Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No one with even half a brain has ever suggested Bush could have avoided the attacks on 9/11, and certainly he has not been accused of standing around doing nothing while the attacks took place. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Now could BILL Clinton have done a better job in the eight years of his admin to have avoided the attacks? Hmmmm??

---

You have a poor memory, GWB was accused of dithering while the attacks took place, I remember well the pictures of him during that time during a school visit without his advisers he had no response

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You have a poor memory, GWB was accused of dithering while the attacks took place, I remember well the pictures of him during that time during a school visit without his advisers he had no response

---

YouTube remembers it well. "My Pet Goat" was the book GWB was reading to Florida second graders.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7fs2duxjpE4

Someone making an excuse for him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No one with even half a brain has ever suggested Bush could have avoided the attacks on 9/11, and certainly he has not been accused of standing around doing nothing while the attacks took place. It's a completely inaccurate comparison.

Now could BILL Clinton have done a better job in the eight years of his admin to have avoided the attacks? Hmmmm??

---

Just asking what is the dufus doing to prevent attacks? Why have you not been as critical of him when our soldiers died in Syria AND Africa as you have about Hillary and Benghazi? I really want to know since a bad guy can easily get the drop on a good guy. Every president faces these challenges don't they, where the bad guys have the advantage of secret plans and preparation.

Didn't King Reagan have his Lebanon, and near assassination?

really ? revisionist would like us to believe that GW was unresponsive. What was he to do ? get up in the middle of a reading to kids ? What purpose would that have served ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

really ? revisionist would like us to believe that GW was unresponsive. What was he to do ? get up in the middle of a reading to kids ? What purpose would that have served ?

---

I'm not one of those though I may have made some disparaging comments in the past about his reaction, but I could see the "OH SH1T" look on his face. Looking back, everybody was in shock and confusion and scared to death. Later changing the focus to Saddam was a clear mistake.

As is oftentimes the case with libs, some of you are completely missing the point. GW was supposed to get up and do what? There was no reason to believe the first attack on the towers was a terrorist attack. The second one sealed the deal, but what was he to do about it at that point? Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, had MONTHS of pleas from the ambassador to do something about security and did NOTHING. Then they had hours and hours to respond and try to help and did NOTHING. Clinton was reduced to having nothing more to say than, "What difference at this point does it make?" Easy for her to say since she was still alive and a multi-millionaire.

Cowardice not to have had the ability to respond and not do it

Quote:

---

Cowardice not to have had the ability to respond and not do it

---

I know you love hyperbole, but your double negative above seems so say he would not do what he could not do.

.No Hilliary and Obama did not do what they could do, they could have rapidly responded from Italy, They could have responded from elsewhere in Libya. What happened is they did nothing as they didn't want their blown CIA operation to come out. Remember Mission Impossible. If you are caught we will disavow your actions

No attention to a potential crisis ahead of time. They could have done that. They could have responded to the many calls for help which came before the event. That's their job, to be sure security is provided. They failed to do so. It's also hard to imagine they could not have done something in the seven hours in which the attack took place. They did nothing. Suppose the attack had lasted 17 hours? They had no idea how long it would last, but they did nothing. Not acceptable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

As is oftentimes the case with libs, some of you are completely missing the point. GW was supposed to get up and do what? There was no reason to believe the first attack on the towers was a terrorist attack. The second one sealed the deal, but what was he to do about it at that point? Obama and Clinton, on the other hand, had MONTHS of pleas from the ambassador to do something about security and did NOTHING. Then they had hours and hours to respond and try to help and did NOTHING. Clinton was reduced to having nothing more to say than, "What difference at this point does it make?" Easy for her to say since she was still alive and a multi-millionaire.

---

Not only was your post debunked but full of inaccuracy so let me correct your conservative memory.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7148706.html

Quote:

---

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans,” she said. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

---

You often speak of the 4 killed but never about the other 30 or so that were eventually evacuated. You still have not commented or treated the deaths in Africa or Syria with the same zeal you do with Benghazi. Wonder why?

My post is full of inaccuracies? In what way was it inaccurate? I have learned in the past that you love to post links to articles that have nothing to do with the subject or have nothing to say to back up your allegations. If my post was inaccurate, tell me how. Did HC say what I said she said? Yes, she did. It was entirely accurate. I speak of the 4 killed because they were killed and the fault lies with HC and BO. You might not like that, but it is true.

As to Syria and Africa, what deaths are you referring to? There have been deaths all over the world, and I have no doubt that they are practically all tragic. There have been tens of thousands of deaths in Syria alone, many of them U.S. military personnel. Perhaps we are right to at least start the initial process of withdrawing them.

Quote:

---

Did HC say what I said she said? Yes, she did. It was entirely accurate.

---

But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

Quote:

---

But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

---

In what way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But you took it out of context and gave it an entirely different meaning.

---

Thanks WG, that was my point. Conservatives were using her words against her without saying what she was referring to. Not only is that inaccurate, but disingenuous to boot, as you use the death of soldiers to further an anti Hillary agenda yet again, while completely ignoring the soldiers ambushed by militants in Niger, and recently in Syria under the dufus.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/niger-a...d-new-details/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ib/2591639002/

Is selective outrage an accurate description of your narrative, or you just did not know of these recent events?

You still haven't shown how my comments were inaccurate. She made a foolish comment. I realize what she was talking about and I listened to that part of the hearing. She was saying that whether it was a spontaneous demonstration (the lie the Obama admin put out) or a terrorist attack, "What difference does it make now?" In context, does that make the comment any less reprehensible? It doesn't to me. It made a LOT of difference to the families of the Americans who were killed, it likely made a difference during the election, and it still makes a lot of difference to me as an American. Perhaps you don't care, but many of us do. I don't say that in any frustration but just to try and provide some clarity and to point out that putting the quote in context does not make it any less foolish. In fact, to me it makes it more foolish in that she seemed to actually believe, at that point in time, that it was unimportant to place responsibility on the people whose inaction led to the disaster.

Your inaccuracies are reflected in the blame YOU assign, and what the actual investigations show. Your emotional yet understandable tirades pale in the face of the findings which are based not on your interpretation of random statements, but all the facts reviewed in proper contexts by knowledgeable and experienced experts, of which you are not sorry to say.

You are entitled to your opinion and feelings which I try to respect, but sometimes you push me to my limits of understanding them.

Quote:

---

Your inaccuracies are reflected in the blame YOU assign, and what the actual investigations show. Your emotional yet understandable tirades pale in the face of the findings which are based not on your interpretation of random statements, but all the facts reviewed in proper contexts by knowledgeable and experienced experts, of which you are not sorry to say.

---

And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And yet again, you are not able to identify a single specific area where I was inaccurate. Who is responsible for overseas consulates? The Sec. of State. Who did not take action despite many appeals from the people in Benghazi? HC.

---

But but but there was a WALL!!! ...a number of physical security upgrades, such as the installation of concrete barriers to block unused gates, were made during 2012."
https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin...n-refused-sec/