Reagan's Benghazi

[The Rabbi]

That is not the point. If you had any real consistency to your outrage then the previous administrations and their lies and trumped phony intelligence information would have someone like you screaming still.
But I have never seen anything even close.
It is always one sided.

First you don't know if I am or not but it is fun to see how your type forget the past and then bitch like hell about this because of who he is. It is that simple. Everything that happens in this administration pisses your type off. Yet the previous administrations(REP) seem to get a pass. You know like the Iran Contra lie from Reagan and who took the fall. Just one of many.
When you come to some consensus that one of your saviors has the same faults. Maybe you will see the fake hatred you have built.

So are you outraged that Obama lied about this? Yes or no.

You're deflecting.

Are you not outraged at Obama and his administration lying to you about this incident? A simple yes or no.

 

[TooTall]

All too true. But the modern-day RW of the Republican Party doesn't care about what's true and what isn't true, or about what's right or what's wrong. They only care about regaining power. And any and all tactics that they believe will aid them in that effort, even if it's not demonstrably true, is a perfectly fine avenue of attack in order to pursue their agenda.

Nixon was held accountable for his lies, Clinton was held accountable for his, obama should be held accountable for his.

The hypocrisy of you libs is amazing. Your blind adoration of obama is a form of mental illness.

I said MODERN-DAY conservatives. A lot has changed in 40 plus years. In Nixon's day, Republicans supported him until real evidence started piling up. Then they withdrew their support.

Also in those days, and as late as the Clinton era, Congressional Democrats stood up do Presidents who were Democrats and refused to rubber stamp their agenda going so far as to holding hearings that were exercises in the Congressional check and balance of power to which you referred.

That has all changed in recent years as a Republican Congress gave a wink and a nod to abuses during the Bush administration which they did not hold hearings about or bother to investigate.

Likewise, during the Clinton years, Republicans engaged in non stop investigations and used Ken Starr as a 4th branch of gov't that was essentially accountable to no one.

Today, it's only more so. Republicans have taken the 'end-justifies-the-means' attitude toward President Obama because they now are willing to yell fire when there isn't even any smoke.

Obama told us that we could keep our doctor under Obamacare. That was the lie of the year. What makes you think that is the only lie he told?

 

[boilermaker55]

It seems that is what you are doing and you do it quite well. Deflect from the fact you have never been outraged about similar incidents because it doesn't center around this administration.
SO take it as you will. And do your best to try and hide what you are trying to say.

That is not the point. If you had any real consistency to your outrage then the previous administrations and their lies and trumped phony intelligence information would have someone like you screaming still.
But I have never seen anything even close.
It is always one sided.

So are you outraged that Obama lied about this? Yes or no.

You're deflecting.

Are you not outraged at Obama and his administration lying to you about this incident? A simple yes or no.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Another one sided phony outraged right winger.

Nixon was held accountable for his lies, Clinton was held accountable for his, obama should be held accountable for his.

The hypocrisy of you libs is amazing. Your blind adoration of obama is a form of mental illness.

Indeed, typical Nazi behavior on the left. Deflect, deflect, deflect and then deflect some more.

Nixon lied about Watergate and was forced to resign. Clinton lied and was impeached (although the bastard skated).

When do we hold this THUG accountable for HIS bullshit? WHEN!?!?

3 words for you, Nazi - Go To Hell.

 

[The Rabbi]

It seems that is what you are doing and you do it quite well. Deflect from the fact you have never been outraged about similar incidents because it doesn't center around this administration.
SO take it as you will. And do your best to try and hide what you are trying to say.

That is not the point. If you had any real consistency to your outrage then the previous administrations and their lies and trumped phony intelligence information would have someone like you screaming still.
But I have never seen anything even close.
It is always one sided.

You're deflecting.

Are you not outraged at Obama and his administration lying to you about this incident? A simple yes or no.

No, you dont get it. The topic here is Obama's lie about Benghazi. You want to discuss other incidents, start a thread. This topic is about Obama's lies about Benghazi.

So are you not outraged that the president lied to the American people, for weeks, even though he knew the truth? And he didnt do it for national security or other legitimate reasons but to bolster his own re-election campaign.
Is this not making you angry? Are you not outraged?

 

[American Horse]

Show us the report or whatever that backs up his claim that the truck had to go through a series of barricades. Otherwise just look up any source, military, congressional, news media. They all expose that lie. But the big lie was the one about the Marines firing on the terrorist. Under Reagan's command the Marine sentries and force protection were ordered to carry unloaded weapons. Ronald Reagan sent Marines into an active combat zone with specific orders to not carry loaded weapons. He specifically lied about Marines firing on the truck bomber. The Marines never got off a shot. He attempted to cover up his negligence by claiming otherwise.

As a former US Marine of that era or just before - it was SOP that Marines not have ammo in barracks but when they are at a (guard) duty post - just as if they were and do in combat - they carried loaded weapons and ammo.

I believe it would have been almost a dereliction of duty for the guards to not get off a round if they had time.

Very few military personnel carry loaded weapons but guards and escorts do.

I think there is a misreading of the standing orders that were in effect.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It seems that is what you are doing and you do it quite well. Deflect from the fact you have never been outraged about similar incidents because it doesn't center around this administration.
SO take it as you will. And do your best to try and hide what you are trying to say.

You're deflecting.

Are you not outraged at Obama and his administration lying to you about this incident? A simple yes or no.

No, you dont get it. The topic here is Obama's lie about Benghazi. You want to discuss other incidents, start a thread. This topic is about Obama's lies about Benghazi.

So are you not outraged that the president lied to the American people, for weeks, even though he knew the truth? And he didnt do it for national security or other legitimate reasons but to bolster his own re-election campaign.
Is this not making you angry? Are you not outraged?

There is no outrage on the left. Obama is fading fast and these Nazis will do and say ANYTHING to attempt to deflect from this clowns "legacy". He is an incompetent slob and they know it.

Obama was running for re-election and, for him, this was his "inconvenient truth" that he had to hide from or face being ousted. His Nazi cohorts covered it up. That is it, pure and simple. Now the half-breed refuses to accept any part in it. Typical.

 

[PredFan]

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

You've been told hundreds of times nit wit.

 

[Dot Com]

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.)

yabut they were Repubs

Seriously though, Repub foreign policy disasters are magnitues worse than anything 44 has undertaken. Lebanon, Iraq, Central America, etc...

 

[The Rabbi]

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.)

yabut they were Repubs

Seriously though, Repub foreign policy disasters are magnitues worse than anything 44 has undertaken. Lebanon, Iraq, Central America, etc...

Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam.
Yeah, tell us all about it.

 

[Camp]

YOU made a statement. POST the proof or shut up. Plain, simple.

Look up Marine barracks bombing Beirut you dumb ass. Use wikipedia or any other source. They all include the unloaded weapons and lack of barricades. What kind of proof do you want from me? Every history from any half way reliable source about the incident includes that information. You got a problem with the Reagan speech? Think I doctored it? I gave the date and title of the speech. Look it up yourself.

I'll tell the story yet again. The INSTALLATION COMMANDER was responsible for the unloaded weapons. He was following SOP from the State Department. Blame Reagan if you must - he WAS the CIC. But that opens Barry up to shoulder the blame for Benghazi - it's tit for tat. So, if Reagan must posthumously accept blame for Beirut, Why must not Barry do the same?

I was at that very Barracks 3 weeks before the attack on unrelated DOD business. I am very aware of that tragic situation.

The point is that Reagan lied about the barriers and difficulty the terrorist had getting to the barracks when all he did was drive up a driveway, through and open gate that Reagan called a chain link fence (it was a chain link fence, with an open gate), easily ran over some concertina wire and a flimsy booth and directly through the front doors. No shots were ever fired at the bomber the way Reagan told the nation.
Does this have anything to do with Obama? No, absolutely nothing to do with Obama or Benghazi. It just means Reagan fucked up and lied to keep it covered up.

 

[The Rabbi]

Look up Marine barracks bombing Beirut you dumb ass. Use wikipedia or any other source. They all include the unloaded weapons and lack of barricades. What kind of proof do you want from me? Every history from any half way reliable source about the incident includes that information. You got a problem with the Reagan speech? Think I doctored it? I gave the date and title of the speech. Look it up yourself.

I'll tell the story yet again. The INSTALLATION COMMANDER was responsible for the unloaded weapons. He was following SOP from the State Department. Blame Reagan if you must - he WAS the CIC. But that opens Barry up to shoulder the blame for Benghazi - it's tit for tat. So, if Reagan must posthumously accept blame for Beirut, Why must not Barry do the same?

I was at that very Barracks 3 weeks before the attack on unrelated DOD business. I am very aware of that tragic situation.

The point is that Reagan lied about the barriers and difficulty the terrorist had getting to the barracks when all he did was drive up a driveway, through and open gate that Reagan called a chain link fence (it was a chain link fence, with an open gate), easily ran over some concertina wire and a flimsy booth and directly through the front doors. No shots were ever fired at the bomber the way Reagan told the nation.
Does this have anything to do with Obama? No, absolutely nothing to do with Obama or Benghazi. It just means Reagan fucked up and lied to keep it covered up.

Did he blame a video so he could get re-elected?
Oops, looks like the faux equivalence fails again.

There is simply no precedent for what Obama did: lying about a national security matter to bolster his re-election. Almost 200 years of presidents and not one was sufficiently pathological to do that. Even LBJ. Makes you wonder.

 

[westwall]

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

yabut they were Repubs

Seriously though, Repub foreign policy disasters are magnitues worse than anything 44 has undertaken. Lebanon, Iraq, Central America, etc...

Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam.
Yeah, tell us all about it.

You forgot Korea.

 

[The T]

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

yabut they were Repubs

Seriously though, Repub foreign policy disasters are magnitues worse than anything 44 has undertaken. Lebanon, Iraq, Central America, etc...

Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam.
Yeah, tell us all about it.

Add Egypt and Syria to the leftist failures, in particular Obama's failures.
And John F'Ing Kerry is about to add Israel and Palestine.

 

[Dot Com]

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

yabut they were Repubs

Seriously though, Repub foreign policy disasters are magnitues worse than anything 44 has undertaken. Lebanon, Iraq, Central America, etc...

Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam.
Yeah, tell us all about it.

so now Obama had troops in Vietnam too You Repub voters are funny

 

[The T]

yabut they were Repubs

Seriously though, Repub foreign policy disasters are magnitues worse than anything 44 has undertaken. Lebanon, Iraq, Central America, etc...

Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam.
Yeah, tell us all about it.

so now Obama had troops in Somalia & Vietnam too You Repub voters are funny

Not what he meant shitstain. DEMOCRAT Failures.

 

[Dot Com]

Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam.
Yeah, tell us all about it.

so now Obama had troops in Somalia & Vietnam too You Repub voters are funny

Not what he meant shitstain. DEMOCRAT Failures.

he was replying to my quote I said "anything Obama had undertaken". Reading is not your strong suit either eh

 

[The T]

so now Obama had troops in Somalia & Vietnam too You Repub voters are funny

Not what he meant shitstain. DEMOCRAT Failures.

he was replying to my quote I said "anything Obama had undertaken". Reading is not your strong suit either eh

YOU know damned WELL as did I what he meant DotDork.

 

[Dot Com]

Here you go T. You "stepped in it" again

yabut they were Repubs

Seriously though, Repub foreign policy disasters are magnitues worse than anything 44 has undertaken. Lebanon, Iraq, Central America, etc...

Bosnia, Somalia, Vietnam.
Yeah, tell us all about it.

so Obama was involved in Vietnam. Do tell

 

[Camp]

Show us the report or whatever that backs up his claim that the truck had to go through a series of barricades. Otherwise just look up any source, military, congressional, news media. They all expose that lie. But the big lie was the one about the Marines firing on the terrorist. Under Reagan's command the Marine sentries and force protection were ordered to carry unloaded weapons. Ronald Reagan sent Marines into an active combat zone with specific orders to not carry loaded weapons. He specifically lied about Marines firing on the truck bomber. The Marines never got off a shot. He attempted to cover up his negligence by claiming otherwise.

As a former US Marine of that era or just before - it was SOP that Marines not have ammo in barracks but when they are at a (guard) duty post - just as if they were and do in combat - they carried loaded weapons and ammo.

I believe it would have been almost a dereliction of duty for the guards to not get off a round if they had time.

Very few military personnel carry loaded weapons but guards and escorts do.

I think there is a misreading of the standing orders that were in effect.

The point is is that it was a dereliction of duty. The Marines were there as Peacekeepers and technically under UN control. The UN, with US approval and acceptance implemented rules of engagement that called for weapons to be carried at level four, no magazines inserted or rounds chambered. Proper security barriers were not installed to give the impression of a non hostile appearance. Heavy weapons that had the ability to stop a truck were not even installed as decorations.