Hillary Clinton made up a story about what killed a few people.

 

George W. Bush, [BAD WORD REMOVED] Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld made up a story that's killed 4,493 Americans (7,470 is also an acceptable number) and counting and destabilized an entire region--which is pretty much what they wanted to do and manipulated events to accommodate from the second they took office, so yeah, forgive me if I don't rush out to lynch Hillary Clinton over this.

 

Lol.  You're right.  They just made it up out of whole cloth.  Its amazing how before any of those people got elected they got HILLARY CLINTON and her husband to use the same intelligence to Bomb Iraq during the 90's and Mrs. Clinton to sign on to said story as a senator when she voted for the actions in Iraq along with John Kerry and the rest of the international community.  They even got Sadaam Hussein to go along with the whole rouse all they had to promise in the end was gold lining on the rope that would be used to hang him.  

 

And just for grins and giggles to give the whole thing some smatter of credibility we secretly shipped chemical weapons to Assad so we could say they came from Iraq during the 18 month run up to the invasion and left over a few for ISIS to run across.  

 

The idea that you would compare what was essentially common sense in the international community coupled with the defiance of a brutal dictator to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration making up a story that at the time defied any concept of plausibility is asinine to say the least.  But then again everything was gang busters between radical islamists and the rest of the world prior to the early 1900's right?

---

Wow. Did you major in revisionist history in college? And I just love the parameters you set in your arguments. How many ambassadors were killed where a politician blamed social media? Social media has been a major part of people's lives for how many presidents terms? You sure showed me. Your post is forcing me to rethink everything I know about myself. I'm asking myself questions like.. why do you continue to debate a guy who doesn't read anything you type, who can only sometimes formulate a rational post, who accuses you of lying if he doesn't like where an argument is going and who can never accept that he is wrong, even when his argument on a subject is shredded to dust.

 

lol...  It's getting to the point that i think sometimes you don't know when to be embarrassed.  That's right, if only Bush could have blamed Twitter for all the problems during the insurgency.  I can see Condi standing in front of the U.N. now depicting the horrors of being unfollowed by the heads of the former bathist army and how that precipitated the whole thing.  

 

You see events that are unique in history and beyond any sense of credibility and you still cling to your wet dream of moral relativism to try and explain the pathetic attempts at bucking responsibility on your side of the isle.  

 

I used to be a liberal when I was young.  Eventually the weight of truth facts and evidence just got to be too much.  Don't you worry, this is where the healing begins.

---

I take it back. You must have been a Double Major in Revisionist History and Mythology in college.


(Or you never made it to college and cannot count to 21 unless you're naked.. one of the two.)

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

Hey man, don't hate on my mythology major.  Do you know how hard it is to earn a B.S.?

---

I take it back. You must have been a Double Major in Revisionist History and Mythology in college.


(Or you never made it to college and cannot count to 21 unless you're naked.. one of the two.)

 

Just think, pretty soon Bernie Sanders might make those degrees free for everyone to waste taxpayer dollars on! We can all double major in Revisionist History and Mythology for fREeeeeE!

---

Some people on this board are beyond the help of free education.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

We know kotite. But thats okay man im not going think any less of you. Your still a jag fan. That counts in my book.

---

Some people on this board are beyond the help of free education.

 

Does that matter? They are still entitled to it under Bernie's philosophy, no?

---

Does that matter? They are still entitled to it under Bernie's philosophy, no?

Yes

---

We know kotite. But thats okay man im not going think any less of you. Your still a jag fan. That counts in my book.

Which I assume is a coloring book.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

At least i can stay inside the lines!

---

That's improvement.


Not sure what that comeback was even going for, but I am always receptive to fact checking anything I post if that's what you're implying.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

 

 

I personally find it disturbing that our own Government, specifically the State Department didn't have better security in the region, even after it was asked for.  The question is WHY?  Especially since they had prior warning.   In an online posting, al-Qaeda stated its intent to attack the Red Cross, the British, and then the Americans in Benghazi.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">May 22, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) hits the Benghazi offices of the International Red Cross and the agency decides to pull out.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">June 11, 2012: A rocket-propelled grenade hit a convoy carrying the British ambassador in Benghazi. The U.K. pulled out of Benghazi.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">September 11, 2012: The embassy is attacked and the State Department as well as the current regime says that it was a "spontaneous protest over a youtube video".


<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">Those are facts and the reason why this is a big deal.

 

This is why it's so important.  They knew that this was coming and did nothing.  After the fact they tried to cover it up by saying that it had nothing to do with terrorism and was the result of a youtube video (later proven false).

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

This is why it's so important. They knew that this was coming and did nothing.

I seem to recall an intelligence briefing mentioning something about an attack being planned. I think it hit the President's desk in August of, what year was it? 2001? Sorry, you can't play the "they knew" card without implicating Bush for far greater negligence...or something like that.

---

I seem to recall an intelligence briefing mentioning something about an attack being planned. I think it hit the President's desk in August of, what year was it? 2001? Sorry, you can't play the "they knew" card without implicating Bush for far greater negligence...or something like that.

 

Trying to deflect and change the conversation?  This isn't about President Bush, it's about Hillary Clinton and when she was Secretary of State.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Trying to deflect and change the conversation? This isn't about President Bush, it's about Hillary Clinton and when she was Secretary of State.

How can you continue to harp on Hillary without acknowledging what Bush did? He knew an attack was coming, did nothing to stop it (negligently or wilfully), then acted like it was a complete surprise and outrage.


The difference is that Hillary Clinton did not use Benghazi to strip Americans of their rights and start two wars that, conveniently, were great for the companies that key members of that administration has a stake in. It's not deflection; it's a valid question. How can you ride Hillary into the ground over Benghazi with a straight face while not demanding to know why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld played a key role in allowing 9/11 to happen and realized great personal gains as a result of it?

---

How can you continue to harp on Hillary without acknowledging what Bush did? He knew an attack was coming, did nothing to stop it (negligently or wilfully), then acted like it was a complete surprise and outrage.


The difference is that Hillary Clinton did not use Benghazi to strip Americans of their rights and start two wars that, conveniently, were great for the companies that key members of that administration has a stake in. It's not deflection; it's a valid question. How can you ride Hillary into the ground over Benghazi with a straight face while not demanding to know why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld played a key role in allowing 9/11 to happen and realized great personal gains as a result of it?

Jeb Bush has taken over his account. Also party affiliation and politics. 

---

How can you continue to harp on Hillary without acknowledging what Bush did? He knew an attack was coming, did nothing to stop it (negligently or wilfully), then acted like it was a complete surprise and outrage.


The difference is that Hillary Clinton did not use Benghazi to strip Americans of their rights and start two wars that, conveniently, were great for the companies that key members of that administration has a stake in. It's not deflection; it's a valid question. How can you ride Hillary into the ground over Benghazi with a straight face while not demanding to know why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld played a key role in allowing 9/11 to happen and realized great personal gains as a result of it?

 

At least you aren't playing coy anymore. Let those liberal talking points flow!

---

How can you continue to harp on Hillary without acknowledging what Bush did? He knew an attack was coming, did nothing to stop it (negligently or wilfully), then acted like it was a complete surprise and outrage.


The difference is that Hillary Clinton did not use Benghazi to strip Americans of their rights and start two wars that, conveniently, were great for the companies that key members of that administration has a stake in. It's not deflection; it's a valid question. How can you ride Hillary into the ground over Benghazi with a straight face while not demanding to know why Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld played a key role in allowing 9/11 to happen and realized great personal gains as a result of it?

 

The short answer to your question is the very topic of this thread.

 

The longer answer... if you want to look at the "issues" and "problems" in the Middle East right now, you need to go back a lot further.  I would actually possibly point to none other than Jimmy Carter as being the President that presided over this mess, though it can be traced further back.

 

The attacks on 9/11 were a "possibility" though the specifics were not presented.  They are very two different events and very different circumstances.  There was the "possibility" of a terrorist attack happening in 2001.  In 2012 it was more of an imminent threat.  All of the signs and all of the intelligence was there on the internet.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

At least you aren't playing coy anymore. Let those liberal talking points flow!

The question stands. Care to address it? Why are the same people who are crucifying Hillary not demanding the members of the previous administration be out through a Spanish inquisition of their own? That's not condoning what Hillary did. It's saying that you can't tell me that there was nothing wrong with Bush's actions while wanting to lynch Hillary and expect me to take you seriously. Bush let 3,000 Americans die so he could justify ordering the deaths of many thousands more.

---