There Were 13 Benghazis During Bush Administration!

Yeah, I posted that yesterday. Helluva deal, ain't it? It's a shame Republicans feel they have to accuse people of the same f-ups they themselves have done so many times before. Another recent example are the accusations Boehner & McConnell are making against the IRS and Obama when the IRS under Republican presidents did the exact same thing to the NAACP and Greenpeace among others. What a bunch of poofters.

 

Were there accusations against the president and congressional hearings and investigations? Don't believe there were. Btw, it was BUSH who took $450,000 out of the embassy security fund, not Obama. Obie fought to get part of it back. Benghazi is on Republican heads, as were all 13 of the embassy attacks during the Bush tenure.

 

Hey, you remember that one time when Bush was warned of an impending terror attack involving airliners and he didn't do anything? Good thing nothing ended up...oh wait...

And Bush didn't go to bed, he just sat their reading a book to children while thousands of Americans were dying. Seven minutes. Seven. Minutes.




And that was just the beginning of his F-ups.

 

As Rummy liked to say (and I paraphrase because I'm too lazy to look it up) "We are the world's only superpower. We make our own reality. You can read about tomorrow."

 

I'm sorry if this has been posted already. The article in the OP is easily defeated. It says in part:

Regardless of the obvious fallacy of comparing the Sep 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi to a car bomb in Pakistan, the OP complains that foxnews never mentioned the attack that killed David Foy as well as others. Here is the original AP story on foxnews. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186555,00.html and two other stories mentioning the same attack. http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008Jan01/0,4675,USDiplomatsKilledGlance,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008Mar05/0,4675,PakistanUSDiplomatKilling,00.html.
I'm sure I could go find fox stories on the other attacks mentioned but having already proved (once again) that huffpost lies, I see no reason to continue.

 

Well I'm speaking specifically to those using a comparison with Bush as a defense of Obama. If you criticize Bush for x, and defend Obama by saying he didn't do x quite as much as Bush, that's hypocritical.

I haven't seen/heard many people who actually just pointed out stuff about Bush purely as a way of criticizing birthers. I've heard some use it as a way to criticize Tea Partiers, but you're the first I've heard use it to criticize, or mention use of it to criticize, birthers.

 

Your comparing Bush's 7 minutes when he had a chain of command that was dealing with things with Obama's 4 hours of his chain of command saying stand down. Something is wrong with that comparison.

 

Bush lied about everything, just like Fox and talk radio.

You have no proof that Obama lied.

Within the big picture, Benghazi is a huge pile of Republican BS. And it hurts the country, which is what the Republicans do.

Except that they always help the richest 1%.

 

We can only be led to believe that at the time the Progressive Left was not interested in the attacks, or the deaths of Americans.

 

You want proof that Obama lied immediately after lying and saying Bush lied about everything. Just damn.

 

The author of the HuffPo article cited in the OP says the media "totally ignored" the 13 attacks during the Bush administration. "Barely reported" would have been more accurate, I agree. But the thrust of the point, that the media and particularly the RW media is going haywire over this attack, when the 13 attacks under the Bush administration barely got mention.

 

Of course all the Pinnochio's WAPO has issued on Obama statements must be ignored to justify that statement.

 

Just like we can only be led to believe that at the time the Reactionary Right was not interested in the 13 attacks, or the deaths of Americans, during the Bush administration.

Right?

 

Did any of those 13 attacks take 7 hours and did our chain of command refuse to send reinforcements when requested?

 

That didn't happen here. But so what? Scores of brave and heroic Americans died under 13 separate attacks under Bush's watch.

Yet the RW propaganda media didn't demand investigations into those and put them front and center night after night.

 

Certainly it was the responsibility of the opposition to bring things like this to the forefront, which they obviously did not do. Too late to close the barn door on the ineptness of the Left in not doing their job then. BTW can you find any similar circumstances that Bush claimed they weren't terrorist attacks but demonstrations about bogus videos?

 

I got it. Since the Left didn't waste our time an energy on politically driven witch hunts, its OK for the right wing to do it.

 

Oh come on. There were reports of car bombs and suicide bombers practically every day. 9-12-2006
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2006/0...ils-attack-on-us-embassy-al-qaeda-group-eyed/


6-14-2002
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,55281,00.html


3-2-2006
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,186555,00.html


9-17-2008
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,423823,00.html


5/12/2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/05/13/recent-terror-attacks-in-saudi-arabia/

I guess this guy, Bob, didn't get the "what difference does it make?" talking point memo.

- - - Updated - - -o.

 

Do you want to compare the total number of articles reporting those attacks with the total number on Bengazi?

Shoot, I'll just use only the Fox articles on Bengazi and take the bet.

 

Have you posted even one attack that was comparable to Benghazi? Most of these are car bombs that didn't kill Americans. None of them were called a "demonstration that got out of hand". I've already proved the article lied. Now, you want hundreds of articles about one car bomb. If the proportion of articles is out of balance, there's a reason for it.

How many articles on a single car bomb were on nytimes.com? I find over 36,000 hits when I search benghazi in the last 12 months. http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/benghazi/365days/

Find something else to post. This article was written purely for the leftists who never check facts, but instead believe everything fed to them by their favorite sources.

 

The RW has always had a philosophy that the ends justify the means (poison and kill if it'll make you a profit), and if you do something, no matter how wrong, illegal or immoral, if no one notices, then it's OK.

(And if someone does notice, just cry like a baby about it on the television)

 

Yes it was a vote for war and your Secretary of State voted for it, but as the traitor he is he did so with the deliberate intent to turn against his vote should the law be used as it was worded.

You are not allowed to have hindsight or to puke because of what Robert Byrd said. You are only allowed to call your Democrats (that voted for it and claimed it was not a vote for war) traitors.

It does no good to tell you to read it:

“Specific statutory authorization.—Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.”

“SEC. 5. (b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.”

“SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred-- (1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution; or”

If you give someone the power of attorney to give your crap away, and they give your crap away, I am saying you gave your crap a way.

Try and get this one more time, I am sick of traitors of the Democratic ilk distorting the facts; the Biden and Luger amendment limiting the authorization to WMD did NOT PASS because it was a WAR ON TERRORISM:

"...Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups..." http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

“I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.” (TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002)

“Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections.” (TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR October 9, 2002)

Just because that traitor put a yellow stained Post-it-Note on the law, saying why he was voting for it, does not make that Post-it-Note a legal document.

 

13 attacks and over 60 dead is far worse than Bengazi. I've already proved how the article was spot on about how the media ignored the events when Bush was president but is making a big thing about it now. There is a reason the articles are out of balance. The RW propaganda media is doing what it does best.

That's right. 36,000 articles on Bengazi alone. My guess is you won't find 1/100th that on the 13 attacks during the Bush administration.

Find something else to post. Your dismissal of the valid point the article made is proven wrong by the facts.

 

It's funny how the “liberal” media has ignored arrests and allegations of auto theft, arson, intimidation, and weapons violations against Republican Benghazi chairman Issa. http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/01/11/report-media-ignore-rep-issas-alleged-criminal/174997

Is any more proof of the extreme media bias in FAVOR OF REPUBLICANS needed?

Or of the idiocy of Republicans in making this guy the chairman of the HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE, for God's sake!!?

 

All that simply reinforces my position that the vote gave Bush authority to use military force (if diplomacy failed). The decision to use force, and what force to use, was made by Bush.

If you give someone the power of attorney to preserve your assets, and they give your crap away, I am saying that they made the decision to give your crap away.

There was not vote for war. That is historical fabrication trying to blame the Democrats for the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up war you traitors got us into.

WOT =/= invading and occupying Iraq. That's just silly.

Smart guy.

Spot on. Exactly what I'm saying.

Just because the traitor Bush and his traitor apologists and the traitor neocons got us into that (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up war based on fabrications and deceptions is no reason to blame the Dems for it. Except as I've stated, you can in hindsight blame them for trusting the traitor Bush and his traitor apologists and the traitor neocons.