Looks like Obama was correct about Benghazi

[Theowl32]

Clinton didn't invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

That was George W. Bush.

What part of "Clinton didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan" aren't you understanding?

English doesn't seem to be your first language.

You may be a Saudi..as it certainly sounds like it.

Wait a minute. You were not on the side of Bush "invading Afghanistan" you piece of disingenuous shit?

Or are you a ******* truther like I suspect?

Or are you going to admit the entire ******* country was behind the "invasion" of Afghanistan?

You piece of shit.

Also, what does....the democrats were behind the "invasion of Iraq" when they voted for it mean to you? They also propagated the existence of WMDs before Bush took office.

What is it about the notion that the paradigm shifted in this country post 911 on how to deal with perceived threats abroad from terror sponsored nations?


Do you have any thinking power where you can make actual conclusions that are separate from the left wing narrative, or are you lock step with every ******* fucked up left wing issue?

 

[Sallow]

What part of "Clinton didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan" aren't you understanding?

English doesn't seem to be your first language.

You may be a Saudi..as it certainly sounds like it.

Wait a minute. You were not on the side of Bush "invading Afghanistan" you piece of disingenuous shit?

Or are you a ******* truther like I suspect?

Or are you going to admit the entire ******* country was behind the "invasion" of Afghanistan?

You piece of shit.

Also, what does....the democrats were behind the "invasion of Iraq" when they voted for it. They also propagated the existence of WMDs before Bush took office.

What is it about the notion that the paradigm shifted in this country post 911 on how to deal with perceived threats abroad from terror sponsored nations?


Do you have any thinking power where you can make actual conclusions that are separate from the left wing narrative, or are you lock step with every ******* fucked up left wing issue?

The unvarnished fact is that Congress authorized the use of force.

And Bush invaded.

He gave the order. There were other avenues available to him.

Mr. Saudi guy.

 

[Theowl32]

What part of "Clinton didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan" aren't you understanding?

English doesn't seem to be your first language.

You may be a Saudi..as it certainly sounds like it.

Wait a minute. You were not on the side of Bush "invading Afghanistan" you piece of disingenuous shit?

Or are you a ******* truther like I suspect?

Or are you going to admit the entire ******* country was behind the "invasion" of Afghanistan?

You piece of shit.

Also, what does....the democrats were behind the "invasion of Iraq" when they voted for it. They also propagated the existence of WMDs before Bush took office.

What is it about the notion that the paradigm shifted in this country post 911 on how to deal with perceived threats abroad from terror sponsored nations?


Do you have any thinking power where you can make actual conclusions that are separate from the left wing narrative, or are you lock step with every ******* fucked up left wing issue?

The unvarnished fact is that Congress authorized the use of force.

And Bush invaded.

He gave the order. There were other avenues available to him.

Mr. Saudi guy.

You are just plain stupid. No offense.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are just plain stupid. No offense.

Nah, Shallow isn't stupid.

BUT he is a partisan hack. He says what he thinks will promote his party, or will attack the opposition, with utterly no regard for facts.

The problem that so many of us have in dealing with the left is the delusion that we are dealing with honest people who will be swayed by evidence and facts. We are not. To bury Shallow in facts and irrefutable evidence is useless, because he doesn't care about what is true, he serves the party and will lie as easily as the rest of us breath.

And this is the real danger of the American left, these are people who will do ANYTHING for power, they don't give a flying **** about facts or rationality. Anything that serves to give the party power will be claimed, no matter how absurd, no matter how completely refuted.

You cannot reason with Shallow, he has zero integrity and is here ONLY to serve the party, driven by a lust for power that he thinks will be his as a table scrap if his shameful party achieves the goal of establishing an authoritarian system.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

As far as I'm concerned, it did.

Did exactly what it set out to do.

That other problem... meh, that wasn't the goal and you know it.

So, we don't have anymore illegals here in America?
And the borders have been closed?

No, we exactly what we want.

We have a disenfranchised labor force willing to do jobs most of us wouldn't want to do.

Come on, guy, get real. You don't want the illegals to go away. You like eating cheap lettuce and you like shitting on a clean toilet.

I'd rather see Americans WORK, than support them through various government programs while cloaked under some 'help thy brother' crap. Why not call it like it is, and say this war on poverty is based on those jobs that many would otherwise CHOOSE not to do. At least you'd be honest.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No, we exactly what we want.

We have a disenfranchised labor force willing to do jobs most of us wouldn't want to do.

Come on, guy, get real. You don't want the illegals to go away. You like eating cheap lettuce and you like shitting on a clean toilet.

But but but. I thought you guys wanted everyone in the US to have a "living wage". Why do you hate mexicans and want them to subsist on starvation wages while they clean your toilets?

hypocrisy, joe--------you libs are filled with it.

I do. But i was pointing out the reality of why all the talk about "illegals" is just to get racists like you and Reb upset.

This is what you guys want.

And you complain because you have it.

How is Red or Reb the ones being racist here, when this fight over amnesty is simply focused around one particularly dominate group of people? Do you see the Germans, Polish, Russians, French, Greeks, Italians, Chinese, Swedish, Irish, (to name but a few) getting the same treatment? Generally when you willfully choose to isolate and treat a large group of immigrants (who are overwhelmingly Hispanics in this case), with standards and privileges that are very different from the vast majority of other immigrants who desire to be citizens but submit themselves UNDER Federal Immigration law, that is (by definition) racist... and I will call you out as such. To say otherwise would be to prove an amnesty bill that is very clearly beyond reproach. I quite doubt you are able to do that, Joe. How about we place ALL immigrants under the same legal Federal standards, and quit all your childish tantrums that "you must be racist" for daring to suggest every immigrant be treated and submitted under the same law.

 

[BlindBoo]

What part of "Clinton didn't invade Iraq or Afghanistan" aren't you understanding?

English doesn't seem to be your first language.

You may be a Saudi..as it certainly sounds like it.

Wait a minute. You were not on the side of Bush "invading Afghanistan" you piece of disingenuous shit?

Or are you a ******* truther like I suspect?

Or are you going to admit the entire ******* country was behind the "invasion" of Afghanistan?

You piece of shit.

Also, what does....the democrats were behind the "invasion of Iraq" when they voted for it mean to you? They also propagated the existence of WMDs before Bush took office.

What is it about the notion that the paradigm shifted in this country post 911 on how to deal with perceived threats abroad from terror sponsored nations?


Do you have any thinking power where you can make actual conclusions that are separate from the left wing narrative, or are you lock step with every ******* fucked up left wing issue?

Virtually everyone was behind President Bush when he said he was going to pursue the terrorist who committed 9-11, no matter where in the world they were.

The majority of Democrats voted against the Authorization of Force in Iraq.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower. Saddam was supporting groups fighting in Palestine and a group inside Iran. He was contained and his military had been decimated in the first Gulf War. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11

 

[Uncensored2008]

Virtually everyone was behind President Bush when he said he was going to pursue the terrorist who committed 9-11, no matter where in the world they were.

The majority of Democrats voted against the Authorization of Force in Iraq.

Lying again Boo?

Your shameful party appreciates your service.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower. Saddam was supporting groups fighting in Palestine and a group inside Iran. He was contained and his military had been decimated in the first Gulf War. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11

It's nice of you to post your ThinkProgress bleating points - sadly that is ALL you are capable of....

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

No one ever denied it was a terrorist attack. Obama called it a "terrorist" attack the next day.

You do realize you're lying?

Nope, that's what he said. Romney tried to make this claim, and he got FAMOUSLY slapped down by the moderator.

Major Newspapers Whitewash Obama's "Act Of Terror" Assertion | Research | Media Matters for America

Sept. 12: Obama Said Of Benghazi: "No Acts Of Terror Will Ever Shake The Resolve Of This Great Nation." On September 12, the day after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi which resulted in the deaths of four Americans, President Obama gave a speech in the Rose Garden. He said, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

Let's be honest to what explanation the Obama administration had chosen to stand firm on, regarding the Benghazi attack.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice represented the Obama administration in discussing the incident in the aftermath of the attack, suggesting the death of Ambassador Chris Stephens and three Americans came as the result of a protest over an incendiary viral video blasting the prophet Mohammad and was not a preplanned act of terrorism.

Rice appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation," CNN's "State of the Union," NBC's "Meet The Press," "Fox News Sunday" and ABC's "This Week" on Sep. 16, 2012, to speak on behalf of the President and she repeated the belief that the incident was a "spontaneous" mob uprising and not "a preplanned, premeditated attack."


Ham, whose partially redacted transcript was declassified by the House on Monday, said at the 2013 hearing that he was alerted to the incident 15 minutes after it erupted at 9:42 p.m. Libya Time (3:42 p.m. EST) on Sep. 11, 2012.
"When we saw a rocket-propelled grenade attack, what appeared to be pretty well aimed small arms fire — again, this is all coming second and third hand through unclassified, you know, commercial cellphones for the most part initially. To me, it started to become clear pretty quickly that this was certainly a terrorist attack and not just not something sporadic," he stated.

Ham served as head of the United States Africa Command, which manages U.S. military operations in Africa. He served in that capacity from March 2011 to April 2013.



Pentagon labeled Benghazi a terrorist attack as Obama administration wavered: newly declassified testimony - NY Daily News

 

[mudwhistle]

They saw the video all over the middle east and they were plenty of riots.

Couple that with the fact that the US has a heavy footprint in the region and considers the natural resources of multiple countries as US assets.

It didn't matter that they timed it to coincide with 9/11?

They went around asking everyone about the video, and most said they never saw it but heard it was pretty bad.

That's a good reason to torch an embassy.

Of course it matters.

Which brings into question why Ambassador Stevens went to the embassy knowing full well of the danger.

Because somebody asked him to.

Ever been in that situation yourself? Having to depend on the President to back you up when you need it?

I have. With Obama in the WhiteHouse help is pretty far away. I felt pretty much the same when the Clintons were in office.

 

[S.J.]

It didn't matter that they timed it to coincide with 9/11?

They went around asking everyone about the video, and most said they never saw it but heard it was pretty bad.

That's a good reason to torch an embassy.

Of course it matters.

Which brings into question why Ambassador Stevens went to the embassy knowing full well of the danger.

Because somebody asked him to.

Ever been in that situation yourself? Having to depend on the President to back you up when you need it?

I have. With Obama in the WhiteHouse help is pretty far away. I felt pretty much the same when the Clintons were in office.

Democrat presidents are known for abandoning our own. Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs, Johnson in Vietnam, Carter in the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Obama in Benghazi...

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Well TheOwlFag.

You continue to spout lies as truth.

And continue to be wrong.

A good deal of the terrorism that we face today are a result of Conservative policies and a result of the wishes of their allies in Saudi Arabia.

9-11 happened after 8 years of Bill Clinton. What were his conservative policies?

It must have been the funding and backing of close friend of the Bush's, Osama Bin Laden.

Oh wait, no, that was Ronald "I love terrorists that rape and kill American Nuns" Reagan and George HW Bush.

Clinton was trying to kill him.

That much was apparently evident.


On February 26, 1993, Islamic terrorists attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers by detonating truck bombs in the underground parking garage. The attack fails to topple the twin towers but kills six people and wounding 1,042.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA), 1992-2001 (FY1993-FY2001)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IB85159.pdf

The FY1993 National Defense Authorization Act (Sec. 4403, P.L. 102-484) granted temporary authority (which expired on September 30, 2001) for the services to offer early retirements to personnel with more than 15 but less than 20 years of service. TERA was used as a manpower tool to entice voluntary retirements during the drawdown.TERA retired pay was calculated in the usual ways except that there is an additional reduction of one percent for every year of service below 20. Part or all of this latter reduction could be restored if the retiree worked in specified public service jobs (such as law enforcement, firefighting, and education) during the period immediately following retirement, until the point at which the retiree would have reached the 20-year mark if he or she had remained in the service.

Clinton Offers $19.5-Billion Package to Help Defense Industry After Cuts : Pentagon: Expansion of high-technology jobs is the primary goal. Little immediate relief is proposed for displaced workers or affected firms. - Page 3 - Los Angeles Times


Clinton also said he will propose allocating almost $4 billion over the next four years for worker retraining programs, including $150 million for government- and employer-sponsored projects to help displaced defense workers.

The program also will include $112 million to help members of the National Guard and reserves who are being dropped from the rolls and to provide severance pay and health benefits for civilian Defense Department employees who may be laid off.

Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Bill Clinton and the Decline of the Military.html
By Lynn Woolley — Posted Dec 21, 2006

In 1994, troops were sent to Haiti, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Clinton asked for a Defense increase of just $2.8 billion but Congress approved a decrease of $17.1 billion. The shrinking budget caused sharp reductions at the Pentagon.

There were more peacekeeping missions to come, including in Somalia where 1,800 Marines provided cover for the withdrawal of UN peacekeepers. But the downsizing of the military continued with 40,000 troops removed from Europe. The Base Closure Commission recommended shuttering 79 more bases. Clinton’s budget request for fiscal 1996 was $10.2 billion lower than the prior year.

At this point, we are well into the Clinton presidency and the eleventh straight year of declining military budgets. The president and the Congress have slashed the defense budget to the point where, after adjusting for inflation, it is some 40% less than in 1985 during the second Reagan term.

The year 1996 saw cruise missile strikes against Iraq and 18,000 U.S. troops stationed in the Balkans as part of a NATO force. Clinton sent the U.S. aircraft carrier Independence and three other ships to the Taiwan Strait because of tensions between Taiwan and China. For 1997, Clinton sought another $10 billion reduction, though the bill he eventually signed set aside $244 billion for defense—finally halting the long string of declining budgets, but just barely.

Defense Secretary William Cohen had become concerned about his budget, and so he called for more base closings—and more money. The Joint Chiefs said that unless funding levels could be increased, some weapons systems or overseas deployments would have to be eliminated. In 1999, the budget was at $250 billion—the same year we were using our military to halt Slobodan Milosevic’s “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo.

For fiscal 2000, Defense requested $267.2 billion billion, including a pay raise for soldiers. The USS Cole was bombed and peacekeeping efforts continued in the usual spots like Kosovo and Bosnia. Clinton’s presidency was winding down and his final Defense budget totaled $288 billion with a supplemental bill of $6.5 billon to help pay for all the peacekeeping.

After Bush was elected and the country had suffered the 9/11 attacks, former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger said Clinton had cut back the military so much that we might not be able to fight a war on terrorism on several fronts. He listed the problems brought on during the Clinton years: lost air and sea lift capacity, two or three years during which nothing was procured for the military, and cuts in R&D.

 

[HUGGY]

It appears the one that got his ass handed to him was TheOwl..

Just sayin...

 

[BlindBoo]

Virtually everyone was behind President Bush when he said he was going to pursue the terrorist who committed 9-11, no matter where in the world they were.

The majority of Democrats voted against the Authorization of Force in Iraq.

Lying again Boo?

Your shameful party appreciates your service.

Iraq was not a threat to the worlds remaining superpower. Saddam was supporting groups fighting in Palestine and a group inside Iran. He was contained and his military had been decimated in the first Gulf War. Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11

It's nice of you to post your ThinkProgress bleating points - sadly that is ALL you are capable of....

Nope. 147 Democrats in Congress voted against it. 111 voted for it. But apparently history, facts and stuff are not your strong point. You believe in truthiness don't-cha?

I feel ya.

24 February 2001 Powell:

-- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

"The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction. The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained.."

The Memory Hole > 2001: Powell & Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

 

[BlindBoo]

Of course it matters.

Which brings into question why Ambassador Stevens went to the embassy knowing full well of the danger.

Because somebody asked him to.

Ever been in that situation yourself? Having to depend on the President to back you up when you need it?

I have. With Obama in the WhiteHouse help is pretty far away. I felt pretty much the same when the Clintons were in office.

Democrat presidents are known for abandoning our own. Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs, Johnson in Vietnam, Carter in the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Obama in Benghazi...

So when President Obama was informed the Consulate had been attacked what did he say again? Was it "Abandon Ship", "Run Away" or something?

Or, was something like ordering his commanders to do everything possible to save American lives?

 

[JoeB131]

[

It didn't matter that they timed it to coincide with 9/11?

They went around asking everyone about the video, and most said they never saw it but heard it was pretty bad.

That's a good reason to torch an embassy.

You're right. They need to torch things over truly noble causes, like sports games like we do in America!

Not because someone insulted their religion.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No one ever denied it was a terrorist attack. Obama called it a "terrorist" attack the next day.

"Nobody?"

More than half of you left wing fubars are PRESENTLY still denying that it was a terrorist attack. And that bastion of lolberal crapaganda, The NY Slimes, is urgently trying to peddle exactly that. This explains the ridiculous OP.

And, Obumbler inadvertently suggested or admitted that a terrorist attack was a terrorist attack BEFORE he (and Rice and Shrillary) started steadfastly denying that the terrorist attack was a terrorist attack.

For Christ's sake. Pick a story line you loopey libs.

Yawn, guy. Everyone agreed it was a "Terrorist" attack. Of course, I find the very word "Terrorist" laughable, because a couple months earlier, these same douchebags were "Freedom fighters" when they were killing Khadafy.

Just like Bin Laden was a "Freedom Fighter" when he was killing Russians. But I digress.

but if the word "Terror" is what has your panties in a bunch, the President called it "Terror" the next day.

The two issues that are in contention are 1) Was Al Qaeda involved and 2) was the YouTube video that was causing riots in 20 Islamic countries at the same time a factor.

And the answers to those questions seem to be 1) Probably not, and 2) Probably.

Horse shit. Lying doesn't make you appear any less absurd.

It is absolutely NOT the case that 'everyone" agreed that it was a terrorist attack.

President Obumbler kind of sorta suggested it (inadvertently( BEFORE he and his hack team back-peddled the HELL out of it.

To this day HALF you asshole far left wing liberal twats STILL wish to pretend that it was nothing more than a spontaneous MOB reaction to the ******* idiotic video that nobody had even seen.

I couldn't give half a shit how YOU define "terrorist." The three thousand souls lost on 9/11/2001 would not agree that the 19 Arab shit suckers were "freedom fighters." Face facts. Those vile pieces of filth were nothing more and nothing less than terrorists.

The ******* lying sack of rat **** President INADVERTENTLY let it slip that it was terrorism. But thereafter it would take Mohammed Mountain Moving Magic to get get Obumbler and you idiotic liberals to just ******* SAY it.

The STORY that it was a spontaneous MOB reaction to the unseen stupid video was ALWAYS intentionally dishonest crap. And you know it. But you aren't man enough to just acknowledge it.

 

[HUGGY]

You WRONGwing morons are like a school of BIGMOUTH bass still striking at every little shiny object thrown your way and you don't even notice that the drought YOU have created in politics is draining your little pond.

 

[S.J.]

Because somebody asked him to.

Ever been in that situation yourself? Having to depend on the President to back you up when you need it?

I have. With Obama in the WhiteHouse help is pretty far away. I felt pretty much the same when the Clintons were in office.

Democrat presidents are known for abandoning our own. Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs, Johnson in Vietnam, Carter in the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Obama in Benghazi...

So when President Obama was informed the Consulate had been attacked what did he say again? Was it "Abandon Ship", "Run Away" or something?

Or, was something like ordering his commanders to do everything possible to save American lives?

I don't know what he SAID, but he DID nothing.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Horse shit. Lying doesn't make you appear any less absurd.

It is absolutely NOT the case that 'everyone" agreed that it was a terrorist attack.

President Obumbler kind of sorta suggested it (inadvertently( BEFORE he and his hack team back-peddled the HELL out of it.

To this day HALF you asshole far left wing liberal twats STILL wish to pretend that it was nothing more than a spontaneous MOB reaction to the ******* idiotic video that nobody had even seen.

I couldn't give half a shit how YOU define "terrorist." The three thousand souls lost on 9/11/2001 would not agree that the 19 Arab shit suckers were "freedom fighters." Face facts. Those vile pieces of filth were nothing more and nothing less than terrorists.

The ******* lying sack of rat **** President INADVERTENTLY let it slip that it was terrorism. But thereafter it would take Mohammed Mountain Moving Magic to get get Obumbler and you idiotic liberals to just ******* SAY it.

The STORY that it was a spontaneous MOB reaction to the unseen stupid video was ALWAYS intentionally dishonest crap. And you know it. But you aren't man enough to just acknowledge it.

Guy, "Terrorist" is just a word. "Freedom Fighter" is two words, and equally meaningless. It really depends what side you are on, doesn't it?

But "Terror" was a word the President used to describe the attacks. So if that's what has your panties in a bunch, you need to get over it. He said it several times.

He didn't say it was Al Qaeda because we still don't really know if it was Al Qaeda. We do know that most of the middle east was damned upset about this video, even if they didn't see it.