[speechlesstx]

[QUthe adversary odd state getOTE=tomder55;3610361]1 . no ambassador was killed
2. no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.
3.We know as a fact that there were no stand down orders from Washington against attempting a rescue .
4. Bush did not concoct and maintain a fictional reason why the attacks were carried out .Nor did Bush attempt to cover up the facts to the American people ,or to Congress while his staff testified under oath.
Nor did Bush's Sec State repeated those lies to grieving parents.[/QUOTE]

But Bush lied about something allegedly. Known lies by this regime mean nothing, there is no conspiracy big enough to trouble the true believers. I guess they enjoy being lied to and used as tools in his disgraceful game.

[paraclete]

No, stop revising history, Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, Bush lied about Mission Accomplished. No administration is free from bending the truth and outright lies. This administration obviously has issues with the truth, this is because they are constantly under attack. It is hard to get rid of a bad government and you need a better mechanism for doing it. Now if the house were to elect the president and could impeach him with a simple no confidence vote, just thinking, you know, or the electoral college was comprised of a joint sitting of the house and senate and wasn't just based on proportional representation and could be recalled at any time

[speechlesstx]

Dude, I'm not revising history, everyone believed Saddam had WMDs. I guess they all lied, too. And as for "mission accomplished":

Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying "It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew."[

As for the idea this regime lies "because they are constantly under attack" that's no justification at all even if that were the excuse. The attacks on Bush were far more vicious and he did not concoct the kind of stories this regime does.

[paraclete]

Very convenient argument, but we know what Bush meant when he stood under that banner. Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq, but we know that end was years away. "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous."^[10]"Our mission continues...The War on Terror continues, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide."The speech also said that:
"In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed

[speechlesstx]

So, it's now the murdered ambassador's own fault? Not so says whistleblower Gregory Hicks, it's all Washington's fault.

Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable." Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.


The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.


On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.


Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy.


However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.








Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges.

Stevens requested more security but Washington wouldn't give them diplomatic protection, they'd rather train up some Libyans. Stevens being a stand up guy had to reject the offer of Special Forces protection since the regime was willing to throw them under the bus. And now people are suggesting this was the victim's fault? Really?

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.


To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security. Sen. Lindsey Graham stated on the Senate floor last week that Chris "was in Benghazi because that is where he was supposed to be doing what America wanted him to do: Try to hold Libya together." He added, "Quit blaming the dead guy."

[paraclete]

If you know the risks and you take them, then it's your fault. What part of we will disavow knowledge of your actions don't you understand.

[speechlesstx]

If you know the risks and you take themm, then it's your fault.

Yep, the admin knew the risks, took them, and we ended up with a dead ambassador and a regime denying any responsibility.

[paraclete]

The ambassador knew the risks and was prepared to take them without additional security. It is hard to shake off that superman persona. The administration was incorrect in trying to put up a smoke screen, obviously to protect some clandestine activity. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time will get you killed, a regretable fact when dealing islamists and Al Qaeda

Well heads rolled and personages fell upon their swords but of course you won't be satisfied until Obama falls on his sword. Ain't gunna happen

[speechlesstx]

What part of he requested additional security but the regime wouldn't cooperate are you not understanding? What part of "it's all Washington's fault." do you not get? What part of "quit blaming the dead guy" is too hard to comprehend? What part of administration coverup and obstruction are you missing? And who the hell fell on their sword? No one that I'm aware of, that's the problem, it's everyone's fault but the people who are at fault.

[smoothy]

Um... Saddam didn't have WMD's? Who gassed thousands of Kurds to death with VX nerve gas? I am pretty sure it wasn't the Vatican...

THere were several hundred metric tons of yellowcake uranium that WE the USA removed from Iraq that was sent to Canada for processing.

And I'm sure you wouldn't want any of it in your lungs , in your yard or in your house. Its not redily available to Joe Average and you won't make an atom bomb without any.

[paraclete]

I didn't say he didn't have nerve gas and used it, I didn't say that at one time he didn't have a nuclear program, but reality check, these things were not found after the invasion, Saddam had run scared and disposed of them, but you can't say you did this back then and now we are going to invade. You don't understand you are not the world's policeman. the time for action had passed, and why the hell do you think Evita resigned, It was so she wouldn't get her nice little record tarnished because she was at the centre of a F@#kup and I seem to recall that certain other appointments changed

As Evita said, what does it matter now?

[smoothy]

After years of preventing inspections... you don't think he wasn't using them to move things around and hide them.

Saddam himself admitted to it... MULTIPLE countries spy agencies say he had them... nearly every person in our senate and congress saw the same security briefing Bush got and say he had them... many of them saying so on video or audio... then they turn around a lie claiming they never said such a thing.


Incidentally the White house doesn't write those reports... they don't even have an input what's in them... so how could it have been BUSH lying about it?

By the way... there was a number of years I actually received and saw those same reports... There is a priority order in who gets to see them in what order starting with the Oval office and working down... but they all see the same ones with the same data... I saw them after the house and Senate saw them... I know what's in them... I know who creates them... and apparently most people out there don't. Despite the fact it has been discussed on the news.

I'll give you a pass on that being you live on the other side of the world and I don't doubt its never been covered where you live. Much the same as there are huge amounts of stuff happening there that never makes it here.


By the way...Nerve gas is considered a WMD according to international treaty....


Evita is another blowhard that will tell any lie and will stoop to anything to get her way....she's not any better than Obama is. History has proven she thinks she is above the law too.....as in contempt during File-gate as in only one example of many.

[paraclete]

smoothy I don't doubt that at one time Saddam might have possessed and used nerve gas, both in his war with Iraq and on his own people. I understand the reasons why the country might have possessed such weapons. he may also have concealed such weapons from inspectors for a time. They were not found when the US attacked and subdued Iraq which supported evidence he provided that he might have disposed of them. however, much of that intelligence you relied on was flawed and even concocted by elements of ex-pat Iraqi who had much to gain.

the justifications that the Bush administration used to justify an invasion of Iraq were flawed. It was a unilateral action taken by Bush, Blair and even my own nation in response to flawed intelligence. You want to give Bush a leave pass because he was illinformed, I don't. There were alternative courses of action which he was unwilling to listen to. He built up military forces in Saudi Arabia and as a result gave OBL and Al Qaeda the excuse to attack the US then accused Saddam of complicity.

You shouldn't think of us as illinformed, misinformed perhaps, but not illinformed. The free press and media is alive and well in Australia and doesn't possess the same sicophantic relationship with our government as yours does with the White House

[smoothy]

Your free press isn't any more relaible than any other in the world... they push the agenda they want... and try to make people believe what they want them to believe... which most times is not what really happened.


And its clear some people just refuse to accept facts... BUSH didn't pull intelligence out of his butt... and your own intelligence agencies as well as the others of othewr countries ALL agreed... we have video of convoys of trucks leaving weapons storgage facilities ahead of the inspectors arriving there... and going into Syria... in the middle of the night. Nice thing Satellite based video systems... can't hide much.

They weren't delivering the mail.


Besides....nothing was flawed....targeting our aircraft with misslles systems on its own was a violation of the cease fire agreement and an act of agression......thats all the justification we needed to retaliate and carpet bomb the country iof we wanted.....because SADDAM violateds the cease fire agreement....which meant the war was back on which at that time had never ended.....and again...I point out Korea as an example......The Korean war never ended....there is a cease fire agreement....thats why millions of soldiers are on both sides of the border still.

[paraclete]

Yes all very nice ans I suppose we might even believe the weapons ASSard is giving up are the same stuff.

Look, spooks are spooks the world over. You have survelliance showing trucks, do you have survellience showing what was in them? or where they actually went? If you did you would have made an incursion into Syria. maybe it was a double blind. If they were important enough to invade iraq over, they were important enough to invade Syria over. No? obviously these items had lost their usefulness once they were out of reach because the objective wasn't WMD it was get Saddam to make sure there weren't any more oil assets he could "acquire". We saw gas used in Syria , I cannot believe that if Saddam possessed this weapon he would not have used it.

I'm not niaive enough to believe Bush is innocent in any of this, he just has a different set of cronies, anyway I just happen to think Bush was incompetent, as incompetent as his intelligence service

[smoothy]

Well. You are deluding yourself if you think the President has any input into National security reports.

No President of the USA ever has... Its compiled by the national seucrity agencies and includes information passed from other Nations security agencies that we share with.

There is nothing partisan about them... they aren't beholden to either political party. As they are not political appointments.

The very same people that Give Bush his reports Gave Bill Clinton his... and Obama his.

[paraclete]

Do they teach comprehension over there, Did I say Bush created the reports, no, but a president can influence the way information is used in reports, there are a lot of yes men in the intelligence agencies who will serve up unconfirmed intelligence because it suits the agenda

[talaniman]

Bush took the intelligence presented and went to war with it, no doubt with his VP putting a stick up his butt, with images of mushroom clouds, a quick finish and oil profits. 10years later, NO,12 years later, it was wrong, a dumb idea!!

And costly in terms of human life.

[paraclete]

I don't think you will get smoothy to agree he obviously swallowed the bull hook line and sinker, perhaps he cannot bring himself to believe he got it wrong, seems to be a traint in Bush supporters anyway it is all long ago and there are other fish to fry now as the walrus said; it is time to speak of other things

[smoothy]

Clete... YOU clearly stated that Bush lied... that he mislead people of what was going on, that clearly means you believe he changed what was in them... what is patently false... There is a hierarchy as to who sees them first... and the order of succession others will see them... there is nothing different in any of them... they are exact copies... and there is ZERO opportunity for anyone who sees them to change their contents... EVERYONE saw the same reports... everyone agreed they were them... dozens in the senate and congress said as much either on audio recordings or on video at that time... many of the lefties later started spewing lies claiming they never agreed when they are on public record doing so...

But then neither of you really care much about the facts in the case... you insist on believing what you want despite absolutely zero facts to back up your claims.

Have either of you ever been on a list that received these reports? No...

Have I , yes I was for 7 years. I haven't been recently, but how they are handled never changes.

Everything I have said so far is a matter of public record...

Funny how OWEbama spends more than EVERY previous president COMBINED has spend in just his first term.....and that included, the Ciil war, WW1, WW2 Korea, Vietnam AND a number for smaller actions.....


Yet you refuse to hold him responsible for that......