Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edited)

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

Fenton said:

Plenty of us do.

It's only " crap" because it exposes your corrupt ideology.

Dont come down on him because he questions your character by posting the truth.

It's not our fault you elected liars to run this Country.

Click to expand...

Which ones did you read? Please let's not have any Sarah Palin answers from you.

Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

Fenton said:

" If Saddam rejects Peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Saddams WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM " Bill Clinton, Feb 17, 1998

" He will use those WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION again, as he has 10 times since 1983 " Sandy Berger , Feb 18 1998

" Saddam Hussien has been engaged in the development of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION technology, which is a threat to neighboring Countries in the reagion and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection " Nancy Pelosi 1998

Lol...Libz are so irritated with the victims of Benghazzi. " Why did they have to die RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION !!"

I guess they like being lied to.

Click to expand...

I was able to find the President Clinton quote online, but the others... not so much, which goes for the majority of quotes on that list you pegged.

Are there credible sources for these quotes? You know, NYT, Washington Post, Associated Press, LA Times, etc?

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

MaggieD said:

You'll get no argument from me. But. For those who say it was Bush's Daddy's War and Bush's War for Oil? They're full of ****.

Click to expand...

I actually agree.

Regardless of the how/why, it was a catastrophic mistake and it should be acknowledged. Yes, Bush gets the blame. That's the way the cookie crumbles.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

MMC said:

Got anything about the Libyans Warning us 3 days Prior to the Attack on Benghazi......got anything that can Debunk the fact that the Libyan President stated it was a Predetermined and involved AQ? You know that which Team Obama denied.....but now has been brought by the FBI and the CIA.

Got anything to Prove that team Obama didn't deny what the Libyan President stated? Lets not let that fact confuse those such as yourself.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you, since you like to explain it. there were repeated moments which we heard of where we knew where Bin Laden was, and the order never came. What is the difference? Well, aside the fact we were actually at war with afganistan and we were not in a state of war with libya so sending an armed attack into a sovereign nations borders was an act of war if you do not have approval, but why do you treat this sort of thing differently?

There is also a huge honesty gap in claiming no orders were stand down orders. The armed forces cannot just jump up and attack a foreign nation because they want to at the moment. The armed forces need to be ordered to do something. Now if you want to argue the order should have been issued i will get to that. Simply telling troops that no order to attack has come and that they need to wait until the order is issued would seem to be the way the armed forces works, and yet again nothing terribly new has actually come out about benghazi.

Seriously what you are advocating is like sending troops into england because some US people are getting attacked on the street. It is not going to happen because unless england asks we don't send our troops in. this applies to other sovereign nations. No, we are not allowed to send armed troops into sovereign nations to make war in their streets. This was not an attack by the recognized libyan authorities. This is called diplomacy and though you are person who wishes we could just send the army in anywhere we want to, it just simply is not the case. Libya is not a state or even a protected territory of the US. Yes, that will mean that at times people are on their own in foreign countries we do not control.

you claims are still a load of crap. i recognize you have worked yourself into a fit over the whole benghazi thing, and are not thinking rationally about how the world works, but the US administration, no matter who it is, has to worry about diplomacy and other sovereign territory. It cannot just act on it's impetuous emotions without thought. Life is easy when you are president from the chair in your living room, but the real president has to deal with other world leaders and lines on a map that actually mean something to people. However, since you advocate for things like this i am sure that it would be completely legal and good for Iran to launch an attack on Gitmo to save it's people being tortured and killed there. Why should iran worry about the reprocussions of it's actions. I am sure the US people would completely understand they came in to save their fellow countrymen by launching a military invasion in a foreign country.

So if obama was a little slow on giving the order, and the military people didn't want to invade a sovereign foreign country without approval i don't blame them on that one. 4 people are nothing compared to a war in libya for sending an invasion into their land. Now if you can prove libyan officials had asked obama and the administration for help in time to launch the troops then you have a point. So please show us the proof libya asked for our help in destroying the attacking terrorists.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

tererun said:

Let me ask you, since you like to explain it. there were repeated moments which we heard of where we knew where Bin Laden was, and the order never came. What is the difference? Well, aside the fact we were actually at war with afganistan and we were not in a state of war with libya so sending an armed attack into a sovereign nations borders was an act of war if you do not have approval, but why do you treat this sort of thing differently?

There is also a huge honesty gap in claiming no orders were stand down orders. The armed forces cannot just jump up and attack a foreign nation because they want to at the moment. The armed forces need to be ordered to do something. Now if you want to argue the order should have been issued i will get to that. Simply telling troops that no order to attack has come and that they need to wait until the order is issued would seem to be the way the armed forces works, and yet again nothing terribly new has actually come out about benghazi.

Seriously what you are advocating is like sending troops into england because some US people are getting attacked on the street. It is not going to happen because unless england asks we don't send our troops in. this applies to other sovereign nations. No, we are not allowed to send armed troops into sovereign nations to make war in their streets. This was not an attack by the recognized libyan authorities. This is called diplomacy and though you are person who wishes we could just send the army in anywhere we want to, it just simply is not the case. Libya is not a state or even a protected territory of the US. Yes, that will mean that at times people are on their own in foreign countries we do not control.

you claims are still a load of crap. i recognize you have worked yourself into a fit over the whole benghazi thing, and are not thinking rationally about how the world works, but the US administration, no matter who it is, has to worry about diplomacy and other sovereign territory. It cannot just act on it's impetuous emotions without thought. Life is easy when you are president from the chair in your living room, but the real president has to deal with other world leaders and lines on a map that actually mean something to people. However, since you advocate for things like this i am sure that it would be completely legal and good for Iran to launch an attack on Gitmo to save it's people being tortured and killed there. Why should iran worry about the reprocussions of it's actions. I am sure the US people would completely understand they came in to save their fellow countrymen by launching a military invasion in a foreign country.

So if obama was a little slow on giving the order, and the military people didn't want to invade a sovereign foreign country without approval i don't blame them on that one. 4 people are nothing compared to a war in libya for sending an invasion into their land. Now if you can prove libyan officials had asked obama and the administration for help in time to launch the troops then you have a point. So please show us the proof libya asked for our help in destroying the attacking terrorists.

Click to expand...

None of that has to do with what was told to this administration by the Libyans. Which they can no longer deny.

Which none of this changes that what team Obama told the American people from the get go.....which was. That it wasn't a Planned attack and there was No AQ. That has now been proven to be false. Which means he, "Obama" one was Wrong......and two. Lied!

Yeah, I know it is hard for you to understand. But then, no one can take the blame for you believing everything out of Obama's mouth.

Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

American said:

Spec Ops deployed without their combat gear? What are you kidding me, something doesn't sound right about that.

Click to expand...

They were not there for security. They were there to reveiw security at the embassys

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

MaggieD said:

You'll get no argument from me. But. For those who say it was Bush's Daddy's War and Bush's War for Oil? They're full of ****.

Click to expand...

There was no reason to attack Iraq, they didn't attack us or any of our allies so we should not have attacked them.

What Democrat said: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?"

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

pbrauer said:

There was no reason to attack Iraq, they didn't attack us or any of our allies so we should not have attacked them.

What Democrat said: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?"

Click to expand...

The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies Jerusalem, Washington

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

pbrauer said:

There was no reason to attack Iraq, they didn't attack us or any of our allies so we should not have attacked them.

What Democrat said: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud?"

Click to expand...

I don't know. But I do know who said these snips:

"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

Click to expand...

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"[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, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"There is unmistakable evidence that [/B]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

Click to expand...

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

Democrat Quotes on WMD

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

pbrauer said:

There was no reason to attack Iraq, they didn't attack us or any of our allies so we should not have attacked them.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, Saddam had signed a treaty and a no fly zone was put in place. When the Iraqis fired at our jets the treaty was broken and this gave us every legal right to remove him. If you remember Bill Clinton bombed Sadddam for years and it continued back & forth all the way up to Bushs tenure. Not to say it was a great idea, that is for history to judge, but there was certainly plausible reasons to remove him.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

MaggieD said:

I don't know. But I do know who said these snips:


















Democrat Quotes on WMD

Click to expand...

Thanks for making my point, the fact is that quote was from President Bush and Condoleezza Rice made similar statements. They made it sound as though a nuclear attack fom Saddam imminent. No Democrat ever made that statement, you guys say the Democrats said the same things as Bush, but they didn't.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

pbrauer said:

Thanks for making my point, the fact is that quote was from President Bush and Condoleezza Rice made similar statements. They made it sound as though a nuclear attack fom Saddam imminent. No Democrat ever made that statement, you guys say the Democrats said the same things as Bush, but they didn't.

Click to expand...

Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Our country is doomed. Did you even read the damned quotes?? No, I thought not.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

MaggieD said:

Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Our country is doomed. Did you even read the damned quotes?? No, I thought not.

Click to expand...

Yes!

However, I suggest Googling those often pegged quotes to find an original source, Maggie.

Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(ed

I recommend everyone watch Colbert from tonite regarding Benghazi.

He nailed it.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

MaggieD said:

Hopeless. Absolutely hopeless. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Our country is doomed. Did you even read the damned quotes?? No, I thought not.

Click to expand...

I read them, here is what John Kerry actually said oct 9 2002:


When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

Jango said:

Yes!

However, I suggest Googling those often pegged quotes to find an original source, Maggie.

Click to expand...

pbrauer said:

I read them, here is what John Kerry actually said oct 9 2002:

When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days — to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent — and I emphasize "imminent" — threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.

The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution.

Click to expand...

He said what he said. If you cannot admit that these quotes were said by the people they're attributed to, you are blinded by your attempt to put the Iraq War squarely and solely on President Bush's back. Yep. The buck stopped there. But 111 Democrats voted to invade, and the quotes I took the time to show you are legitimate quotes by Democrats.

Period.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

MaggieD said:

He said what he said. If you cannot admit that these quotes were said by the people they're attributed to, you are blinded by your attempt to put the Iraq War squarely and solely on President Bush's back. Yep. The buck stopped there. But 111 Democrats voted to invade, and the quotes I took the time to show you are legitimate quotes by Democrats.

Period.

Click to expand...

You got it correct the buck stops with the president, he is the one who sent our troops to invade Iraq. He is the one who did not let the weapons inspectors to complete their job.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

MaggieD said:

He said what he said. If you cannot admit that these quotes were said by the people they're attributed to, you are blinded by your attempt to put the Iraq War squarely and solely on President Bush's back. Yep. The buck stopped there. But 111 Democrats voted to invade, and the quotes I took the time to show you are legitimate quotes by Democrats.

Period.

Click to expand...

First off, did you not become aware of these quotes within the last few hours? Secondly, if they're truly legitimate quotations from Democrat politicians, surely there is a record of their musings somewhere on the Internet that isn't some guys blog, right? I mean, you've independently verified the veracity of every quote, correct? So you can point me in the direction of credible sources that validate said quotes, right? You know, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Jerusalem Post, Telegraph, etc? I gotta say, I've looked myself and haven't been able to verify the overwhelming majority of them. How about you?

FYI - I know and do not associate the second Iraq War as simply a Bush thing. Sure, ultimate approval rests with him, as well some of the drive, but at least on the Republican side it was more of a group effort... lest we forget the neoconservatives (who were the primary driving force).

Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

Fenton said:

" If Saddam rejects Peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Saddams WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM " Bill Clinton, Feb 17, 1998

" He will use those WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION again, as he has 10 times since 1983 " Sandy Berger , Feb 18 1998

" Saddam Hussien has been engaged in the development of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION technology, which is a threat to neighboring Countries in the reagion and has made a mockery of the weapons inspection " Nancy Pelosi 1998

Lol...Libz are so irritated with the victims of Benghazzi. " Why did they have to die RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION !!"

I guess they like being lied to.

Click to expand...

Well if they change the definition of WMD to "anything which can kill more than 1 person with 1 strike" then they can "technically" get away with changing the lie into a truth in the future. I think the news tried to categorize the marathon bomber as using a WMD, on a separate note.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

Amadeus said:

You really don't think the Bush Administration had tunnelvision regarding Iraq? Many people across the political spectrum were to blame, true, but the responsibility always falls on the president.

Click to expand...

This may have been answered already for you, but I am going to weigh in anyway, because it is a typical revision of events of the time that allow the liberal left to distort that time.

We were going on and on with the UN trying to inspect Iraqi sites that Saddam was constantly playing a shell game with to frustrate inspectors. During that time, our planes conducting the 'no fly zone' were being shot at (an act of war in itself)....

FF to 9/11/01 and after. The world, along with the threat from that region of the country changed. America had taken civilian casualties on our own soil. We no longer could afford to sit back and play the bluster/threat/wait and see game.

Saddam was not only responsible for funding terrorists that were attacking our strongest, and only ally in that region, Israel, but was playing a game with the US that at a time of war between AQ and the US was, according to intel across the world, developing an NBC/WMD threat that he was threatening to aid our enemies with in that fight.

We warned Saddam repeatedly to comply with inspections, the UN warned Saddam repeatedly to comply with inspections, and we obtained not one, but multiple resolutions from the Sec. Council that if Saddam didn't comply we would invade and take him out.

In the end, and you may not like it, but the UN is not our granting authority. We are a sovereign nation. We gave Saddam not one, not two, but as many as 4 more warnings that we are staging to come in, and he had a granting to leave the nation alive, he had the ability also to stave off attack if he conceded to along with US forces enter, and inspect openly and freely without hinderence. He chose instead to ship the countries gold, treasure, and some still speculate the WMD we were in search of, out of the country to Syria, like so many other ****bird dictators before him.

In the end, Saddam was a murderous, torturous thug tin pot dictator that played a game that he lost, and as he coward in a hole in the desert, his people were liberated from his crap. It was the right thing to do.

It is telling however, that liberals defend Saddam, just as they do most world reprobates. But they still chose to live here, and not with those they defend.

Re: There was a stand down order given in Benghzi

keymanjim said:

At this point I would point out that 44 budgets have been sent from the republican controlled House over to the Democrat controlled Senate never to be seen or heard from again. But, that's a topic for another thread.
You must be pretty desperate if you want to talk about the economy over the Benghazi coverup.

Click to expand...

Desperate? No. I'm being realistic. The economy is the bigger problem than anything that happen in Benghazi. The deficit is intertwined in everything we do because of how much we give money away. If you are not concerned with the economy, or don't want to talk about it...you are part of a BIG problem with the American public.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

Fenton said:

It's too painful for you to consider malfeasance on Obama and Hillary's part, even though it's obvious.

But you can't even be objective, because you you weigh political priority over the lives of 4 Americans and the Cover-up thats keeping their families from learning the truth.

Click to expand...

And you can't see a three circus despite the elephants. The Republicans have no concern for the families of the lost American. NONE! They only care about trying to make this a Watergate for the Democrats. That is it.

They have no regard for actually finding answers...that is plainly obvious.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

pbrauer said:

You got it correct the buck stops with the president, he is the one who sent our troops to invade Iraq. He is the one who did not let the weapons inspectors to complete their job.

Click to expand...

Nonsense....There comes a point where dancing the dance of obfuscation, and deflection run out....I am amazed that so many libs are willing to see their American neighbors, or even family members killed before they say 'oh, I guess that we should have done something'.....It's not that you don't care about life as a liberal, it just seems like you care more about the lives of our enemies than you do your own countrymen's lives....

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

Jango said:

First off, did you not become aware of these quotes within the last few hours? Secondly, if they're truly legitimate quotations from Democrat politicians, surely there is a record of their musings somewhere on the Internet that isn't some guys blog, right? I mean, you've independently verified the veracity of every quote, correct? So you can point me in the direction of credible sources that validate said quotes, right? You know, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Jerusalem Post, Telegraph, etc? I gotta say, I've looked myself and haven't been able to verify the overwhelming majority of them. How about you?

FYI - I know and do not associate the second Iraq War as simply a Bush thing. Sure, ultimate approval rests with him, as well some of the drive, but at least on the Republican side it was more of a group effort... lest we forget the neoconservatives (who were the primary driving force).

Click to expand...

I believe that list of quotes was originally compiled by Salon - hardly a right wing mouthpiece.

Re: Diplomat: U.S. Special Forces told "you can't go" to Benghazi during attacks(edit

j-mac said:

In the end, Saddam was a murderous, torturous thug tin pot dictator that played a game that he lost, and as he coward in a hole in the desert, his people were liberated from his crap. It was the right thing to do.

Click to expand...

The best way to be old and stupid is to never admit to a mistake.