BENGHAZI: OBAMA PROMISED ALL THOSE INVOVLED IN THE ATTACK WOULD BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE .....HAHAHAHA !

never said not cutting the budget would have stopped Benghazi have I ?

just pointed out the republican congressmans position ... priority, tough decision.

now, that said. last time I checked I didn't give a shit what you say or think ... things haven't changed since then. Originally Posted by CJ7

You know why your ignorant, lib-retard ass can't explain why the fuck Hildabeast and Odumbo did not anticipate and prepare for an incident in Benghazi instead of getting caught flat footed and knocked on their deflecting, lying asses, CBJ7? Because there is NO adequate excuse, CBJ7, they're actions -- or inaction -- was as inexcusable as it was reprehensible. They're lying, incompetent miscreants who don't deserve to be on the public payroll!!!

If getting caught flat footed and knocked on their WMD dumbasses Bush and Cheney would not have been reelected

If getting caught flat footed and knocked on their WMD dumbasses Bush and Cheney would not have been reelected Originally Posted by WTF

That's laughable! The Boston Bombing suspect, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, has been officially charged by the Odumbo administration with killing four people and using what it calls "weapons of mass destruction", i.e., pressure cookers, black powder and nails. Conversely, lefty-loo's dismiss and do not consider Hussein's tanks, artillery, aircraft, bombs and missle systems to be WMD?!?! Remarkable! BTW, Hussein still had the capacity to build those other items.

Laugh all you want...had GWB Xtried to sell pressure cookers as WMD's we would not have went into Iraq. Both Bengazi and Iraq were colossal mistakes and both presidents were reelected despite them. Time to move on IMHO.

Laugh all you want...had GWB Xtried to sell pressure cookers as WMD's we would not have went into Iraq. Both Bengazi and Iraq were colossal mistakes and both presidents were reelected despite them. Time to move on IMHO. Originally Posted by WTF

Another factor you're ignoring. Hussein was in violation of U.N. sanctions, and Bush expounded on those violations. But some, those with select hearing, don't remember those arguments as part of his justification for the renewal of hostilities.

Without the false WMD threat Congress would not have gone along with Bush. Busg successfully tied Saddam to 9/11...which was false btw. But my point is the voters have spoken. Water unfder the bridge imho

Another factor you're ignoring. Hussein was in violation of U.N. sanctions, and Bush expounded on those violations. But some, those with select hearing, don't remember those arguments as part of his justification for the renewal of hostilities. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Iraq was not the first nation in the Middle East to be in violation of UN Sanctions and one of them actually has WMD and it is not Iran. As far as Iraq attacking the US with tanks...well, probably wasn't going to happen. The one thing we can celebrate.....no more wars between Iraq and Iran....we won't have to pick sides this time. Natural enemies have become natural allies. We can change the course of history...Persians and Arabs...bedfellows...who would have thought?

Iraq was not the first nation in the Middle East to be in violation of UN Sanctions and one of them actually has WMD and it is not Iran. As far as Iraq attacking the US with tanks...well, probably wasn't going to happen. The one thing we can celebrate.....no more wars between Iraq and Iran....we won't have to pick sides this time. Natural enemies have become natural allies. We can change the course of history...Persians and Arabs...bedfellows...who would have thought? Originally Posted by lostincypress

Do tell! Would you please identify another state that acted as did Iraq under Hussein. For instance, would you identify another state that invaded and occupied a neighboring, peaceful state in the last twenty-five to thirty years. Would you please identify another such aggressor state that employed mustard gas and nerve agents against its enemies: foreign and domestic. Would you please identify another such aggressor state, that employed nerve agents against its enemies, foreign and domestic, that was known to actively support international terrorists. Would you -- could you -- please identify such a state that also violated U.N sanctions that were being enforced by U.S. military forces?

Without the false WMD's claims and falsely linking Saddam to 9/11 congress and the public never would have went to war. GWB brought us Iraq and Obama brought us Benghazi. I'm sure we all have differing POV's on which was worse...

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…"

– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

– President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program."

– President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."

– Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

– Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton.

– (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

– Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."

– Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

– Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

– Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…"

– Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

– Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Without the false WMD's claims and falsely linking Saddam to 9/11 congress and the public never would have went to war. GWB brought us Iraq and Obama brought us Benghazi. I'm sure we all have differing POV's on which was worse... Originally Posted by WTF

Your statement would be considerably more true if you replace "false" with "mistaken", and you have in no manner disputed or refuted that Bush using Hussein's violations of U.N sanctions to renew hostilities was unfounded. BTW, in 2003, the definition of WMD included "high explosives", i.e., bombs, missiles and artillery shells. Hence, "WMD" were "found". And, as a reminder, Hussein still possessed both the matériel and the know-how to reconstitute his NBC programs.

And WMDs were found in Iraq.................

And WMDs were not the only reason for going into Iraq..........

Ari Fleischer
"Fleischer: Because of Iraq. We were wrong about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq. If he had been right and we had found the stockpiles, as bad as the war turned out to be, much worse than we all thought it would be, I think most Americans would have said, 'well, I don't like going to war but thank god we stopped Saddam from using them." We were wrong."
Donald Rumsfeld 1:12 seconds in. Okay Tom maybe you have me on this one. He actually said it "appears" we did not find WMD. lol
George Bush
"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush said. "A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...#ixzz2aos4aEIs

Ari Fleischer
"Fleischer: Because of Iraq. We were wrong about weapons of mass destruction being in Iraq. If he had been right and we had found the stockpiles, as bad as the war turned out to be, much worse than we all thought it would be, I think most Americans would have said, 'well, I don't like going to war but thank god we stopped Saddam from using them." We were wrong."
Donald Rumsfeld 1:12 seconds in. Okay Tom maybe you have me on this one. He actually said it "appears" we did not find WMD. lol
George Bush
"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq," Bush said. "A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein."


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blu...#ixzz2aos4aEIs Originally Posted by lostincypress

Notice, if you have half a mind, that "wrong" is not synonymous with "false" or "lying"! And the military definition of WMD in 2003 included "high explosives", and, as far as the FBI is concerned, still does as is evidenced in the recent Boston Bomber incident.

Notice, if you have half a mind, that "wrong" is not synonymous with "false" or "lying"! And the military definition of WMD in 2003 included "high explosives", and, as far as the FBI is concerned, still does as is evidenced in the recent Boston Bomber incident. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

OK. They didn't say what I think they said.....my bad. And for your information I have half a brain.