The Benghazi Scandal Hearings

[glick1980]

It's more of a shame when a tragedy/terrorist attack is lied about for political purposes.

Pres. Obama lied and diplomats died?

President Bush lied and almost 5,000 troops died in Iraq. Why aren't we having a hearing about that? A fabricated war that will end up costing taxpayers 6 trillion dollars and 5,000 lives means alot more that 4 lives.

[UNTFan23]

President Bush lied and almost 5,000 troops died in Iraq. Why aren't we having a hearing about that? A fabricated war that will end up costing taxpayers 6 trillion dollars and 5,000 lives means alot more that 4 lives.

I thought we did hear about it constantly from people across the aisle while he was in office. There are people that still want him strung up on war crimes.

Edited May 13, 2013 by UNTFan23

[UNT90]

President Bush lied and almost 5,000 troops died in Iraq. Why aren't we having a hearing about that? A fabricated war that will end up costing taxpayers 6 trillion dollars and 5,000 lives means alot more that 4 lives.

No proof that Bush knew vs. testimony that the administration knew this was a terror attack and lie about it.

Yet you still play the blame Bish card.

Shocking.

[glick1980]

No proof that Bush knew vs. testimony that the administration knew this was a terror attack and lie about it.

Yet you still play the blame Bish card.

Shocking.

Of course Bush didn't know if Iraq had WMD's or not that was the problem. He rolled the dice, 5,000 soldiers died along with many Iraqi's with many more wounded at an overall cost that will approach 6 trillion dollars. And Obama called the attack "an act of terror" in the Rose Garden when he addressed the nation. Under Obama there have been 2 Embassy attacks and 4 deaths, under Bush there were 11 Embassy attacks and 52 deaths. The fact is that these attacks were never politicized until now, when Republicans thought they could sway the election because of this and they now use it in an effort to stop Hillary Clinton and her possible bid to be the next president.

[UNT90]

Of course Bush didn't know if Iraq had WMD's or not that was the problem. He rolled the dice, 5,000 soldiers died along with many Iraqi's with many more wounded at an overall cost that will approach 6 trillion dollars. And Obama called the attack "an act of terror" in the Rose Garden when he addressed the nation. Under Obama there have been 2 Embassy attacks and 4 deaths, under Bush there were 11 Embassy attacks and 52 deaths. The fact is that these attacks were never politicized until now, when Republicans thought they could sway the election because of this and they now use it in an effort to stop Hillary Clinton and her possible bid to be the next president.

But you apparently bought into the politicization of the Iraq war, right? Do you believe that Pres. Bush was just unsure about WMDs, or do you believe he knew they weren't there.

Pres. Obama's administration altered the talking points from the CIA to exclude the fact that it was a terror attack and include that it was a demonstration over a video.

That is the facts that came out in testimony this week. Pres. Obama stated with that story through the election. And (shocking) the NBCs, ABCs, CBSs, and CNNs of the world never reported on it.

Fox did, and were right, but they don't matter to you,

So, it's not ok for Pres. Bush to go to war over weapons he legitimately believes Iraq possesses, and just about every member of congress agreed that Iraq possessed, but it's ok for the administration of Pres. Obama to outright lie about the deaths of American diplomats to ensure re-election?

Funny standards you have there.

[glick1980]

But you apparently bought into the politicization of the Iraq war, right? Do you believe that Pres. Bush was just unsure about WMDs, or do you believe he knew they weren't there.

Pres. Obama's administration altered the talking points from the CIA to exclude the fact that it was a terror attack and include that it was a demonstration over a video.

That is the facts that came out in testimony this week. Pres. Obama stated with that story through the election. And (shocking) the NBCs, ABCs, CBSs, and CNNs of the world never reported on it.

Fox did, and were right, but they don't matter to you,

So, it's not ok for Pres. Bush to go to war over weapons he legitimately believes Iraq possesses, and just about every member of congress agreed that Iraq possessed, but it's ok for the administration of Pres. Obama to outright lie about the deaths of American diplomats to ensure re-election?

Funny standards you have there.

I bought into the politization of the Iraq war after the fact. Bush sold me on the WMD's just like he did Congress. Doesn't change the fact that they didn't exist and trillions of dollars were lost along with thousands of American lives. Where was Fox news during the 11 Embassy terror attacks under Bush? I am more concerned that ZERO Republicans and FOUR Democrats showed up to a jobs report last month than whether or not this small attack was called a terrorist attack or not. It is only a means to drag Clinton's name through the mud because Republicans know if she runs for president their chances go from slim to none.

[UNT90]

I bought into the politization of the Iraq war after the fact. Bush sold me on the WMD's just like he did Congress. Doesn't change the fact that they didn't exist and trillions of dollars were lost along with thousands of American lives. Where was Fox news during the 11 Embassy terror attacks under Bush? I am more concerned that ZERO Republicans and FOUR Democrats showed up to a jobs report last month than whether or not this small attack was called a terrorist attack or not. It is only a means to drag Clinton's name through the mud because Republicans know if she runs for president their chances go from slim to none.

So, you were all for the war, but then when you got the advantage of having hindsight, an advantage Bush didn't have, you changed your mind.

And you believe Pres. Bush lied to go to war? Why? What was his motive? To advance his politocal career? Because wars always do that. To make his "oil buddies" rich? Please.

So, you assume Bush lied with zero proof, and you know Obama's administration lied through testimony this week, but you use an assumption to justify a known lie?

Interesting thought process. Could it be you are just cheering for your team?

Edited May 14, 2013 by UNT90

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

And I don't remember Pees. Reagan lying about the cause in order to get re-elected.

For a supposed one-time conservative, you seem to jump to Pres. Obama's defense at every turn, even when what he did was indefensible.

He didn't have to lie in 1984. All he had to do was let Walter Mondale be Walter Mondale...which Walter Mondale did to the tune of a 49-1 asswhipping. Still, the most amazing presidential of my lifetime. Almost every state in the union throwing their support behind one guy.

The one state Mondale did win, Minnesota, his home state, he barely won: 49.72% to 49.54% / 1,036.364 to 1,032,603...a ridiculously thin 3,761 vote margin with over 2 million voters.

Reagan was THE MAN.

[glick1980]

So, you were all for the war, but then when you got the advantage of having hindsight, an advantage Bush didn't have, you changed your mind.

And you believe Pres. Bush lied to go to war? Why? What was his motive? To advance his politocal career? Because wars always do that. To make his "oil buddies" rich? Please.

So, you assume Bush lied with zero proof, and you know Obama's administration lied through testimony this week, but you use an assumption to justify a known lie?

Interesting thought process. Could it be you are just cheering for your team?

He did lie, a lot. And my team is America, what is yours?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

[UNTFan23]

He did lie, a lot. And my team is America, what is yours?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

So what you're saying is both parties lie (or at least mislead the general public with false or incorrect statements)?

Edited May 14, 2013 by UNTFan23

[GreenBat]

So what you're saying is both parties lie (or at least mislead the general public with false or incorrect statements)?

DUH!

[MeanGreenTexan]

So what you're saying is both parties lie (or at least mislead the general public with false or incorrect statements)?

Now we're getting somewhere...

[UNT90]

He did lie, a lot. And my team is America, what is yours?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/

To be a lie, they would have had to know the truth at the time they made they statement. What your liberal source shiws are statements made that were later, you know, after we invaded Iraq and actually search Ed for and found no WMDs, ended up to be false.

Calling those lies is just intellectually dishonest. Was the intelligence bad? Yes. Did the president take a chance? Yes.

I wonder if you would be calling Pres. Obama a liar of he had ordered the Bin Ladin raid, the copter crash had killed half the SEAL team, and the intelligence happened to be wrong. I doubt it. Pres. Obama, much like Pres. Bush, made the best decision possible with the information at hand. Actually, there was probably a better argument for invading Iraq than there was for Pres. Obama to invade Pakistan, a county that possesses nuclear weapons. But, luckily, no Americans were killed in the crash and Bin Laden was indeed inside the compound, good for Pres. Obama and good for America.

Surely you would be calling Pres. Obama a liar if the intelligence had not panned out, right? Right?

The "bush lied" crowd can never produce a very important thing, the motive for the big lie.

[UNT90]

And where is the outrage for Pres. Obama's "lie" that he would shit down detainee facilities at GITMO?

He lied, right? Or, could it be that once he actually took office he realized how important those facilities were.

Or did he just lie to get your vote?

(I think he realized how important they were once he was actually President, by the way)

[forevereagle]

And where is the outrage for Pres. Obama's "lie" that he would shit down detainee facilities at GITMO?

New form of torture?

[glick1980]

To be a lie, they would have had to know the truth at the time they made they statement. What your liberal source shiws are statements made that were later, you know, after we invaded Iraq and actually search Ed for and found no WMDs, ended up to be false.

Calling those lies is just intellectually dishonest. Was the intelligence bad? Yes. Did the president take a chance? Yes.

I wonder if you would be calling Pres. Obama a liar of he had ordered the Bin Ladin raid, the copter crash had killed half the SEAL team, and the intelligence happened to be wrong. I doubt it. Pres. Obama, much like Pres. Bush, made the best decision possible with the information at hand. Actually, there was probably a better argument for invading Iraq than there was for Pres. Obama to invade Pakistan, a county that possesses nuclear weapons. But, luckily, no Americans were killed in the crash and Bin Laden was indeed inside the compound, good for Pres. Obama and good for America.

Surely you would be calling Pres. Obama a liar if the intelligence had not panned out, right? Right?

The "bush lied" crowd can never produce a very important thing, the motive for the big lie.

There is one major difference in your comparison. People wanted Bin Laden dead because of what he did to America, we should have been taking chances to kill him. Bush had the opportunity to do so in 2002 but he didn't pull the trigger to the dismay of many in the CIA on the ground in Afganistan. Nobody gave two shits about Iraq until Bush pushed fabricated intel on Congress and the American people. The entire war was because of oil.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-iraqi-war-wasnt-waged-for-oil-greg-palast

[UNTLifer]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/7/lyons-benghazi-cover-continues-nearly-six-months-l/

[glick1980]

Republicans leaked false emails about this "scandal".

http://theweek.com/article/index/244363/watch-cbss-major-garrett-calls-out-gop-over-doctored-benghazi-emails

[UNT90]

Republicans leaked false emails about this "scandal".

http://theweek.com/article/index/244363/watch-cbss-major-garrett-calls-out-gop-over-doctored-benghazi-emails

Look over here. Don't look over there.

You never answered. WHat do you feel was Pres. Bush's motive to "lie" to the American people and cause the deaths of American soldiers?

Or do you just like a good conspiracy?

[glick1980]

Look over here. Don't look over there.

You never answered. WHat do you feel was Pres. Bush's motive to "lie" to the American people and cause the deaths of American soldiers?

Or do you just like a good conspiracy?

I did respond, it was oil.

[aprice]

as soon as conservatives questioned whether obama said the key word "terrorist" (which he clearly did) I knew Fox news was going drag this thing out. never thought it would go in this long. there's only one word that needs to be said here. iraq.

[UNT90]

I did respond, it was oil.

So you honestly think he would sacrafice American lives for oil?

Do you also put tin foil around your windows to keep the government microwaves out of your house?

LOL!!!!!!

Ok, so explain to me how Pres. Bush or America has benefitted from Iraqi Oil?

Explain to me what benefit Pres. Bush would have gotten at the time even if we had seized all the Iraqi reserves? Do you not get that he knew he would be critized by the left because he USED TO BE in the oil business? That he knew that the invasion was a huge political rsik because of sheep like you?

But yet you buy straight into the far left conspiracy theory.

[UNT90]

as soon as conservatives questioned whether obama said the key word "terrorist" (which he clearly did) I knew Fox news was going drag this thing out. never thought it would go in this long. there's only one word that needs to be said here. iraq.

Hey, newsflash, it's not 2008.

[glick1980]

So you honestly think he would sacrafice American lives for oil?

Do you also put tin foil around your windows to keep the government microwaves out of your house?

LOL!!!!!!

Ok, so explain to me how Pres. Bush or America has benefitted from Iraqi Oil?

Explain to me what benefit Pres. Bush would have gotten at the time even if we had seized all the Iraqi reserves? Do you not get that he knew he would be critized by the left because he USED TO BE in the oil business? That he knew that the invasion was a huge political rsik because of sheep like you?

But yet you buy straight into the far left conspiracy theory.

We benefited directly by not seizing Iraqi oil and by not allowing them to sell their maximum allotment, thus driving up the price of oil. In 2002 Oil prices were roughly 20% of what they are today. How do you explain that?

[GreenBat]

"W" attempted to repair his father's reputation from the first failed Gulf War by invading And declaring victory before the war even started. You might disagree, but history will show he is responsible for not only destroying the countries civil liberties (PATRIOT ACT), but wrecking the economy (Two unnecessary wars on credit, bank bailouts, etc.) Go ahead and try to spin this but we all now that its bullshit. The media loves to talk about the dysfunction in Washington, but they will won't admit to the role that they play in legitimizing Republican obstruction. And we won't even get into Boehner and his buddies on what they're doing or not doing. Is it all the Republicans fault? No, but the fault leans about 65-35 percent to the Republicans.

And your Newsflash about it not being 2008. No kidding. The Republicans lost in 2008. Suck it up and let Obama lead.

Edited May 18, 2013 by GreenBat