More on BHO & Benghazi

[kallend 1,648]

RonD1120

*********>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

W's 2003 SOTU address was deliberately misleading. As was his "Rose Garden" speech in September 2002. Over 4,000 Americans died as a result of those lies.

What was the body count ratio to enemy deaths?

Iraq only became an enemy in 2003 because W lied in order to make Iraq an enemy.

Does body count excuse lies? Would Jesus approve?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[tkhayes 140]

Evil intent? Really? Evil intent....kinda like attempting to rat people out to USSOCOM because you disagree with them?

pot, meet kettle.

[Driver1 0]

kallend

************>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

W's 2003 SOTU address was deliberately misleading. As was his "Rose Garden" speech in September 2002. Over 4,000 Americans died as a result of those lies.

What was the body count ratio to enemy deaths?

Iraq only became an enemy in 2003 because W lied in order to make Iraq an enemy.


Iraq was an enemy long before that, when George HW Bush decided their invasion of Kuwait "Will Not Stand", and they remained on the other side of the U.N. from us afterwards. Just because no WMDs were found doesn't mean they didn't have them. U.N. inspectors were routinely denied access to sensitive places during the U.N. compliance process. IIRC.

There will be no addressing the customers as "Bitches", "Morons" or "Retards"!

[Amazon 7]

RonD1120

*********>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

W's 2003 SOTU address was deliberately misleading. As was his "Rose Garden" speech in September 2002. Over 4,000 Americans died as a result of those lies.

What was the body count ratio to enemy deaths?


OH YEAH BABY.. Body counts.....

That just has not worked out so well the last couple times that was important...

Our Southeast Asian War Games comes to mind... but it just never seemed to win in the big picture... just like Iraq.... just real great way to try to nation build.... seems to have missed the mark by a tad there too.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

And back on topic again.
Hillary was warned that there was imminent danger to the embassy in Benghazi. Yet you defend her actions. Funny that you condemn one for the same inaction of another that you covet.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

***>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

And back on topic again.
Hillary was warned that there was imminent danger to the embassy in Benghazi. Yet you defend her actions. Funny that you condemn one for the same inaction of another that you covet.

Revisionist history much????.... who was it that chopped the budget of the State Deprtment security budget again????? .....anything to fit your skewed world view of events that led up to the attack on the CONSULATE and a compound about a mile away...and I do believe the Ambassador ignored the warnings and believing himself able to handle any situation
There were protests occurring all across the region over the video.....

Initially, it was reported by the media the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous protest triggered by an anti-Muslim video, Innocence of Muslims.[23] Subsequent investigations determined that there was no such protest and that the attacks were premeditated;[24] though captured suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala stated that the assault was in retaliation for the video.[25]

I guess you and your ilk want to believe Khattala was in kahoots with Hillary too..

[RonD1120 58]

DanG

Quote

Given a few join expecting to get a free college education while serving at a desk job in a resort area. Were you one of those troops?

Questioning another's service is way out of line. Fuck you.

Awh, you hurt my feelings.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

tkhayes

Evil intent? Really? Evil intent....kinda like attempting to rat people out to USSOCOM because you disagree with them?

Are you still supporting our enemies?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[tkhayes 140]

Fidel Castro once rode on my toboggan if that is what you mean

Are you still worshipping bearded fictional characters in the sky?

[masterblaster72 0]

I get it. GWB gets a free pass on his "righteous war" because he's a born again Christian. The bloodthirsty type - like Ron.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[christelsabine 1]

tkhayes

....
Are you still worshipping bearded fictional characters in the sky?

In the sky?? Much easier to do a google pic search - there are thousands of *god* pics, all bearded ....

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[DanG 1]

You know, at some point I had a little respect for you, since you claim to be involved in veterans' issues and seemed to actually care. With this latest comment, I can see the real you, and I've lost all respect. You have no class, and the more you post, the more obvious it becomes.

- Dan G

[kallend 1,648]

Driver1

***************>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

W's 2003 SOTU address was deliberately misleading. As was his "Rose Garden" speech in September 2002. Over 4,000 Americans died as a result of those lies.

What was the body count ratio to enemy deaths?

Iraq only became an enemy in 2003 because W lied in order to make Iraq an enemy.


Iraq was an enemy long before that, when George HW Bush decided their invasion of Kuwait "Will Not Stand", and they remained on the other side of the U.N. from us afterwards. Just because no WMDs were found doesn't mean they didn't have them. U.N. inspectors were routinely denied access to sensitive places during the U.N. compliance process. IIRC.

Well, using your logic that once an enemy always an enemy, Spain, Britain, Germany, Japan, France, the Sioux, Italy and Vietnam are still our enemies.

And all the available EVIDENCE is that there were no WMDs except in the imagination of the neo-cons. No yellowcake. No mobile bioweapons labs, no nuclear program... Just a few forgotten dumps of useless, decaying and obsolete stuff that Reagan and GHWB had supplied to Iraq.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 58]

DanG

You know, at some point I had a little respect for you, since you claim to be involved in veterans' issues and seemed to actually care. With this latest comment, I can see the real you, and I've lost all respect. You have no class, and the more you post, the more obvious it becomes.

I don't believe any of that. You have PA'd me for years.

Rest assured, many years ago I learned to live free from the good opinion of others. That is a secret to mental health.

Besides, none of this is real.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[tkhayes 140]

Quote

Rest assured, many years ago I learned to live free from the good opinion of others. That is a secret to mental health.

It is also one of the definitions of a sociopath.

[Anvilbrother 0]

TIL not giving a fuck what people in the internet thinks about you means you meet the definition of a sociopath.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[airdvr 200]

kallend

******>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

W's 2003 SOTU address was deliberately misleading. As was his "Rose Garden" speech in September 2002. Over 4,000 Americans died as a result of those lies.

Try and keep up...we were discussing initial reactions in the days following the event and Obama's attempt to divert to a made up video so it wouldn't look as if we'd had another terror attack. Comparing that to the reaction of W.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 1,648]

airdvr

*********>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

W's 2003 SOTU address was deliberately misleading. As was his "Rose Garden" speech in September 2002. Over 4,000 Americans died as a result of those lies.

Try and keep up...we were discussing initial reactions in the days following the event and Obama's attempt to divert to a made up video so it wouldn't look as if we'd had another terror attack. Comparing that to the reaction of W.

Well, I understand that you wouldn't want to discuss events leading to the deaths of over 4,000 Americans when a Republican is responsible, so a diversion was called for. I choose not to be diverted.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

And EVERYONE knows why YOU want to divert the conversation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

And EVERYONE knows why YOU want to divert the conversation

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Coreeece 2]

masterblaster72

***

Quote

Given a few join expecting to get a free college education while serving at a desk job in a resort area. Were you one of those troops?

Questioning another's service is way out of line. Fuck you.

Seriously. Why is it the domain of the "patriotic" republicans to mock the military service of other Americans? Talk about pussies.

What a disgrace.

Ya, that patriotic republican DanG recently stated that if anyone deployed overseas thinks they're going to change the world, then they should watch fewer superhero movies...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[billvon 2,434]

>Try and keep up...we were discussing initial reactions in the days following
>the event and Obama's attempt to divert to a made up video so it wouldn't look
>as if we'd had another terror attack.

Ah, so you prefer the timing of GWB's lies. Well, as long as he gets the timing right . . . .

[RonD1120 58]

billvon

>Try and keep up...we were discussing initial reactions in the days following
>the event and Obama's attempt to divert to a made up video so it wouldn't look
>as if we'd had another terror attack.

Ah, so you prefer the timing of GWB's lies. Well, as long as he gets the timing right . . . .

What I find amusing is the desire to divert from BHO/HC to GWB when only the former is current. GWB is no longer POTUS. BHO still is. HC is a wannnabe.

Ya'll can't get over your hate of GWB and can't accept our hate of BHO/HC. It's a fun show I tell ya.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

tkhayes

Quote

Rest assured, many years ago I learned to live free from the good opinion of others. That is a secret to mental health.

It is also one of the definitions of a sociopath.

Also, a psychopath but, taken alone neither of which necessarily constitute mental illness. They more accurately describe personal uniqueness.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Amazon 7]

RonD1120

***>Try and keep up...we were discussing initial reactions in the days following
>the event and Obama's attempt to divert to a made up video so it wouldn't look
>as if we'd had another terror attack.

Ah, so you prefer the timing of GWB's lies. Well, as long as he gets the timing right . . . .

What I find amusing is the desire to divert from BHO/HC to GWB when only the former is current. GWB is no longer POTUS. BHO still is. HC is a wannnabe.

Ya'll can't get over your hate of GWB and can't accept our hate of BHO/HC. It's a fun show I tell ya.

I wonder if the men in your graphic there would approve of your politics of personal destruction..... that you and your fellow travelers follow and are using them for.