Democrats Win Because They Have Lies On Their Side

[The T]

No, they saw the same intel. Otherwise Bush would have been impeached and ousted. If they could have done it, they damn sure would have.

Yeah, OK. Lies are just fine with you as long as it is YOUR guys telling them.

I'm not buying GOP lies or your spin on their lies and I'm not buying into Democrats' lies or anyone else's spin on THEM.

How did you get that from what I said?

Just remember this when spotting Statist/Liberals (or whatever mask they hide behind)...BLAME, MINIMIZATION, DENIAL, OBFUSCATION.

Good call by the way.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Except there were violent riots going on all over the world at the same time and over 50 people died. Why were they rioting? They TOLD us. We don't have to guess.

What is the chance that it was merely coincidence that the riot in Benghazi happened at exactly the same time as the other riots and they were all completely unrelated?

Anyone who believes that send me your number. I have a bridge you might want to buy.

Video evidence showed there was no riots, or even a demonstration in Benghazi.

So you're making that shit up.

Anger Over a Film Fuels Anti-American Attacks in Libya and Egypt

The press all over the world is wrong. But you are right.

It's no surprise the liberal press still have a love for President Obama, enough to try and shield him from any responsibility and blame through the myth of a demonstration uprising over a video.

THE US SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE - Report on Benghazi
http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/benghazi2014/benghazi.pdf​

FINDING #1: In the months before the attacks on September 11,2012, the IC provided ample strategic warning that the security situation in eastern Libya was deteriorating and that U.S. facilities and personnel were at risk in Benghazi.

The IC produced hundreds o f analytic reports in the months preceding the September 11-12, 2012, attacks, providing strategic warning that militias and terrorist and affiliated groups had the capability and intent to strike U.S. and Western facilities and personnel in Libya. For example:
• On June 12, 2012, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) produced a report entitled, "Libya: Terrorists Now Targeting U.S. and Western Interests." The report noted recent attacks against the U.S. Mission compound in Benghazi, the growing ties between al-Qa'ida (AQ) regional nodes and Libya-based terrorists and stated: "we expect more anti-U.S. terrorist attacks in eastern Libya, due to the terrorists' greater presence there.... This will include terrorists conducting more ambush and IED [Improvised Explosive Device] attacks as well as more threats against .................... "


FINDING #9: In finished reports after September 11, 2012, intelligence analysts inaccurately referred to the presence of a protest at the Mission facility before the attack based on open source information and limited intelligence, but without sufficient intelligence or eyewitness statements to corroborate that assertion.

The lC obtained closed circuit television video from the Mission facility and there were credible eyewitness statements of U.S. personnel on the ground that night, which the FBI began to collect from interviewing survivors starting on September 15, 2012, in Ramstein Air Base, Germany.

The IC also had information that there were no protests outside the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks, but did not incorporate that information into its widely circulated assessments in a timely manner. Contrary to many press reports at the time, eyewitness statements by U.S. personnel indicate that there were no protests at the start of the attacks.

On September 18, 2012, the FBI and CIA reviewed the closed circuit television video from the Mission facility that showed there were no protests prior to the attacks.

 

[Bfgrn]

I looked up the first one.

Four Killed in Gun Battle Outside U.S. Cultural Center in India | Fox News

You're full of shit. You're just reposting propaganda foaming over on HuffPo and the likes.

2002 attack on American cultural centre in Kolkata

Four police constables and a private security guard were killed and 20 other people injured when, on January 22, 2002, gunmen attacked an American cultural centre in Kolkata, India. The centre houses a library, the American embassy's public affairs office, a press section and a cultural wing.

Two groups claimed responsibility for the attack. A Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI) member, Farhan Malik owned responsibility and said the attack was in protest against "the evil empire of America"

This is the first time one our Ambassadors was murdered and we did nothing.

Nothing but blame the guy who made a youtube video.

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

What would you have the President do? Start an immoral war of ideology like Bush did?

If you REALLY want to put a president behind bars, start HERE.

The Beirut Barracks Bombings (October 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. An obscure group calling itself 'Islamic Jihad' claimed responsibility for the bombings.

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team - BLT 1/8), the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[2] Another 128 Americans were wounded in the blast. Thirteen later died of their injuries, and they are numbered among the total number who died.

American response

U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon.

Eventually, it became evident that the U.S. would launch no serious and immediate retaliatory attack for the Beirut Marine barracks bombing beyond naval barrages and air strikes used to interdict continuous harassing fire from Druze and Syrian missile and artillery sites. A true retaliatory strike failed to materialize...

On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon...


25 years later, bombing in Beirut still resonates

Sgt. Stephen Russell was sitting in his guard booth outside a barracks in Beirut. He was one of about 1,600 Marines who'd been sent to Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but found little peace to keep. He says he heard something snap behind him and a diesel engine revving.

He turned.

What he saw, at 6:22 a.m. that bright Sunday in the fourth decade of the Cold War, was the future, coming straight at him, in the form of a 5-ton truck. It was Oct. 23, 1983, a day Ronald Reagan called the saddest of his presidency, maybe his life.

The truck would shatter the Marines' building with a bomb more powerful than 12,000 pounds of TNT — the biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II, the FBI concluded.

It would kill 241 servicemembers, including 220 Marines — the Corps' bloodiest day since Iwo Jima. It would drive the U.S. out of Lebanon and lead some, including al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, to conclude that when America gets its nose bloodied, it pulls back.

For Americans, Beirut was a seminal moment on a timeline that led to the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. It was a first shot in a clash with a militant, fundamentalist Islam — exemplified by groups such as Hezbollah and nations such as Iran — that would replace Soviet communism as the USA's chief adversary.

25 years later, bombing in Beirut still resonates - USATODAY.com

 

[Mojo2]

What would you have the President do? Start an immoral war of ideology like Bush did?

Bfgrn, meet a fact.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion

March 21, 2003

From Reuters

UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

 

[Bfgrn]

What would you have the President do? Start an immoral war of ideology like Bush did?

Bfgrn, meet a fact.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion

March 21, 2003

From Reuters

UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

WOW!, That is right up there with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in BIG government abuse of power. But it's never BIG government abuse of power when you right wing BIG government statists do it.

Need MORE facts?

 

[Mojo2]

We know every detail of the President ordering the raid to kill Bin Laden. On Benghazi, we don't know what President Obama did that night.—

Lindsey Graham (@GrahamBlog) February 03, 2014

Lindsey Graham: ?President Obama has misled the country on Benghazi? | Twitchy

 

[Mojo2]

Bfgrn, meet a fact.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion

March 21, 2003

From Reuters

UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

WOW!, That is right up there with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in BIG government abuse of power. But it's never BIG government abuse of power when you right wing BIG government statists do it.

Need MORE facts?

Saddam was bluffing that he had WMD's.

It was revealed on CBS 60 Minutes.

Bush HAD to invade or possibly stand idly by while Israel started WWIII.

Admit it.

You would rather have WWIII than the situation we have seen to date.

You war monger!

 

[KNB]

Saddam was bluffing that he had WMD? So he moved the WMD to Syria without anyone knowing about it and then told the world that he still had WMD so that they would feel threatened by him and therefore invade?

That's a brilliant plan which makes absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Kosh]

Democrats should win because we have Republican lies on our side.

Lies about Iraq

about trickle down

about birth certificates

about fake scandals

about deficit creating tax cuts

about WMD's

The list is endless. All the GOP lies help the Democrats.

yep, that's pretty funny coming from the Iraq "we'll be treated as liberators" crowd. or "It'll cost $2BILLION" crowd, or the "we won't need 100's of 1000's of troops to secure Iraq" crowd

For those of us that were there the first part of the far left lies are actually true, the second part of the far left lies is based on the actual operation which was close to the mark and the last far left lie is just a lie flat out.

 

[Kosh]

Bfgrn, meet a fact.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion

March 21, 2003

From Reuters

UNITED NATIONS — The United States gave its official reasons for invading Iraq to the U.N. Security Council late Thursday, saying Baghdad had broken a cease-fire resolution adopted after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Britain and Australia, two other nations in the U.S.-led coalition, wrote similar, shorter, letters to the 15-member council. None of the letters mentioned "regime change," an aim of the invasion but never authorized in any council resolution.

U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

WOW!, That is right up there with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in BIG government abuse of power. But it's never BIG government abuse of power when you right wing BIG government statists do it.

Need MORE facts?

And the debunked far left propaganda is being presented as fact, just goes to show that far left programming can not be defeated by actual facts.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn, meet a fact.



U.S. Cites 1991 U.N. Cease-Fire Resolution as the Legal Basis for Its Invasion - Los Angeles Times

WOW!, That is right up there with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in BIG government abuse of power. But it's never BIG government abuse of power when you right wing BIG government statists do it.

Need MORE facts?

And the debunked far left propaganda is being presented as fact, just goes to show that far left programming can not be defeated by actual facts.

Debunked? Then DEBUNK it pea brain.

 

[KNB]

"Debunked". It's video footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXWdBi6fw_k]When Rumsfeld met Saddam - CNN - Sept. 12, 2002 - YouTube[/ame]

"Gee. There I am. What do you know?"

 

[bripat9643]

"Debunked". It's video footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

When Rumsfeld met Saddam - CNN - Sept. 12, 2002 - YouTube

"Gee. There I am. What do you know?"

What does that debunk? When did anyone claim Rumsfeld never met Saddam?

 

[Kosh]

WOW!, That is right up there with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in BIG government abuse of power. But it's never BIG government abuse of power when you right wing BIG government statists do it.

Need MORE facts?

And the debunked far left propaganda is being presented as fact, just goes to show that far left programming can not be defeated by actual facts.

Debunked? Then DEBUNK it pea brain.

More proof that the far left posts known bunk and expects you to prove them wrong.

 

[Kosh]

"Debunked". It's video footage of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983.

When Rumsfeld met Saddam - CNN - Sept. 12, 2002 - YouTube

"Gee. There I am. What do you know?"

Even when my kids were two years old, they knew better than to try this.

This is classic far left logic, post known bunk and try and get others to prove you wrong!

 

[mudwhistle]

WOW!, That is right up there with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in BIG government abuse of power. But it's never BIG government abuse of power when you right wing BIG government statists do it.

Need MORE facts?

And the debunked far left propaganda is being presented as fact, just goes to show that far left programming can not be defeated by actual facts.

Debunked? Then DEBUNK it pea brain.

Dude, please, spare us. lol

 

[mudwhistle]

2002 attack on American cultural centre in Kolkata

Four police constables and a private security guard were killed and 20 other people injured when, on January 22, 2002, gunmen attacked an American cultural centre in Kolkata, India. The centre houses a library, the American embassy's public affairs office, a press section and a cultural wing.

Two groups claimed responsibility for the attack. A Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI) member, Farhan Malik owned responsibility and said the attack was in protest against "the evil empire of America"

This is the first time one our Ambassadors was murdered and we did nothing.

Nothing but blame the guy who made a youtube video.

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

What would you have the President do? Start an immoral war of ideology like Bush did?

If you REALLY want to put a president behind bars, start HERE.

The Beirut Barracks Bombings (October 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. An obscure group calling itself 'Islamic Jihad' claimed responsibility for the bombings.

Suicide bombers detonated each of the truck bombs. In the attack on the building serving as a barracks for the 1st Battalion 8th Marines (Battalion Landing Team - BLT 1/8), the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II.[2] Another 128 Americans were wounded in the blast. Thirteen later died of their injuries, and they are numbered among the total number who died.

American response

U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon.

Eventually, it became evident that the U.S. would launch no serious and immediate retaliatory attack for the Beirut Marine barracks bombing beyond naval barrages and air strikes used to interdict continuous harassing fire from Druze and Syrian missile and artillery sites. A true retaliatory strike failed to materialize...

On February 7, 1984, President Reagan ordered the Marines to begin withdrawing from Lebanon...


25 years later, bombing in Beirut still resonates

Sgt. Stephen Russell was sitting in his guard booth outside a barracks in Beirut. He was one of about 1,600 Marines who'd been sent to Lebanon as neutral peacekeepers but found little peace to keep. He says he heard something snap behind him and a diesel engine revving.

He turned.

What he saw, at 6:22 a.m. that bright Sunday in the fourth decade of the Cold War, was the future, coming straight at him, in the form of a 5-ton truck. It was Oct. 23, 1983, a day Ronald Reagan called the saddest of his presidency, maybe his life.

The truck would shatter the Marines' building with a bomb more powerful than 12,000 pounds of TNT — the biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II, the FBI concluded.

It would kill 241 servicemembers, including 220 Marines — the Corps' bloodiest day since Iwo Jima. It would drive the U.S. out of Lebanon and lead some, including al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, to conclude that when America gets its nose bloodied, it pulls back.

For Americans, Beirut was a seminal moment on a timeline that led to the 9/11 attacks, Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. It was a first shot in a clash with a militant, fundamentalist Islam — exemplified by groups such as Hezbollah and nations such as Iran — that would replace Soviet communism as the USA's chief adversary.

25 years later, bombing in Beirut still resonates - USATODAY.com

 

[Iceweasel]

Two groups claimed responsibility for the attack. A Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI) member, Farhan Malik owned responsibility and said the attack was in protest against "the evil empire of America"

You are stuck on stupid. Terrorism has been around for a while. Bengazi is different, no one excused or minimized prior attacks or tried to blame it on something else for political deflection prior to a presidential election/re-election. Either that or you simply don't care what the issue is. Either way it isn't a good sign.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

2002 attack on American cultural centre in Kolkata

Four police constables and a private security guard were killed and 20 other people injured when, on January 22, 2002, gunmen attacked an American cultural centre in Kolkata, India. The centre houses a library, the American embassy's public affairs office, a press section and a cultural wing.

Two groups claimed responsibility for the attack. A Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI) member, Farhan Malik owned responsibility and said the attack was in protest against "the evil empire of America"

This is the first time one our Ambassadors was murdered and we did nothing.

Nothing but blame the guy who made a youtube video.

"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

What would you have the President do? Start an immoral war of ideology like Bush did?

If you REALLY want to put a president behind bars, start HERE.

The Beirut Barracks Bombings

Could that possibly be any worse than a president who abandons his own at Mogadishu, as American troops were left to die fighting off their attackers? Where was the urgent need for military support to get them out? Yet history will criticize President Kennedy's legacy for his ties associated with those deserted during the Bay of Pigs disaster.

 

[mudwhistle]

Two groups claimed responsibility for the attack. A Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami (HUJI) member, Farhan Malik owned responsibility and said the attack was in protest against "the evil empire of America"

You are stuck on stupid. Terrorism has been around for a while. Bengazi is different, no one excused or minimized prior attacks or tried to blame it on something else for political deflection prior to a presidential election/re-election. Either that or you simply don't care what the issue is. Either way it isn't a good sign.

In order for his argument to work we have to ignore the fact that terrorism is just another form of protest. Muslims constantly talk about how the West has offended them. That doesn't mean we should try to be nice and lower our defenses.

Treat them like the live-wire that they are, because it doesn't take much to offend them. One can say that our existence as non-believers offends them. Muslims believe it's okay to take our help and then try to murder us once the help is not needed. This administration actually believes that dropping our defenses will stop them from hating us. In fact it will do the opposite.