Reagan's Benghazi

[bendog]

All we know for certain is that Obama lied as a political expediency to avoid making his botched foreign policy a centerpiece of the 2012 campaign

True, but hardly the first or the worst.

 

[tinydancer]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

All to win an election. All to be able to keep banging the "I crushed AQ" drum.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

What did Obama lie about again? I keep asking and no one has answered yet

Crickets.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

Owned.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes, actually, both Reagan and Bush did lie.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

What did Obama lie about again? I keep asking and no one has answered yet

OBAMA: The video caused it.

STATE DEPT: Nope.

OBAMA: It was a protest.

PRESIDENT AL-MAGARIAF: Nope. It was preplanned.

OBAMA: If you like it, you can keep it....

OBAMA: Just kidding.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, actually, both Reagan and Bush did lie.

Where were you when Clinton bungled the Black hawk mission in Mogadishu? Hmm? That was in 1993. Didn't hear anyone on the left demanding an investigation then.

 

[deltex1]

There is something to be found there. What will be found will not be shocking to experienced observers. The president knows what he wants (any president) and it is an unwritten rule that his advisors work to get him what he wants. If Obabble wants the voters to believe that he defeated AQ....that AQ is on the run...then his staff will work to sustain that belief. They will sift thru the possible explanations for why Benghazi happened and will pick the one that fits the presidents needs/ beliefs. They will build the script, rehearse the actors...and put on the show...and they will deny all other possible explanations. That's what happened here. The repubs are out to prove that point...that the administration failed to provide security...lied about the video, will not disclose what the CINC ordered be done, and failed to act to protect our people. No one will be impeached...dems will still believe Obabble is a hero, and that Hillary is a whiz. Hopefully they will be in the minority in 2016. Otherwise we be fugged.

 

[blackhawk]

First the Bush deflection now Reagan can Ford be far behind? Not sure how the left will work Ford into this but if there's a way no matter how obscure they will find it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's undoubted Obama lied.
The only question is why the left isn't outraged over it.

 

[The Rabbi]

First the Bush deflection now Reagan can Ford be far behind? Not sure how the left will work Ford into this but if there's a way no matter how obscure they will find it.

It was the Mayaguez! Where are all the conservatives now? WHy aren't they calling for a congressional investigation into the Mayaguez!

Liberals are such fucking tool bags.

 

[American Horse]

Yes, actually, both Reagan and Bush did lie.

Not one of those attacks preceding the Benghazi debacle was simultaneous to event of an overrun embassy/consulate.

And in none of those did the Bush Administration deny security to the diplomatic post leading up to those attacks, furthermore, to make matters more volatile in a country in which we had led air attacks including drone attacks on Libyans of whatever ilk just a year prior.

What those attacks DO indicate is that you should never leave an embassy unprotected because they are always in jeopardy from attack.

 

[boilermaker55]

No, you don't seem to understand. It is the pure blind hatred for this administration and how you keep beating this horse about coverups and denial.
Yet when confronted with facts and similar situations within your own party you hate having it brought up.Then when things of this nature are provided , all you can do is comment on how utterly ridiculous it is for someone to show you that it happened under the Rep. watch.
Think about Iran Contra!

You progressive twirps are absolutely hopeless.

 

[Spoonman]

If only we could return to sanity and cut the political witch hunts.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials' feet. But unlike today's Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today's opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation -- but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding "very serious errors in judgment" by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report's findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

if Reagan runs for office in 2016 we'll worry about his Benghazi. until then, we'll keep our focus on Hilary

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes, actually, both Reagan and Bush did lie.

Where were you when Clinton bungled the Black hawk mission in Mogadishu? Hmm? That was in 1993. Didn't hear anyone on the left demanding an investigation then.

Sonny boy gets caught and, as usual, changes the subject.

If you want to discuss President Clinton, start a new thread but have the balls (lol) to admit you got nuthin.

Well, nothing except that cool little cardboard sword.

If you should want to upgrade to wood, check here-

Wooden Templar Sword - ZS-926807 by Dark Knight Armoury

Beware however ... That's not a suitable toy for a child who still lives with his granny.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, you don't seem to understand. It is the pure blind hatred for this administration and how you keep beating this horse about coverups and denial.
Yet when confronted with facts and similar situations within your own party you hate having it brought up.Then when things of this nature are provided , all you can do is comment on how utterly ridiculous it is for someone to show you that it happened under the Rep. watch.
Think about Iran Contra!

You progressive twirps are absolutely hopeless.

No, YOU don't get it.
Obama lied about Benghazi for weeks afterwards, refusing to call it a terrorist attack by al Qaeda, which is what it was. He knew this almost immediately.
Now, the only question is, Why aren't you outraged by this?

 

[Camp]

Reagan didnt lie or cover-up anything like obama did

try again

Can't believe this thread has gone on this long without somebody telling you how full of shit you are. Reagan lied his ass off and got caught big time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Reagan didnt lie or cover-up anything like obama did

try again

Can't believe this thread has gone on this long without somebody telling you how full of shit you are. Reagan lied his ass off and got caught big time.

Uh no he didnt.
But nice try.

 

[Camp]

Reagan did not spend the weeks following the Beirut bombing lying about what caused it.

Fail.

Owned.

Are you a liar or just as stupid as the other guy making that dumb ass claim?

 

[The T]

If only we could return to sanity and cut the political witch hunts.

There were more than enough opportunities to lay blame for the horrific losses at high U.S. officials' feet. But unlike today's Congress, congressmen did not talk of impeaching Ronald Reagan, who was then President, nor were any subpoenas sent to cabinet members. This was true even though then, as now, the opposition party controlled the majority in the House. Tip O'Neill, the Democratic Speaker of the House, was no pushover. He, like today's opposition leaders in the House, demanded an investigation -- but a real one, and only one. Instead of playing it for political points, a House committee undertook a serious investigation into what went wrong at the barracks in Beirut. Two months later, it issued a report finding "very serious errors in judgment" by officers on the ground, as well as responsibility up through the military chain of command, and called for better security measures against terrorism in U.S. government installations throughout the world.

In other words, Congress actually undertook a useful investigation and made helpful recommendations. The report's findings, by the way, were bipartisan. (The Pentagon, too, launched an investigation, issuing a report that was widely accepted by both parties.)

First it was Bush. Now it's Reagan.


Deflect much Nancy Boy?

These rat fuckers are getting desperate now, aren't they?