13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush

[The Rabbi]

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.

Right. Difference circumstances, different responses. Funny how life works like that.
You've just had your ass handed to you. You may now slink away in humiliation.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

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.

Bush wanted to reignite the cold war? I thought that was Obama's job.

 

[ron4342]

13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush and
Fox News Said Nothing


Check out the timeline of attacks on embassies and consulate compounds during Bush's tenure that received no similar fine-toothed-combing from Fox.

1. Jan. 22, 2002: Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami Attacks Indian U.S. Consulate
Five policemen were killed and 16 injured in the eastern Indian city of Calcutta because of an attack on the U.S. consulate by militant group Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami. American employees including the consul-general in Calcutta, Christopher Sandrolini, were unscathed, and those injured and killed were all Indians.

2. June 14, 2002: Suicide Car-Bomb Outside U.S. Consulate in Karachi
Twelve people died in an attack outside the U.S. consulate in Karachi when militants exploded a car bomb. A Taliban splinter group referred to as Al-Qanoon, or "The Law," claimed responsibility for the attacks that also injured 51 people. Two hired guards, a Marine, and five Pakistani staff members were among the injured in the attack that followed then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's visit to the country.

3. Oct. 12, 2002: String Of Bali Bombings Included U.S. Consulate
The U.S. consulate in Indonesia was attacked as part of the 'Bali bombings' on a devastating October night. While there were no fatalities at the consulate, seven Americans were among the 202 dead at the coordinated blasts inside a bar and outside a nightclub.

4. Feb. 28, 2003: Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked For the Second Time in One Year
Gunmen rode up on a motorbike to the U.S. consulate's security checkpoints and rained gunfire killing two Pakistani police officers. One gunman arrested by paramilitary officers was found to have several rounds of ammunition prepared for what could have been a far more devastating attack.

5. May 12, 2003: 36 People Including 9 Americans Die After Terrorists Storm U.S. Compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
The State Department had warned of a potential strike against the Saudi days before gunmen infiltrated the Al Hamra Oasis Village and two others killing 36 people and wounding 160. This was the most devastating attack on a State Department employees to occur under Bush. The Saudi government cracked down on terrorists group but that did not prevent another attack to occur a year later in Jeddah.

6. July 30, 2004: Islamist Attacks U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Two Uzbek security guards died in a bombing on the U.S. embassy in Tashkent days. Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan claimed responsibility of the bombing after 15 alleged Islamist militants went on trial.

7. Dec. 6, 2004: Five Staff and Four Security Guards Die in U.S. consulate attack in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Gunmen fought their way into the complex, reportedly taking 18 staff and visa applicants hostage for a short time before Saudi security forces stormed the building. The final dead counted four security guards, five staff, and three attackers. No Americans were among the dead.

8. March 2, 2006: Third Attack on Karachi U.S. Consulate Killed U.S. Diplomat
U.S. Diplomat David Foy was specifically targeted in the third attack in as many years on the Karachi consulate compound. He was one of four people killed. The bomb occurred two days before President Bush was to visit Pakistan and also targeted the Marriot hotel in an upscale neighborhood of Karachi.

This was a planned and coordinated attack that nobody covered as more than a news item.

9. Sept. 12, 2006: Four Gunmen Stormed the U.S. compound in Damascus, Syria
Gunmen yelling "Allahu akbar " - "God is great" - fired on Syrian security officers guarding the U.S. embassy. The gunmen used grenades, automatic weapons, car bombs, and a truck bomb and killed four people and wounded 13 others. Condoleezza Rice, then Secretary of State praised the Syrians that defended the U.S. employees: "the Syrians reacted to this attack in a way that helped to secure our people, and we very much appreciate that."

10. Jan. 12, 2007: Greek Terrorists Fired a Rocket-Propelled Grenade at the U.S. Embassy
An antitank grenade was fired into the empty consulate building by leftist terrorist group Revolutionary Struggle angry at American foreign policy. Even though nobody was in the building at the time the attack was a blatant breach of security and showed enormous security loopholes.

11. March 18, 2008: A Mortar is Fired at the U.S. Embassy in Sana’a, Yemen
Similar to the Greek attack, a mortar was fired at the U.S. embassy building killing 19 people and injuring 16. This was the second attempt at a similar mortar attack on the embassy. The first one missed the embassy and hit a girls' school next door.

12. July 9, 2008: Three Turkish Policemen were Killed When Gunman Fired on the U.S. Consulate Istanbul, Turkey
Four attackers drove up to the high-walled compound of the U.S. Consulate and started shooting the security guards. The gun battle took the lives of three of the attackers but the fourth one drove off. No Americans were injured or killed.

13. Sept. 17, 2008: 16 People Including 2 Americans Die in an Orchestrated Attack on the U.S. Embassy Sana’a, Yemen
An arsenal of weapons including rocket-propelled grenades and two car bombs were involved in the second attack on the embassy in seven months. Eighteen-year-old American Susan El-Baneh and her husband of three weeks died holding hands.
13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush and Fox News Said Nothing - PolicyMic

The sad fact is this, the republicans absolutely believe that Hillary and Obama are somehow responsible for what happened in Benghazi and they will refuse to accept any facts that do not support their belief. GOD, himself, could come down and tell the republicans what happened and if it did not agree with what they think happened they would call him a liar. What we are seeing here is the same mental frame of mind of the birthers which is not surprising since I suspect many screaming "Benghazi! Benghazi!" were probably also birthers. Even if the facts are all out on the table the wingnuts will refuse to accept them and claim it is a cover up. "The truth is being withheld from us. Once we find the truth Obama will resign or be impeached and Hillary will not run for president."
Does anyone remember this song? "Obama is a Kenyan and he is hiding the truth. We want the REAL birthcertificate. And even if the governor of Hawaii says the birth certificate is valid it just means he is part of the cover up. Any day the truth will come out and any day Obama will resign in disgrace. Any day now! Any day now!!!" We heard that song for over 4 years. How is the screaming about Benghazi any different than what was screamed about Obama being a Kenyan?

 

[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.

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 ...

Stop right there, rightard. I never said any of that. WTF is wrong with a rightie's brain that they read words that aren't there and then leap head first into erroneous conclusions.

... 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.

I'm not pretending that at all. I'm merely going by what was reported in the 911 Commission report. It stated there was no evidence to support such a claim.

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.

8 months was 1/6th of his first term. More than enough time to be in charge. Pretty funny though watching rightards point out how Clinton failed to prevent the first WTC attack, which occurred 5 weeks into his presidency, cry that 911 occurred only 8 months into Bush's.

Funny how rightards apply blame for 911 on Clinton, 8 months after Bush became president; but you don't see the left blaming Bush41 for an attack which occurred 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency.

 

[TooTall]

One Iraq happened under Bush, and that's a thousand Benghazis, and a thousand times as many lies.

I always ask what lie Bush told and I never get an answer. Perhaps you can tell me, then again...........

 

[Faun]

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.

Right. Difference circumstances, different responses. Funny how life works like that.
You've just had your ass handed to you. You may now slink away in humiliation.

Similar warnings. Different responses.

Clinton PDB: Reporting suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh Umar Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq Awda

Bush PDB: FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks

Similar PDB's, both warned of possible hijackings. Clinton responds by having airport security raised at some airports.

Result? Zero planes hijacked, zero people killed, zero buildings bombed, zero Twin Towers destroyed

Bush responds by denying a requested increase in funds for counter-terrorism.

Result? Four planes hijacked, 3,000 people killed, 3 buildings bombed, both Twin Towers destroyed (along with most of the rest of the WTC).

Rightards cheer for Bush.

 

[The Rabbi]

Dude, you've been humiliated here. You can't make words mean something they don't. Similar is subjective, much less not synonymous with identical.
How many terrorist incidents did Clinton have vs Bush? Yeah, Clinton sucked. Bush rocked.

 

[Katzndogz]

And obama is responsible for all the deaths in Syria and Libya. If it had not been for obama's actions in taking out Gaddafi Benghazi would never have happened.

 

[Faun]

One Iraq happened under Bush, and that's a thousand Benghazis, and a thousand times as many lies.

I always ask what lie Bush told and I never get an answer. Perhaps you can tell me, then again...........

Now you can never again say you never get an answer ...

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power." ~ George Bush, 7.14.2003​

That's an absolute lie. The inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November, 2002.

Analysis: Inspectors back in Iraq

Monday, 18 November, 2002, 11:37 GMT

United Nations weapons inspectors are back in Iraq for the first time since January 1998.
​

 

[JohnL.Burke]

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 ...

Stop right there, rightard. I never said any of that. WTF is wrong with a rightie's brain that they read words that aren't there and then leap head first

... 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.

I'm not pretending that at all. I'm merely going by what was reported in the 911 Commission report. It stated there was no evidence to support such a claim.

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.

8 months was 1/6th of his first term. More than enough time to be in charge. Pretty funny though watching rightards point out how Clinton failed to prevent the first WTC attack, which occurred 5 weeks into his presidency, cry that 911 occurred only 8 months into Bush's.

Funny how rightards apply blame for 911 on Clinton, 8 months after Bush became president; but you don't see the left blaming Bush41 for an attack which occurred 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency.

The fact that Clinton had quite a few chances of getting or killing Osama Bin Laden is not really debatable of course. This is simply a fact. I didn't see the left attack Bush41 for an attack which occurred 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency? Ok, I'll take your word for it. I did see the left accuse Bush Jr. of being behind the attacks on 9/11 though. I also most recently saw some lefttard claim that Clinton didn't have a chance to get Bin Laden.

 

[MaryL]

Bengazi Bengazi Bengai! Sorry, that's Betelgeuse. 4 diplomats die, and we want to look under all the rocks. What about, Hmm the bombing of the marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. 241 died. For what? Ronald Regan turn and ran like a liberal democrat. And with no repercussions, no hearings, no questions, no nothing. Just another plutocrat playing games with America, like it was a game of chess.

 

[Faun]

Dude, you've been humiliated here. You can't make words mean something they don't. Similar is subjective, much less not synonymous with identical.
How many terrorist incidents did Clinton have vs Bush? Yeah, Clinton sucked. Bush rocked.

Rightard, both were warned of possible hijackings. One responded by raising airport security at some airports. One did nothing. The one who raised airport security likely thwarted the attack. The one who did nothing led to hijackings.

You support the one who did nothing to prevent the worst terrorist attack against us in U.S. history.

 

[Faun]

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 ...

Stop right there, rightard. I never said any of that. WTF is wrong with a rightie's brain that they read words that aren't there and then leap head first


I'm not pretending that at all. I'm merely going by what was reported in the 911 Commission report. It stated there was no evidence to support such a claim.

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.

8 months was 1/6th of his first term. More than enough time to be in charge. Pretty funny though watching rightards point out how Clinton failed to prevent the first WTC attack, which occurred 5 weeks into his presidency, cry that 911 occurred only 8 months into Bush's.

Funny how rightards apply blame for 911 on Clinton, 8 months after Bush became president; but you don't see the left blaming Bush41 for an attack which occurred 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency.

The fact that Clinton had quite a few chances of getting or killing Osama Bin Laden is not really debatable of course. This is simply a fact. I didn't see the left attack Bush41 for an attack which occurred 5 weeks into Clinton's presidency? Ok, I'll take your word for it. I did see the left accuse Bush Jr. of being behind the attacks on 9/11 though. I also most recently saw some lefttard claim that Clinton didn't have a chance to get Bin Laden.

It may not be debatable among rightards, but then, that means nothing. Hell, y'all are investigating Benghazi for the 8th time because you don't think that's debatable. Still, the 911 Commission report states there was no credible evidence that Clinton turned down a chance to get OBL on a "silver platter" (your words).

As far as the left accusing Bush43 of being behind the 9/11 attack, that's as moronic as if someone were to claim the right accused Obama of being born in Kenya. Nuts making nutty claims by either side do not speak for the left or the right.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

One Iraq happened under Bush, and that's a thousand Benghazis, and a thousand times as many lies.

I always ask what lie Bush told and I never get an answer. Perhaps you can tell me, then again...........

Now you can never again say you never get an answer ...

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power." ~ George Bush, 7.14.2003​

That's an absolute lie. The inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November, 2002.

Analysis: Inspectors back in Iraq

Monday, 18 November, 2002, 11:37 GMT

United Nations weapons inspectors are back in Iraq for the first time since January 1998.
​

As most of us know. Saddam ejected the UN inspectors team when the UN passed a new resolution. Even when the UN inspectors were "allowed" to inspect for weapons, they were still not allowed access to numerous buildings and sites. The fact is, Saddam only played games with the UN which he had a long record of doing.

 

[MaryL]

Let's don't bring up Vietnam. Republicans and Democrats alike, it was their collective bastard child that killed 58 thousand Americans, Robert McNamara, the wunderkind father of that war, even after a few months even HE knew it was unwinnable. Where is the outrage at THAT? Bengazi. 4 dead. Let's stop the pretenses. Are you outraged because it's another way to attack the status quo, or are you outraged period?

 

[Faun]

I always ask what lie Bush told and I never get an answer. Perhaps you can tell me, then again...........

Now you can never again say you never get an answer ...

The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power." ~ George Bush, 7.14.2003​

That's an absolute lie. The inspectors were allowed back into Iraq in November, 2002.

Analysis: Inspectors back in Iraq

Monday, 18 November, 2002, 11:37 GMT

United Nations weapons inspectors are back in Iraq for the first time since January 1998.
​

As most of us know. Saddam ejected the UN inspectors team when the UN passed a new resolution. Even when the UN inspectors were "allowed" to inspect for weapons, they were still not allowed access to numerous buildings and sites. The fact is, Saddam only played games with the UN which he had a long record of doing.

Read it again, this time for clarity ... "he [Saddam Hussein] wouldn't let them [inspectors] in" ~ Bush

Inspectors back in Iraq

 

[Pop23]

no Benghazis happened on bush's watch;

no ambassadors were killed; and Bush never lied about the attacks


libs are losers who lie to themselves

Why does it matter it was an ambassador? Are they some sort of special entity? All the people who died in embassies during Bush's regime are somehow lesser human beings?

Yes an ambassador IS a special entity.

Good lord, are you really that stupid?

 

[JohnL.Burke]

I certainly appreciate your link to a 2002 BBC article but we know a little more now. We know that Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors into many sites and buildings. This means Saddam broke the UN resolution. This was about the 16th or 17th resolution he broke. To play some sort of muddled rhetorical word game isn't going to change the facts.

 

[Faun]

I certainly appreciate your link to a 2002 BBC article but we know a little more now. We know that Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors into many sites and buildings. This means Saddam broke the UN resolution. This was about the 16th or 17th resolution he broke. To play some sort of muddled rhetorical word game isn't going to change the facts.

First of all, Bush didn't say Hussein let the inspectors in, just not to every site. He simply stated Hussein wouldn't let them in. A bald-faced lie which you cannot rectify by pretending he meant something different than what he actually said.

But secondly, you are the one lying now as the inspectors were allowed access to every location they went to...

• "Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming." ~ Hans Blix
  
  
• "The inspections have taken place throughout Iraq, at industrial sites, ammunition depots, research centers, universities, presidential sites, mobile laboratories, private houses, missile-production facilities, military camps and agricultural sites." ~ Hans Blix
  
  
• "Mr. President, in my 27th of January update to the Council, I said that it seemed from our experience that Iraq had decided in principle to provide cooperation on process -- most importantly, prompt access to all sites and assistance to UNMOVIC in the establishment of the necessary infrastructure." ~ Hans Blix
  
  
• "This impression remains, and we note that access to sites has so far been without problems, including those that have never been declared or inspected, as well as to presidential sites and private residences." ~ Hans Blix

So not only did Bush lie, but so do his fluffers.

 

[Oldstyle]

Let's don't bring up Vietnam. Republicans and Democrats alike, it was their collective bastard child that killed 58 thousand Americans, Robert McNamara, the wunderkind father of that war, even after a few months even HE knew it was unwinnable. Where is the outrage at THAT? Bengazi. 4 dead. Let's stop the pretenses. Are you outraged because it's another way to attack the status quo, or are you outraged period?

I'm "outraged" because our Ambassador was slaughtered by Al Queda affiliated terrorists in a US Consulate. I'm "outraged" because our Commander in Chief appears to have gone back to bed and then off to a campaign fund raiser while this was happening. I'm "outraged" that rather than accept responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, the Obama White House opted to try and mislead the American people that the attack was simply a protest that escalated into the killings. I'm "outraged" that the people who declared themselves "the most transparent administration in history" had to be forced to turn over documents via a Freedom of Information law suit and I'm "outraged" that so many in the media went along with what the Obama people were doing.

What ANY of that has to do with Vietnam is beyond me. I know many die hard liberals are desperate to divert this to something OTHER than an examination of the lies that Obama and Clinton told but that isn't going to happen. The truth is slowly coming out...and as it does, Jay Carney's press conferences are going to get uglier and uglier because nobody is buying his lies anymore.