Bob Woodward Doesn’t Buy Hillary’s Benghazi Denial

you're projecting your own situation

 

Nope, Its a fact.

 

you might want to review the definition of 'fact'

 

Wrong and you lost that argument in 1998 and 2003.

Once again go listen to the prospective Democrat nominee for President explain it to you why the war was necessary. And if you disagree then go on record that you will not vote or support her.

You can skip to about 6:30

[video=youtube;HtK9AzcU42g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtK9AzcU42g[/video]

 

Excuse me, religious ideologues caused those 2 wars. Dems are the party that pretended they didn't for 8 years. And it has damaged America.

 

No, you lost that argument and you just lost it again.....

- - - Updated - - -

Who ordered the invasions?

 

You mean the US counterattacks? Saddam ordered the missile attack on Israel after we invaded for ideological reasons, and in a deeper sense, his invasion of Kuwait was an act meant to oppose the West by seeking more control of the oil flows out of the Middle East. Bin Laden ordered 9/11 for ideological reasons. The Ayatollah ordered the arming of the Palestinians and for them to resist Israel, again, for ideological reasons. Iran also helped radical Muslims fight the US in both Iraq and Afghan for the same ideological reasons. Radical Muslims have forced all citizens of the world to pay for massive airport security through a systematic campaign of hijackings and bombings (many sanctioned by Muslim govt leaders). And radical Muslims killed our ambassador and 3 others in Benghazi, for the same reasons as all of the above.

All of these are acts of war. And they are all based on the same religious view. Radical Muslims ordered the invasions. For decades now. Bush just responded to them.

 

Yeah, the counter attacks,that's good, I see the court granted your divorce from Reality....

Bush was just responding to the Benghazi attacks.....I have to say, that is the first time I have heard that.....brilliant!

 

The reality is that Islamic leaders of various governments have been working hand in hand with terrorists around the world for decades, in order to oppose US interests in the region. After their radicals have gained control of most of the governments of the Middle East, and especially when Saudi falls to them, the US is going to be in a very dangerous position. And laugh it up, Bush was responding to the principles behind the Benghazi attack. They were the same as the principles behind 9/11.

 

The principal cause of the 9/11 attacks was that uniformed US forces occupied the homeland of the attackers.
99% of suicide attacks are launched by people from a country which is occupied by the military of target country.

 

Incorrect, the uniformed US forces were invited everywhere where they were stationed; they weren't and are not occupying anything. Bandits with a religious cause said we were occupying. Are we listening to every thug with a gun and/or a bomb now to dictate our foreign policy?

 

You don't really believe that, do you?m

 

the attackers say that's the reason, what else would it be?

 

Because they are simply opposed to our culture and the freedoms we enjoy. They simply object to our way of life. The fact that we are nation open to people of all race, color and creed.

 

what a joke, they don't care what we do as long as we stay out of their countries

 

And the Westboro Church protests at soldiers' funerals because they say God is not on our side in these wars (and he hates gays). But we all know the real reason they are protesting: they are religiously insane. We know Bin Laden said that our occupation (in his mind) of Saudi, etc. was the reason he attacked. But it is not the real reason! The real reason is because they are religiously insane people who seek power to control the destinies of the people of the Middle East.

 

We are occupying Saudi Arabia? When did that happen?

 

Note the parenthesis.

 

so are fundamentalist christians

if we hadn't had troops in the middle east, 911 wouldn't have happened

[video=youtube;LACyLTsH4ac]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac[/video]

 

If we don't have troops in the Middle East, we leave the control of the oil flow up to religious zealots in the short term, and China and Russia in the long term. Like it or not, the world has based their lives around oil. A major interruption will tank modern economies, and cause widespread death and chaos in third world countries. We going to risk that because a group of guys' religion says we aren't allowed on their soil? You think they are going to stop with troops? No, once they are gone, so are all Western oil experts, refinery workers, tanker captains and crew, businessmen, and diplomats. You think our gas is going to magically appear for us? It takes a system to allow our way of life, and a lot of people working in that system. I'm not ready to throw it out for the likes of these Taliban, AQ, and Ayatollahs.

 

So the data that shows that 99% of suicide attacks are launched by people whose homeland is being occupied by the uniformed military of the target nation is wrong, sometimes religious extremists (in whose Homeland US troops have been invited) attack the US for reasons related to religious extremism.....and the presence of the US military is merely coincidental...despite what the attackers may believe....

You need to get the terms straight...
When an oppressive government invites foreign troops to occupy it, especially a government imposed by a foreign power, that's called "occupation", when the government does not invite the troops, as in Iraq, those troops are called "foreign invaders".
If the foreign troops are fighting other foreign troops who invaded the land first, as in the case of D-Day in France, the may be called "Liberators", in some cases.

 

What that US troops were occupying the Arabian homeland prior to 9/11?
That is an undisputed fact...isn't it?

That 99% of suicide attackers attack targets that belong to a nation whose uniformed forces occupy their homeland, that comes from a database of all suicide attacks.

So what part don't you believe?

I should add, the attacks are nearly always directed at a democracy.....there is a logic involved...

 

and Carney never lied...hahahahahahhahahaha

- - - Updated - - -

well, if we acted more like a Republic than a Democracy, maybe we wouldn't be dealing with the bomb loving Muslims, eh?

 

I just wonder how much moola and time was exhausted in trailblazing
focus groups and paid experts in crafting these supposed expedient
talking pts. to bolster Hillary's line of excuses along with her book.
A form of - The Audacity of Hope -{2006} !!
This entire approach has already been done { for Obama in 2007/2008}
and is maddeningly inappropriate.We do not erect false gods in this time period.
Leftists and practicing Marxist/Englelist who studied Saul Alinsky methode
Like Hillary and Obama have been found out.

" The rich will do everything for the poor except get off their backs. "
-- Karl Marx

Seems overwhelmingly obvious to even the most casual of observer that :
Both Obama and Hillary will do everything for americans but get off their backs.

 

Is that just a throw away line?
Or do you have a substantive criticism of US foreign policy you want to share ?