If you're an American, this should make you angry

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr7OKqqTb_o

Was it Bush's lie? no, intelligence was wrong and not just our either. Who authorized action? Congress, Bush was not alone. Was intelligence wrong? don't know, all we can say for sure is we never found WMD's. Was it capabilities he was hiding, stock piles as claimed, were they moved or did Bush make up the whole thing ... who knows ... but he was not allowing the inspections. In the end we were all looking for a 911 scapegoat and Saddam served himself up handily by not complying with the legal UN inspections. Saddam was a mean ass, murdering, tyrannical, chemical weapon using, country invading dictator that got what he deserved. I am guessing you are fucking livid about Benghazi?

Should Bush have gone on denial tour? NO, they should have laid out their case. But let's be honest here the media is not centered in this country, it is liberal. And, all we do is sound bite politics, so you play the game and don't give them sound bites they can use against you. Should Bush have gone to the Correspondents Dinner an annual comedy event and made jokes about WMD's ... I think not ... but as you hear the liberal press laughing ... it's what they do ... they laugh about all the bullshit! Had Bill Maher done the exact same shtick would you be as out raged? ... I think not.

But seriously? tell me how you really feel about the bullshit in Benghazi and we can have real discussion about how fucked up American Politics is! We have proof about Clinton lying and Obama indirectly lying about the event details and they falsely accused and jailed a guy, and yet, we have no proof that Bush knew the intelligence was wrong. Hmmmmm? sound about right? Originally Posted by 5T3V3

We found WMD's just not "the" WMD's. We found chemical weapons and labs, we just didn't find nukes and nuke making material or any evidence there were any nukes made. When people think of WMD's, there not thinking about mustard gas, their thinking nukes.

With regards to Benghazi, Clinton fucked up, Obama fucked up in the same way Nixon did, trying to cover it up.

I wasn't addressing you specifically. More this forum in general, especially the Obama haters. Disagreeing with Obama on policy and leadership issues is fair game. Most of what goes on here though is just bullshit.

They were all complicit. Anyone who agreed with it. And I do think Bush lied. If not him, his team. They knew the intelligence was shaky, but they had already made up their minds. Originally Posted by WombRaider

By "they" you mean Congress who saw all the evidence Bush saw and voted him war powers by 70% --- they like Biden, Clinton, Feinstein, Dodd, Lieberman, Reid, Daschle, Boxer, Graham, Kennedy ... those guys? They like all the coalition forces that committed troops to the endeavor you think they did that just because Bush said let's do it or you think they maybe needed to see something with their own eyes? Or they the American people that wanted a 911 scapegoat and didn't want to wait to see if sanctions worked ... I can agree with they ALL thought maybe the intelligence was shaky not that they thought that then, but certainly in hindsight. But I also don't think "they" wanted to go to war only because of WMD's ... because the ultimatum was Saddam leave Iraq and step down and we will not attack. It wasn't give us the WMD's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr7OKqqTb_o

Was it Bush's lie? no, intelligence was wrong and not just our either. Who authorized action? Congress, Bush was not alone. Was intelligence wrong? don't know, all we can say for sure is we never found WMD's. Was it capabilities he was hiding, stock piles as claimed, were they moved or did Bush make up the whole thing ... who knows ... but he was not allowing the inspections. In the end we were all looking for a 911 scapegoat and Saddam served himself up handily by not complying with the legal UN inspections. Saddam was a mean ass, murdering, tyrannical, chemical weapon using, country invading dictator that got what he deserved. I am guessing you are fucking livid about Benghazi?

Should Bush have gone on denial tour? NO, they should have laid out their case. But let's be honest here the media is not centered in this country, it is liberal. And, all we do is sound bite politics, so you play the game and don't give them sound bites they can use against you. Should Bush have gone to the Correspondents Dinner an annual comedy event and made jokes about WMD's ... I think not ... but as you hear the liberal press laughing ... it's what they do ... they laugh about all the bullshit! Had Bill Maher done the exact same shtick would you be as out raged? ... I think not.

But seriously? tell me how you really feel about the bullshit in Benghazi and we can have real discussion about how fucked up American Politics is! We have proof about Clinton lying and Obama indirectly lying about the event details and they falsely accused and jailed a guy, and yet, we have no proof that Bush knew the intelligence was wrong. Hmmmmm? sound about right? Originally Posted by 5T3V3

No proof they knew the intelligence was wrong? Perhaps you've missed this little nugget:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/geor...nce_was_a_lie/

And as far as Benghazi, it's another display of the dichotomy that comes with people's beliefs in their government's abilities. They believe the government is an incapable and bumbling collection of idiots. And yet, on Benghazi, they are supposed to have known the entire story 24 hours after it happened and be overtly lying about it? You can't have it both ways. Below is information regarding the video. The intelligence they were receiving in the aftermath of the attack is that it was payback for this video. So that's what was reported. As more intelligence is gathered, the story begins to take a different shape. People are too ready to play 'gotcha' and completely fail to understand that as more becomes known about what actually happened, the story will undoubtedly change. It doesn't necessarily signal nefarious intentions.

"David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[110]). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[111][112] It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia"

With regards to Benghazi, Clinton fucked up, Obama fucked up in the same way Nixon did, trying to cover it up. Originally Posted by dirty dog

And yet Nixon would have been impeached and Obama well last I looked he will probably declare marshal law and serve a third term or Hillary will get elected and make him UN ambassador and they can elect him King of the UN and he can fuck us all.

But I am not angry or bitter ... no!

By "they" you mean Congress who saw all the evidence Bush saw and voted him war powers by 70% --- they like Biden, Clinton, Feinstein, Dodd, Lieberman, Reid, Daschle, Boxer, Graham, Kennedy ... those guys? They like all the coalition forces that committed troops to the endeavor you think they did that just because Bush said let's do it or you think they maybe needed to see something with their own eyes? Or they the American people that wanted a 911 scapegoat and didn't want to wait to see if sanctions worked ... I can agree with they ALL thought maybe the intelligence was shaky not that they thought that then, but certainly in hindsight. But I also don't think "they" wanted to go to war only because of WMD's ... because the ultimatum was Saddam leave Iraq and step down and we will not attack. It wasn't give us the WMD's. Originally Posted by 5T3V3

You know as well as I do that the intelligence doesn't trickle down to men in the field. Not intelligence on that level. They're told where to go and when to go there. I think that the entire lot of them were just a little too ready to get wrapped up in a war and take some retribution.

No proof they knew the intelligence was wrong? Perhaps you've missed this little nugget:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/geor...nce_was_a_lie/

And as far as Benghazi, it's another display of the dichotomy that comes with people's beliefs in their government's abilities. They believe the government is an incapable and bumbling collection of idiots. And yet, on Benghazi, they are supposed to have known the entire story 24 hours after it happened and be overtly lying about it? You can't have it both ways. Below is information regarding the video. The intelligence they were receiving in the aftermath of the attack is that it was payback for this video. So that's what was reported. As more intelligence is gathered, the story begins to take a different shape. People are too ready to play 'gotcha' and completely fail to understand that as more becomes known about what actually happened, the story will undoubtedly change. It doesn't necessarily signal nefarious intentions.

"David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[110]). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[111][112] It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia" Originally Posted by WombRaider

YOUR FUCKING WITH ME RIGHT? PROOF?

video ...
clip of Cheney saying, “We know [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” <<<< interview of what they believed at the time
“Was that true or not,” host Chris Matthews asked.
“We were saying–”
“Can you answer that question? Was that true?”
“No, as it turned out it that was not true,” he finally said.
^^^^^^ that is the way I saw the video ... not some silly admission of guilt that they lied. talk about hear what you want to hear --- after 14 years of digging is that all the proof you have? Hell you probably think the US bombed the trade center!

"David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times (who is still pushing the video idea today but now as both attack and protest and the times is standing behind the story too) reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest (as opposed to a protest that just got out of hand) and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[110]). ( Lead by I guy he knows personally and is surprised the US didn't pick up sooner in an interview) (and state dept. communications show they were labeled terrorist org.) Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[111][112] (assault not spontaneous protest?) It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities (in Libya or in Washington?), though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia"

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/05/...r-story-208265

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/06/1...ttala-captured

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...t-david-french

Seriously dude ...I was born at night, but not last night

You know as well as I do that the intelligence doesn't trickle down to men in the field. Not intelligence on that level. They're told where to go and when to go there. I think that the entire lot of them were just a little too ready to get wrapped up in a war and take some retribution. Originally Posted by WombRaider

isn't that what I said?

No proof they knew the intelligence was wrong? Perhaps you've missed this little nugget:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/geor...nce_was_a_lie/ Originally Posted by WombRaider

You've already had your ass handed to you on this point before, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas; see @ http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1056759333&postcount=16

Your lying ass knows Matthews took a Cheney remark out of context to misrepresent Cheney's position, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas: a position Morell denied.

What Really Happened by Kevin Groenhagen

And as far as Benghazi, it's another display of the dichotomy that comes with people's beliefs in their government's abilities. They believe the government is an incapable and bumbling collection of idiots. And yet, on Benghazi, they are supposed to have known the entire story 24 hours after it happened and be overtly lying about it? You can't have it both ways. Below is information regarding the video. The intelligence they were receiving in the aftermath of the attack is that it was payback for this video. So that's what was reported. As more intelligence is gathered, the story begins to take a different shape. People are too ready to play 'gotcha' and completely fail to understand that as more becomes known about what actually happened, the story will undoubtedly change. It doesn't necessarily signal nefarious intentions.

"David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[110]). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[111][112] It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia" Originally Posted by WombRaider

You're a lying scum-bucket, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Hildabeast's associate told her it was a terrorist attack two days after the September 11, 2012, attack:

Benghazi E-Mails
Hillary Clinton Told by Friend Sidney Blumenthal Benghazi Attack Was Terrorism
May 22, 2015 12:35 PM CDT

A longtime friend of Hildabeast, [Sidney Blumenthal, a White House adviser in the Clinton administration], told her the deadly attacks on the U.S. mission in Libya had been planned for a month by al-Qaeda affiliates and that the attackers used a nearby protest as a cover for the raid.

And the DIA told Hildabeast on 12 September -- 24 hours after the attack -- that it was a terrorist attack, what group did it and why, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

No proof they knew the intelligence was wrong? Perhaps you've missed this little nugget:

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/20/geor...nce_was_a_lie/

And as far as Benghazi, it's another display of the dichotomy that comes with people's beliefs in their government's abilities. They believe the government is an incapable and bumbling collection of idiots. And yet, on Benghazi, they are supposed to have known the entire story 24 hours after it happened and be overtly lying about it? You can't have it both ways. Below is information regarding the video. The intelligence they were receiving in the aftermath of the attack is that it was payback for this video. So that's what was reported. As more intelligence is gathered, the story begins to take a different shape. People are too ready to play 'gotcha' and completely fail to understand that as more becomes known about what actually happened, the story will undoubtedly change. It doesn't necessarily signal nefarious intentions.

"David Kirkpatrick of the New York Times reported that 20-year-old neighbor Mohamed Bishari witnessed the attack. According to Bishari, it was launched without warning or protest and was led by the Islamist militia Ansar al-Sharia (different from the group called Ansar al-Sharia based in Yemen designated by the U.N. and the U.S. Department of State as a terrorist organization[110]). Kirkpatrick reported that Ansar al-Sharia said they were launching the assault in retaliation for the release of the anti-Islamic video, Innocence of Muslims.[111][112] It was further reported that Ahmed Abu Khattala was called a ringleader of the attack by both witnesses and authorities, though he insisted he did not play a part in the aggression at the American compound. Witnesses, Benghazi residents, and Western news reports have described him as a leader of Ansar al-Sharia, though he stated he was close to the group but not an official part of it. He further stated he was the commander of an Islamist brigade, Abu Obaida ibn al-Jarrah, some of whose members had joined Ansar al-Sharia" Originally Posted by WombRaider

I don't believe that Benghazi was anything more than poor judgement, sometimes when you in a decision making position you step on your dick. This is exactly what Clinton and the white house should have said. It would have been over and done with. If it had been anyone else but Clinton they would have never gone to this length to hide the truth. They would have scape goated the person, asked for a resignation and it would have been over. Then politics took over and thoughts of the 2016 election was being pushed by the DNC and Obama really had no choice but to try and cover this up to save Clinton and the party. They were counting on a sympathetic and supportive media to not ask questions and to try and squeeze this buy. So no they were not expected to have all the answers in 24 hours but its been 3 years and there still not telling the truth.

ZanziSlaver you won't win this discussion... guaranteed, but please continue.

Hah!

Too bad the liberals in Washington voted for the war also
and Clinton let terrorism go unchecked for 8 years

Liberal political ass cover

derp.....eeeee....durp.....dur rrrrrrrrrrrr

I don't believe that Benghazi was anything more than poor judgement, sometimes when you in a decision making position you step on your dick. This is exactly what Clinton and the white house should have said. It would have been over and done with. If it had been anyone else but Clinton they would have never gone to this length to hide the truth. They would have scape goated the person, asked for a resignation and it would have been over. Then politics took over and thoughts of the 2016 election was being pushed by the DNC and Obama really had no choice but to try and cover this up to save Clinton and the party. They were counting on a sympathetic and supportive media to not ask questions and to try and squeeze this buy. So no they were not expected to have all the answers in 24 hours but its been 3 years and there still not telling the truth. Originally Posted by dirty dog

Poor judgement, I can work with. Some nefarious plot, I don't buy it. Everything is a plot with Obama though.

You've already had your ass handed to you on this point before, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas; see @ http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1056759333&postcount=16

Your lying ass knows Matthews took a Cheney remark out of context to misrepresent Cheney's position, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas: a position Morell denied.

What Really Happened by Kevin Groenhagen
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Either way, he lied.

You're a lying scum-bucket, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Hildabeast's associate told her it was a terrorist attack two days after the September 11, 2012, attack:



And the DIA told Hildabeast on 12 September -- 24 hours after the attack -- that it was a terrorist attack, what group did it and why, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It says it right on the document itself that this is not finally evaluated intelligence, you gruberized odumbo minion. You've lied again. They did not know with any certainty who, what, or why in days following the attack.