Stupid Liberals Don't Understand History!

[Stephanie]

this was such a huge find

it needed to be posted TWICE...except this title is the ugly we expect from you subjects of Obama and Democrats
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/353665-the-great-ronnie-god-s-benghazi.html#post9066579

how frikken sad

 

[eagle1462010]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHGqLxYQ0sQ]Jason Chaffetz Explodes in Benghazi Hearing: Video Blaming 'Only Comes from the White House' - YouTube[/ame]

None of those in the hearings believed it was dang video. They accessed it almost immediately as a terrorist attack.

But But But the White House says it's a dang video.

 

[editec]

Ben where?

 

[eagle1462010]

Ben where?

Typical response.........To the Liar N Chief's State Department on the incident.

He's so used to Lying about pretty much everything, it's just a normal day at the office for them.

Intel at the time was it was an attack at the onset. Not a spontaneous Riot over a dang video................

Which was the State Departments policy of the time...............

Iran who.....? Naw there aren't Stingers in Syria.....................

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

lol, gotta cover Obama/Clinton ass if it take's going back to the 80,s....SO BE IT

probably half the Democrat/liberals here weren't even born then

Put away the red, partisan, shades for a minute - wasn't this the same thing as Benghazi, except on steroids? You, of course, were filled with indignation over the failures of the government, then, to provide security, were you not?

You said things like "I hope Reagan goes to jail," correct?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Oh, so more like 9/11 then eh?

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. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s 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

 

[Moonglow]

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.

I second that motion, all in favor say "I"..

 

[Wry Catcher]

....

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 agency’s 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 today’s 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 O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but 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 report’s 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 Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

The story in Beirut wasn’t 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 hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s 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.​

Wow, can't wait to read the posts from the echo chamber. Thanks for a dose of reality vis a vis the fatuous comments from the haters.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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 is this some sad shit or what? and I'll agree with the stupid...

It didn't take long for Stephanie to post her usual dull, inane and foolish comment.

 

[Seawytch]

The ONLY difference between the Benghazi terror attacks and the ones that happened under Reagan and the Bushies is the behavior of American congressmen at home.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's too bad Billy Clinton DIDN'T 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

I truly believe calling you stupid was an understatement. You're not only stupid you're dishonest to your core.

That said, most of us remember the first WTC attack occurred less than five weeks after President Clinton took office. Bush ha been in office, on the golf course, cutting brush on his 'ranch' for nearly eight months before Sept. 11 and knew, or should have known, that Cole was attacked a couple of months before he took office. Even when warned he allegedly responded to his adviser with something to the effect of, "you've covered your ass" now go away.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Remember when Reagan blamed Beirut on an anti-Islam 8 track?

indeed

 

[Seawytch]

It's too bad Billy Clinton DIDN'T 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

I truly believe calling you stupid was an understatement. You're not only stupid you're dishonest to your core.

That said, most of us remember the first WTC attack occurred less than five weeks after President Clinton took office. Bush ha been in office, on the golf course, cutting brush on his 'ranch' for nearly eight months before Sept. 11 and knew, or should have known, that Cole was attacked a couple of months before he took office. Even when warned he allegedly responded to his adviser with something to the effect of, "you've covered your ass" now go away.

And again for the cheap seats, only one Presidential Daily Briefing prior to 9/11 has EVER been released, one...but there were many, many, many more.

Bush White House DEAF to 9/11 Warnings

 

[jillian]

It's too bad Billy Clinton DIDN'T 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

they didn't have confirmation of who did the attack until just before the election and Clinton didn't want to influence the election.

and the blind sheikh was prosecuted and convicted.

far more relevant was baby bush telling his intel guy that he had "covered [his] ass" and ignoring the warnings and letting 3,000 people in my city die.

your memory is selective at best.... dishonest at worst, steffie-poo

 

[The Rabbi]

It's too bad Billy Clinton DIDN'T 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

they didn't have confirmation of who did the attack until just before the election and Clinton didn't want to influence the election.

and the blind sheikh was prosecuted and convicted.

far more relevant was baby bush telling his intel guy that he had "covered [his] ass" and ignoring the warnings and letting 3,000 people in my city die.

your memory is selective at best.... dishonest at worst, steffie-poo

Poor Jillian. Reality never intrudes in her world. Never.

 

[jasonnfree]

....

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 agency’s 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 today’s 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 O’Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today’s opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation—but 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 report’s 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 Administration’s serial security lapses in Beirut to the costs of Benghazi, it’s clear what has really deteriorated in the intervening three decades. It’s not the security of American government personnel working abroad. It’s the behavior of American congressmen at home.

The story in Beirut wasn’t 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 hadn’t yet been implemented at the U.S. embassy annex that had been hit. The problem, the President admitted, was that the repairs hadn’t quite been completed on time. As he put it, “Anyone who’s 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.​

I remember back then nobody was blaming Reagan. A president can't be responsible for everything that happens on the planet either.

 

[Seawytch]

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. Rumsfeld’s assistant Stephen Cambone dictates Rumsfeld’s 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).

(2:40 p.m.) September 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Is Told Al-Qaeda Was Behind 9/11 Attacks But Wants to Blame Iraq
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aide Stephen Cambone is taking notes on behalf of Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center. These notes will be leaked to the media nearly a year later. According to the notes, although Rumsfeld has already been given information indicating the 9/11 attacks were done by al-Qaeda (see 12:05 p.m. September 11, 2001) and he has been given no evidence so far indicating any Iraqi involvement, he is more interested in blaming the attacks on Iraq. According to his aide’s notes, Rumsfeld wants the “best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only UBL [Osama bin Laden].… Need to move swiftly.… Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not.” [CBS NEWS, 9/4/2002; BAMFORD, 2004, PP. 285] In a 2004 book, author James Moore will write, “Unless Rumsfeld had an inspired moment while the rest of the nation was in shock, the notes are irrefutable proof that the Bush administration had designs on Iraq and Hussein well before the president raised his hand to take the oath of office.” [MOORE, 3/15/2004, PP. 18]

3:20 p.m. September 11, 2001: White House Incorrectly Suspects US Airways Flight from Spain of Being Hijacked
A US Airways plane that is flying to the United States from Madrid, Spain, is incorrectly suspected of being hijacked. [FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, 9/11/2001; WHITE HOUSE, 10/24/2001] It is stated over an FAA teleconference that the White House has reported this suspicious aircraft, which is heading to Philadelphia International Airport, and the military is scrambling fighter jets in response to it. Accounts conflict over whether the plane is US Airways Flight 930 or Flight 937.

Rumsfeld Timeline

 

[NLT]

LOL liberals blaming Bengazi on Reagan......AHHHAAAAAAA, they sure are desperate now, they are fraid of Trey.

 

[editec]

The political difference between the Beghazi and Beruit attacks is that in one case a Republican was POTUS and in the other an DEM was POTUS.

And THAT is the ONLY reason this issue is still resonating in the minds of people suffering from ODS

 

[jillian]

LOL liberals blaming Bengazi on Reagan......AHHHAAAAAAA, they sure are desperate now, they are fraid of Trey.

you seem not to understand the discussion. no one is blaming Ronnie for Benghazi. people are pointing out rightwing hypocrisy and fauxrage.