True, there were attacks on embassies during Bush's presidency but there
were no cover-ups, no stonewalling and no deceit from the White House like we
Roland,Agree. Consistency is all I ask for. You also left off
9/11. Can you imagine if that had happened 8 months after Obama had been
inaugurated? It is also worth noting that the Left did not
collectively make a big political deal over embassy attacks under Bush. These
things are unfortunate, but they do happen. And they happen regardless of who
runs the show. And they will happen in the future. The left understands
that.And if the media does not focus on it 24/7 as Fox news does,
they are branded as liberal media.Bottom line? The right has
nothing better to elevate to a political sledgehammer.
It's not stonewalling when you demand information that isn't
available, demand answers that are unanswerable and lie that Obama didn't
say it was terrorism.Republicans can still answer a LOT of questions
about 9/11 if you really want to go there.
The right needs something to whine about.
@ Screwdriver. There is plenty of information available about Benghazi, its just
not allowed to come out because it makes your President look bad and affronts
his massive ego as the man who thinks he destroyed Al Qaida.
Hypocracy plain and simple. All precedence was thrown out the window on Jan. 20
@Mountanman,You're wrong. I destroyed al-Qaeda when I was in
Iraq looking for Saddam Hussein. The mission was "accomplished" aboard
an aircraft carrier while I was there.
There were no "cover ups" because nobody jumped on television in the
middle of the attack and started to scream about Presidential incompentency.
There was no "cover up" because as Joe Blow said the left wasn't
concerned whether the perpetrators were called terrorists, killers, mad men, or
para military. What we called them wasn't....and still isn't the
issue. Trust me the left understands the importance between a flash mob that
gets out of hand, and an organized attack. We get it. An organized attack has
the possibility of re-appearing somewhere, sometime. Obama and the state
department get it also, and have demonstarted that numerous times. PS..the left didn't even block Condelessa Rices nomination after she had
lied about Iraqs nuclear capabilities, and everyone knew that wasn't true.
@ CHS; You must mean when "I" killed bin Laden. Not the Navy seals, but
"I". Nice try but as President Bush correctly said, this is a different
kind of enemy not a single country, but an ideology that exists in many
countries, including Iraq. Why do you demand and accept so little from Obama and
demand so much from everyone else?
Roland,you missed the point - as do CHS85,ugattabekiddn,ranchhand,
screwdriver, and Joeblow.the big scandal is the lies from the WH
about the attacks, that it was all the result of a video that had been out
months before the attacks even occured. But I guess you all are
perfectly fine when BO lies to you.We have been attacked before, and
unfortunately will likely be attacked again.Another scandal was the
refusal of BO's state department to enhance security there, despite the
repeated pleas from those on the ground.But go ahead, leave your
heads in the sand - after all, it's all bush's fault.
Because the Bush administration didn't blame those embassy attacks on some
guy in the US who made a movie.Because the ambassador was killed in
Benghazi and not in Baghdad.Because the news media took great effort
to assist the president just before an election.Please get off your
high horse. Any "politicizing" the Republicans do pales in significance
to the Democrats did with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm still
waiting for the President to follow through with his first campaign promise to
close Guantanamo. Plenty of Democrats say that Bush "started" two wars.
"True, there were attacks on embassies during Bush's presidency but
there were no cover-ups, no stonewalling and no deceit "Really?Perhaps not as a result of embassy attacks, but what about
WMD's and claiming that Sadam had a hand in planning them?There
is a psychological phenomenon called "projection" in which a person
transfers some of his own characteristics to someone else. Are Mountainman and
others posting here using projection to try to transfer blame from Bush, Reagan,
and other right wing "heroes" to Obama?
If Benghazi was Obama's fault, 9-11-2001 was Bush's fault.
The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," had
been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant
information about domestic al Qaeda threats.Highlights of the report
include:An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that
al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to
carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to
intelligence and law enforcement agencies.An allegation that al
Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of
operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.An allegation that
bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through
early 2001.Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda
operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and
may have had a support network in the country. A report that at
least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda
cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.Rice
testified that the briefing included mostly "historical information" and
that most of the threat information known in the summer of 2001 referred to
CHS85--- pay NO attention to Mountaman.He [like 99% of
the other uber-Cons wishing for wars] is not a veteran, nor ever worn this
nation's uniform as you and I.Therefore, he not only
doesn't know what he is talking about, He has no right to be talking
about it.As as for no "cover-ups"...by Pres. Bush --- 6,000 dead Americans, $2 Trillion in un-paid war debt, and
I'm STILL waiting for someone - ANYONE - to produce or discover all those
"Weapons of Mass Destruction"!Good grief.Give it
wa rest AM radio listeners!
The left-wing should be condemned for its outright lies about the terrorist
attacks. Anyone who voted for the left-wing extremists should be condemned as
well for fostering this dishonesty.If it could, the left would
eliminate press coverage of this fiasco altogether. Indeed, the left knows that
there is no logical explanation for its colossal failure in handling this
situation, so it seeks to distract the public by using misdirection and red
herrings. Thank goodness that freedom of the press has not yet been fully
destroyed by the leftists in power.
Roland, I admire your courage in bringing up Benghazi. As the response
shows, it's become the main delivery system for the 'hate Obama
Roland,Please stop bringing up uncomfortable parallels. It upsets
some people.Here's something to think about, though. After the
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush declared a "war on
terror." In essence, he declared a war in response to what can best be
described as horrific criminal acts. And because of this "war" on
terror, we have fought two very real, very costly, and largely unsuccessful wars
(in terms of how things are or will be in those countries before and after our
involvement).If Bush had called them what they were--criminal
acts--and treated them as such, how many American soldiers would still be alive?
How much more money would we have to deal with our deficits?
Ah, and where would a DN forum be without John Charity Spring whining about
"left-wing extremists"?If there's any real evidence of
a conspiracy, let's see it. Otherwise, all you have is a sad attempt to
politicize the deaths of four Americans for the sake of sour grapes.
"The left-wing should be condemned for its outright lies about the terrorist
attacks.""the big scandal is the lies from the WH about the
attacks"Ok, lets assume this is correct for the sake of
discussion.It would have ALWAYS been known that the truth would soon
come out. So, what is the big scandal? What would have been the result had
Susan Rice had immediately said that it was probably a terrorist attack?Now, lets compare those ramifications to those of the Bush Admin
(Condoleezza Rice) that went public with known questionable information to
garner support for a war in Iraq that cost a Trillion+ dollars and thousands of
lives.Compare the two. You got your knickers in a bunch
over the wrong RICE.
LDS Liberal. We know that Saddam Hussein used WMD(nerve gas)on Kurdish rebels
inside Iraq. We know that the Syrian government is mixing Sarin nerve gas as we
speak to use on Syrian rebels. Do you think that just maybe, Syria got the WMD
from Saddam? And if it turns out to be fact that is it is exactly where the WMD
in Syria have come from, will you then admit that Bush was right? No, probably
JoeBlowFar East USA, SCRoland,You also left off 9/11.
Can you imagine if that had happened 8 months after Obama had been inaugurated?
=======I do.Beacsue reality and history has
already shown what he'd have done, He would have either used a cruise
missile or Navy SEAL team and took Osama Bin Laden out.Not
offesnively invade and ooccupy 2 non-agressive nor threatening soveriegn
counties.When will you guys ever admit Bush totally screwed up, and Obama finally killed who was actually responsible for 9/11? P.S. Obama has been cleaning up the 8 year Bush train wreck for only the
last 4 years.I think he's doing a GREAT job, despite the lack
of help - better yet, America's ENEMIES - the obstuctionists in our
How petulant for the left to tell us that because we were at war during
Bush's administration; because we were attacked; because people were killed
in those attacks; that Obama can lie to us; that Obama could watch the video of
the attacks as they unfolded; that Obama could send Ms. Rice to tell lies; that
Obama could lie to the U.N. when he blamed that "video" for the
attacks.When anyone distorts history for their "advantage",
they lose all credibility. When Obama opening and repeatedly lies to the
American people, he loses all credibility. When anyone blindly supports Obama,
ignoring the facts because the facts are unpleasant, they lose all
credibility.Obama watched the attack in real time, as it happened -
seven hours. He ignored the requests for assistance from a Navy Seal - who was
told to "stand down", but who gave his life to save the lives of 33
others. Obama lied about the attack. Obama sent people out to lie to us about
the attack. Obama jailed a film producer in California.That's
the truth, whether it hurts or not.
It's very interesting that Deseret News apparently has two standards
regarding what it call "offensive" posts.Three times,
I've tried to post a comment here that remarked about the dishonesty of the
Cheney / Bush administration, but it has been rejected.At the same
time, there are other comments aimed at Obama that were probably a bit more
"offensive" that were published.Hmmmm.
Mike, you completely (or conveniently) forget that Bush's "reasons"
for going to war with Iraq were based upon pure lies.WMDs?Saddam was involved in planning the attacks?Chemical weapons?Al Queda was headquartered in Iraq?May I submit that anyone
who repeats lies and pretends they are not lies is guilty of lying himself?
Mike, you wrote: "Obama watched the attack in real time, as it happened -
seven hours. He ignored the requests for assistance from a Navy Seal - who was
told to "stand down", but who gave his life to save the lives of 33
others. Obama lied about the attack. Obama sent people out to lie to us about
the attack. Obama jailed a film producer in California."Do you
have any documentation of those claims? Documentation from credible sources, so
Rush or Glenn or other rightwing extremist websites don't count.Give us some solid documentation.Because if you cannot, we need to
call those claims what they are. Are they lies, or are they something that can
One Old Man,The authorization for war against Iraq was passed
October 10, 2002 by the House, 296-122. It was passed by the Senate, October
11, 2011, 77-23. There were 223 Republicans in the House and 209
Democrats. There were 50 Republicans in the Senate, 48 Democrats and 1
Independent.Those people in Congress have the duty to oversee and to
authorize acts of war. Are you telling us that they mishandled their assigned
duty? Are you telling us that they voted without checking the facts; those
facts presented to them by the CIA; those facts that Clinton also accepted;
those facts that had been gathered during Clinton's administration and
during the first part of Bush's administration?Slanting history
is fraught with danger. How about letting history stand for itself?
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhen anyone distorts history
for their "advantage", they lose all credibility. When Obama (Romney)
opening and repeatedly lies to the American people, he loses all credibility.
When anyone blindly supports Obama (Romeny), ignoring the facts because the
facts are unpleasant, they lose all credibility.============ Mike -- Did it ever occur to you that you just explained perfectly
why Mitt Romney LOST the election.Granted, Pres. Obama has made some
mistakes, but he's not the Son of Perdition you make him out to
be.To be honest - former Pres. GW Bush has more "blood" on
his hands. and trampled the Constitution [that blankety-blank piece of paper as
he called it] more than any President in generations, yet you voted for him --
MountanmanHayden, IDTrue, there were attacks on embassies during
Bush's presidency but there were no cover-ups, no stonewalling and no
deceit from the White House like we see today.6:11 a.m. Dec. 6,
2012=============== Really?No cover-ups
Mountaman?You mean like United Flight 93 being shot down by US
fighter jets?I will not eve BEGIN to go into the Bush
"Conspiracy Theories", but you guys on the Right have self-made
and created an entire Industry around them for Obama and the Democrats.BTW - Yesterday we were talking about Commonalities.Here's one for
you:The only other group on planet Earth that makes up and believes
as many Conspiracy theories as the religous Christian ultra-conservative
zealots in America, are the religous Islamic ultra-conservatives
zealots in the Middle East. Beause when THEIR view of the world
doesn't seem to fit their reality, They change their realty to fit
their view of the world.and Conspiraracies in that world of make
believe play a vital role in balancing and expaling away those misconceptions
Some posters wrap themselves in the flag and claim that only they have a right
to speak. Did they forget the Obama never served in the military? Should Obama
keep his opinions to himself?Some posters pretend that they stood in
the voting booth with other posters and watched them vote - then they attack the
poster for doing his civic duty.Some posters tell us that Bush has
blood on his hands. Is there any President who has ever had to act as Commander
in Chief during times of war who could not be said to have "blood on his
hands"? Have none of our sons and daughters died while serving in the
military since 2008?Stating the facts and letting those facts stand
for what they are is unacceptable to those who want us to believe something
other than the truth.We have one President at a time. When he hides
behind Ms. Clinton and Ms. Rice, when he allows brave soldiers to die as those
soldiers call for help, when he lies to us about a "film", that
President should be "called out" for his ACTIONS.
To "Roland Kayser" the difference between Benghazi and the BUsh era
attacks is simple, so simple that you can understand.Benghazi
resulted in the death of a US ambassador. If that isn't enough of a reason
for you, then consider the fact that they troops on the ground requested help
and did not receive any eventhough help was in range. After Sandy Obama said
that we never leave our own stranded, which was ironic after the ambassador was
killed and never received the help requested.There were no
ambassadors killed in the attacks under Bush. Had an ambassador been killed,
the press would have destroyed Bush. However, the people who died at embassies
under Bush were guards doing their duty.
@ redshirt from the 1st line of the article "During the presidency of George
W. Bush, there were 12 attacks on U.S. embassies, resulting in 53
deaths."Redshirt said: There were no ambassadors killed in the
attacks under Bush. Had an ambassador been killed, the press would have
destroyed Bush. However, the people who died at embassies under Bush were guards
doing their duty.How many Guards lives =an ambassadors life?
Happy Valley HereticOrem, UT@ redshirt from the 1st line of the
article "During the presidency of George W. Bush, there were 12 attacks on
U.S. embassies, resulting in 53 deaths."Redshirt said: There
were no ambassadors killed in the attacks under Bush. Had an ambassador been
killed, the press would have destroyed Bush. However, the people who died at
embassies under Bush were guards doing their duty.How many Guards
lives =an ambassadors life?12:40 p.m. Dec. 6, 2012================= I cought the same thing!Ya -
RedShirt, Just How many "Guards" lives = an 1 ambassadors
life?That line could have come right out of the pig's mouth in
Animal Farm"...all animals are equal (some animals are just MORE equal
than others)!"Thanks for trampling the U.S. Constitution,
To "Happy Valley Heretic" and "Closed Minded Mormon" you
obviously know nothing about the military that guards the embassies. They
signed up knowing that they may have to put their lives on the line to protect
us soil (embassies are considered US territory). Ambassadors have not signed up
to die for their country. They are appointed to represent the US.It
isn't that life is less valuable, but the oaths that have been made.
Ambassadors do not swear to die for their country. Would you want to see the
President of the US personally cleaning the white house every week, or see
cleaning personnel working the whitehouse or setting up banquet rooms?
Different people, different jobs. In this case different oaths.If
that isn't enough, how many ambassadors have military training, and can
fight?Which is more tragic, a military person dying in the line of
duty, or a civilian dying while being protected by the military?
@RedShirt,"Which is more tragic, a military person dying in the
line of duty, or a civilian dying while being protected by the military?"===============Who says they cannot both be tragic? One may
certainly be more surprising, less common and shocking, but that does not make
it more tragic.Nothing in my oath I took as a solider indicated
dying for my country. I swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies
foreign and domestic (which may include dying), but a vast majority of soldiers
dutifully fulfill this oath without giving their lives. Ambassadors swear the
same oath with almost identical wording, as do civilian Federal Employees.
@redshirt "..you obviously know nothing about the military that guards the
embassies. They signed up knowing that they may have to put their lives on the
line to protect us soil (embassies are considered US territory)."Actually redshirt, it's you who clearly needs to do some research on
military guards at embassies.First, while embassies are considered
US soil, consulates are not. Behghazi was a US consulate...our Libyan embassy
is in Tripoli.Second, the marines on guard at Embassies are part of
the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group. Directly from their website, their
primary mission is: "...to prevent the compromise of classified material
vital to the national security of the United States.."Physical
security for Embassies and Consulates are typically provided by the host nation,
or in this case, through private contractors, not through uniformed US military.
"Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an
adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises
of the mission without permission of the represented country."
(Wikipedia)The TERRORISTS may not enter the premises of the mission.
The Ambassador had full diplomatic immunity from any action taken by the host
country.Obama watched at the host country allowed terrorists to
enter the consulate and he watched as our Ambassador's diplomatic immunity
was violated and then killed. He listened as a Navy Seal asked for military
support, a Navy Seal who was "painting" the target, at the peril of his
life, to guide our military to destroy the terrorist offense. Obama watched.
The Navy Seal died. The Ambassador died. Others died. Obama watched.
@LDS LiberalFunny how LDS liberal ignores the fact 10O TIMES as many
soldier have died under Obama in afghanistan compared to under Bush.
approximately 4000 to 40Then LDS Liberal has gall to bring up
leftest conspiracy theories during Bush's admin, as if it some kind of
comparison.How about we just demand the utmost and fullest truth
from any administration, including and especially Obama's?We
can't change the past, but what are we doing now that is any better?
@the truthPerhaps LDS Liberal ignored your stats because your
numbers are completely fabricated?Your claim: 4000 US soldiers have
diedActual numbers per icasualties.org: 2073 US military casualtiesYour claim: only 40 dead during Bush's administrationActual
numbers per icasualties.org: 630 US military casualties from 2001-2008Your claim: 100 times more deaths under Obama than BushActual numbers
from icasualties.org: 3 times more deathsWhy should you demand the
"utmost and fullest truth" from the administration when you won't
even demand it of yourself?
Re:theTruthHere are the figures, since you didn't bother to
correctly report them:Troop deathsIraq 2003-2008:
42222009-2012: 264Afghanistan2001-2008: 6302009-2012 1534Totals:Bush 4852Obama 1798(Figures from Operation Enduring Freedom)
"During the presidency of George W. Bush, there were 12 attacks on U.S.
embassies, resulting in 53 deaths."Yeah, but Bush and his
administration did not lie to the American people about who was behind the
attacks. That's the difference. Obama insisted he had Al Qaeda terrorists
on their heels. He could not afford the truth about terrorists attacking the
Benghazi embassy just before an election.
@JoeBlow:"Bottom line? The right has nothing better to elevate to a
political sledgehammer."The right likes to elevate the truth.
The left apparently likes to cover the truth with lies.@Screwdriver:"It's not stonewalling when you demand information
that isn't available..."And the reason the information was
not available, if such was the case, is because Obama and his administration
didn't want the information to be available since it would likely have
negatively affected his chances in the ensuing election.@pragmatistferlife:"Trust me the left understands the importance
between a flash mob that gets out of hand, and an organized attack."And the left also understands that labeling the attack as terrorism
would likely have negatively affected his chances in the ensuing election. So
they blamed it on a movie trailer a out a Muslim leader out months before the
attack. "PS..the left didn't even block Condelessa Rices
nomination after she had lied about Iraqs nuclear capabilities, and everyone
knew that wasn't true."Ms. Rice accurately identifying WMD
in possession of Saddam... since some Kurds in the north lay dead from WMD
@Ernest T. Bass:"If Benghazi was Obama's fault, 9-11-2001 was
Bush's fault."You might have something there... Obama
shoulda moved the Ambassador home before the Benghazi attack. Bush shoulda
emptied NYC before 9/11.@Ford DeTreese:"If Bush had called
them what they were--criminal acts--and treated them as such, how many American
soldiers would still be alive?"If Bush had called them criminal
acts, he would have been wrong. It was a terrorist attacks by Muslim
Sorry, I got the numbers wrong, I was operating form memory.But the
principle, whichis more important, is still the same,Significanly
more have died in afghanistan during Obams short administration as opposed to
Bush's.And weeks later ther estill has been no response to the
attack and murder of an ambassador.An embassy attack is far
differnet than the murder of an ambassador.Another very imortant
question is why is the Obama administration running guns to the middle east as
well as mexico? Which is the cause of the murder of the ambassador in a town
away from the embassy.
Joe Blow,I can tell you that the Intellegence agencies gave Bush the
information about WMD.. Democrats in congress believed it, England
believed it, Russia Belived it.. So it is not all on bush about there being no
WMD. I will tell you that they did find yellow cake urainium in IRAQ, it was
shipped to Canada for disposal.What the issue with Obama White is
that they reported the Bengazi incident as a "out of control demostration
spawned by the Video, when congress investigate Diane Feinstein (D) Cal was
incensed that the WH had lied about the attack.The ambassador called
the State Department as they were attacked, asking for help.. no help came. The
WH knew with in MINUTES this was a terrorist attack... but yet they send out
Ambassdor Rice to the american people a complete lie.
One old man... Nice revisiontic history...Bush went into IRAQ for he
following reasonsSadaam was paying people to blow themselevs up in
IsraelSadaam (at least the reports said this) had WMD and was perparing to
use them again.Sadaam habored known Al Qaida leaders (several were found
in country).And Most important- According to the Russian Intelligence
agency, Sadaam put a contract on Pres Bush father.So when is the
left actually going to accept that with the current Intelligence reports that
Bush recieved, he made the best judgment... Later they found out that the
reports were wrong, and they tried to fix that with the Homeland Security act...
But Bush did not have that knowledge at the time.
The reason is, Roland, that the reasons for this attack were not dealt with.
The administration decided to try to lie about who and what was responsible for
several weeks after it happened. Don't recall that happening with Bush.By the way Joe Blow, it wasn't Condi Rice, it was the revered
General Colin L. Powell that made the case for the war in Iran. Get your
history right. You lefties really have a problem with that.