Jump to content

Its Not Looking Good For Bengazi Conspiracy Theorist.


Recommended Posts

"The Republican inquisition over the Benghazi attacks has never really gone away,
but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House
Oversight Committee’s Benghazi hearings this week there’s renewed psycho-histrionics
over Benghazi. Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping
their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to
deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following
the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation —
turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie
her presidential run before it even begins.

So I thought I’d revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher
— especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press,
intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they’re so obsessed
by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that
occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly “keeping us safe.”

The Benghazi attacks are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated
that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Obama.

 

15ri78k.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

So now the cons acknowledge that Obama called it an act of terror on sept 12, but not until minute 4 of his speech, so that doesn't count. Un frickin believable. You can't make up that kind of stupid.

So a general sense to you is what? LMAO!!!   Not with a smelly piece of chit like you dumbass!!! Take a bath & we might think about it.

And teachers on the whole...don't want them either. More likely if kids knew there were guns in the school...they'd find a way to get them....someway...somehow. We'd see the OK Corral with kids shoo

Common guys....I've got to go to bed!!!

 

 

Hustle up!



"The Republican inquisition over the Benghazi attacks has never really gone away,
but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House
Oversight Committee’s Benghazi hearings this week there’s renewed psycho-histrionics
over Benghazi. Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping
their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to
deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following
the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation —
turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie
her presidential run before it even begins.

So I thought I’d revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher
— especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press,
intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they’re so obsessed
by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that
occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly “keeping us safe.”

The Benghazi attacks are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated
that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Obama.

 

15ri78k.jpg

 

 

Oh crap, you threw in the towel???

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Huffpost never disappoints!

 

From the first link...

 

'And that's why the two most essential lies -- among the many -- in his new memoir are that he had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, and that he had a legitimate reason to torture detainees.

Neither is remotely true.'

 

 

1. That is a lie. Congress voted on a measure to remove Saddam as a threat given the intelligence information we had and they were privy to. Fortunately, having done so, we pulled off the battlefield intelligence that would prove invaluable to killing OBL.

 

Swing and a miss, huffpost.

 

2. Harsh interrogations (to call it torture is inaccurate) led to the courier who would lead us to OBL.

 

Strike two, huffpost.

 

 

I guess because he's not as incompetent as our administration???

 

 

You just stepped on yourself.

 

"The Republican inquisition over the Benghazi attacks has never really gone away,

but it appears as though in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing and the House

Oversight Committee’s Benghazi hearings this week there’s renewed psycho-histrionics

over Benghazi. Lindsey Graham and Fox News Channel in particular are each crapping

their cages over new allegations from an alleged whistleblower, while they continue to

deal in previously debunked falsehoods about the sequence of events during and following

the attacks. Fox News is predictably helming the biggest raft of hooey on the situation —

turning its attention to Hillary Clinton in an abundantly obvious early move to stymie

her presidential run before it even begins.

 

So I thought I’d revisit some territory I covered back in October as a bit of a refresher

— especially since it appears as if no one, including and especially the traditional press,

intends to ask any of these obnoxious, opportunistic liars about why they’re so obsessed

by this one attack yet they entirely ignored the dozen-plus consulate/embassy attacks that

occurred when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were allegedly “keeping us safe.”

 

The Benghazi attacks are absolutely not unprecedented even though they’re being treated

that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Obama.

 

15ri78k.jpg

 

 

so how does the right explain this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody died because of watergate.

Funny, reminds me of the old bumper sticker that read 'Clinton lied, and nobody died'.

What the usual suspects on the right have failed to mention is this; under Obama there have been 2 attacks on embassies/ consulates [benghazi and Turkey] in a little over 4 years and 9 hearings in a little over 6 months. With 4 casualties.

Under Bush there were 11 attacks on us embassies and consulates and 52 casualties. There were......3 hearings in 8 years.

This information is not difficult to unearth. And so it is, you know, a little curious that the most 'powerful' cable news [?] channel has never, once, decided to provide it's viewers with what seems like useful, contextual information. Makes me a tad suspicious of their claim to 'fair and balanced' reportage. Love to hear what you think. Cheers!

 

"And spelling it wrong all over the place"

 

I had to lol ! (Meester Beeg and his "Banghazi" thread) :D http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?/topic/148162-what-was-barry-doing-during-banghazi-attack/

Nicely done,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, reminds me of the old bumper sticker that read 'Clinton lied, and nobody died'.

What the usual suspects on the right have failed to mention is this; under Obama there have been 2 attacks on embassies/ consulates [benghazi and Turkey] in a little over 4 years and 9 hearings in a little over 6 months. With 4 casualties.

Under Bush there were 11 attacks on us embassies and consulates and 52 casualties. There were......3 hearings in 8 years.

This information is not difficult to unearth. And so it is, you know, a little curious that the most 'powerful' cable news [?] channel has never, once, decided to provide it's viewers with what seems like useful, contextual information. Makes me a tad suspicious of their claim to 'fair and balanced' reportage. Love to hear what you think. Cheers!

applause.gif

 

I think you just won the internet...... ^_^

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, reminds me of the old bumper sticker that read 'Clinton lied, and nobody died'.

What the usual suspects on the right have failed to mention is this; under Obama there have been 2 attacks on embassies/ consulates [benghazi and Turkey] in a little over 4 years and 9 hearings in a little over 6 months. With 4 casualties.

Under Bush there were 11 attacks on us embassies and consulates and 52 casualties. There were......3 hearings in 8 years.

This information is not difficult to unearth. And so it is, you know, a little curious that the most 'powerful' cable news [?] channel has never, once, decided to provide it's viewers with what seems like useful, contextual information. Makes me a tad suspicious of their claim to 'fair and balanced' reportage. Love to hear what you think. Cheers!

Those interested are because obama decided to lie and coverup not only the reason for the attack but also the response.

 

If Bush had lied similarly, we could talk apples to apples. As it is....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those interested are because obama decided to lie and coverup not only the reason for the attack but also the response.

 

If Bush had lied similarly, we could talk apples to apples. As it is....

You lose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

an hour and no response from the right on the devastating graph. That means they have no response. All they can do, like regel, is divert and deny. Here's more!!

 

22gait.jpg

 

 

Democrats don't have the Andrew Breibarts making up stuff.

 

A major weak point in the Democrat policy.

 

 

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must respond David Corn's "Top Ten Bush Lies."

I'm not going to address every one … just the ones I've already researched in great detail regarding Iraq and the WOT.

I will comment on this one, however ...

1. "It’s time to restore honor and dignity to the White House."


I think compared to his predecessor and the guy who followed him, Bush wins this one hands down.

2. "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush issued this triumphant remark in late May 2003, while being interviewed by a Polish television reporter. He was referring to two tractor-trailers obtained by U.S. forces in Iraq. The CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency had concluded these vehicles were mobile bio-weapons plants.


How is it a lie if a joint CIA/DIA report concluded the trailers in question were bio-weapons labs and Bush repeated this? The six-page document titled 'Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants' concluded that there could be no other purpose for the trailers beyond biological weapons. Yet Corn calls that a lie by Bush? And does Corn really think that's the only evidence Bush was told indicating Iraq was still working on WMD … still had WMD? If so, he's an idiot on top of being a liar.

3. "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." And, "(Saddam Hussein is) a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." These two Bush remarks go hand in hand, even though the first was said on March 17, 2003, two days before Bush launched the invasion of Iraq, and the other came during a November 7, 2002, press conference. Together they represented his argument for war: Hussein possessed actual weapons of mass destruction and at any moment could hand them to his supposed partners in al Qaeda. That is why Hussein was an immediate threat to the United States and had to be taken out quickly. But neither of these assertions were truthful. ... etc. etc. etc ...


This paragraph is so full of falsehoods, it's hard to know where to start.

First, the reason Bush gave for needing to invade with Iraq was to prevent it from becoming an imminent threat, not because it was already one. Bush said precisely that in his 2003 State of the Union Address to the American public. Here: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." That is factually correct and the logic is sound. And the ISG investigations prove it was a wise move on his part, too.

There were many reasons for believing Saddam still had WMD, not the least being his own behavior. Top Democrats had access to the same intelligence as Bush and had concluded Saddam was still WMD armed and still pursuing more WMD. It was only in the last moments, as political maneuver, they changed their tune and claimed otherwise. The last time UN inspectors had actually been in Iraq, they concluded the same thing … that Iraq was still WMD armed and pursuing WMD. Their top inspector, Scott Ritter, told Congress immediatedly after they were kicked out of the country that "based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads ... snip ... Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. ... snip ... Iraq still has components (high explosive lenses, initiators, and neutron generators) for up to four nuclear devices minus the fissile core (highly enriched uranium or plutonium) ... snip ... Iraq has retained an operational long-range ballistic missile force that includes approximately four mobile launchers and a dozen missiles.[/b" He also stated that Iraq retained " the means to continue manufacturing" biological agents", "significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production", "the means to produce 'high explosive lenses, initiators, and neutron generators' for nuclear weapons", and "production means necessary for the rapid reconstitution of long-range ballistic missile production." It would have been utterly foolish for Bush to simply ignore that, Mr Corn.

Especially since Saddam did everything imaginable to hinder the inspectors the second time around. Blix, just 12 days before the invasion scolded Iraq for not being able to provide documentary evidence about it's proscribed weapons programmes and specified a number of questions that remained unsolved including the fact that Iraq had not accounted for vast quantities of anthrax, Scud missile warheads, and drone aircraft that could fly past UN-allowed limits. Only as war threatened did the Iraqis finally take inspectors to a site where apparently large amounts of anthrax and chemical munitions had been haphazardly dumped. But it was impossible to tell how much had been disposed of, when it had been buried, or if that was all they had had. Because Iraq claimed to have no records … a totally unbelieveable assertion. And indeed, Iraq was lying, because the ISG discovered a mountain of hidden documents … documents which proved Iraq had ongoing WMD related programs and was deliberately hiding those programs from prying eyes.

David Kay, who headed the ISG effort for months after the invasion, stated "we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme." Documents found in Iraq after the invasion and translated after the ISG concluded it's work specifically mentioned truck convoys and contained first hand accounts by those who were in them … and those accounts clearly suggest the possibility they contained WMD. Don Bordenkircher, who served two years as national director of prison and jail operations in Iraq, stated that about 40 of his prisoners, who were members of the Iraqi military or civilians assigned to the Iraqi military and stationed at munitions facilities, “boasted of being involved in the transport of WMD warheads to Syria."

And did we know about these truck conveys before the invasion, when Bush made the comment called a lie? YES.

Did we have reasons to suspect they had something to do with WMD? YES.

The Washington Times reported that U.S. intelligence agencies had obtained satellite photographs of truck convoys that were at several weapons sites in Iraq in the weeks before U.S. military operations were launched. The photographs indicated that Iraq was moving arms and equipment from its known weapons sites. According to one official, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, known as NGA, had "documented the movement of long convoys of trucks from various areas around Baghdad to the Syrian border. General James Clapper, who was head of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency at the time, and who is now Director of Defense Intelligence in the Obama Administation, is on record saying that satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material “unquestionably” had been moved out of Iraq.

Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, John Shaw, who was responsible for tracking Saddam's weapons programs before and after the 2003 invasion, told The Washington Times that "recent intelligence reports indicate Russian special forces units took part in a sophisticated dispersal operation from January 2003 to March 2003 to move key weapons out of Iraq." Lending credence to that assertion is the presence of a large Russian military force in Iraq in the months just before the war. Shaw said "in December 2002, former Russian intelligence chief Yevgeni Primakov, a KGB general with long-standing ties to Saddam, came to Iraq and stayed until just before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003." And two other experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, were in Iraq at the time. In fact, "the two Russian generals had visited Baghdad no fewer than 20 times in the preceding five to six years.” And apparently there were Spetsnaz units in Iraq … the type of troops who handle WMD. Why? Shaw said they "were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry".

So for Corn to suggest that the only thing leading Bush to believe Iraq had WMD at the time was a couple of bio-weapon trailers is dishonest AT BEST.

Many things pointed to that conclusion before the invasion and many facts still do suggest Iraq had WMD and moved them out of the country just before or during the invasion.

I might be convinced they didn't have WMD when Corn or any you leftists at LF can answer these questions about Iraqi WMD.

1) What were the contents of those trucks that were observed going to Syria before the war?


2) What were the contents of the concrete bunkers that were built under the Euphrates in 2002 (that locals said contained WMD) and that were looted before the CIA (in all it's *wisdom*) decided to finally take a look at them in 2006? Not Dave Gaubatz, was in the US Air Force Office of Special Investigations at the time and tasked with finding WMD said locals told him that high-ranking Iraqi personnel and military trucks frequented the area and that low-ranking soldiers told the locals that WMD were being stored there. He said there were also missile imprints in the area and signs of chemical activity — gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles. So I ask, if they didn't contain WMD, what were they for?


3) Why did Iraq selectively sanitized files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD before, during and even after the war? That's what the ISG said they did. What were they hiding?


4) Where did that binary sarin shell that turned up as an IED actually came from and how you *know* it was the only one? The ISG stated that they couldn't be sure how many such warheads were out there because of Iraq's efforts to deceive inspectors over the years as to the scope and intent of the binary sarin program. Indeed, why would Saddam have shelved (as claimed by Iraq) a weapons program (this binary chemical munition) that his own scientists declared "VERY SUCCESSFUL" at a time when it was the best chemical weapon he had, there was no UN oversight, and he was very much interested in possessing a reliable/effective WMD weapon to use against Iran?


5) What did the documents dated 2002 from Saddam's regime, that were found in Iraq, but not translated until long after the invasion, mean when they ordered "special" materials to be hidden? They even have audio recordings of members of Iraq's military talking about hiding items from inspectors. So what were they hiding? Even you must know by now that "special" materials was the way Iraq referred to WMD. And if it was WMD they were referring to, why order them hidden if they didn't exist? Explain why in January 2002, Saddam's advisors discussed research into a precursor for Sarin nerve gas. Explain why in September 2002, only seven months before the war, Saddam's Military Industrial Commission approved the illegal production of the precursor chemicals used to make Tabun nerve gas. Explaine why four days later, another office discussed plans to import a banned compound, phosphorus pentasulfate, which is a precursor for VX nerve gas. Explain why in October 2002, Saddam's Director of Planning ordered more than forty tons of various chemicals which, when mixed together, would make Zyclon B – the poison gas used by the Nazis to kill Jews?


6) Why would you think invading Iraq was only about finding completed WMD munitions, and not precursors and the means to produce WMD as well? The ISG concluded that Iraq had not given up it's pursuit of WMD and that Saddam planned to reconstitute his chemical munitions within six months to a year after the UN gave Iraq a clean bill of health and sanctions ended. This is what Bush rightly feared. And that surely would have happened if Bush hadn't invaded. Saddam would have been deploying mustard gas munitions within 6 months, nerve weapons within a year or two, and also long range delivery systems within a few years. And with oil flowing freely, his Republican Guard would have been rebuilt and rearmed in no time. And then once again Iraq would been a very serious threat … all the more so because of it's MANY connections to terrorism.

If we hadn't invaded, Iraq would now be a threat with close ties to terrorists and terrorist organizations … including al-Qaeda.

Corn's implied claim that no such links existed before the invasion is an outright lie.

His statement that "prewar intelligence reports did not contain evidence of links between Hussein and al Qaeda" is also a lie.

The evidence presented to Bush did indeed show there were links.

Corn tries to imply that Bush linked Iraq to 9/11 to justify the war. He did not (although in hindsight one certainly can).

The claim that he did is a dishonest meme created by the same leftist mainstream media that created the meme that Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat (which he did not).

Bush repeatedly said that there was not evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Here is what he said about Iraq and al-Qaeda during a November 11, 2002 Hardball interview, for example:

the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.


That is a statement about the danger a close relationship between the two WOULD pose, not a claim that they currently had one. But one was clearly developing. They were indeed starting to more than tolerate each other's and to communicate towards a common purpose … war with the US. We know for a fact that Saddam has allowed al-Qaeda (like Shakir) to seek refuge in Iraq. We know for a fact that Saddam allowed al-Zarqawi and his terrorist group (who were closely linked to al-Qaeda) to operate out of Baghdad before the invasion. While in Baghdad, al-Zarqawi planned, funded and met with the leader of a plot that, had it been successful, might have killed tens of thousands in Amman, Jordan … including EVERYONE in the US embassy. When the terrorists in that plot were caught and put on trial, they said they were al-Qaeda. We know for a fact that when Saddam's police picked up one of al-Zarqawi's lieutenants before the invasion for criminal activity, Saddam personally intervened and had the terrorist freed. We know that Saddam was in contact with al-Qaeda and the Taliban immediately after 9/11, to tell them that we knew who was behind 9/11 and would be coming for them. We know that Saddam's regime knew about the attack in advance. How else do you explain the article that was published in the paper owned by one of Saddam's sons before the tactic which identified with all of the targets and alluded to an attack using aircraft as bullets?

All this proves Corn is dishonest ... because if he is half the journalist he pretends to be, he had to know all this when he compiled his list of Bush *lies*.

5. "[We are] taking every possible step to protect our country from danger." Bush said that a month after 9/11, and he has repeated that vow several times since then, including at the start of his recent month-long vacation at his Texas ranch. Every possible step? A reassuring line, but it is not true.


This is utter nonsense. This is grasping at straws. First of all, unlike Democrats, Bush and company understood that loose lips sink ships. They weren't about to tell the press (and especially Corn) the steps this country had taken to address the various threats. But the facts speak for themselves. Following 9/11, the number of successful terrorist attacks here and abroad against civilians plummetted. In the decade before 9/11, the US saw a number of terrorist bombings, including the 1993 WTC bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Olympic Park bombing. Until the Boston attack (under Obama), the only successful bombing plot in the US was in 2004 when a white supremacist used a homemade bomb to hurt man in Arizona. Terrorist attacks of all sorts were foiled. Here is a link discussing that: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/40-terror-plots-foiled-since-9-11-combating-complacency-in-the-long-war-on-terror And here is a comparison of the number of incidents of all types annually before and after 9/11:

WEBterr0909_345.jpg

Here's another:

terroristattacks_460.jpg

The bottom line is that Bush did make it much safer in the US (and abroad) than it had been. And not all of what his adminstration did has been leaked by the NYSlimes. The public doesn't (and shouldn't) know all that was done. Whereas what Obama is now doing is making it more dangerous again. But then Corn would never suggest that, would he?

In fact, out of curiousity, what has David Corn said about Benghazi, other than tweeting it's not Watergate and minimizing it as much as possible in his articles? Here's what he said … "The talking points dispute is not a scandal; it's a mess -- a small mess -- and not as significant as the actions (and non-actions) that led to Benghazi. Yet no mess is too tiny for scandalmongers in need of material." That's not the comment of a *journalist* interested in the TRUTH or concerned about LIES. Or people dying in terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda. Those are the words of a partisan political HACK.

6. "We must uncover every detail and learn every lesson of September the 11th." Bush said this in November 2002, as he appointed Henry Kissinger to be chairman of an independent 9/11 commission that Bush had orignially opposed. (Kissinger lasted two weeks in the job.) But Bush has not encouraged the uncovering of every detail. His administration did not turn over information to the congressional 9/11 inquiry about intelligence warnings the White House reviewed before 9/11. The administration also refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings—including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a "spectacular" attack "designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests"—were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them. Moreover, the administration claimed that Bush’s awareness of these warnings (not the warnings themselves) was classified information—an argument unprecedented in the modern history of national security secrets. Bush also refused to let the congressional inquiry release the portion of its final report that concerned connections between the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi citizens or officials. By resorting to such secrecy—which happened to keep hidden information that might be embarrassing or inconvenient for the Bush administration--Bush made it impossible for investigators to "uncover every detail" and for the nation to "learn every lesson."


This is more dishonesty. First of all, uncovering every detail doesn't mean that the public has a need to need to know every detail. Releasing some of those details might compromise sources and associations that are still important for our defense and economy. Journalists (if that's what Corn is, although I have my doubts) have an inflated sense of importance. They speak of their and the public's right to know, but that's not an absolute right. Often times things are kept secret for a reason … a good reason. This is a lesson that many liberals and the NYSlimes fail to learn. And their failure to do so often cost lives.

Keep in mind, there were Democrats on that Commission who now could spill the beans about all that if Obama would let them. Indeed, if Obama is doing such a good job in Corn's view (he does seem to admire him), why hasn't Obama released the details of the 9/11 Commission report? NOTHING prevents him from overriding Bush's decisions and making everything about the connection between Saudis and 9/11, for instance, known to the public. Yet, that hasn't happened and what is the first thing that happened after the Boston attack? Barack met with a Saudi official with no transparency about what was discussed. Hmmmmm. But let's blame it all on Bush … BECAUSE THAT'S THE MEME. Right, Mr. Corn?

As for the claim that Bush "refused to say whether certain pre-9/11 intelligence warnings—including a July 2001 report noting that Osama bin Laden was poised to launch a 'spectacular' attack 'designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests'—were shared with Bush and what he did in response, if he had received them," I'll just let Richard Clark tell that story:



And if what he says happened, Bush wasn't told about the warnings. Should we blame that on Bush, too?

Now if that degree of inaccuracy is representative of the rest of Corn's so-called Top Ten Bush Lies, then I'm not very impressed. Not like Hannibal, at least. :D
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the liberal defense. There were attacks under Bush so these 4 dead do not matter. The problem isn't the attack. The problem is the lack of response and cover-up and lying after. The lengths you liberals will go to not even address the issue at hand is amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Bush there were 11 attacks on us embassies and consulates and 52 casualties.

 

What you forgot to mention is that nearly all of those casualties were not Americans ... but people on the outside of the embassy/consulate buildings.

 

I think only 2 Americans were killed and only one was an embassy employee.

 

And both were outside the walls of the compounds.

 

Nobody penetrated the buildings and killed Americans.

 

The rest were foreigners ... either caught in an attack or foreign guards/terrorists killed during the attacks.

 

My question to you is ... how would you stop such casualties?

 

Because the only way I see is to remove the US presense.

 

Close our diplomatic missions around the world.

 

Is that what you are proposing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work Chooser. I thought my liberal friends would come a little stronger. As it is, no attempt is being made.

 

None.

 

We really don't like dwelling on the sins of the Bush Administration. We prefer to let bygones be bygones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We really don't like dwelling on the sins of the Bush Administration. We prefer to let bygones be bygones.

 

That's not it.

 

There are plenty of things to legimately criticize the Bush administration for (not that it would make a whole lot of difference now).

 

But he lied to get us into the Iraq war is nothing less than a LIE.

 

To claim that there were NO wmd in Iraq without answering my questions is NAIVE.

 

Notice that everytime either claim is made, I counter it with actual facts.

 

And every time it's the other side that then doesn't want to continue the discussion using facts.

 

But instead wants to make snide remarks.

 

Or adhominems against me.

 

Or simply RUNS to make the same claim on some future thread.

 

I have nothing against you folks pointing out the sins of Bush ... but try to LIE about it.

 

Because then I'll call you on it.

 

Just as you should call me on anything that I say which is untrue about Obama.

 

Or Clinton.

 

But then you folks never do seem to dredge up facts to counter those assertions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must respond David Corn's "Top Ten Bush Lies."

 

I'm not going to address every one … just the ones I've already researched in great detail regarding Iraq and the WOT.

 

 

And if what he says happened, Bush wasn't told about the warnings. Should we blame that on Bush, too?

 

Now if that degree of inaccuracy is representative of the rest of Corn's so-called Top Ten Bush Lies, then I'm not very impressed. Not like Hannibal, at least. :D

What it all came down to was that we had been attacked by terrorists who had no remorse over killing defenseless people at will. 9/11 was the last straw and it confirmed everything Bush, et. al., suspected about what terrorists were capable of doing. Bush simply could not take the chance with Hussein. It would have been a complete disaster if a terrorist got just one WMD, such as cannisters of nerve agent, got it here and used it in a crowd. The left would have then screamed for Bush's head, yet they scream for it now when the administration didn't come up with the WMDs they expected. Hindsight is always the easy way to condemn when people are both stupid and filled with hate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I must respond David Corn's "Top Ten Bush Lies."

 

..... This paragraph is so full of falsehoods, it's hard to know where to start.

 

First, the reason Bush gave for needing to invade with Iraq was to prevent it from becoming an imminent threat, not because it was already one. Bush said precisely that in his 2003 State of the Union Address to the American public. Here: "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." That is factually correct and the logic is sound. And the ISG investigations prove it was a wise move on his part, too.

 

There were many reasons for believing Saddam still had WMD, not the least being his own behavior. Top Democrats had access to the same intelligence as Bush and had concluded Saddam was still WMD armed and still pursuing more WMD. It was only in the last moments, as political maneuver, they changed their tune and claimed otherwise.

 

Kudos as usual for great work and the thought you've put into it.

 

David Corn is a shameless liar. When I was still watching MS-LSD, I could see him dissemble, evade key facts, lie, obfuscate, etc. I wouldn't trust him with the time of day.

 

He's a typical Lying Leftist.

 

He knows that Obama's top intelligence official Gen. Clapper believes that Iraqi WMDs are in Syria. That might or might not be true, but it proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the issue remains unresolved.

 

So informed leftists who accuse Bush of lying about WMDs are themselves lying.

 

And yes, you are correct, any responsible president won't wait until the threat is imminent from WMD-armed terrorists, because by then it's too late.

 

Bush did the right thing, and liberal-left wingers are psychotic and irrational, as usual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush's lies caused the death of 5,000 American soldiers, wounding of 65,000 and the permanent disability of 300,000 American soldiers.

 

.... And Bush caused the death of over 1 million Iraqi women and children.

 

And we have nothing to show for it except a $4 trillion bill.

 

Nothing ...

 

:(

Link to post
Share on other sites

just let me know when someone goes to jail for this.

 

then we can call it worse than watergate

 

the oil will pay for the war.

 

You lose.

that why the next day he said it was a terrorist attack. romney even got it wrong in the debates. proceed governor.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...