13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush

[Sallow]

Where did Clinton wanr us about this?
Clinton had at least one terrorist attack on US soil. What was his response? Yeah, not much. Clinton's poor policies towards terrorism, treating it like a police matter, led directly to 9/11.
Clinton had more Benghazis than Obama.

Again horseshit.

You've been shown that it was Republicans thwarting Clinton's efforts.

The proof is also in the pudding.

Bush, who had all the resources of the US at his fingertips did not get Bin Laden, opting instead to get Saddam Hussein.

Obama, unconstrained by Congress because of the AUMF..got Bin Laden.

See how that works?

I thought the Republicans were thwarting Obama? You guys need to get your fantasies straight.
There were no attacks on America after 9/11 under Bush. There were numerous attacks under Obama. THe Muslims openly laugh at Obama.

Bin Laden's deputy labels Obama a 'house negro' as he threatens U.S with a 'renewed holy war' | Mail Online

Yeah..they are.

But because of the AUMF, Obama didn't need to get permission to strike out a Bin Laden.

Guess what?

Bin Laden's dead.

See how that works?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Oh look ... a warning.

AUGUST '01 BRIEF IS SAID TO WARN OF ATTACK PLANS - New York Times

Oh look... an idiot.
There are lots of warnings about lots of different attacks a day. Just ask Clinton. He was given the same warnings.

Rightard, who said there aren't lots of warnings? My point is that the Bush administration lied about there being no warnings, which I pointed out in regard to some claiming that Bush didn't lie to cover up attacks. You tacitly denied there were warnings by suggesting I brush up on the 911 Commission Report.

And yes, Clinton did receive the similar warnings. Only unlike Bush, he took action to prevent hijackings and there was no 911 type attack on his watch. Too bad Bush didn't do the same to prevent the attack, huh?

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

 

[Sallow]

Oh look... an idiot.
There are lots of warnings about lots of different attacks a day. Just ask Clinton. He was given the same warnings.

Rightard, who said there aren't lots of warnings? My point is that the Bush administration lied about there being no warnings, which I pointed out in regard to some claiming that Bush didn't lie to cover up attacks. You tacitly denied there were warnings by suggesting I brush up on the 911 Commission Report.

And yes, Clinton did receive the similar warnings. Only unlike Bush, he took action to prevent hijackings and there was no 911 type attack on his watch. Too bad Bush didn't do the same to prevent the attack, huh?

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Those are myths.

But heck..let's pretend.

Lets say that the Prime Minister of the Sudan says, "Hey, we have Bin Laden. If you want him? Supply us with arms to help us continue our genocide".

What would you do?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Rightard, who said there aren't lots of warnings? My point is that the Bush administration lied about there being no warnings, which I pointed out in regard to some claiming that Bush didn't lie to cover up attacks. You tacitly denied there were warnings by suggesting I brush up on the 911 Commission Report.

And yes, Clinton did receive the similar warnings. Only unlike Bush, he took action to prevent hijackings and there was no 911 type attack on his watch. Too bad Bush didn't do the same to prevent the attack, huh?

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Those are myths.

But heck..let's pretend.

Lets say that the Prime Minister of the Sudan says, "Hey, we have Bin Laden. If you want him? Supply us with arms to help us continue our genocide".

What would you do?

I would sober up and stop reading left wing talking points.

 

[kaz]

Rightard, who said there aren't lots of warnings? My point is that the Bush administration lied about there being no warnings, which I pointed out in regard to some claiming that Bush didn't lie to cover up attacks. You tacitly denied there were warnings by suggesting I brush up on the 911 Commission Report.

And yes, Clinton did receive the similar warnings. Only unlike Bush, he took action to prevent hijackings and there was no 911 type attack on his watch. Too bad Bush didn't do the same to prevent the attack, huh?

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Those are myths.

But heck..let's pretend.

Lets say that the Prime Minister of the Sudan says, "Hey, we have Bin Laden. If you want him? Supply us with arms to help us continue our genocide".

What would you do?

Even liberal "fact check" don't agree with you on that. They say what happened exactly is unclear and there are contradictory statements, but they don't state it's a "myth" or that Sudan was looking for arms.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Those are myths.

But heck..let's pretend.

Lets say that the Prime Minister of the Sudan says, "Hey, we have Bin Laden. If you want him? Supply us with arms to help us continue our genocide".

What would you do?

Even liberal "fact check" don't agree with you on that. They say what happened exactly is unclear and there are contradictory statements, but they don't state it's a "myth" or that Sudan was looking for arms.

I don't think anybody ever accused Sallow of being hindered by facts.

 

[kaz]

Those are myths.

But heck..let's pretend.

Lets say that the Prime Minister of the Sudan says, "Hey, we have Bin Laden. If you want him? Supply us with arms to help us continue our genocide".

What would you do?

Even liberal "fact check" don't agree with you on that. They say what happened exactly is unclear and there are contradictory statements, but they don't state it's a "myth" or that Sudan was looking for arms.

I don't think anybody ever accused Sallow of being hindered by facts.

I certainly never did...

 

[Faun]

Oh look... an idiot.
There are lots of warnings about lots of different attacks a day. Just ask Clinton. He was given the same warnings.

Rightard, who said there aren't lots of warnings? My point is that the Bush administration lied about there being no warnings, which I pointed out in regard to some claiming that Bush didn't lie to cover up attacks. You tacitly denied there were warnings by suggesting I brush up on the 911 Commission Report.

And yes, Clinton did receive the similar warnings. Only unlike Bush, he took action to prevent hijackings and there was no 911 type attack on his watch. Too bad Bush didn't do the same to prevent the attack, huh?

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Cute ... we're talking about how both Clinton and Bush received similar warnings about potential terrorist attacks inside the U.S.; I point out how Clinton responded to the warnings and there was no attack, but in stark contrast, Bush did absolutely nothing in response to the warnings and the terrorists had nothing stand in their way to pull it off in 2001 where they could not while Clinton was president; and then you change the topic to how Clinton could have gotten OBL on a "silver platter." Which is also untrue, and which you would know had you read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Seems you fail miserably on both points.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rightard, who said there aren't lots of warnings? My point is that the Bush administration lied about there being no warnings, which I pointed out in regard to some claiming that Bush didn't lie to cover up attacks. You tacitly denied there were warnings by suggesting I brush up on the 911 Commission Report.

And yes, Clinton did receive the similar warnings. Only unlike Bush, he took action to prevent hijackings and there was no 911 type attack on his watch. Too bad Bush didn't do the same to prevent the attack, huh?

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Cute ... we're talking about how both Clinton and Bush received similar warnings about potential terrorist attacks inside the U.S.; I point out how Clinton responded to the warnings and there was no attack, but in stark contrast, Bush did absolutely nothing in response to the warnings and the terrorists had nothing stand in their way to pull it off in 2001 where they could not while Clinton was president; and then you change the topic to how Clinton could have gotten OBL on a "silver platter." Which is also untrue, and which you would know had you read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Seems you fail miserably on both points.

Oh you mean like the first World Trade Center bombing? Yeah, he sure prevented that.
You are an ignorant jack off. Clinton caused the terrorism problem by his weak reactions, throwing a missile at an aspirin factory in the desert for example, and his poor policy of treating terrorism like a crime.
Bush virtually crippled terrorism by recognizing that it is a war by other means waged by non state actors.

 

[Faun]

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Cute ... we're talking about how both Clinton and Bush received similar warnings about potential terrorist attacks inside the U.S.; I point out how Clinton responded to the warnings and there was no attack, but in stark contrast, Bush did absolutely nothing in response to the warnings and the terrorists had nothing stand in their way to pull it off in 2001 where they could not while Clinton was president; and then you change the topic to how Clinton could have gotten OBL on a "silver platter." Which is also untrue, and which you would know had you read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Seems you fail miserably on both points.

Oh you mean like the first World Trade Center bombing? Yeah, he sure prevented that.
You are an ignorant jack off. Clinton caused the terrorism problem by his weak reactions, throwing a missile at an aspirin factory in the desert for example, and his poor policy of treating terrorism like a crime.
Bush virtually crippled terrorism by recognizing that it is a war by other means waged by non state actors.

Great, another imbecile who can't follow along. Rightard, we're talking about how they respond (or fail to respond) to warnings of terrorist attacks. That makes this the point where you either post evidence that Clinton was warned of a potential attack; or you lie about it; or just sit there looking like the moronic rightie you are.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cute ... we're talking about how both Clinton and Bush received similar warnings about potential terrorist attacks inside the U.S.; I point out how Clinton responded to the warnings and there was no attack, but in stark contrast, Bush did absolutely nothing in response to the warnings and the terrorists had nothing stand in their way to pull it off in 2001 where they could not while Clinton was president; and then you change the topic to how Clinton could have gotten OBL on a "silver platter." Which is also untrue, and which you would know had you read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Seems you fail miserably on both points.

Oh you mean like the first World Trade Center bombing? Yeah, he sure prevented that.
You are an ignorant jack off. Clinton caused the terrorism problem by his weak reactions, throwing a missile at an aspirin factory in the desert for example, and his poor policy of treating terrorism like a crime.
Bush virtually crippled terrorism by recognizing that it is a war by other means waged by non state actors.

Great, another imbecile who can't follow along. Rightard, we're talking about how they respond (or fail to respond) to warnings of terrorist attacks. That makes this the point where you either post evidence that Clinton was warned of a potential attack; or you lie about it; or just sit there looking like the moronic rightie you are.

You understand that "warning" is pretty vague, right? The CIA probably receives warning of terrorist attacks every day of one kind or another. Some of them are cranks. SOme of them are misguided. Some of them are so vague as to be like fortunes in a newspaper. So you would have to classify those warnings and then describe how each president approached them.
And you frankly don't have the chops for a job like that.

 

[Faun]

Oh you mean like the first World Trade Center bombing? Yeah, he sure prevented that.
You are an ignorant jack off. Clinton caused the terrorism problem by his weak reactions, throwing a missile at an aspirin factory in the desert for example, and his poor policy of treating terrorism like a crime.
Bush virtually crippled terrorism by recognizing that it is a war by other means waged by non state actors.

Great, another imbecile who can't follow along. Rightard, we're talking about how they respond (or fail to respond) to warnings of terrorist attacks. That makes this the point where you either post evidence that Clinton was warned of a potential attack; or you lie about it; or just sit there looking like the moronic rightie you are.

You understand that "warning" is pretty vague, right? The CIA probably receives warning of terrorist attacks every day of one kind or another. Some of them are cranks. SOme of them are misguided. Some of them are so vague as to be like fortunes in a newspaper. So you would have to classify those warnings and then describe how each president approached them.
And you frankly don't have the chops for a job like that.

Vague or not, it was a warning. A warning similar to one Clinton received in 1998. The difference is that Clinton took action based on the warning and there was no attack; Bush did nothing upon being warned and Al-Qaeda managed to pull of the worst terrorist attack inside the U.S. in U.S. history.

At any rate, your failure to show Clinton was warned about the 1993 WTC attack reveals what you look like (highlighted above), just as I expected.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great, another imbecile who can't follow along. Rightard, we're talking about how they respond (or fail to respond) to warnings of terrorist attacks. That makes this the point where you either post evidence that Clinton was warned of a potential attack; or you lie about it; or just sit there looking like the moronic rightie you are.

You understand that "warning" is pretty vague, right? The CIA probably receives warning of terrorist attacks every day of one kind or another. Some of them are cranks. SOme of them are misguided. Some of them are so vague as to be like fortunes in a newspaper. So you would have to classify those warnings and then describe how each president approached them.
And you frankly don't have the chops for a job like that.

Vague or not, it was a warning. A warning similar to one Clinton received in 1998. The difference is that Clinton took action based on the warning and there was no attack; Bush did nothing upon being warned and Al-Qaeda managed to pull of the worst terrorist attack inside the U.S. in U.S. history.

At any rate, your failure to show Clinton was warned about the 1993 WTC attack reveals what you look like (highlighted above), just as I expected.

So you agree that "warning" can mean almost anything. Clinton probably ignored 80% of warnings. Rightly so.
You've shown yourself to be a clueless moron who cannot argue a point.

 

[Faun]

You understand that "warning" is pretty vague, right? The CIA probably receives warning of terrorist attacks every day of one kind or another. Some of them are cranks. SOme of them are misguided. Some of them are so vague as to be like fortunes in a newspaper. So you would have to classify those warnings and then describe how each president approached them.
And you frankly don't have the chops for a job like that.

Vague or not, it was a warning. A warning similar to one Clinton received in 1998. The difference is that Clinton took action based on the warning and there was no attack; Bush did nothing upon being warned and Al-Qaeda managed to pull of the worst terrorist attack inside the U.S. in U.S. history.

At any rate, your failure to show Clinton was warned about the 1993 WTC attack reveals what you look like (highlighted above), just as I expected.

So you agree that "warning" can mean almost anything. Clinton probably ignored 80% of warnings. Rightly so.
You've shown yourself to be a clueless moron who cannot argue a point.

Suuure, rightard ... "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings," could mean almost anything. Could have meant Al-Qaeda just wanted to go grocery shopping. Could have meant they wanted to hold hands with Bush like a Saudi prince. Could have meant almost anything except a potential hijacking, right? And again, as one of your fellow yahoos pointed out, Clinton received a similar warning. He had airport security raised at some airports in the NE. Guess what? No attack. What did Bush do besides read "The Pet Goat" with a bunch of mentally superior seven your olds?

 

[The Rabbi]

Vague or not, it was a warning. A warning similar to one Clinton received in 1998. The difference is that Clinton took action based on the warning and there was no attack; Bush did nothing upon being warned and Al-Qaeda managed to pull of the worst terrorist attack inside the U.S. in U.S. history.

At any rate, your failure to show Clinton was warned about the 1993 WTC attack reveals what you look like (highlighted above), just as I expected.

So you agree that "warning" can mean almost anything. Clinton probably ignored 80% of warnings. Rightly so.
You've shown yourself to be a clueless moron who cannot argue a point.

Suuure, rightard ... "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings," could mean almost anything. Could have meant Al-Qaeda just wanted to go grocery shopping. Could have meant they wanted to hold hands with Bush like a Saudi prince. Could have meant almost anything except a potential hijacking, right? And again, as one of your fellow yahoos pointed out, Clinton received a similar warning. He had airport security raised at some airports in the NE. Guess what? No attack. What did Bush do besides read "The Pet Goat" with a bunch of mentally superior seven your olds?

Bush had the exact same warning? Prove it or shut the fuck up.
You agree with my premise and then call me names. It is because you are a retard.

 

[Faun]

So you agree that "warning" can mean almost anything. Clinton probably ignored 80% of warnings. Rightly so.
You've shown yourself to be a clueless moron who cannot argue a point.

Suuure, rightard ... "FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings," could mean almost anything. Could have meant Al-Qaeda just wanted to go grocery shopping. Could have meant they wanted to hold hands with Bush like a Saudi prince. Could have meant almost anything except a potential hijacking, right? And again, as one of your fellow yahoos pointed out, Clinton received a similar warning. He had airport security raised at some airports in the NE. Guess what? No attack. What did Bush do besides read "The Pet Goat" with a bunch of mentally superior seven your olds?

Bush had the exact same warning? Prove it or shut the fuck up.
You agree with my premise and then call me names. It is because you are a retard.

Why would you expect me to prove something I never said? Oh. wait, it's because you're a rightard. Carry on.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Rightard, who said there aren't lots of warnings? My point is that the Bush administration lied about there being no warnings, which I pointed out in regard to some claiming that Bush didn't lie to cover up attacks. You tacitly denied there were warnings by suggesting I brush up on the 911 Commission Report.

And yes, Clinton did receive the similar warnings. Only unlike Bush, he took action to prevent hijackings and there was no 911 type attack on his watch. Too bad Bush didn't do the same to prevent the attack, huh?

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Cute ... we're talking about how both Clinton and Bush received similar warnings about potential terrorist attacks inside the U.S.; I point out how Clinton responded to the warnings and there was no attack, but in stark contrast, Bush did absolutely nothing in response to the warnings and the terrorists had nothing stand in their way to pull it off in 2001 where they could not while Clinton was president; and then you change the topic to how Clinton could have gotten OBL on a "silver platter." Which is also untrue, and which you would know had you read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Seems you fail miserably on both points.

Wow! That's just stupid. You can pretend that the 9/11 terrorists weren't planning their attack during Clinton's reign and you can pretend that the first World Trade tower wasn't bombed while Clinton was president and you can pretend that Clinton never had a great chance of getting Obama as much as you want. It's just a silly argument is all.
Yes, you can certainly point out the fact that the 9/11 attack occurred under Bush's presidency (he was president for a little over eight months at the time). It's just kind of dumb to leave Clinton's responsibility out of the whole 9/11 scenario though.

 

[Sallow]

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Cute ... we're talking about how both Clinton and Bush received similar warnings about potential terrorist attacks inside the U.S.; I point out how Clinton responded to the warnings and there was no attack, but in stark contrast, Bush did absolutely nothing in response to the warnings and the terrorists had nothing stand in their way to pull it off in 2001 where they could not while Clinton was president; and then you change the topic to how Clinton could have gotten OBL on a "silver platter." Which is also untrue, and which you would know had you read the 9/11 Commission Report.

Seems you fail miserably on both points.

Wow! That's just stupid. You can pretend that the 9/11 terrorists weren't planning their attack during Clinton's reign and you can pretend that the first World Trade tower wasn't bombed while Clinton was president and you can pretend that Clinton never had a great chance of getting Obama as much as you want. It's just silly is all.
Yes, you can certainly point out the fact that the 9/11 attack occurred under Bush's presidency (he was president for a little over eight months at the time). It's just kind of dumb to leave Clinton's name out of the whole 9/11 scenario though.

And you can pretend that Clinton didn't try to do anything about it, Republicans weren't blocking him while trying to oust him from power and Bush didn't heed Clinton's warnings because he wanted to reignite the cold war.

It's just that history completely disagrees with you.

 

[Sallow]

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Those are myths.

But heck..let's pretend.

Lets say that the Prime Minister of the Sudan says, "Hey, we have Bin Laden. If you want him? Supply us with arms to help us continue our genocide".

What would you do?

I would sober up and stop reading left wing talking points.

Oh yeah.

You keep spreading lies that have been debunked over and over again, but I'm not sober?

Heck..I'll have what your drinking.

 

[Sallow]

Hey Leftard, Clinton had several opportunities of getting Osama Bin Laden on a silver platter. 9/11 plans were underway during Clinton's watch. Let's also remember that the first World Trade tower bombing was during Clinton's watch. Also, the USS Cole bombing. Along with a host of other bombings. It's too bad Clinton didn't prevent the attacks and stop Bin Laden when he had a chance, huh?

Those are myths.

But heck..let's pretend.

Lets say that the Prime Minister of the Sudan says, "Hey, we have Bin Laden. If you want him? Supply us with arms to help us continue our genocide".

What would you do?

Even liberal "fact check" don't agree with you on that. They say what happened exactly is unclear and there are contradictory statements, but they don't state it's a "myth" or that Sudan was looking for arms.

The "fact check" is certainly clear on it.

What's "unclear" is what was going on in back channel communications. Which is ALWAYS unclear because it's generally unreliable.

No middle eastern country ever made a serious offer to turn over Bin Laden.