White House Approved 'Video Caused Benghazi Attack' Fraud

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.

Didn't read it eh? Yeah I guess these emails don't make much difference now..

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: Pladuim

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.

No, what's sad is your attempt to excuse Obama and Clintons actions. At this point, what different does it make.....right?

Pladuim

Um...yeah. Please tell me what difference it makes?

It's not like 4000 people got killed over a made up war over made up reasons.

Reach a little more, you can do it. I believe!

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.

So if obstruction of justice that hides negligent homicide is being done by a party other than republicans, it is no longer a big deal or illegal?

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: Pladuim
a reply to: stormson

Your question has been answered, see above.

Pladuim

Wmds were found in Iraq, along with yellow cake which is needed to make nuclear weapons.

Source for that?

The wmds were very few and extremely degraded, to the point trying to move them was more dangerous than using them. No where near what was made out to be.

The yellow cake story has been completely debunked.

Saddam still had a lot of dual-use chemicals. Last I looked chemical weapons were still classified as WMD's.

a reply to: stormson

Making assumptions on what I'm angry about (or that I'm angry to begin with) seems superficial. Redirecting every discussion to blame Bush almost a decade after he left office seems superficial. Thinking that I'm a Bush supporter at all is such a knee jerk reaction from Obama supporters. It's so predictable and desperate.

Your right that politicians and honesty don't go together though. So why are you defending any of them? The Democrat liars are your favorite liars?

Just throwing out the request for and authorization of use of force. Which is what makes it a legal war because both houses of Congress voted for it. en.m.wikipedia.org...

You might even notice, aside from very familiar names of then Senators voting for it, that the first reason was that Iraq was not holding up their end of the ceasefire deal by interfering with UN weapons inspectors. And there was fear of Saddam by long term allies including a NATO member country. Part of the authorization for force was to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. To say Bush went out alone is a stretch of the narrative to be kind. Or regurgitating propaganda of you prefer being blunt.

Was the information accurate? Hard to say as I did not (nor do I now) have the appropriate security clearance to have read the Intel Briefings at the time to compare what was written and what was claimed. However, Saddam did claim to have WMD capabilities. If that was a total bluff, he was called on it.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: xuenchen A lot of things could have caused this tragedy. Just like many other attacks on our embassies and outposts worldwide. This one has become just a Republican talking point , though. That is sad.

So if obstruction of justice that hides negligent homicide is being done by a party other than republicans, it is no longer a big deal or illegal?

What negligent homicide? Nothing could be done to save them. A report has already stated this.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: stormson

originally posted by: Pladuim
a reply to: stormson

Your question has been answered, see above.

Pladuim

Wmds were found in Iraq, along with yellow cake which is needed to make nuclear weapons.

Source for that?

The wmds were very few and extremely degraded, to the point trying to move them was more dangerous than using them. No where near what was made out to be.

The yellow cake story has been completely debunked.

Saddam still had a lot of dual-use chemicals. Last I looked chemical weapons were still classified as WMD's.

Source or there were no chems. There certainly wasn't enough for war.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: stormson

Making assumptions on what I'm angry about (or that I'm angry to begin with) seems superficial. Redirecting every discussion to blame Bush almost a decade after he left office seems superficial. Thinking that I'm a Bush supporter at all is such a knee jerk reaction from Obama supporters. It's so predictable and desperate.

Your right that politicians and honesty don't go together though. So why are you defending any of them? The Democrat liars are your favorite liars?

Again, I'm not blaming, or defending, I'm contrasting con behavior and outrage.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Just throwing out the request for and authorization of use of force. Which is what makes it a legal war because both houses of Congress voted for it. en.m.wikipedia.org...

You might even notice, aside from very familiar names of then Senators voting for it, that the first reason was that Iraq was not holding up their end of the ceasefire deal by interfering with UN weapons inspectors. And there was fear of Saddam by long term allies including a NATO member country. Part of the authorization for force was to enforce UN Security Council resolutions. To say Bush went out alone is a stretch of the narrative to be kind. Or regurgitating propaganda of you prefer being blunt.

Was the information accurate? Hard to say as I did not (nor do I now) have the appropriate security clearance to have read the Intel Briefings at the time to compare what was written and what was claimed. However, Saddam did claim to have WMD capabilities. If that was a total bluff, he was called on it.

The violated sanctions trope?

Israel has over 200 sanctions against them, more than any other country to include iraq at the time, yet we don't invade them.

a reply to: stormson

Okay, so you're contrasting their outrage at Benghazi with their behavior in supporting a war that had bipartisan support. Sounds like you're blaming conservatives for doing worse things than covering up Benghazi while defending dems by saying they were only acting on the Intel they had.

Or is it weird that conservatives are angry about Benghazi even though "what difference at this point does it make" because it was so long ago. And you're contrasting that with their lack of outrage at a war with bipartisan support that happened many years before that...

But hey, I'm not blaming or defending, just observing.

The fact is, Hillary Clinton invented a lie, sold it to the President, foisted it on the American people, unethically covered it up, and then downplayed the seriousness of her fraud on the American people.

No arguing over the Iraq war, WMDS, Israel,or Bush's policy will change or has anything to do with this fact.

Hillary Clinton is not only a liar but, a liar that has no problem lying to the American people to further her own agenda.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: stormson

Okay, so you're contrasting their outrage at Benghazi with their behavior in supporting a war that had bipartisan support. Sounds like you're blaming conservatives for doing worse things than covering up Benghazi while defending dems by saying they were only acting on the Intel they had.

Or is it weird that conservatives are angry about Benghazi even though "what difference at this point does it make" because it was so long ago. And you're contrasting that with their lack of outrage at a war with bipartisan support that happened many years before that...

But hey, I'm not blaming or defending, just observing.

You're almost there.

Bi partisan support based on lies and false Intel that LED to 4000 dead.

The bengazi lies led to 0 dead.

Time is irrelevant.

The difference is cause and effect and scale. Bush caused the war and got 4000 killed. Hillary DID NOT cause the bengazi attack that LED to 4 dead.

See?

Cons are making a big deal over a lie that LED to...nothing. Yet ignore the lies that LED to 4000 dead.

Why is that if not for party?

originally posted by: abe froman
The fact is, Hillary Clinton invented a lie, sold it to the President, foisted it on the American people, unethically covered it up, and then downplayed the seriousness of her fraud on the American people.

No arguing over the Iraq war, WMDS, Israel,or Bush's policy will change or has anything to do with this fact.

Hillary Clinton is not only a liar but, a liar that has no problem lying to the American people to further her own agenda.

Quite right. But there are bigger fish to fry. The whole bengazi thing is a waste of time and millions of dollars.

Now, if she had lied and got those 4 killed, it would be a different story.

originally posted by: stormson

Bi partisan support based on lies and false Intel that LED to 4000 dead...

... Bush caused the war and got 4000 killed.

See?

Nope.

This whole line of logic is just so flawed. Hilary's lies don't matter because the non-existent death toll was less than the Iraq war. So, Bush. End of discussion.

a reply to: sine.nomine

Um....yeah!

4000 dead is greater than 0. If I'm going to be mad its going to be over the dead. Not over a lie that LED to nothing.

Bush: lie = 4000 dead
Hillary: lie = 0 dead

Cons on bush= a OK
Cons on hillary= burn her!

a reply to: stormson

I admit I haven't followed Libya extensively, I have read on a handful of occasions that all the excuses to intervene were made up.

Your trying to white wash Libya as a whole for some reason..

I'm willing to bet that the WMD's (chemical weapons) from Iraq are the ones that Assad is using in Syria. But that is completely off topic from the original intention of the thread.

On topic: H. Clinton could come completely clean about what really took place in Benghazi, and people would still vote for her. There is no doubt that her 2016 contention is far from over.

originally posted by: stormson
a reply to: sine.nomine

Um....yeah!

4000 dead is greater than 0. If I'm going to be mad its going to be over the dead. Not over a lie that LED to nothing.

Bush: lie = 4000 dead
Hillary: lie = 0 dead

Cons on bush= a OK
Cons on hillary= burn her!

You have somehow missed every point I was trying to make. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie. People should be held accountable for their mistakes, no? Hilary should be held accountable for her lies about Benghazi. Just as Bush should be held accountable for the Iraq war. Just as all members of congress that voted to invade iraq should be held accountable for the Iraq war. And thus just as Hilary should be held accountable for the Iraq war as she was part of the overwhelming bipartisan support. Anyone who gave intentionally false Intel should be held accountable.

The death toll is irrelevant. The Iraq war is irrelevant. Bush is irrelevant. I'm not saying Hilary is worse than Bush because it doesn't matter and probably isn't true.

a reply to: xuenchen

A very big difference indeed.