Clinton..."regret"...wow

[Soonerjeepman]

how about MISTAKE...not regret.

and this quote...

Her comments stand in sharp contrast to her defiant congressional testimony in January 2013, when she appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

"The fact is we had four dead Americans, was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" she asked.

MAYBE because the administration, or folks representing it, including YOU who is going to run for President...LIED.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/25/clinton-calls-benghazi-terror-attack-biggest-regret-on-her-watch/

[hawaii 5-0]

Maybe she regrets that when the State Department asked for more money for security for our diplomatic corps the House Republicans denied their request.


Maybe if there had been better security then Benghazi wouldn't have ever happened.

Actually I doubt it. I would imagine that most foreign countries wouldn't favor a CIA operation being set up in their neighborhood.


5-0

[FaninAma]

The budget request for embassy security was a small part in a larger budget reconcilliation process. The GOP did not reject a specific request to that effect. And are you really going to use that Democrat talking point to claim there were no resources to send to Libya when Ambassador Stevens asked for more security? None out of an $800 billion dollar defense budget? That's the excuse you are going to use? If so then I would suggest the GOP was correct in denying a budget increase because it is apparent that whoever in the military and and state department who makes decisions on how to appropriate resources are fookin' idiots and shouldn't be allowed to make budgetary decision.

So I ask you Greg, are do you really support fookin' idiots being in charge of how to spend billions of dollars? But understanding you support the Democrats ther is no need to answer that question.

[SoonerProphet]

If rehashing this Benghazi silliness is the election strategy for the GOP in 2016, then I guess we'd better get ready for another Clinton in the WH. Plenty of other foreign policy strategies they could roll out and achieve better results, imo.

[Sooner8th]

how about MISTAKE...not regret.

and this quote...

Her comments stand in sharp contrast to her defiant congressional testimony in January 2013, when she appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.

"The fact is we had four dead Americans, was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" she asked.

MAYBE because the administration, or folks representing it, including YOU who is going to run for President...LIED.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/25/clinton-calls-benghazi-terror-attack-biggest-regret-on-her-watch/

Lied about what? Terrorist or protest? How would saying terroest or protest save the lives of these four?

So..............you boys are going to resurrect this? EVERY "bombshell" or "witness" or "new information" says the say thing, Clinton had nothing to do with it, nobody in the white house stopped the military from going and it was too late for the military to help anyway . Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack refused offers to reinstate soldiers at the mission in the weeks before the raid.

Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) congressman admits that the GOP congress cut embassy security funding before the Benghazi attack. Now they are whining that Obama is weak and let our diplomats down. Nothing but scum bags each and every one.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6BLMz1chEM

Trying to rewrite history and blame Clinton for something that is not her fault - another Whitewater.

[Sooner8th]

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

Where was the outrage, the investigations, the great gnashing of teeth? Under bush - no problem.

BRING IT ON!

[olevetonahill]

Its all Bush's Fault . so says the 8th ****ing retard!

[Sooner8th]

Its all Bush's Fault . so says the 8th ****ing retard!

WHERE DID I SAY BUSH'S FAULT YOU IGNORANT ****ING HILLBILLY? SHOW ME WHERE I SAID BUSH'S FAULT!!

What I said was........................where was all this when bush had 13 attacks on embassies? DOUBLE STANDARD HYPOCRITES!


BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK! WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

LOSER

[olevetonahill]

WHERE DID I SAY BUSH'S FAULT YOU IGNORANT ****ING HILLBILLY? SHOW ME WHERE I SAID BUSH'S FAULT!!

What I said was........................where was all this when bush had 13 attacks on embassies? DOUBLE STANDARD HYPOCRITES!


BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK! WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

LOSER

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

Dayum who ya gonna kick around next retard?

[Sooner8th]

Dayum who ya gonna kick around next retard?

That would you be YOU - ignorant loser.

Show me where I said it was bush's fault. 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News is not blaming bush - it's just pointing out conservatives double standard and hypocrisy.

[olevetonahill]

That would you be YOU - ignorant loser.

Show me where I said it was bush's fault. 13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News is not blaming bush - it's just pointing out conservatives double standard and hypocrisy.
Retard! you keep bringing Bush up. Hell Ya got Obammy Suck his dick some more and Let W ride off into the sunset.

You keep bitchin at the Cons here for bringing up Slick willy yet you keep hammerin away at W.

[yermom]

Bush was in office, so Fox was in "everything is great and you should go buy like 5 houses right now" mode

[olevetonahill]

Bush was in office, so Fox was in "everything is great and you should go buy like 5 houses right now" mode

And that means every one should go Full retard?
Only morans follow ANY news group!

[Soonerjeepman]

lol...never said ANYTHING about Bush being great or the GOP using this...or fox not covering those attacks. I was merely pointing out HILLARY CLINTON'S take on it...and the fact that she really could care less about the WHY...and honestly the result. She wants to be the next president...great. She'll fit in with all the recent past ones, her husband, Bush and obama...

[yermom]

She'll fit in with all the past ones, pretty much ever

fixed

[sappstuf]

13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush's Watch Without a Peep from Fox News

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/13-benghazis-that-occurre_b_3246847.html

Where was the outrage, the investigations, the great gnashing of teeth? Under bush - no problem.

BRING IT ON!

David Foy was killed in a Marriott parking lot outside of the consulate... Nice try though.

[Sooner8th]

David Foy was killed in a Marriott parking lot outside of the consulate... Nice try though.

Thank you for making my point for me - It's still an attack on a US consult which killed a US diplomat - under Bush. Look at the hair splitting here - looking for anything to minimize it when it was under bush and the lengths that are gone through to blame obama and/or Hilary. Too bad the same leeway isn't extended them as to what you extend to bush.

Charred wreckage
The blast ripped through the parking lot of the Marriott Hotel, about 20 yards from the consulate gate, shattering windows at the consulate and on all 10 floors of the hotel. Ten cars were destroyed, and charred wreckage was flung as far as 200 yards.
Initial investigations showed a suicide attacker deliberately rammed his car into a vehicle carrying the U.S. diplomat, blowing it into the air, across a concrete barrier and into the grounds of the hotel, a Pakistani counterterrorism official and senior investigator said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

[Sooner8th]

lol...never said ANYTHING about Bush being great or the GOP using this...or fox not covering those attacks. I was merely pointing out HILLARY CLINTON'S take on it...and the fact that she really could care less about the WHY...and honestly the result. She wants to be the next president...great. She'll fit in with all the recent past ones, her husband, Bush and obama...

So, now it's her take on it.

"The fact is we had four dead Americans, was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they'd they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?" she asked.

Tell me what difference it does make, AFTER THE FACT. Obama said terrorist, but it wasn't good enough. Anything hilary says won't be good enough. Please start on lying so we can talk about bush's years of lying about iraq and how you didn't care about lying back then. double standard.

[jiminy]

There were terrorist acts under Clinton as well. They have ramped up since 9-11, because as you remember Bush did basically declare war on terrorism afterwards, and we loved him for it. The execution hasn't always been the greatest, but we did get Hussein and Bin Laden eventually. So, some successes.

The big difference here is that 1. this attack was preventable, and 2. the administration initially tried to portray it as a reaction to something Americans did. Then was reluctant to admit they were wrong, and has spent much of the time since then trying to cover up what really happened.

[Sooner8th]

There were terrorist acts under Clinton as well. They have ramped up since 9-11, because as you remember Bush did basically declare war on terrorism afterwards, and we loved him for it. The execution hasn't always been the greatest, but we did get Hussein and Bin Laden eventually. So, some successes.

The big difference here is that 1. this attack was preventable, and 2. the administration initially tried to portray it as a reaction to something Americans did. Then was reluctant to admit they were wrong, and has spent much of the time since then trying to cover up what really happened.


First - who blew bin lauden off and who got him?

Second - the "war" on terrorism was a disaster under bush, not "execution hasn't always been the greatest". Bush himself called the dogs off the guy who attacked us so he could lie about terrorist in iraq to attack them.

Third - Where do you get this at? Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism? Except for the lies bush/cheney told us and you bought.

Fourth - preventable uhh? LIKELY preventable - the ambassador did turn down more security there. Obama said it was an act of terror, not good enough? Show me where bush ever said he was wrong.............. DOUBLE STANDARD.

[Turd_Ferguson]

There were terrorist acts under Clinton as well. They have ramped up since 9-11, because as you remember Bush did basically declare war on terrorism afterwards, and we loved him for it. The execution hasn't always been the greatest, but we did get Hussein and Bin Laden eventually. So, some successes.

The big difference here is that 1. this attack was preventable, and 2. the administration initially tried to portray it as a reaction to something Americans did. Then was reluctant to admit they were wrong, and has spent much of the time since then trying to cover up what really happened.

Yep, that's why Hillary bowed out. She knew damn good and well she was going to run for POTUS and wanted to get out of the public eye to let it wash away.

[Sooner8th]

Yep, that's why Hillary bowed out. She knew damn good and well she was going to run for POTUS and wanted to get out of the public eye to let it wash away.

She knew what damn good and well?

[olevetonahill]

Yep, that's why Hillary bowed out. She knew damn good and well she was going to run for POTUS and wanted to get out of the public eye to let it wash away.


She knew what damn good and well?

Reading compression, Get ya some!

[sappstuf]

Thank you for making my point for me - It's still an attack on a US consult which killed a US diplomat - under Bush. Look at the hair splitting here - looking for anything to minimize it when it was under bush and the lengths that are gone through to blame obama and/or Hilary. Too bad the same leeway isn't extended them as to what you extend to bush.

Charred wreckage
The blast ripped through the parking lot of the Marriott Hotel, about 20 yards from the consulate gate, shattering windows at the consulate and on all 10 floors of the hotel. Ten cars were destroyed, and charred wreckage was flung as far as 200 yards.
Initial investigations showed a suicide attacker deliberately rammed his car into a vehicle carrying the U.S. diplomat, blowing it into the air, across a concrete barrier and into the grounds of the hotel, a Pakistani counterterrorism official and senior investigator said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Your story said the attack happened on the consulate which is considered US soil.. Your story is false. It happened in the Marriott parking lot

Benghazi was a US consulate that was completely over run by terrorists.

Your trying too hard.

[Sooner8th]

Your story said the attack happened on the consulate which is considered US soil.. Your story is false. It happened in the Marriott parking lot

Benghazi was a US consulate that was completely over run by terrorists.

Your trying too hard.

20 yards from the CONSULATE - KILLING A US DIPLOMAT - doesn't count huh?

Thank you for making my point of having a double standard for me.

[sappstuf]

Maybe she regrets that when the State Department asked for more money for security for our diplomatic corps the House Republicans denied their request.


Maybe if there had been better security then Benghazi wouldn't have ever happened.

Actually I doubt it. I would imagine that most foreign countries wouldn't favor a CIA operation being set up in their neighborhood.


5-0


In testimony Wednesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, was asked, “Was there any budget consideration and lack of budget which led you not to increase the number of people in the security force there?”

Lamb responded, “No, sir.”

Damn facts...

[sappstuf]

20 yards from the CONSULATE - KILLING A US DIPLOMAT - doesn't count huh?

Thank you for making my point of having a double standard for me.

You have never been to the part of the world that much is clear. 20 yards outside is like the Wild West, you are totally dependent on local security if there is any. I have sat at gates like that knowing if someone wanted me dead, I would be dead. The most security would be able to do is get off a few rounds before it happened.

But keep telling yourself you know what you are talking about..

[Sooner8th]

Damn facts...

Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say

CAIRO — In the month before attackers stormed U.S. facilities in Benghazi and killed four Americans, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens twice turned down offers of security assistance made by the senior U.S. military official in the region in response to concerns that Stevens had raised in a still secret memorandum, two government officials told McClatchy.

Why Stevens, who died of smoke inhalation in the first of two attacks that took place late Sept. 11 and early Sept. 12, 2012, would turn down the offers remains unclear. The deteriorating security situation in Benghazi had been the subject of a meeting that embassy officials held Aug. 15, where they concluded they could not defend the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi. The next day, the embassy drafted a cable outlining the dire circumstances and saying it would spell out what it needed in a separate cable.

“In light of the uncertain security environment, US Mission Benghazi will submit specific requests to US Embassy Tripoli for additional physical security upgrades and staffing needs by separate cover,” said the cable, which was first reported by Fox News.

Army Gen. Carter Ham, then the head of the U.S. Africa Command, did not wait for the separate cable, however. Instead, after reading the Aug. 16 cable, Ham phoned Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team from the U.S. military. Stevens told Ham it did not, the officials said.

Weeks later, Stevens traveled to Germany for an already scheduled meeting with Ham at AFRICOM headquarters. During that meeting, Ham again offered additional military assets, and Stevens again said no, the two officials said.

“He didn’t say why. He just turned it down,” a defense official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject told McClatchy.

The offers of aid and Stevens’ rejection of them have not been revealed in either the State Department’s Administrative Review Board investigation of the Benghazi events or during any of the congressional hearings and reports that have been issued into what took place there.

GOP Report Acknowledges That The U.S. Military Couldn’t Have Changed Benghazi Outcome

In a new report released on Tuesday, the House Armed Services Committee concludes that there was no way for the U.S. military to have responded in time to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya to save the four Americans killed that night. In doing so, the report debunks entirely a right-wing myth that says the White House ordered the military not to intervene.
For months after the attack that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, conservative media was awash in reports that on the night of the assault the Obama administration at some point ordered the military not to take action that would have saved lives. This supposed “stand down order” led to a bevy of right-wing conspiracies about why the President and his administration had let the Americans die.

damn facts

[Sooner8th]

You have never been to the part of the world that much is clear. 20 yards outside is like the Wild West, you are totally dependent on local security if there is any. I have sat at gates like that knowing if someone wanted me dead, I would be dead. The most security would be able to do is get off a few rounds before it happened.

But keep telling yourself you know what you are talking about..

So it was a random act? He was not targeted?

Again - splitting a hair here - thanks again for making my point. Keep making up **** about hilary to try to pin bengazi on her and keep defending bush's record.

Out of 13 attacks you want to talk about ONE. brilliant

[sappstuf]

So it was a random act? He was not targeted?

Again - splitting a hair here - thanks again for making my point. Keep making up **** about hilary to try to pin bengazi on her and keep defending bush's record.

Out of 13 attacks you want to talk about ONE. brilliant

I talked about the one that you made the highlight of your post by bolding and enlarging it because I knew that summary to be false. Why waste my time looking up the other ones? Maybe you should fact-check stuff before you cut and paste false information to the board..

You still leave the original post up now even though you now know it to be false.

[okiewaker]

Bolding and enlarging unnecessarily entire sentences is douchy. IMHO

[Sooner8th]

I talked about the one that you made the highlight of your post by bolding and enlarging it because I knew that summary to be false. Why waste my time looking up the other ones? Maybe you should fact-check stuff before you cut and paste false information to the board..

You still leave the original post up now even though you now know it to be false.

First off I highlighted two.

Second off - HE WAS A US DIPLOMAT KILLED 20 YARDS FROM THE CONSULATE.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR MAKING MY POINT FOR ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sooner8th]

Tell me what iteration of the "Benghazi scandal" is this? The fourth or fifth? Every time the premise is totally vaporized - conservatives change the premise.

One of you on here said bush started the war on terror and we loved him for it - is that all it takes? To talk tough, land on an aircraft carrier while being completely INCOMPETENT?

Where was the outrage and how many of you DIDN'T vote for bush after he lied about wmd's in iraq? I'll bet ZERO.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMStCHtUNeY

[Sooner8th]

From his own mouth - no WMD's.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE

[olevetonahill]

Deflect and spin Troll , Deflect and spin!

[hawaii 5-0]

I'd much to prefer to just put in my 2 cents and leave concerning these obviously political discussions because no one here is gonna change the onion of anyone else.

I'm still curious as to what Amb. Stevens was doing in Benghazi on Sept. 11. so close to a CIA operation. Did he think he was too well liked that the locals wouldn't care?

Was he ordered to be there by the State Dept.? If so, why ?

Toad's right tho. HRC left State so she could let this mess resolve itself before she makes a run for Prez in 2016. It will be brought up time and again during her campaign and she'll still win by a large margin and we'll have 8 more years to Tea-Birther whining.

5-0

[Sooner8th]

Deflect and spin Troll , Deflect and spin!

No defect and spin here *******. I'm merely showing the double standard you have for bush and for hilary. OUTRAGE that hilary didn't say just the right words, while voting for bush after he lied.

[olevetonahill]

No defect and spin here *******. I'm merely showing the double standard you have for bush and for hilary. OUTRAGE that hilary didn't say just the right words, while voting for bush after he lied.

Moranic troll!

[Sooner8th]

Moranic troll!

lemming

[diverdog]

Your story said the attack happened on the consulate which is considered US soil.. Your story is false. It happened in the Marriott parking lot

Benghazi was a US consulate that was completely over run by terrorists.

Your trying too hard.

Sapp:
It was some CIA rented **** hole and a consulate in name only. It is not like we built the place.

[diverdog]

I'd much to prefer to just put in my 2 cents and leave concerning these obviously political discussions because no one here is gonna change the onion of anyone else.

I'm still curious as to what Amb. Stevens was doing in Benghazi on Sept. 11. so close to a CIA operation. Did he think he was too well liked that the locals wouldn't care?

Was he ordered to be there by the State Dept.? If so, why ?

Toad's right tho. HRC left State so she could let this mess resolve itself before she makes a run for Prez in 2016. It will be brought up time and again during her campaign and she'll still win by a large margin and we'll have 8 more years to Tea-Birther whining.

5-0

Stevens was known to lead from the front. He was an incredible risk taker and a very brave man. His luck ran out in Libya on a CIA gun running scheme.

[8timechamps]

Things like Benghazi happen, regardless of who occupies the oval office. They're always terrible, and anytime a US citizen's death abroad is caused by violent actions, it's tragic.

The one thing about Benghazi that made it different, was the "they were upset because of a YouTube video" excuse.

First, I have trouble believing our intelligence was so poor that the president didn't know the actual cause...but, let's say that was true...why bring up some subjective reason? Although a lot of the public is under-informed on our dealings in other countries, it's not a stretch to think most people would assume being in Libya at that time was risky. Why try to explain it with some off the wall reason? If they really weren't sure how the whole thing started, then wait until you have more intel. Seems kinda elementary.

[olevetonahill]

Yea and we ONLY get the truth and all the Real facts from this, "The Most Transparent Presidency In History"

[hawaii 5-0]

The news that it was a CIA operation didn't come out till much later IIRC.

Usually those spooks don't admit anything until they're faced with hard evidence.

There's probably more than one office at Langley full of guys whose sole job is to make up excuses to cover their operations.

5-0

[TAFBSooner]

Usually those spooks don't admit anything until they're faced with hard evidence.

5-0

Not even then. They coined the phrase "Deny, Deny, til the day you die."

[TAFBSooner]

First - who blew bin lauden off and who got him?

Second - the "war" on terrorism was a disaster under bush, not "execution hasn't always been the greatest". Bush himself called the dogs off the guy who attacked us so he could lie about terrorist in iraq to attack them.

Third - Where do you get this at? Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism? Except for the lies bush/cheney told us and you bought.

Fourth - preventable uhh? LIKELY preventable - the ambassador did turn down more security there. Obama said it was an act of terror, not good enough? Show me where bush ever said he was wrong.............. DOUBLE STANDARD.

Breathe.

"Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. - See more at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.3boFRk3I.dpuf"

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

No matter what you say here, no matter how factually correct:

. . . Oklahomans will be majority conservative for quite some time.
. . . In 2016, the US will elect a Democratic president, who will, again, inevitably disappoint the actual liberals.
. . . The House will stay Republican this fall.
. . . The NSA will keep spying on us.

[olevetonahill]

TAF the sad Fact is. Facts Seem to change regularly depends On who is Stating them and In what format!
Plus Nothing You or I can possibly do as Little Pissant Voters will ever change that!

[Sooner8th]

Breathe.

"Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. - See more at: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/#sthash.3boFRk3I.dpuf"

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

No matter what you say here, no matter how factually correct:

. . . Oklahomans will be majority conservative for quite some time.
. . . In 2016, the US will elect a Democratic president, who will, again, inevitably disappoint the actual liberals.
. . . The House will stay Republican this fall.
. . . The NSA will keep spying on us.

I see you didn't respond to my points, just went into some far out attack mode. Conservatives have drank the Kool-aid so much that you can't see that their talking points "outrage" has changed, what is it now?, four times. How many "new bombshell" reports or emails or interviews are there? And they always talk about a different subject. Now you guys are on the "cover-up of the cover-up". This is Whitewater, birth certificate and IRS all over again. There is nothing there, but conservatives will still look for something, anything so they can get their Watergate. No amount of facts will change their minds, they will just change the talking points to the new "outrage".

[Jason White's Third Knee]

I don't like any politicians, so I feel comfortable making a few points.

1. Posting anything by Michael Moore is discrediting to me. He manipulates footage and takes things out of context to push his politics. Anything by him is pure garbage.

2. Everyone believed Iraq had WMDs at the time. Both parties were banging that drum. Even countries that opposed our position to invade believed he had WMDs, so what's with the "Bush lied" rhetoric? They had the same intelligence. Only a few fringe weirdos like Ron Paul were saying NOT to invade and that was due to philosophy, not whether or not Iraq had WMDs.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Here is one thing for your little pissant mind to process...an attack on an American Embassy is an attack on sovereign soil...plain and simple.

The adminstration downplayed the fact that it was an AQ attack because they were so busy patting themselves on the back for killing Bin Laden...that it would have made look like the dumbfacks they are...just because Bin Laden was dead...had little to no affect an AQ.

They lied to the American public pure and simple...but hey, Libtards are fine with that...Hell Clinton lied to a Grand Jury and nobody cared. The biggest difference here is that 1) people died, 2) the adminstration lied, and 3) the people who killed American citizens will never be brought to just justice.

So put your liberal drivel up your azz until you come terms with what the families must feel like knowing that their loved ones are just pawns in a political coverup so you sorry azz Pres could get another 4 years.

[Sooner in Tampa]

OH...and BTW...stop with the Bush lied...it is a tired stupid tag line that only exacerbates the belief that people saying are either morons or full blown libtards.

[Sooner8th]

I don't like any politicians, so I feel comfortable making a few points.

1. Posting anything by Michael Moore is discrediting to me. He manipulates footage and takes things out of context to push his politics. Anything by him is pure garbage.

2. Everyone believed Iraq had WMDs at the time. Both parties were banging that drum. Even countries that opposed our position to invade believed he had WMDs, so what's with the "Bush lied" rhetoric? They had the same intelligence. Only a few fringe weirdos like Ron Paul were saying NOT to invade and that was due to philosophy, not whether or not Iraq had WMDs.

1. Who is posting anything from Michael Moore? Posting from Michael Moore is the same as posting from fox "news" or Breitbart or Drudge or WSJ or the blaze.

2. You are trying to rewrite history. Not everyone believed and it not everyone in the Democratic party believed. The votes were 77 in the senate and 293 in the house. The reason why a lot of who did was precisely because bush lied. At the time the UN weapons inspector Hans Blix knew there were no weapons. MI6 and the CIA knew, but were ignored. Cheney setup his own people to gather "evidence" which was primarily cherry picking intel, discrediting anyone who brought up anything to the contrary and just flat making **** up.

This is settled ancient history, we all knew the truth now, except of course, if you ignore it.

[Sooner8th]

Here is one thing for your little pissant mind to process...an attack on an American Embassy is an attack on sovereign soil...plain and simple.

The adminstration downplayed the fact that it was an AQ attack because they were so busy patting themselves on the back for killing Bin Laden...that it would have made look like the dumbfacks they are...just because Bin Laden was dead...had little to no affect an AQ.

They lied to the American public pure and simple...but hey, Libtards are fine with that...Hell Clinton lied to a Grand Jury and nobody cared. The biggest difference here is that 1) people died, 2) the adminstration lied, and 3) the people who killed American citizens will never be brought to just justice.

So put your liberal drivel up your azz until you come terms with what the families must feel like knowing that their loved ones are just pawns in a political coverup so you sorry azz Pres could get another 4 years.

You are too funny, calling saying i have a little pissant mind, a librard and telling me to put your liberal drivel up your azz. You are so ****ing stupid your first statement is wrong and you don't know it. You're showing your ignorance. American Embassy's, or consult in the case of Benghazi, is NOT sovereign soil. It still is a part of the country it is in, it is a courtesy extended from the host country.


While it's a courtesy to treat foreign embassies in D.C. as foreign soil, and while they do enjoy certain privileges and immunities, stepping onto the property of the embassy of Trinidad and Tobago is not the same as setting foot on a tiny little slice of Trinidad and Tobago, regardless of those steel drums that will greet you tomorrow. You're still in America, obviously, and American laws still apply on embassy grounds, even if the diplomats within are granted immunity.

http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-arts/2011/05/embassy-day-mythbusting-sorry-american-laws-still-rule-10827.html

So..............now the guy who attacked us on our actual "sovereign soil" isn't important? Could have fooled the hell out of me, what was invading Afghanistan and first iteration of why to invade Iraq all about? To get the people who attacked us?

There is no link between the white house and the talking points on tv. Prove me wrong.

Clinton lied............wawawawWWWAAAAAAA. About a blow job, all set up by republicans. Six years and SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS AND ALL YOU GOT WAS LYING ABOUT A BLOW JOB. And you are right, nobody cared or cares, you SHOULD lie about getting a blow job from someone other than your wife.

[Sooner in Tampa]

1. Who is posting anything from Michael Moore? Posting from Michael Moore is the same as posting from fox "news" or Breitbart or Drudge or WSJ or the blaze.

2. You are trying to rewrite history. Not everyone believed and it not everyone in the Democratic party believed. The votes were 77 in the senate and 293 in the house. The reason why a lot of who did was precisely because bush lied. At the time the UN weapons inspector Hans Blix knew there were no weapons. MI6 and the CIA knew, but were ignored. Cheney setup his own people to gather "evidence" which was primarily cherry picking intel, discrediting anyone who brought up anything to the contrary and just flat making **** up.

This is settled ancient history, we all knew the truth now, except of course, if you ignore it.

Hmmm...proven to be an idiot...AGAIN


“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002


“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002


“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002


“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002


“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

Tony Blair (http://www.soonerfans.com/index.php/Tony_Blair) on the hunt for Iraq's WMD: "And I simply say to you that the British intelligence services are amongst the best and finest in the world, and the idea that Saddam Hussein has for 12 years been obstructing the UN weapons and inspectors, has been engaged in this huge battle with the international community, when all the way along he had actually destroyed these weapons, is completely absurd... As I say, I think it would be useful if we waited until we actually got the full evidence before us. But I would point out to you, we already have, according to our experts, two mobile biological weapons facilities (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,977853,00.html) (more) (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888.html) that were almost certainly part, according to our intelligence, of a whole set of those facilities. We have a situation where I don't think there is any doubt in anybody's mind that Saddam Hussein accumulated these weapons, indeed he used the weapons against his own people. And I have no doubt at all, as I said to you earlier, that the assessments that were made by the British intelligence services will turn out to be correct

[Sooner8th]

Hmmm...proven to be an idiot...AGAIN

AGAIN - dumbass, you said EVERYONE. AND AGAIN, a lot of that is based on what we know now is evidence manipulated from cheney.

[Sooner in Tampa]

You are too funny, calling saying i have a little pissant mind, a librard and telling me to put your liberal drivel up your azz. You are so ****ing stupid your first statement is wrong and you don't know it. You're showing your ignorance. American Embassy's, or consult in the case of Benghazi, is NOT sovereign soil. It still is a part of the country it is in, it is a courtesy extended from the host country.


While it's a courtesy to treat foreign embassies in D.C. as foreign soil, and while they do enjoy certain privileges and immunities, stepping onto the property of the embassy of Trinidad and Tobago is not the same as setting foot on a tiny little slice of Trinidad and Tobago, regardless of those steel drums that will greet you tomorrow. You're still in America, obviously, and American laws still apply on embassy grounds, even if the diplomats within are granted immunity.

http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-arts/2011/05/embassy-day-mythbusting-sorry-american-laws-still-rule-10827.html

So..............now the guy who attacked our actual attacked up on "sovereign soil" isn't important? Could have fooled the hell out of me, what was invading Afghanistan and first iteration of why to invade Iraq all about? To get the people who attacked us?

There is no link between the white house and the talking points on tv. Prove me wrong.

Clinton lied............wawawawWWWAAAAAAA. About a blow job, all set up by republicans. Six years and SIXTY MILLION DOLLARS AND ALL YOU GOT WAS LYING ABOUT A BLOW JOB. And you are right, nobody cared or cares, you SHOULD lie about getting a blow job from someone other than your wife.

You a funny little twit...an American Embassy is US SOIL dumbass...subject to local laws, but it still viewed as OUR SOIL


Like its home country, the embassy is governed by the laws and regulations of its homeland; in which case, an embassy is often viewed as the soil of the country that established it. In other words, an United States embassy is viewed as American soil, subject to the same laws and jurisdiction, as if the embassy were located in the continental United States.


No link to the Whitehouse??? HAHAHA...I guess the talking points to Rice came from Joe on the street...the fabrication that it was linked to some video just came out the 'cloud'

The Rebpulicans set up Clinton to get his blowjob? HAHAHAHA...you are truly dillusional

[Sooner in Tampa]

AGAIN - dumbass, you said EVERYONE. AND AGAIN, a lot of that is based on what we know now is evidence manipulated from cheney.

I see that you have your tinfoil hat on again today. Well, played.

[Sooner8th]

You a funny little twit...an American Embassy is US SOIL dumbass...subject to local laws, but it still viewed as OUR SOIL



No link to the Whitehouse??? HAHAHA...I guess the talking points to Rice came from Joe on the street...the fabrication that it was linked to some video just came out the 'cloud'

The Rebpulicans set up Clinton to get his blowjob? HAHAHAHA...you are truly dillusional

AGAIN - show me where they came from. They came from the CIA.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/11/what-susan-rice-said-versus-what-cia-gave-her/59094/

WOW - read the link i sent you dumbass. Second, you didn't say viewed as OUR SOIL, you said on our soil. It is not.

The blow job wasn't a setup, getting him on the Paula Jones grand jury testimony was, I should have been clearer, but then again I thought everyone already knew that.

[Sooner in Tampa]

AGAIN - show me where they came from. They came from the CIA.

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2012/11/what-susan-rice-said-versus-what-cia-gave-her/59094/

WOW - read the link i sent you dumbass. Second, you didn't say viewed as OUR SOIL, you said on our soil. It is not.

The blow job wasn't a setup, getting him on the Paula Jones grand jury testimony was, I should have been clearer, but then again I thought everyone already knew that.


Good lawd...read your own link dip****

The CIA talking points say ZERO about a video:


The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the United States embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against United States diplomatic posts in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.
There are indications extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.
This assessment may change as additional information is collected and analyzed and as currently available information continues to be evaluated.
The investigation is ongoing and the United States government is working with Libyan authorities to bring justice to those responsible for the deaths of United States citizens.





What Rice Told Fox: The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video.


What Rice Told ABC: But our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous — not a premeditated — response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated

[SoonerProphet]

Pretty humorous to see all those who cheer led the disastrous decision to invade Iraq get all hypocritical when the other teams dude does the same. Partisan politics in its most ghoulish form. I don't seem to recollect a bunch a Monday morning quarterbacking from Issa and the like over 9/11, Iraq, or any other endeavor by the previous administration that saw people killed in the line of duty. Demanding repeated and wasteful "investigations" into such things was bad for the goose but good for the gander.

I also realize most Americans don't have a real extensive memory regarding foreign affairs and have forgotten that a video did spark attacks all over the Muslim world during sept. 2012. As mentioned earlier, Stevens was on point as the lead guy in Libya from the get go. Benghazi was the heart of the rebellion against Khadafi and he was there on the ground from the get go. Hell, I even think he was smuggled in on a Greek freighter or some such. This is simply the election cycle rearing it's ugly head and pols making noise over the deaths of four people. Disgusting actually.

As for Iraq and pre war intel, it should seem pretty obvious by now, see Curveball, that no honest debate was had, intelligence was manipulated, and plenty of folks, not just the loons, said it would be a colossal mistake. It has been. Yet, one team seems fixated on trying to play a gotcha game and the other team has let the whole 9/11 failure and the subsequent debacles fade away.

[Sooner8th]

Good lawd...read your own link dip****

The CIA talking points say ZERO about a video:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOO FUNNY!!!

Tell me what the attacks in CAIRO were about.

THE VIDEO!

DUMBASS

BTW - thank you for making my point for me.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

The nerve of those Germans bombing Pearl Harbor!

[olevetonahill]

The nerve of those Germans bombing Pearl Harbor!

Say it aint so!

[TAFBSooner]

I see you didn't respond to my points, just went into some far out attack mode. Conservatives have drank the Kool-aid so much that you can't see that their talking points "outrage" has changed, what is it now?, four times. How many "new bombshell" reports or emails or interviews are there? And they always talk about a different subject. Now you guys are on the "cover-up of the cover-up". This is Whitewater, birth certificate and IRS all over again. There is nothing there, but conservatives will still look for something, anything so they can get their Watergate.


I'm not part of "them." I'm just trying to point out that facts won't change peoples' minds. Read and try to grok the link. You can argue all day long, but I get the impression you think you can make a difference with the conservatives on this board. (Don't get me wrong, a calm approach wouldn't work either.)

If you want to make a difference, join a Get Out the Vote effort, preferably into a purple state. The Democratic Party is not a great deal for liberals, but it sure beats the Republicans.

Another possibility is to look for what both sides agree on. I don't think anybody likes being spied on by the NSA, or groped by the TSA. And both of those programs have been continued and magnified by each succeeding administration, Democratic and Republican. That doesn't mean that they're the right thing to do, it means that neither batch of politicians listen to us.

Now, if you suffer from low blood pressure, the above advice is counterproductive, so carry on.



No amount of facts will change their minds, they will just change the talking points to the new "outrage".

I think I said that.

[Sooner8th]

I'm not part of "them." I'm just trying to point out that facts won't change peoples' minds. Read and try to grok the link. You can argue all day long, but I get the impression you think you can make a difference with the conservatives on this board. (Don't get me wrong, a calm approach wouldn't work either.)

If you want to make a difference, join a Get Out the Vote effort, preferably into a purple state. The Democratic Party is not a great deal for liberals, but it sure beats the Republicans.

Another possibility is to look for what both sides agree on. I don't think anybody likes being spied on by the NSA, or groped by the TSA. And both of those programs have been continued and magnified by each succeeding administration, Democratic and Republican. That doesn't mean that they're the right thing to do, it means that neither batch of politicians listen to us.

Now, if you suffer from low blood pressure, the above advice is counterproductive, so carry on.



I think I said that.

You did............

[Soonerjeepman]

[QUOTE=TAFBSooner;4541150
Another possibility is to look for what both sides agree on. I don't think anybody likes being spied on by the NSA, or groped by the TSA. And both of those programs have been continued and magnified by each succeeding administration, Democratic and Republican. That doesn't mean that they're the right thing to do, it means that neither batch of politicians listen to us.

[/QUOTE]

well this is ONE thing I agree with you one...and honestly, my take is like yours, except opposite party. I think BOTH parties are in bed with each other and don't give a rat's a$$ about what MOST Americans think.

[okie52]

Pretty humorous to see all those who cheer led the disastrous decision to invade Iraq get all hypocritical when the other teams dude does the same. Partisan politics in its most ghoulish form. I don't seem to recollect a bunch a Monday morning quarterbacking from Issa and the like over 9/11, Iraq, or any other endeavor by the previous administration that saw people killed in the line of duty. Demanding repeated and wasteful "investigations" into such things was bad for the goose but good for the gander.

I also realize most Americans don't have a real extensive memory regarding foreign affairs and have forgotten that a video did spark attacks all over the Muslim world during sept. 2012. As mentioned earlier, Stevens was on point as the lead guy in Libya from the get go. Benghazi was the heart of the rebellion against Khadafi and he was there on the ground from the get go. Hell, I even think he was smuggled in on a Greek freighter or some such. This is simply the election cycle rearing it's ugly head and pols making noise over the deaths of four people. Disgusting actually.

As for Iraq and pre war intel, it should seem pretty obvious by now, see Curveball, that no honest debate was had, intelligence was manipulated, and plenty of folks, not just the loons, said it would be a colossal mistake. It has been. Yet, one team seems fixated on trying to play a gotcha game and the other team has let the whole 9/11 failure and the subsequent debacles fade away.

So did you support the US intervention into Libya?

[SoonerProphet]

Nope.

[okie52]

Nope.

Good for you.

[TAFBSooner]

well this is ONE thing I agree with you one...and honestly, my take is like yours, except opposite party. I think BOTH parties are in bed with each other and don't give a rat's a$$ about what MOST Americans think.

Here's a great idea that has a snowball's chance of getting past our politicians:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/07/none_of_the_above_for_president_an_easy_fix_to_giv e_american_voters_more_power/

The title explains why it won't happen, though.

[SoonerProphet]

Good for you.

I think I've been pretty outspoken in my views regarding an interventionist foreign policy regardless of what party has been in the office of president.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I think I've been pretty outspoken in my views regarding an interventionist foreign policy regardless of what party has been in the office of president.

I think we should "Kill'm all and let God sort'm out"...

[olevetonahill]

I think we should "Kill'm all and let God sort'm out"...

Long as we dont Have Boots on the ground Im with ya. Id hate to see Little turd go into Harms way !

[SoonerProphet]

I think we should "Kill'm all and let God sort'm out"...

No doubt, plenty of steaming piles that need to be liquidated, but don't get all indignant when they say the same about you and blow your sh*t up.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Long as we dont Have Boots on the ground Im with ya. Id hate to see Little turd go into Harms way !

;)

[Jason White's Third Knee]

1. Who is posting anything from Michael Moore? Posting from Michael Moore is the same as posting from fox "news" or Breitbart or Drudge or WSJ or the blaze.

2. You are trying to rewrite history. Not everyone believed and it not everyone in the Democratic party believed. The votes were 77 in the senate and 293 in the house. The reason why a lot of who did was precisely because bush lied. At the time the UN weapons inspector Hans Blix knew there were no weapons. MI6 and the CIA knew, but were ignored. Cheney setup his own people to gather "evidence" which was primarily cherry picking intel, discrediting anyone who brought up anything to the contrary and just flat making **** up.

This is settled ancient history, we all knew the truth now, except of course, if you ignore it.


1. YOU are posting Michael Moore. Post #33 includes a video from a Michael Moore movie with Mr. Moore narrating.

2. No sir. I followed this stuff quite closely at the time and your version is revisionist. A good while later the opposition mounted, but even Germany believed that Iraq had WMDs but did not want to invade. Mr. Blix had been denied his inspection 17 times as I recall. If you want to say hindsight is more accurate, so be it. If Bush and Cheney didn't want to look like fools or liars, couldn't they have just planted WMDs?

Any Olbermann sound bites for me now? We all know that he's not full of ****.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

AGAIN - dumbass, you said EVERYONE. AND AGAIN, a lot of that is based on what we know now is evidence manipulated from cheney.

I was the one that said everyone. I'm not sure if you have had any conversations with humans before, but we do generalize things a bit on occasion. Yeah, not EVERYONE, but most everyone. Better? Good. Several of the quotes posted by Sooner in Tampa infer that the quoter knew of WMDs well before Cheney was in office. That Cheney must have had one well thought out and methodical plan that took decades to achieve. Impressive.

[Soonerjeepman]

Here's a great idea that has a snowball's chance of getting past our politicians:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/07/none_of_the_above_for_president_an_easy_fix_to_giv e_american_voters_more_power/

The title explains why it won't happen, though.

lol..yes that would be good...along with term limits. I'm sure MOST folks would go with term limits, who doesn't? the politicians.

[Sooner in Tampa]

I was the one that said everyone. I'm not sure if you have had any conversations with humans before, but we do generalize things a bit on occasion. Yeah, not EVERYONE, but most everyone. Better? Good. Several of the quotes posted by Sooner in Tampa infer that the quoter knew of WMDs well before Cheney was in office. That Cheney must have had one well thought out and methodical plan that took decades to achieve. Impressive.

Don't let facts get in the way of arguing with the little liberal gnat...

[okie52]

I think I've been pretty outspoken in my views regarding an interventionist foreign policy regardless of what party has been in the office of president.

Good to hear.

[Sooner8th]

1. YOU are posting Michael Moore. Post #33 includes a video from a Michael Moore movie with Mr. Moore narrating.

2. No sir. I followed this stuff quite closely at the time and your version is revisionist. A good while later the opposition mounted, but even Germany believed that Iraq had WMDs but did not want to invade. Mr. Blix had been denied his inspection 17 times as I recall. If you want to say hindsight is more accurate, so be it. If Bush and Cheney didn't want to look like fools or liars, couldn't they have just planted WMDs?

Any Olbermann sound bites for me now? We all know that he's not full of ****.

I missed this one, so...........posting a video of the president speaking that is from Michael Moore makes what the president said not happen? Did Moore overdub it?

Mr. Blix said he didn't have them and cheney attacked him for incompetence.

1/9/03 After nearly two months, UN's Hans Blix says his inspectors have not found any "smoking guns" in Iraq.

2/14/03 Blix again tells UN Security Council that Iraq appears to be cooperating with inspectors.

3/7/03 Blix tells UN Security Council that there's "no evidence" of mobile bioweapons facilities in Iraq.

3/20/03 War begins.

Hindsight? You guys live in an alternate universe. Oh, Blix didn't say anything about not having WMD's until after they weren't found. Do you still want to stick to that story?

[Sooner8th]

I was the one that said everyone. I'm not sure if you have had any conversations with humans before, but we do generalize things a bit on occasion. Yeah, not EVERYONE, but most everyone. Better? Good. Several of the quotes posted by Sooner in Tampa infer that the quoter knew of WMDs well before Cheney was in office. That Cheney must have had one well thought out and methodical plan that took decades to achieve. Impressive.

I took a look at ALL OF THEM, you guys on here just keep digging holes for yourself. ALL of the quotes, except for the one that is not dated are from 2002. Too ****ing funny. Remind me when cheney took office? Was it 2003? 04? 05? NO, Dick Cheney, a member of the Republican party, took office January 20, 2001.

OH my bad, they didn't actually say they knew before cheney took office they inferred. Do you think that maybe the reason they "inferred" they knew was because cheney was running around saying they've had them all along?

Like I said - alternate universe.

Try again...............

[TAFBSooner]

lol..yes that would be good...along with term limits. I'm sure MOST folks would go with term limits, who doesn't? the politicians.

Thank GOD we at least have term limits for president!

Saint Ronnie and BillC both whined about having to stop at eight. Dubya didn't say that, but did talk wistfully about how much better it would be if he were dictator (I'd classify that as "kidding on the square."). Obama isn't close enough to his time limit to say yet.

Also, with an eight year max limit, we know ahead of time that we have to step up and defend Social Security at the beginning of Year 5.

[cleller]

Like I said - alternate universe.

Try again...............

The alternate universe is numbskulls pontificating on Dick Cheney presiding over Klan meetings and lighting cigars with million dollar bills.

The real universe is Hilary and Barack tossing American soldiers into a cauldron of hate and murder in exchange to suckle to tender parts of barbarian muslim degenerate killers in exchange for feel good politically correct smegma to feed to publishers.

Let me add that part of that real universe is also the leftist yellow streaks that look upon anyone different than themselves with total and complete antipathy and enmity. These underclasses are good for only one thing: to make dependent; and thus aligned as a voting block.

Racist, fascist, and detestable throwbacks to a bygone era of despots.

[Sooner8th]

The alternate universe is numbskulls pontificating on Dick Cheney presiding over Klan meetings and lighting cigars with million dollar bills.

The real universe is Hilary and Barack tossing American soldiers into a cauldron of hate and murder in exchange to suckle to tender parts of barbarian muslim degenerate killers in exchange for feel good politically correct smegma to feed to publishers.

Let me add that part of that real universe is also the leftist yellow streaks that look upon anyone different than themselves with total and complete antipathy and enmity. These underclasses are good for only one thing: to make dependent; and thus aligned as a voting block.

Racist, fascist, and detestable throwbacks to a bygone era of despots.

You sound like Oswald Bates.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ROOi5xagxg

"real universe is also the leftist yellow streaks that look upon anyone different than themselves with total and complete antipathy and enmity."? You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Both of those traits are rightwing traits. yellow streaks? Bush, cheney, romney all avoided going to 'nam, while "supporting the war". Just because we don't trump up "evidence" to goad our country into a war the dumbass didn't have an end game for? Your party is full of chicken hawks who love to send others off to fight and die in wars, but don't want to go themselves.

Do you understand fascists are far-rightwingers?

Go back to your alternate universe.

[TAFBSooner]

The alternate universe is numbskulls pontificating on Dick Cheney presiding over Klan meetings and lighting cigars with million dollar bills.

The real universe is Hilary and Barack tossing American soldiers into a cauldron of hate and murder in exchange to suckle to tender parts of barbarian muslim degenerate killers in exchange for feel good politically correct smegma to feed to publishers.

Let me add that part of that real universe is also the leftist yellow streaks that look upon anyone different than themselves with total and complete antipathy and enmity. These underclasses are good for only one thing: to make dependent; and thus aligned as a voting block.

Racist, fascist, and detestable throwbacks to a bygone era of despots.

Cheney didn't lead klan meetings. In the real world, he did lead meetings of oil company execs (see Energy Task Force), in the spring of 2001. He did send our sons and daughters to war over oil - a much worse waste than the actual millions (actually trillions) of dollars wasted on the Iraq occupation.

"Leftist" yellow streaks? Pfft. In the real world, it's the chicken hawks (Cheney, Bill Kristol, Rumsfeld, many others) who beat the drums for war, but avoid it for themselves and their children. Shame on them - whether it's about Iraq or Ukraine.