Published: Thursday, Dec. 6 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
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.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments