41 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
Be happy. At least he didn't order up an American Carrier
and land on the deck with a Mission Accomplished banner at the cost of God knows how many million dollars, while the war was still on, and would continue past the end of his presidency. This was just the cost of 20 School buses. Less than 20 Grand in my estimation. And Bush's commencement addresses were often concerned with the Iraq war which was as political as you can get. You do remember that one don't you? The war we didn't need to fight because there was nothing there. And how much did it cost again? How much of the deficit and the debt can be directly traced to the Iraq war? Including costs incurred during Obama's term? And just how much better would the economy look if we hadn't spent all that wasted money, and all those unnecessary casualties.
Just how much better Bush would look if he'd simply carried out he Afghanistan invasion, stuck to plan, surrounded Tora Bora and killed Osama bin Laden and most of the Taliban by 2003, and then withdrawn? Even I'd have been happy with him.
Oh...my mistake...It's about Bush. Good grief
Are you claiming
colleges are war time operations now? Can you understand the concept of differing venues?
I think I have to make a comparison here
You and other liberals are continuously bringing up the 'mission accomplished' banner in order to ridicule Bush after all these years, but fail to bring up the same 'mission accomplished' that BO has been spewing since OBL's demise, when in fact, this administration has gone out of its way to totally dismiss the Benghazi attack (first by rewriting the original facts detailed in order to have new 'talking points' because the election was so close, second by HClinton's infamous words that will bury any political career she hoped for "what difference does it make", and third by that idiot press agent Carney with "Benghazi was a long time ago" (and yet Bush is still making the rounds regarding blame five years later), and now with the Boston Marathon attack.
When does the ridicule of BO's "mission accomplished" begin for you guys?
I'm sure that even in Britain
there are probably the same sort who think Neville Chamberlain was right concerning "peace for our time" being secured by him from Germany.
No comparison at all
Obama did not declare the fight against Al Qaeda to be over after getting bin Laden. He called it a major victory, which it was, but there was no "mission accomplished" declaration, so I have no idea what you're referring to.
"Osama is dead, and AQ is on the run"......."Osama is dead, and AQ is diminished"......"Osama is dead, and AQ is 'ad nauseam' "
Any of this sound familiar, Josh........it should, it was his major speech during the campaign to prove how great he is at national security issues.......all the while, AQ and branch terror groups were growing all across the world, and Benghazi was attacked and covered up. But nobody seemed to notice that immediately after Benghazi, BO dropped the AQ line from his speeches.......and nobody except Fox asked why that was.
Sure, it sounds familiar
In fact it sounds exactly like what I said he said, which, interestingly enough, comes very close to things Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld said about Al Qaeda while OBL was still alive. Show me where Obama said Al Qaeda had been defeated, or that "major operations" against them were over, since that's the comparison you're trying to make.
Was Benghazi "Mission Accomplished"?
About as accomplished as the attacks on diplomatic targets
under the Bush administration. Where was your outrage on them?
And let's not forget.....
.....an attack right here on our own soil that killed nearly 3,000 people, caused billions in property damage, helped send the economy into a recession and left after-effects that we're still dealing with twelve years later.
And BO has had
FIVE attacks in four years including ones on American soil that resulted in American deaths. He's had a lot more time to get his intelligence gathering in gear than Bush did (especially since Clinton had two clear cut opportunities to kill OBL and didn't pull the trigger), and BO has still failed miserably with protecting US citizens.
No matter how many times you try to compare the two, Josh, Bush kept us completely safe for 7-1/2 years straight....BO has nothing to brag about, and Benghazi is finally destroying his credibility even with the liberal media.......all because Fox and the investigative committee has refused to let it go, even though that joke Carney believes it was a 'long time ago'. Evidently for Dems and liberals, Bush is still current news though, right? Even BO said that HIS library would be called "The Bash Bush Library".......guess he doesn't even want his own name on it because even HE knows it would be a place of ridicule later on. lol
I think the only person who actually believes that Benghazi was 'a long time ago' is that poor Christian schmuck that had a whole SWAT team swoop in and parade him past cameras with his face covered for the video that BO and HC blamed publicly for the Benghazi attack, when they knew all along it wasn't because of him....and HE's still in jail on some stupid parole violation (who really knows if that's true?) and won't get out until next month....but you can bet that if they could have drummed up SOME kind of proof that his video really DID cause that attack in Benghazi, he would have been up on charges by now, doncha think?????
She also had the balls to tell one of the SEAL time fathers at Dover "Don't worry, we're going to get that guy who made that video". She lied right to his face and never batted an eyelash over it.
And BO and HC spent $70,000 making their OWN video apologizing for that guy and distributing the video in Pakistan.
When do BO and HC apologize to the families themselves for their own part in their deaths? Oh wait......"What difference does it make now?"
There were something like 17 embassay attacks....
.....during the Bush Administration, with more deaths than at Benghazi. We've gone over that before.
Now **** Cheney is saying Hillary Clinton should be subpoenaed. This would be the same **** Cheney who refused to testify on the record about 9/11. I'm starting to think this whole "outrage" over Benghazi is nothing more than a coordinated effort to derail Hillary Clinton's (presumed) presidential run.
I think Obama will sell out Hillary
by shoving all blame off on her, that's probably what you refer to Josh.
You fail to mention
that the majority of those embassy attacks were in IRAQ, during the war there, Josh.....and NO Ambassadors were killed because we had GOOD and adequate protection for them.......unlike THIS situation. And HC herself, personally, was the one who sent Stevens to Benghazi that day, and has never been asked why and what was so damned important that she personally sent him there without protection.
NONE of them were in Iraq, Toni
Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Greece and Serbia were among the targets, but not Iraq. When will you learn that when you make stuff up, people are going to call you on it?
Fact remains that the worst attack against American civilians in the history of our country happened right here on US soil and took nearly three thousand lives, and you're still making excuses for that while trying to blast this administration over an attack in an unstable foreign country that took four lives.
OK....you're partially right
however, take a look at the list of US Embassies everywhere attacked since BO took office and compare it to the list in the entire 8 years of Bush where we actually HAVE a war on terror declared.....7 for Bush in 8 years; 8 for BO in TWO years alone, Josh.....and BO refuses to see that there is STILL a war on terror so he stopped providing security via HC in order to keep up his 'normalcy' bullcrap.
The fact remains that BILL C had two chances to take out OBL and didn't so IF he had, perhaps the attacks in the USA might not have taken place?????????? Bush had 8 months in office before the attacks came, whether there was actual intel that could have been acted upon in that short a period of time or not. BO has had two years in the Senate and over four years as Prez and has totally ignored warnings as well....hence Benghazi.
Get over your pedestal you have BO on, Josh......he's a nightmare foreign affairs screwup, and you just can't bring yourself to believe that he could have also prevented the Boston Marathon massacre if he hadn't wiped the FBI's databases and disallowed the FBI and CIA (who were both notified by Russia in plenty of time) along with HLS from communicating with each other like they were able to after 9-11-01 under Bush.
According to this
I thought I had linked to this in my post above....either I forgot to paste it in or for some reason it didn't appear and I didn't notice, but in any event, this complete list is a far different version from your story that is full of propaganda rather than facts.
It isn't that much different
According to this list there were 9 embassy attacks on Bush's watch 6 of which resulted in 44 deaths and 6 attacks on Obama's watch which resulted in 6 deaths.
Bush: 11 over a nearly 7 yr period of time, and NO AMBASSADORS or AMERICANS (civilian or military) died....adequate protection
June 2002: Twelve people were killed and 51 injured, all Pakistanis.
July 30, 2004: Two Uzbek security guards were killed in both bombings
Sept 12, 2006: Three gunmen and a Syrian security guard were killed in a foiled attack on the embassy
Feb 26, 2008: Zoran Vujovic, the protestor who died during the attack on the U.S. embassy
July 9 2008: The 2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack was a result of gunfire on the consulate resulting in six casualties; of which three were the three gunmen, and three Turkish National Police officers
Sept 17, 2008: Six attackers, six Yemeni police, and seven civilians (by-standers) were killed
BO: He has had six attacks in less than 3 years on US Embassies, resulting in the deaths of FOUR AMERICANS (one of which was our Ambassador sent to a dangerous area by the demand of HC personally...we still don't know why....two Navy SEALS, and a civilian aide)
NO Embassy had ever been not only denied adequate security during Bush, and certainly NONE had ever had their security reduced/cut even after begging for increased security because it was so dangerous. And Bush never had to keep up appearances of 'normalcy' in order to deny security or lie about an attack in order to keep that appearance up.
As much as liberals would like it to be, Benghazi isn't going away, and ABC and CBS have finally come on board with some of the same hard questioning FOX has been doing all along.
Your own post showed that isn't true
What wasn't true?
I quoted directly from the website listings of US Embassy attacks and copied/pasted the deaths that were reported.
11 attacks, over 20 casualties....
.....and you claim "adequate protection."
3,000 dead on our own soil, the freaking PENTAGON attacked, and you want to give the president who was responsible, above all else, for our safety, a pass.
Benghazi: Four people killed in an unstable country that was in the middle of a revolution and had literally just dragged their former dictator through the streets on his way to execution, and you're calling for heads on platters.
But there's nothing partisan going on there, nope.
You and Diana are insisting that the embassy attacks under Bush were worse than BO's record but the truth is that NO Americans or Ambassadors died during those attacks under Bush.....the deaths were either the terrorists themselves because of adequate protection or a few by-standers that had nothing to do with the US doing it.
You want to constantly blame Bush for not 'paying attention' to warnings he may have gotten prior to 9-11 by the Clinton Administration over an eight month period of time from January's swearing in date and 9-11 itself. Clinton never reacted to the Cole bombing in 2000 and that gave the terrorists encouragement......and Clinton had OBL in his sights twice and did nothing about taking him out, and he gets your proverbial 'pass' every time, Josh.
Does BO get a pass for totally ignoring all the CIA warnings that were being given to him and HC for MONTHS about how unstable and unsecure Benghazi was, along with other areas? Did HC have the opportunity and time to pull Stevens et al out of the country like the British and the Red Cross did? Did her department not only leave them all there, but his security was CUT from 30 down to 4-6 even while they knew how dangerous it was. Not only did she cut his security, but she also personally told Stevens to go to Benghazi that day.......and we still don't know why that order was given......what was so important to HC that he had to go?
Libya had been and continues to be as unstable today as it was two years ago, warnings were being given to HC and BO long before Stevens et al were killed....but because they wanted to given the appearance to the world that 'normalcy' was phasing in, they ALLOWED these deaths to happen without any help or even a backward glance at the consequences.
Josh....you cannot have it both ways. You cannot blame Bush for having only eight months to transition into the Oval Office and be completely up to speed on appointments, cabinets, briefings, etc. and have a full REAL grasp of the terrorist situation that his own predecessor ignored. There did not seem to be a real-time urgency at that point. And yet you and others do......Clinton gets a pass after eight years of ignoring it, Bush does not after 8 months. Now here comes BO....and you are perfectly willing to give him a pass for DELIBERATELY ignoring two years of warnings and allowing the deaths of four Americans, including an American diplomat, all because of an AGENDA, Josh. This wasn't just a case of a little bit of embarrassment by pulling Stevens, et al out of there IF it even made the press (which it probably wouldn't have because the liberal press has covered for him for 5 years).....this was a case of DELIBERATELY putting their lives in jeopardy and CAUSING/ALLOWING their deaths to happen so that BO didn't lose face with his 'normalcy' spiel during a campaign.
THAT IS PATHETIC AND CRIMINAL......and you find it so acceptable that it's frightening to me.
Toni, Obama just said
it is all about politics concerning Benghazi. I just heard him reveal this to us his lowly subjects as he rubbed shoulders with British PM. Can we not just accept his words at face value. Can we not accept it is all just about politics. It's not like anyone was hurt, or killed, or policies failed in Benghazi. It's not about Hillary or Obama as failures. It's all just about politics. Or so I heard.
A lot of 'eat up the clock with ramblings' was going on. Two questions were able to be asked during that press 'conference'....and he made sure that no more could be asked because the PM had to have his own time to answer questions. Typical BO 'speak' and modus operandi tactics. And those two questions asked by the AP were planned ahead of time by the WH to pick that organization so he was prepared to ramble and move on.
After all....'what difference at this point does it make'?
Benghazi was/is political alright........there was an election to be won, even if it meant having Candi wave a preprinted paper in front of Romney as 'proof' that BO called it an act of terror the next day in the Rose Garden, when in fact, he did NOT....he spoke of 'terror' in the most vague and generalized way in ONE sentence, and then went on talk shows for weeks afterward blaming the video and even going on The View, when Walters asked him point blank if it was a terrorist attack, he replied that it was under investigation.
Those ads that HC displayed during her campaign against BO wanting to know who we wanted picking up that phone at 2AM........ well, we found out that not only could BO not be counted on for that, but SHE actually GOT that call as Sec of State and did nothing as well. People won't forget.........
I don't think we should point straight at any president
for any of the attacks but, as for the WTC, it's my understanding that attack was first in the planning by about 1995. GWB was barely into his first term when the planning was finalized. It was only in hind sight and largely at GITMO that details came to light. Too little, too late, I suppose but enough of the finger pointing unless you want to give persons serving under GWB some credit for finally getting at the bottom of what happened, how it was missed and implementing stronger measures to help prevent such from happening again. If we're a properly functioning country, transitions from one president to another do not resemble an on/off switch. I think we tend to blame whomever we want by one of two methods, sometimes. Either the person at the helm is culpable for the ship running aground on his own or he's culpable for not verifying that the previous captain had completed all of the ship's maintenance requirements which was the cause of it running aground. We need to be fair here, IMO.
"order up an American Carrier"
Hopefully you aren't under the impression the last real President "ordered up" a carrier into the Potomac or Chesapeake Bay, but rather "ordered up" himself to go where the carrier was.