There Were 13 Benghazis During Bush Administration!

I can’t hear you!

The Nation is currently infected with the Obamanation-Election-Stealing-Cover-Up virus preventing important information from getting to the people for informed decisions.

PS. Any mealy-mouthed Republican or Ron Pod that says the election was not stolen is a traitor and worse than Hitler.

 

I don't know about the divine part.....but the comedy aspect of your nick is right on.

 

There I was hanging out and drinking with liberals who wear disgusting good bush and bad bush t-shirts and then one morning BOOM, Islam happened, next thing I know ItsABeautifulDay is crying that Skeptical called him a Neo-con, and I didn’t know what it was but I thought it sounded dirty.

God it was a nightmare. If Al Gore had been elected “Al Quacka Determined To Strike in US” would never have happened; like a magic bean this never happened:

“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.” http://www.politicalforum.com/unite...ical-arm-democratic-party.html#post1062612244

You would think the bright bulb who does game theory on ways to contain scary Iranians (like Clinton with half a million deaths in Iraq) would understand the flypaper theory with regard to the bug hunt and expect that where your stink is the bugs will buzz around. Their book says, “Besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush,” it doesn’t say just “protracted blockade.” You would think Barry would remember something from school.

Then again the constitutional law professor doesn’t know the definition of “ex post facto”:

"We need to help struggling borrowers to weather this storm. One way to protect innocent homeowners - at least until this crisis passes - is to establish a fund to help people refinance or sell to avoid foreclosure. We can partially pay for this fund by imposing penalties on lenders that acted irresponsibly or committed fraud."

How many times did Liberals post their version of this with a picture of Rummy?

“It is time to turn the page. When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.” (Remarks of Senator Barack Obama The War We Need to Win Wednesday, August 1, 2007)
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/obamasp0807.pdf

“we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;” http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

After ten thousand times of that being shoved in my face… EAT IT “LIBERALS”

Liberals were screaming that Neo-cons were challenging regimes hostile to our interests and values, like Chicken Little, but waging war to restore our values?

I know why the Liberal brain doesn’t get the Wilson Center strategy, he used semicolons. Semicolons like in UN 242 usually cause Liberal head veins to pulsate.

“Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;”

Because there is a semicolon to the Liberal that becomes this:

Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict. {period}

I am serious, what we are dealing with here is liberal brain damage. Some English teacher early on had to come up with some convoluted diagraming to make a semicolon function in a liberal way, and in the process the “Liberal” was born.

See, this is as far as a Liberal gets when reading the Wilson Center strategy:

“When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan. {period}

 

Wait Bush went to war without congressional support? Is that your stance? Yes or no.

 

No.
.........

 

Thanks for disproving your other post with your own words.

 

I did no such thing. Nice try.

 

Translation: Of course there were not 13 Benghazis when Bush was president. How about I kick and scream and deny Obama withheld support that was pleaded for? A big enough stink would make for yet another desperately needed distraction.

 

You said and I quote "Not one Democrat voted for war"
I then said..
"Wait Bush went to war without congressional support? Is that your stance? Yes or no."
You replied
"No."
It wasnt a "nice try" it was an easy illustration of winning an argument. Handily.

 

You didn't illustrate anything of the sort, sorry.

I never claimed any "stance" as to whether Bush went to war with or without congressional approval. I don't deny that the Republicans who controlled Congress supported Bush going to war, and maybe some Dems did too.

That in no way contradicts my point that not one Democrat voted for war, which is absolutely true.

 

George Bush sought congressional authorization, got it, (would you like the votes of the dems who voted yes?) and it was signed into law.
AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

[[Page 116 STAT. 1498]]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

 

Of course they didn't block everything or else America would be better off than we are. Go ahead, take your heads out of the sand and examine the state of our nation. And remember it. Because the time will come when a Republican is in the Oval Office and you Libs will be ragging on the Republican POTUS simply because you want to play your favorite game...tit-for-tat!

We are ragging on Obama because he has done a terrible job. Not because of political reasons.

Just make sure you remember this advisory message.

We were not playing politics here. We really think Obama has been an awful president.

 

Sorry but there was no one Benghzi style attack on an American embassy during the Bush administration. At no time was a US embassy besieged for 7 hours complete with mortar and RPG fire while Bush sat on his hand and did nothing.

 

Heavy sigh. I've been reading the posts and some posters make me remember my mother when she would get into an argument with someone who absolutely would not change his mind or even see the other person's point of view. At that time she would throw up her hands, roll her eyes and say "It's like trying to talk Horsesense to a Jackass!

 

Pretty funny. Made me LOL!

 

Ha ha - there's an old Middle Eastern proverb, goes kinda like this: "If one person call you a jackass, ignore him. If seven people call you a jackass, buy a saddle and go into business".

 

I concede I should have said "withheld" rather than "withdrawn". Other than that, the post stands.

 

Name the American diplomats killed.

 

That's why we elected 69 of them to replace Democrats in 2010.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Prove that president "made an active decision to withhold support"

 

Well aware of it. Passed 5 months before Bush decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

Please quote the language from that says it is a resolution to declare or go to war against Iraq.

 

The moment he became inactive.

 

What would your mother said when the other person in the argument would simply fabricate things?

 

The fact that he hasn't fired the person who did make that decision to tell the troops to "stand down" makes him look guilty.

 

Every single one that voted for this voted for WAR:

“SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
Appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) 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.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.” http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

"Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338 ) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;" (ibid)


What is wrong with you people?