Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: There were embassy attacks during Bush era, too’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Dec. 6 2012 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mountanman
Hayden, ID

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 see today.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

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.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

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.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

The right needs something to whine about.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ 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.

ugottabkidn
Sandy, UT

Hypocracy plain and simple. All precedence was thrown out the window on Jan. 20 2009.

CHS 85
Sandy, UT

@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.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

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.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ 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?

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

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.

Red Headed Stranger
Billy Bobs, TX

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. Unbelievable.

one old man
Ogden, UT

"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?

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

If Benghazi was Obama's fault, 9-11-2001 was Bush's fault.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

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 overseas targets.
(CNN)

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

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!

John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

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.

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Roland,
I admire your courage in bringing up Benghazi. As the response shows, it's become the main delivery system for the 'hate Obama bacillus'.

Ford DeTreese
Provo, UT

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?

KJB1
Eugene, OR

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.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"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.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments