on a video.
The speech from the memorial site.
Reagan didn't try to hide Jack Squat.
He didn't blame it on a video.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 24
- Views
- 213
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 187
- Replies
- 70
- Views
- 494
- Replies
- 32
- Views
- 245
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 206
- Views
- 710
- Replies
- 188
- Views
- 911
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-