10-U.S. Diplomatic Missions Attacked. 60-U.S. Diplomatic Personnel Killed Under Bush

[CaféAuLait]

https://www.facebook.com/TheBlueStr...5272475307822/162977380537331/?type=1&theater.

Not including the attacks of September 11, 2001, there were world wide, Ten (10) Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Missions that resulted the deaths of Sixty (60) U.S. Diplomatic Personnel between January 2002 and September 2008.

At no time in that Six (06) Year Period were there demands from Republicans for Investigations into those attacks made against U.S. Diplomatic Personnel.

At no time in that Six (06) Year Period were there demands from Republicans for Investigations into the death of the Sixty (60) U.S. Diplomatic Personnel Killed in those attacks.

At no time in that Six Year (06)Period did Democrats attempt to politicize the Ten (10) Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Missions under bush43.

At no time in that Six (06) Year Period did Democrats attempt to politicize the Sixty (60) Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Missions under bush43.

Republicans (Including Darryl Issa, John Boehner and Eric Cantor) voted against Millions of Dollars needed to upgrade security for U.S. Diplomatic Missions World Wide.

The current version of MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE over Benghazi is exactly that....MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE

The first one in your picture from Facebook as a source, is the American cultural center in Kolkata, India - not the American Consulate. Four dead were Kolkata police constables, the 5 from Group Four Security. NONE were US diplomats.

2002 attack on American cultural centre in Kolkata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second attack in your photo from Facebook was the attack on Karachi, in 2002 again no US personal were killed. The attack was a suicide bomber detonating a truck some ways away from the consulate.

Attacks on U.S consulate in Karachi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The third states an attack in 2003 killed 2 in Islamabad. Was an attack on Muslims praying to Allah, no US personal were killed. This was a fight between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. right before that 9 Sunni Muslims were killed outside their Mosque.

2002 attack on American cultural centre in Kolkata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fourth states "the consulate Tashkent, Uzbekistan". Um, the death was at the Israeli embassy, ( 2 Uzbek Security guards) the US was attacked as well. And again it was violence directed towards factions of religions, the entire region was beset with violence and suicide bombers.

Terrorism in Uzbekistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fifth was on the American Consulate, in Saudi Arabia, they never gained entrance to the building and unfortunately 5 ( not 9) were killed from Yemen, the Sudan, the Philippines, Pakistan and a Sri Lanka. They unfortunately were all outside of the Embassy.

Terrorism in Saudi Arabia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The sixth was supposed to be another attack on the consulate in Karachi in 2006. It was an attack on Marriott Hotel in Karachi ,which killed David Foy, an American diplomat and three Pakistanis.

Attacks on U.S consulate in Karachi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The seventh was an attack in Syria. ONE security guard from Syria was killed, not four. THREE gunmen were killed in the attack.

Four Armed Men Attack U.S. Embassy in Damascus

Eight, was an attack in 2008 in Yemen. Where terrorists killed people waiting to fill out paperwork waiting outside in a line to enter the embassy, and 6 Yemen security guards.

2008 attack on the American Embassy in Yemen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nine, attack on consulate in Istanbul 2008. 6 were NOT killed unless you count the attackers. 6 died in total, 3 were Turkish National Police officers the other three were the terrorists.

2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ten: Was the US consulate attack in Yemen which was already covered in number Eight.

2008 attack on the American Embassy in Yemen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't ever recall anyone calling them anything other than terrorist attacks. David Foy, a diplomat was killed. Many of your count are police officers responding from the area and or security guards. Not one of those attacks was the embassy being breached. Foy was killed at a hotel. Why are you counting the terrorist themselves as deaths at the embassy's or near them?

PS: I would encourage you not to use a Facebook meme as a source.

 

[hortysir]

That's like the 50th time I've seen a con post that, almost verbatim, today.

Translation: "I don't give a FUCK about any of those deaths."

It would help if, besides your own claim that "nobody cares", you could show that there was no investigation where no one was held accountable in any of these attacks.
Or are you admitting that this admin has simply done what the previous admin did?
Then prove it.
That would make it more comparable to this administration shrugging off Benghazi.

If they're so similar why are cons only outraged about Benghazi? I'm pretty sure I can guess

Link/Quote someone from that era telling us that it "doesn't matter at this point".

Because I remember the conversations surrounding the claims that "there have been no attacks on US soil since 911".
I remember being pissed that there WERE attacks against our people and our interests overseas during that time.

So can you be specific about who, exactly, was lacking "outrage"?

 

[LeftofLeft]

10-U.S. Diplomatic Missions Attacked. 60-U.S. Diplomatic Personnel Killed Under Bush

But GWB was a republican, meaning none of that counts.

Never underestimate the hypocrisy of the right.

In those Diplomatic personnel killed under Bush, how many of them:

1) begged for advance and real time support and received none?
2) had their demise blamed on a Coptic Christian living in LA and expressing free speech (.....and still in jail for it)?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Bravo the cons don't give a shit about those deaths. Hannity never brought them up.

you do realize the death of Ambassador Stephens was the first of an American Ambassador since 1979? And nowhere did I ever see them go on national tv over and over and before the UN to promote a false narrative over any of the other deaths.

That makes his life what? Worth more than 4K American troops and more than half a million Iraqis killed over nothing?

Bush first said we were going to Iraq as part of a mission to prevent a nuclear attack on the US by Al Qeada.
Then we find out Iraq had no affiliation with Al Qaead.
Then we find out Iraq had no big "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Where was the Iraq war investigation?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4]Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

THAT'S what we got.

A big fucking expensive joke.

He used Democrat talking points, Democrat Intelligence, and Bush had Democrat backing as exemplified by two, not one, declarations of support of force by Senate Democrats. It was only after Democrats realized how politically advantageous it would be to pull a 180 and smear Bush and divide the country? You want an Iraq Investigation? BRING IT ON. You are either with US or Against US. Ambassador Stevens obviously drew the latter.

 

[Freewill]

OK I am sure, without reading the posts, others have shown you the lie of what you are bleating out as a trained left wing flying monkey.

Let us look at just one of the attacks: On the morning of June 14, 2002, a truck with a fertilizer bomb driven by a suicide bomber was detonated outside the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. Twelve people were killed and 51 injured, all Pakistanis.[2]

All Pakistanis, no American diplomats, not one. Your source is a source of lies and you suck it up like the flying monkeys in the wizard of Oz. That is what the left has become nothing but lying flying monkeys. Nothing to brag about so they attack.

FOUR Americans died in a country we just bombed the crap out of and they didn't have to die. THAT is the difference between what happened during Bush and the lying flying monkey post of yours. There have been other attacks during Obama and they have not been brought up, why? Because Americans were not killed, and a very compliant MSM. And we can also consider that in all the attacks Bush didn't come out and lie about it nor have a woman do his lying for him, as did Obama.

 

[Freewill]

10-U.S. Diplomatic Missions Attacked. 60-U.S. Diplomatic Personnel Killed Under Bush

But GWB was a republican, meaning none of that counts.

Never underestimate the hypocrisy of the right.

In those Diplomatic personnel killed under Bush, how many of them:

1) begged for advance and real time support and received none?
2) had their demise blamed on a Coptic Christian living in LA and expressing free speech (.....and still in jail for it)?

There were few or no American diplomats killed under Bush. See this is how the flying left wing monkeys work. They make up a lie then people respond to that flying monkey lie and give the flying monkey lie some sort of credence.

 

[BlackFlag]

Freewill does not give a damn about any deaths but the ones that cons can abuse.

Typical republican.

 

[Plasmaball]

In which one did the president lie and blame the attack on a video?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You're becoming even less coherent than usual. A new low!

zzzzzzzzzzzzz is pretty much easy enough for anyone to figure out..

 

[hortysir]

Freewill does not give a damn about any deaths but the ones that cons can abuse.

Typical republican.

And BlackFag has failed to point to a single person that has trivialized any attacks against Americans during the previous presidential term.

 

[regent]

The diplomatic service has always had a dangerous side, I would suspect the number harmed in that service is higher than many suspect. But only recently it seems has it had a political use and it is now being used. The 241 marines killed in the Lebanon raid is even more tragic but maybe it was used less politically than the Benghazi thing. But politics is politics.

 

[BlackFlag]

Freewill does not give a damn about any deaths but the ones that cons can abuse.

Typical republican.

And BlackFag has failed to point to a single person that has trivialized any attacks against Americans during the previous presidential term.

The entire Benghazi investigation is doing that. That's why cons can't get it to pick up any traction in the mainstream.

Because for some inexplicable reason they expect everyone to believe that all of a sudden, and completely out of nowhere, they care about Americans dying in the field.

Guess what nobody's buying it

 

[Katzndogz]

The attack was the attack. It happened before it will happen again. It was the lie. It was sending a man to prison for that lie. It was lying to cover up all the other lies.

 

[AmericanFirst]

you do realize the death of Ambassador Stephens was the first of an American Ambassador since 1979? And nowhere did I ever see them go on national tv over and over and before the UN to promote a false narrative over any of the other deaths.

That makes his life what? Worth more than 4K American troops and more than half a million Iraqis killed over nothing?

Bush first said we were going to Iraq as part of a mission to prevent a nuclear attack on the US by Al Qeada.
Then we find out Iraq had no affiliation with Al Qaead.
Then we find out Iraq had no big "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Where was the Iraq war investigation?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvliUuXjbL4]Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube[/ame]

THAT'S what we got.

A big fucking expensive joke.

He used Democrat talking points, Democrat Intelligence, and Bush had Democrat backing as exemplified by two, not one, declarations of support of force by Senate Democrats. It was only after Democrats realized how politically advantageous it would be to pull a 180 and smear Bush and divide the country? You want an Iraq Investigation? BRING IT ON. You are either with US or Against US. Ambassador Stevens obviously drew the latter.

Exactly, but getting a libtard to admit the truth is harder than pulling a bad tooth from a rabid crocodile.

 

[hortysir]

Freewill does not give a damn about any deaths but the ones that cons can abuse.

Typical republican.

And BlackFag has failed to point to a single person that has trivialized any attacks against Americans during the previous presidential term.

The entire Benghazi investigation is doing that. That's why cons can't get it to pick up any traction in the mainstream.

Because for some inexplicable reason they expect everyone to believe that all of a sudden, and completely out of nowhere, they care about Americans dying in the field.

Guess what nobody's buying it

So the defense for the Benghazi lie is based on "You didn't mind it a bit when it happened under Bush"???
Even though you still FAIL at link-quoting a single person that lied or diminished an attack on Americans

 

[BlackFlag]

And BlackFag has failed to point to a single person that has trivialized any attacks against Americans during the previous presidential term.

The entire Benghazi investigation is doing that. That's why cons can't get it to pick up any traction in the mainstream.

Because for some inexplicable reason they expect everyone to believe that all of a sudden, and completely out of nowhere, they care about Americans dying in the field.

Guess what nobody's buying it

So the defense for the Benghazi lie is based on "You didn't mind it a bit when it happened under Bush"???
Even though you still FAIL at link-quoting a single person that lied or diminished an attack on Americans

The defense for Benghazi is that terrorists attacked and we should learn from it and be better prepared in the future.

That republicans "didn't mind it a bit when it happened under Bush" is just a coincidence.

 

[hortysir]

The entire Benghazi investigation is doing that. That's why cons can't get it to pick up any traction in the mainstream.

Because for some inexplicable reason they expect everyone to believe that all of a sudden, and completely out of nowhere, they care about Americans dying in the field.

Guess what nobody's buying it

So the defense for the Benghazi lie is based on "You didn't mind it a bit when it happened under Bush"???
Even though you still FAIL at link-quoting a single person that lied or diminished an attack on Americans

The defense for Benghazi is that terrorists attacked and we should learn from it and be better prepared in the future.

That republicans "didn't mind it a bit when it happened under Bush" is just a coincidence.

So what is the defense for the LIE about why it was attacked?

 

[regent]

The question Republicans must be asking themselves is do they want to pursue this gambit, that could really backfire on them, so maybe it's best just to keep it on the fringes of the campaign.

 

[depotoo]

You see, you keep yourself so much in the dark you don't even know there were senate investigations done.

Wow, are you behind times,-
Administration did not pressure CIA on WMD conclusions.

PRESSURE CONCLUSIONSConclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.Conclusion 102. The Committee found that none of the analysts or other people interviewed by the Committee said that they were pressured to change their conclusions related to Iraq's links to terrorism. After 9/11, however, analysts were under tremendous pressure to make correct assessments, to avoid missing a credible threat, and to avoid an intelligence failure on the scale of 9/11. As a result, the Intelligence Community's assessments were bold and assertive in pointing out potential terrorist links. For instance, the June 2002 Central Intelligence Agency assessment*Iraq and al-Qaida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship*was, according to its Scope Note, "purposefully aggressive" in drawing connections between Iraq and al-Qaida in an effort to inform policymakers of the potential that such a relationship existed. All of the participants in the August 2002 coordination meeting on the September 2002 version of Iraqi Support/or Terrorism interviewed by the Committee agreed that while some changes were made to the paper as a result of the participation of two Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy staffers, their presence did not result in changes to their analytical judgments.Source: The Senate Intelligence Committee unanimous report on Iraq

That makes his life what? Worth more than 4K American troops and more than half a million Iraqis killed over nothing?

Bush first said we were going to Iraq as part of a mission to prevent a nuclear attack on the US by Al Qeada.
Then we find out Iraq had no affiliation with Al Qaead.
Then we find out Iraq had no big "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Where was the Iraq war investigation?

Bush laughs at no WMD in Iraq - YouTube

THAT'S what we got.

A big fucking expensive joke.

You're kidding right?


The 9/11 report?

The same report that tried to "share" the blame for the attacks with the Clinton administration.

The same report that had huge parts of it blanked out because they rightly put the blame on the Saudis?

The CIA did tell Bush not the use the yellow cake crapola in his speech. Same with the aluminum tubing bullshit.

He used them anyway and attributed the intel to the brits.

 

[JFK_USA]

https://www.facebook.com/TheBlueStr...5272475307822/162977380537331/?type=1&theater.

Not including the attacks of September 11, 2001, there were world wide, Ten (10) Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Missions that resulted the deaths of Sixty (60) U.S. Diplomatic Personnel between January 2002 and September 2008.

At no time in that Six (06) Year Period were there demands from Republicans for Investigations into those attacks made against U.S. Diplomatic Personnel.

At no time in that Six (06) Year Period were there demands from Republicans for Investigations into the death of the Sixty (60) U.S. Diplomatic Personnel Killed in those attacks.

At no time in that Six Year (06)Period did Democrats attempt to politicize the Ten (10) Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Missions under bush43.

At no time in that Six (06) Year Period did Democrats attempt to politicize the Sixty (60) Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Missions under bush43.

Republicans (Including Darryl Issa, John Boehner and Eric Cantor) voted against Millions of Dollars needed to upgrade security for U.S. Diplomatic Missions World Wide.

The current version of MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE over Benghazi is exactly that....MANUFACTURED OUTRAGE

But But But BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!!

 

[BlackFlag]

So the defense for the Benghazi lie is based on "You didn't mind it a bit when it happened under Bush"???
Even though you still FAIL at link-quoting a single person that lied or diminished an attack on Americans

The defense for Benghazi is that terrorists attacked and we should learn from it and be better prepared in the future.

That republicans "didn't mind it a bit when it happened under Bush" is just a coincidence.

So what is the defense for the LIE about why it was attacked?

Insufficient intel.

OR... a vast conspiracy started in order to save face before an election which COMPLETELY backfired into give Republicans IMMEDIATE ammo for said election and giftwrapping them YEARS worth of material to fire up their base! And they still lost the election anyways.

Hmm...