At What Point Did You Decide That You Were Against Obama No Matter What?

[MarcATL]

No, just like the right wingers insist that Obama should have had a embassy security review and beefed up security around the world for the 9/11 anniv. (and he should have done that), then you have to say that George Bush, after being given a heads up by the Clinton folk, should have ordered his people to review every bit of intelligence being generated, domestic and foreign, to uncover any plot against us by terrorists. No bit of intelligence should have not been reviewed. Of course this would have brought out the we want to fly but no land Middle Eastern men. And our history might not have been changed forever for the bad.

Because no doubt about it, it the terrorists wanted, as an objective, to change the way we live and view ourselves in the world, and not for the better I might add, then they have been very successful. Especially as it only took one attack. And we've changed forever.

Billions of dollares, hundreds of thousnds of lives, changes we would have not thought possible and all because we were sloppy with our own security and a handful of terrorists got lucky. Amazing.

I know right? Why didn't Bush comb over every document to avoid the attack? Where was the accountability? Why were there no heads that rolled over this?

The American People demand answers.

Clearly, this is directed to The Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives of USMB.

When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?

I'll answer the question in the reverse as an example. Some years ago, when Bush was first elected, I disliked him. I didn't like what he stood for, didn't like what he said, I didn't even like the way he sounded, he sounds dumb and he's proven himself to be such. Anyway, I wasn't totally or automatically against him. What turned me against him permanently, was what he did with the good will of The American People after the country was attacked.

He lied about the WMDs, he kept the country in state of constant fear, and he waged two unnecessary wars. To top it off, he didn't pay for it at the time and sent the bill to our kids and grandkids.

To be precise, from the instant he began that fear campaign war campaign, he lost me forever. I will NEVER forgive him for that.

So, when did you Republicans, Conservatives and other assorted RWers of USMB decide to be against Obama no matter what?

C'mon, be honest.

There have been many things that have turn me sour to Obama but the thing that 1st turned me against him no matter what was the Obama care.

What's your beef w/Obama Care exactly?

Are you refuting the fact that the whole thing was planned under Clinton's watch?? That one of his FBI agents knew something was up but couldn't get his bosses to listen??

Are you refuting the fact that Clinton was offered UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan??

Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and got the whole scoop and we probably wouldn't have had a 9-11.

Yes it was the worst terrorist attack on US soil and yes Bush was POTUS. To bad the previous POTUS'S administration dropped the fucking ball.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't matter WHEN it was planned?

The FACT of the matter is that Bush FAILED in stopping it from occurring.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil under Bush's watch, and it happened.

Who cares when it was planned?

When were the Benghazi attacks planned?

Do you doubt that Obama would have claimed it was an accident that the two planes flew into the two building had he been president at the time?

I'm not here to speculate, imagine and wonder what might have been, could have been or should have been. I'm simply on the FACTUAL point of George W. Bush, being the President who resided during the WORST terrorist attack on US soil in history.

Plain and simple.

Are you refuting the fact that the whole thing was planned under Clinton's watch?? That one of his FBI agents knew something was up but couldn't get his bosses to listen??

Are you refuting the fact that Clinton was offered UBL on a silver platter from the Sudan??

Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and got the whole scoop and we probably wouldn't have had a 9-11.

Yes it was the worst terrorist attack on US soil and yes Bush was POTUS. To bad the previous POTUS'S administration dropped the fucking ball.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't matter WHEN it was planned?

The FACT of the matter is that Bush FAILED in stopping it from occurring.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil under Bush's watch, and it happened.

Who cares when it was planned?

When were the Benghazi attacks planned?

The Benghazi attacks happened because the State Department refused to beef up security after repeated requests by the chancellory. There were warnings of a pending attack.

Hell. Other embassies and the Red Cross pulled out. No one closes an embassy for no reason. The attack happened just as the threats predicted. If security had been beefed up or we had closed the embassy and sent our folks home as other smarter folks did then Benghazi wouldn't have happened. Those four men would still be alive.

You don't care when 9-11 was planned because it was under Clintons watch. You're content to blame Bush while totally ignoring Clintons part in it.

He had UBL in the palm of his hand and refused to take him. Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and learned about the attack. 9-11 might not even have happend and there would be no 3,000 dead.

Here's the thing, I didn't ask WHY Benghazi happend or how, nor the circumstances surrounding it....I simply asked WHEN were they attacks planned. Seeing as how you, and your ilk, seem hell-bent on some trumped up RW talking point about 9/11 being planned under Clinton.

I patiently await your response.

 

[theHawk]

Stop lying dawg...where did I post that it was "HIS FAULT" as you put it?

Stop being such a hack dude.

Classic, you then go on to say:

The FACT of the matter is that Bush FAILED in stopping it from occurring.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil under Bush's watch, and it happened.

Who cares when it was planned?

Saying that Bush "failed" to stop the attacks implies he had the power to stop the attacks. That he had some foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

We never hear anyone say "FDR failed to stop Pearl Harbor", because it was a fucking sneak attack that no one saw coming, just like 9/11.

The truth is we as a nation let our guard down against Muslim terrorists. We let them come into our country and plan and plot to kill us, under both (D) and (R) Presidents.

I don't think anyone realistically expects that our nation and people will be complete safe under any President. More attacks have happened since then and they will continue to. What we do expect from our leaders is some common sense in trying to prevent our enemies from succeeding. You know, like posting armed US guards at an Embassy in a war torn country, especially after receiving specific threats.

I know common sense seems to baffle shitbag liberals like yourself, Marc. That's why you liberals should leave things like national security and running the nation up to the adults.

 

[MarcATL]

See hawk, or is that chicken hawk...

That last bit is why you get your A$$es handed to you every time.

It was Bush that failed to protect us from Bin Laden's attack on 9/11.

It was Obama that got rid of Bin Laden.

Some "adult" he turned out to be huh...Baby Bush is a right moniker for him.

And using the term "he failed" is no worse than the rigthies claiming that "Bush kept us safe."

You didn't hear anyone say "FDR kept us safe" either.

Snap out of it!

 

[Uncensored2008]

See hawk, or is that chicken hawk...

That last bit is why you get your A$$es handed to you every time.

It was Bush that failed to protect us from Bin Laden's attack on 9/11.

It was Obama that got rid of Bin Laden.

Some "adult" he turned out to be huh...Baby Bush is a right moniker for him.

And using the term "he failed" is no worse than the rigthies claiming that "Bush kept us safe."

You didn't hear anyone say "FDR kept us safe" either.

Snap out of it!

Marc, you're a dishonest fuckwad with zero integrity.

Because you haven't even a shred of integrity, the partisan bullshit you post does little to promote your cause.

Like RDean and Truthmatters, you are but a joke.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, just like the right wingers insist that Obama should have had a embassy security review and beefed up security around the world for the 9/11 anniv. (and he should have done that), then you have to say that George Bush, after being given a heads up by the Clinton folk, should have ordered his people to review every bit of intelligence being generated, domestic and foreign, to uncover any plot against us by terrorists. No bit of intelligence should have not been reviewed. Of course this would have brought out the we want to fly but no land Middle Eastern men. And our history might not have been changed forever for the bad.

Because no doubt about it, it the terrorists wanted, as an objective, to change the way we live and view ourselves in the world, and not for the better I might add, then they have been very successful. Especially as it only took one attack. And we've changed forever.

Billions of dollares, hundreds of thousnds of lives, changes we would have not thought possible and all because we were sloppy with our own security and a handful of terrorists got lucky. Amazing.

I know right? Why didn't Bush comb over every document to avoid the attack? Where was the accountability? Why were there no heads that rolled over this?

The American People demand answers.

There have been many things that have turn me sour to Obama but the thing that 1st turned me against him no matter what was the Obama care.

What's your beef w/Obama Care exactly?



I'm not here to speculate, imagine and wonder what might have been, could have been or should have been. I'm simply on the FACTUAL point of George W. Bush, being the President who resided during the WORST terrorist attack on US soil in history.

Plain and simple.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't matter WHEN it was planned?

The FACT of the matter is that Bush FAILED in stopping it from occurring.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil under Bush's watch, and it happened.

Who cares when it was planned?

When were the Benghazi attacks planned?

The Benghazi attacks happened because the State Department refused to beef up security after repeated requests by the chancellory. There were warnings of a pending attack.

Hell. Other embassies and the Red Cross pulled out. No one closes an embassy for no reason. The attack happened just as the threats predicted. If security had been beefed up or we had closed the embassy and sent our folks home as other smarter folks did then Benghazi wouldn't have happened. Those four men would still be alive.

You don't care when 9-11 was planned because it was under Clintons watch. You're content to blame Bush while totally ignoring Clintons part in it.

He had UBL in the palm of his hand and refused to take him. Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and learned about the attack. 9-11 might not even have happend and there would be no 3,000 dead.

Here's the thing, I didn't ask WHY Benghazi happend or how, nor the circumstances surrounding it....I simply asked WHEN were they attacks planned. Seeing as how you, and your ilk, seem hell-bent on some trumped up RW talking point about 9/11 being planned under Clinton.

I patiently await your response.

They must have been planned after Gaddafi was out of power because they didn't have access to Benghazi before that, not to mention that there was actual intelligence that an attack was planned that came in just a few months before the attack.

 

[squeeze berry]

The real answer: when they saw him.

and likely you decided you were for him when you saw him

ditto for no nukes, dumya, marc and wry

Actually, I listened to what he had to say for some time before I decided.

what was it

the typical white person comment?
that's just how white folks will do 'ya?
sitting in Wright's church for 20 years/

 

[thereisnospoon]

See hawk, or is that chicken hawk...

That last bit is why you get your A$$es handed to you every time.

It was Bush that failed to protect us from Bin Laden's attack on 9/11.

It was Obama that got rid of Bin Laden.

Some "adult" he turned out to be huh...Baby Bush is a right moniker for him.

And using the term "he failed" is no worse than the rigthies claiming that "Bush kept us safe."

You didn't hear anyone say "FDR kept us safe" either.

Snap out of it!

Repeating the same thing( absent of factual evidence) over and over ,does not make it true.

 

[Dubya]

I mean does anyone here REALLY want to contend that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was elected instead of George W. Bush? Gore was the VP while the Clinton White House underestimated Osama bin Laden. What makes you think he would have seen things differently as the President?

I can 100% guarantee that if Gore was President, was warned and tried to beef up security the best he could, that you idiot would be bitching forever, if we were attacked, because you wingnuts will invent things to bitch about. You have to know that is a fact, but we can't ever know if a different President may have taken a warning seriously and prevented 9/11. Being attacked by al Qaeda wasn't anything new, but it's hard to say why Bush ignored the warnings. It's possible there were too many warnings that never happened, like the old "crying wolf." I've never heard that to be the case, though.

 

[Vast LWC]

The Benghazi attacks happened because the State Department refused to beef up security after repeated requests by the chancellory. There were warnings of a pending attack.

The exact same logic clearly states that 9/11 was Bush's fault.

He had repeated warnings of a pending attack.
He did not "beef up security" as a result either.

Hell. Other embassies and the Red Cross pulled out. No one closes an embassy for no reason. The attack happened just as the threats predicted. If security had been beefed up or we had closed the embassy and sent our folks home as other smarter folks did then Benghazi wouldn't have happened. Those four men would still be alive.

You don't care when 9-11 was planned because it was under Clintons watch. You're content to blame Bush while totally ignoring Clintons part in it.

He had UBL in the palm of his hand and refused to take him. Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and learned about the attack. 9-11 might not even have happend and there would be no 3,000 dead.

And I'm sure that terrorists NEVER planned to attack US embassies prior to Benghazi...

It's all Monday morning quarterbacking.

I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and I don't blame Obama for Benghazi.

Because I am not a hypocrite.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Clearly, this is directed to The Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives of USMB.

When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?

I'll answer the question in the reverse as an example. Some years ago, when Bush was first elected, I disliked him. I didn't like what he stood for, didn't like what he said, I didn't even like the way he sounded, he sounds dumb and he's proven himself to be such. Anyway, I wasn't totally or automatically against him. What turned me against him permanently, was what he did with the good will of The American People after the country was attacked.

He lied about the WMDs, he kept the country in state of constant fear, and he waged two unnecessary wars. To top it off, he didn't pay for it at the time and sent the bill to our kids and grandkids.

To be precise, from the instant he began that fear campaign war campaign, he lost me forever. I will NEVER forgive him for that.

So, when did you Republicans, Conservatives and other assorted RWers of USMB decide to be against Obama no matter what?

C'mon, be honest.

The first time I saw him speak and heard so much bullshit come out of his lying mouth.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Clearly, this is directed to The Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives of USMB.

When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?

I'll answer the question in the reverse as an example. Some years ago, when Bush was first elected, I disliked him. I didn't like what he stood for, didn't like what he said, I didn't even like the way he sounded, he sounds dumb and he's proven himself to be such. Anyway, I wasn't totally or automatically against him. What turned me against him permanently, was what he did with the good will of The American People after the country was attacked.

He lied about the WMDs, he kept the country in state of constant fear, and he waged two unnecessary wars. To top it off, he didn't pay for it at the time and sent the bill to our kids and grandkids.

To be precise, from the instant he began that fear campaign war campaign, he lost me forever. I will NEVER forgive him for that.

So, when did you Republicans, Conservatives and other assorted RWers of USMB decide to be against Obama no matter what?

C'mon, be honest.

The part about "fundamentally transforming America" and "redistributing wealth". Arguably, minority capitalists have been impacted.

 

[MarcATL]

See hawk, or is that chicken hawk...

That last bit is why you get your A$$es handed to you every time.

It was Bush that failed to protect us from Bin Laden's attack on 9/11.

It was Obama that got rid of Bin Laden.

Some "adult" he turned out to be huh...Baby Bush is a right moniker for him.

And using the term "he failed" is no worse than the rigthies claiming that "Bush kept us safe."

You didn't hear anyone say "FDR kept us safe" either.

Snap out of it!

Repeating the same thing( absent of factual evidence) over and over ,does not make it true.

Repeating what?

What, in my statement, is not factual?

Spell it out.

I mean does anyone here REALLY want to contend that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was elected instead of George W. Bush? Gore was the VP while the Clinton White House underestimated Osama bin Laden. What makes you think he would have seen things differently as the President?

I can 100% guarantee that if Gore was President, was warned and tried to beef up security the best he could, that you idiot would be bitching forever, if we were attacked, because you wingnuts will invent things to bitch about. You have to know that is a fact, but we can't ever know if a different President may have taken a warning seriously and prevented 9/11. Being attacked by al Qaeda wasn't anything new, but it's hard to say why Bush ignored the warnings. It's possible there were too many warnings that never happened, like the old "crying wolf." I've never heard that to be the case, though.

Yep, they would have SKEWERED Gore and the Dems for being so weak that we got attacked. There would have been no more Democratic Party, it would have been open season. That's how they operate, with partisan impunity. There would have been no Barack Obama due to the damage the Democratic Party would have received had the WORST attack on US soil committed under a Democrat President.

I made a thread a year or two ago discussing this.

Yeah, I'd also like to know exactly what Bush did to "beef up security" after receiving the warnings of a pending attack on US soil.

 

[thereisnospoon]

See hawk, or is that chicken hawk...

That last bit is why you get your A$$es handed to you every time.

It was Bush that failed to protect us from Bin Laden's attack on 9/11.

It was Obama that got rid of Bin Laden.

Some "adult" he turned out to be huh...Baby Bush is a right moniker for him.

And using the term "he failed" is no worse than the rigthies claiming that "Bush kept us safe."

You didn't hear anyone say "FDR kept us safe" either.

Snap out of it!

Repeating the same thing( absent of factual evidence) over and over ,does not make it true.

Repeating what?

What, in my statement, is not factual?

Spell it out.

I mean does anyone here REALLY want to contend that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Al Gore was elected instead of George W. Bush? Gore was the VP while the Clinton White House underestimated Osama bin Laden. What makes you think he would have seen things differently as the President?

I can 100% guarantee that if Gore was President, was warned and tried to beef up security the best he could, that you idiot would be bitching forever, if we were attacked, because you wingnuts will invent things to bitch about. You have to know that is a fact, but we can't ever know if a different President may have taken a warning seriously and prevented 9/11. Being attacked by al Qaeda wasn't anything new, but it's hard to say why Bush ignored the warnings. It's possible there were too many warnings that never happened, like the old "crying wolf." I've never heard that to be the case, though.

Yep, they would have SKEWERED Gore and the Dems for being so weak that we got attacked. There would have been no more Democratic Party, it would have been open season. That's how they operate, with partisan impunity. There would have been no Barack Obama due to the damage the Democratic Party would have received had the WORST attack on US soil committed under a Democrat President.

I made a thread a year or two ago discussing this.

Yeah, I'd also like to know exactly what Bush did to "beef up security" after receiving the warnings of a pending attack on US soil.

"Bush failed to protect us"....
That's an opinion. Unless of course you have top secret clearance from the US Government. Do you?
Ya wanna know who I think failed to protect us? The FBI and the CIA...These people refused to share information with each other due to interdepartmental dick measuring.
For Christ's sake the FAA, ATC and the Military all knew there were hijacked planes in the sky BEFORE the first aircraft hit the WTC. Yet, no one knew what to do.
The fucking F-16's dispatched from Virginia were sent out over the Altantic Ocean. Screaming AWAY from the suspect aircraft at over mach 1.5 . Another flight of fighters was told to "Orbit and await instructions" One of the pilots actually had to ask "Is thgis real world?" The reply was we're unsure"...At one point the ATC in Boston had a plane down that was still in the air. They refused to believe that the radar return they were getting from the aircraft they could "see" that had their transponders turned off, could possibly be the hijacked airliners.
There are hours of audio recordings available to the pubic now. The communication breakdown between the civilian authorities and the military was inexcusable. It seemed everyone was worried about covering their ass rather than erring on the side of caution and taking into account that something bad was about to happen. NO! Decades of procedural nightmares took over. Those procedures not in place to protect the public but to protect careers. Now let's be realistic. All of this is the fault of the sitting president?
Are you going to insist that the White House and all the Presidential advisers KNEW the attack was going to happen? Please.
Bush was no more at fault than Clinton or the fucking Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz.
"they would have SKEWERED Gore and the Dems for being so weak that we got attacked."
Who is "they"?

Look, I am sick of your partisan bullshit.

 

[Gadawg73]

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil occurred under George W. Bush's watch.

Did it not? Yes or no? It's a simple question.

Yes but it was not his fault. Not his "baby" as you call it.
Admit you are wrong Marc. You are looking very foolish.

Post where I called it his fault please.

Why are you people seeing stuff that's not there?

Why you gotta make crap up?

"He failed to protect us"
is what you stated.
That is placing fault as you claimed he failed at something.
Why the Bull Shit make it up as you go?
Admit you are wrong.
Be a man. Admit it.

 

[beagle9]

The real answer: when they saw him.

Oh yeah, really now, and I see that the OP-Ed writer ((Markis-alt-to-get-a-grip)) is in with this opinion just as well.. This is why OP-Ed's that are written like this, have absolutely no credibility...It is none other than pure race baiting going on here, and this as being conducted or authored by a known racist to boot? To funny!

So by all that has been said in this way, it amazes me that anyone would take this little "bait" hook line and sinker, especially when considering the source.

 

[Dubya]

The real answer: when they saw him.

Oh yeah, really now, and I see that the OP-Ed writer ((Markis-alt-to-get-a-grip)) is in with this opinion just as well.. This is why OP-Ed's that are written like this, have absolutely no credibility...It is none other than pure race baiting going on here, and this as being conducted or authored by a known racist to boot? To funny!

So by all that has been said in this way, it amazes me that anyone would take this little "bait" hook line and sinker, especially when considering the source.

The fact is, Obama haters are a mixer of racists and people who hate any Democrat and aren't racists. The problem is, these people accept each other's contribution to the hate, so the racists get a pass.

You may notice that the right-wing doesn't correct itself and will allow other right-wingers to post obvious lies. The truth is never considered a basis for their ideology.

 

[squeeze berry]

The real answer: when they saw him.

Oh yeah, really now, and I see that the OP-Ed writer ((Markis-alt-to-get-a-grip)) is in with this opinion just as well.. This is why OP-Ed's that are written like this, have absolutely no credibility...It is none other than pure race baiting going on here, and this as being conducted or authored by a known racist to boot? To funny!

So by all that has been said in this way, it amazes me that anyone would take this little "bait" hook line and sinker, especially when considering the source.

The fact is, Obama lovers are a mixer of racists and people who hate any Republican and aren't racists. The problem is, these people accept each other's contribution to the hate, so the racists get a pass.

You may notice that the left wing doesn't correct itself and will allow other left-wingers to post obvious lies. The truth is never considered a basis for their ideology.

fixed it fer ya blowhard

 

[Claudette]

No, just like the right wingers insist that Obama should have had a embassy security review and beefed up security around the world for the 9/11 anniv. (and he should have done that), then you have to say that George Bush, after being given a heads up by the Clinton folk, should have ordered his people to review every bit of intelligence being generated, domestic and foreign, to uncover any plot against us by terrorists. No bit of intelligence should have not been reviewed. Of course this would have brought out the we want to fly but no land Middle Eastern men. And our history might not have been changed forever for the bad.

Because no doubt about it, it the terrorists wanted, as an objective, to change the way we live and view ourselves in the world, and not for the better I might add, then they have been very successful. Especially as it only took one attack. And we've changed forever.

Billions of dollares, hundreds of thousnds of lives, changes we would have not thought possible and all because we were sloppy with our own security and a handful of terrorists got lucky. Amazing.

I know right? Why didn't Bush comb over every document to avoid the attack? Where was the accountability? Why were there no heads that rolled over this?

The American People demand answers.

There have been many things that have turn me sour to Obama but the thing that 1st turned me against him no matter what was the Obama care.

What's your beef w/Obama Care exactly?



I'm not here to speculate, imagine and wonder what might have been, could have been or should have been. I'm simply on the FACTUAL point of George W. Bush, being the President who resided during the WORST terrorist attack on US soil in history.

Plain and simple.

I'm simply stating that it doesn't matter WHEN it was planned?

The FACT of the matter is that Bush FAILED in stopping it from occurring.

The WORST terrorist attack on US soil under Bush's watch, and it happened.

Who cares when it was planned?

When were the Benghazi attacks planned?

The Benghazi attacks happened because the State Department refused to beef up security after repeated requests by the chancellory. There were warnings of a pending attack.

Hell. Other embassies and the Red Cross pulled out. No one closes an embassy for no reason. The attack happened just as the threats predicted. If security had been beefed up or we had closed the embassy and sent our folks home as other smarter folks did then Benghazi wouldn't have happened. Those four men would still be alive.

You don't care when 9-11 was planned because it was under Clintons watch. You're content to blame Bush while totally ignoring Clintons part in it.

He had UBL in the palm of his hand and refused to take him. Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and learned about the attack. 9-11 might not even have happend and there would be no 3,000 dead.

Here's the thing, I didn't ask WHY Benghazi happend or how, nor the circumstances surrounding it....I simply asked WHEN were they attacks planned. Seeing as how you, and your ilk, seem hell-bent on some trumped up RW talking point about 9/11 being planned under Clinton.

I patiently await your response.

No, heres the thing.

There was no planning. It was a response to a demonstration in Cairo. Thats according to ABC news.

Intelligence Shows No Planning for Benghazi Consulate Attack - ABC News

They saw a chance and took it. If security had been beefed up or our folks had been sent home there would have been no dead. They would have hit an empty embassy.

We would have pulled out like the other embassies and the Red Cross. This could have been prevented. No doubt about it.

 

[Claudette]

The Benghazi attacks happened because the State Department refused to beef up security after repeated requests by the chancellory. There were warnings of a pending attack.

The exact same logic clearly states that 9/11 was Bush's fault.

He had repeated warnings of a pending attack.
He did not "beef up security" as a result either.

Hell. Other embassies and the Red Cross pulled out. No one closes an embassy for no reason. The attack happened just as the threats predicted. If security had been beefed up or we had closed the embassy and sent our folks home as other smarter folks did then Benghazi wouldn't have happened. Those four men would still be alive.

You don't care when 9-11 was planned because it was under Clintons watch. You're content to blame Bush while totally ignoring Clintons part in it.

He had UBL in the palm of his hand and refused to take him. Bush would have waterboarded that SOB and learned about the attack. 9-11 might not even have happend and there would be no 3,000 dead.

And I'm sure that terrorists NEVER planned to attack US embassies prior to Benghazi...

It's all Monday morning quarterbacking.

I don't blame Bush for 9/11, and I don't blame Obama for Benghazi.

Because I am not a hypocrite.

Oh and you know that Clinton's FBI passed those warning on to the Bush administration? Hell. O'Neils bosses didn't believe him and thought he was nuts.

If they did pass it on then Bush could have shut the country down. Kinda hard to prevent something when you don't know where or when. I'm sure that would have gone over well.

I don't blame Bush or Clinton. I blame the dirtbags who flew the planes and the dirtbags who planned 9-11.

Barry's State Department could have closed the embassy or beefed up security. They didn't do either. If they had the attack would have hit an empty embassy. No one would have died.

 

[PredFan]

Clearly, this is directed to The Republicans and self-proclaimed Conservatives of USMB.

When, exactly, did you realize that you really didn't like Obama and were going to be against him no matter what?

I'll answer the question in the reverse as an example. Some years ago, when Bush was first elected, I disliked him. I didn't like what he stood for, didn't like what he said, I didn't even like the way he sounded, he sounds dumb and he's proven himself to be such. Anyway, I wasn't totally or automatically against him. What turned me against him permanently, was what he did with the good will of The American People after the country was attacked.

He lied about the WMDs, he kept the country in state of constant fear, and he waged two unnecessary wars. To top it off, he didn't pay for it at the time and sent the bill to our kids and grandkids.

To be precise, from the instant he began that fear campaign war campaign, he lost me forever. I will NEVER forgive him for that.

So, when did you Republicans, Conservatives and other assorted RWers of USMB decide to be against Obama no matter what?

C'mon, be honest.

When I read Dreams of My Father back when he was first campaigning.