So What do you Lefties Claim Happened in Benghazi?

[Moonglow]

I dont need your list, I am fully aware. However, what I do want to know is why the Republicans, primarily the Bush clan had a hard on for Iraq that cost the US dearly in both human lives and materials. Talk about fraud waste and abuse.

Libya is a side show.

I was asking that same question 10 years ago, as I never bought into the BS about Iraq.

I think there were a couple 'reasons' for it.

1.) Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.

2.) Oil.

Now, let's get back on subject, Benghazi.

What did Obama know, when did he know it and what did he DO??

tell me what oil we got from Iraq. Just so you know. We didn't. They were given control over their oil.

so those 30 and 75 year leases to anglo-petro companies were not a given?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I dont need your list, I am fully aware. However, what I do want to know is why the Republicans, primarily the Bush clan had a hard on for Iraq that cost the US dearly in both human lives and materials. Talk about fraud waste and abuse.

Libya is a side show.

I was asking that same question 10 years ago, as I never bought into the BS about Iraq.

I think there were a couple 'reasons' for it.

1.) Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.

2.) Oil.

Now, let's get back on subject, Benghazi.

What did Obama know, when did he know it and what did he DO??

tell me what oil we got from Iraq. Just so you know. We didn't. They were given control over their oil.

I ALREADY know. Remember how Rumsfeld told us all that Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

How'd THAT work out?

 

[GuyPinestra]

They got intel that was filtered through the President. They were also told that voting "no" meant they were siding with the terrorists.

Unless of course..you think the history was different.

So you're claiming that Bush fudged the intel? Really?
Here are some big name Dems and their opinions BEFORE Bush took office.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Now, how did Bush fudge THAT intel?

Yes..Bush absolutely fudged the Intel.

And lied in the SOTU when he said that the Iraq was using Aluminium tubing to build centrifuges.

Look at the dates on those quotes, Sallow.

Bush wasn't even in office.

 

[Sallow]

I was asking that same question 10 years ago, as I never bought into the BS about Iraq.

I think there were a couple 'reasons' for it.

1.) Saddam tried to assassinate Bush Sr.

2.) Oil.

Now, let's get back on subject, Benghazi.

What did Obama know, when did he know it and what did he DO??

tell me what oil we got from Iraq. Just so you know. We didn't. They were given control over their oil.

I ALREADY know. Remember how Rumsfeld told us all that Iraqi oil would pay for the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom?

How'd THAT work out?

Worked out fine.

Oil companies made HUGE profits..and taxpayers got stuck with the bill.

As planned.

 

[DiamondDave]

They got intel that was filtered through the President. They were also told that voting "no" meant they were siding with the terrorists.

Unless of course..you think the history was different.

So you're claiming that Bush fudged the intel? Really?
Here are some big name Dems and their opinions BEFORE Bush took office.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

Now, how did Bush fudge THAT intel?

Yes..Bush absolutely fudged the Intel.

And lied in the SOTU when he said that the Iraq was using Aluminium tubing to build centrifuges.

Absolute bullshit

You, sir, are an idiot

 

[Sallow]

So you're claiming that Bush fudged the intel? Really?
Here are some big name Dems and their opinions BEFORE Bush took office.


Now, how did Bush fudge THAT intel?

Yes..Bush absolutely fudged the Intel.

And lied in the SOTU when he said that the Iraq was using Aluminium tubing to build centrifuges.

Look at the dates on those quotes, Sallow.

Bush wasn't even in office.

And read the content.

Hussien was playing games with weapons inspectors. It frustrated the heck out of the Clinton administration (Well not really).

It allowed the US to bomb Iraq..and forget about Monica for a while (Well not really).

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yes..Bush absolutely fudged the Intel.

And lied in the SOTU when he said that the Iraq was using Aluminium tubing to build centrifuges.

Look at the dates on those quotes, Sallow.

Bush wasn't even in office.

And read the content.

Hussien was playing games with weapons inspectors. It frustrated the heck out of the Clinton administration (Well not really).

It allowed the US to bomb Iraq..and forget about Monica for a while (Well not really).

Tell me how Bush and PNAC fudged that info, Sallow...

That is what you claimed.

 

[Dreamy]

Yes..Bush absolutely fudged the Intel.

And lied in the SOTU when he said that the Iraq was using Aluminium tubing to build centrifuges.

Look at the dates on those quotes, Sallow.

Bush wasn't even in office.

And read the content.

Hussien was playing games with weapons inspectors. It frustrated the heck out of the Clinton administration (Well not really).

It allowed the US to bomb Iraq..and forget about Monica for a while (Well not really).

So if I am understanding you correctly.

The Clinton administration and many others were "tricked" by Hussein regarding WMD but the Bush administration and all those during his tenure were not?

 

[JoeB131]

No conspiracy Joe.

Just questions about the handling of this affair. Help was formed and ready to respond. If Barry had given the order then those men would be alive.

They are dead, no help came, so no order given.

Not hard to figure out.

Again, Vince Foster redux...

Eight weeks later, you guys are insisting there was a force ready to respond.

The commanding general of AFRICOM was relieved of duty for trying to respond.

Hack!

He says he resigned because it was his time.

But not to worry, you'll find that bullet in Fort Marcy Park eventually. You just need to keep looking.

 

[daveman]

Now let us honor the dead with a moment of silence, and stop the bickering.

You misspelled "never talk about this again and pretend Obama is a swell President who deserves re-election".

 

[daveman]

When Conservatives agree that all foreign embassies and consulates on U.S. soil should house a battalion of marines from the guest country, and that those soldiers will be immune from prosecution for violence committed against protesting Americans, then you can question the security at Benghazi.

Otherwise, STFU!

How many diplomatic missions have been attacked in America?

 

[theHawk]

Oh please.

Your the only one talking about Foster.

Eight weeks later and your still believing that there was no force that could have been deployed?

Hell. Europe was a couple of hours away. General Hamm was willing to repond. Do you think he would send the cook??

That fight lasted seven hours. Thats seven hours to deploy assistance. It never came because stand down were the only given. It was to "risky."

What I think is that hindsight is 20/20, and you guys have been spending 8 weeks trying to come up with scenarios that somehow, some way, Obama was guilty of something.

Europe is a couple of hours away... Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

It hasn't taken us 8 weeks to come up with anything. It took those of us with common sense just a few days to realize this administration dropped the ball when it came to the security of the Embassy. As more facts trickled out slowly from an adimistration stonewalling, it became more and more appearent that the administration lied about the video being the cause, all to cover for their own incompetence.

What IS the excuse for not even having standard security in war-torn Libya? There is NO excuse.

What IS the excuse for Obama not ordering forces that were on standby to help? There is NO excuse, which is why Obama is silent.

 

[Lakhota]

So What do you Lefties Claim Happened in Benghazi?

I wasn't there, so I don't know. That's why I'm waiting for the final investigative reports instead of just making shit up to smear Obama.

 

[blackhawk]

Oh please.

Your the only one talking about Foster.

Eight weeks later and your still believing that there was no force that could have been deployed?

Hell. Europe was a couple of hours away. General Hamm was willing to repond. Do you think he would send the cook??

That fight lasted seven hours. Thats seven hours to deploy assistance. It never came because stand down were the only given. It was to "risky."

What I think is that hindsight is 20/20, and you guys have been spending 8 weeks trying to come up with scenarios that somehow, some way, Obama was guilty of something.

Europe is a couple of hours away... Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

Hindsight is 20/20 that is good to hear please feel free to remind the left of that the next time we get a Bush ignored 9-11 warnings thread after all they have only been trying to come up with ways to blame him for that for 11 years now.

 

[Obamanation]

Oh please.

Your the only one talking about Foster.

Eight weeks later and your still believing that there was no force that could have been deployed?

Hell. Europe was a couple of hours away. General Hamm was willing to repond. Do you think he would send the cook??

That fight lasted seven hours. Thats seven hours to deploy assistance. It never came because stand down were the only given. It was to "risky."

What I think is that hindsight is 20/20, and you guys have been spending 8 weeks trying to come up with scenarios that somehow, some way, Obama was guilty of something.

Europe is a couple of hours away... Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

Now, whose fault is that? Just like everything else about our Transparancy in Chief --- If he would just let America know the truth, perhaps nobody would be wondering exactly what the truth is. When you hide behind closed doors your entire life people wonder what's going on back there.

 

[Obamanation]

Oh please.

Your the only one talking about Foster.

Eight weeks later and your still believing that there was no force that could have been deployed?

Hell. Europe was a couple of hours away. General Hamm was willing to repond. Do you think he would send the cook??

That fight lasted seven hours. Thats seven hours to deploy assistance. It never came because stand down were the only given. It was to "risky."

What I think is that hindsight is 20/20, and you guys have been spending 8 weeks trying to come up with scenarios that somehow, some way, Obama was guilty of something.

Europe is a couple of hours away... Oh, yeah, that makes sense.

Yes, even the thread title is worded like we owe Repubs some sort of defense for that tragedy. Ridiculous.

Maybe after the election when they are able to calm themselves a little...

Defense? lol

Just the truth. If you have done nothing wrong you don't need a defense. If you have done nothing wrong you just need to share. The fact that there is no sharing tells people to be suspicious. Why would they not share if they did nothing wrong?

 

[Obamanation]

heck, im still trying to see if we can get answers on Iraq. Since the right has no answers for their failed cowboy attempt in Iraq. I think Libya takes a back seat.

Gotta love the left! Benghazi is now officially BUSH'S FAULT! LMBO!!!

nice try --- the fact that you claim Bush did something wrong in regards to Iraq --- and then compared Iraq to Benghazi just tells us ----

That you are EVERY bit as confident that Obama has done something wrong here. Therapists would suggest that is behavior is externalized guilt. Basically you just admitted that you totally agree with the right --- no matter how unintentional - or how much you protest to my charge - you just make your position weaker with ANY response.

 

[Lakhota]

NaziCons are funny...

 

[Obamanation]

heck ya, im going to shift and deflect all the way to till im told why we had to spend 3 trillion and lose 4,000 troops.


Maybe when I get some answers, ill give a flying F about Libya. Till then, I don't care. And most of American agrees, so it seems.

LOL!!! You can join him!

making a comparrison between Benghazi and Iraq --- after suggesting that Bush did something wrong with Iraq - is just admitting the guilt of Obama...

You dolts shove your feet in your mouth so readily!

 

[Obamanation]

heck ya, im going to shift and deflect all the way to till im told why we had to spend 3 trillion and lose 4,000 troops.


Maybe when I get some answers, ill give a flying F about Libya. Till then, I don't care. And most of American agrees, so it seems.

Yep.

No investigations into the run up to the Iraqi war. None.

And almost a year after 9/11/2001..there was an investigation, which basically turned into bullshit. The "results" put almost equal blame on an administration that had been out of power for 8 months and had a good deal of redacted information.

Swallow joined in too!! love it!