Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Coach is Back! on May 16, 2014, 02:36:01 PM
-
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/05/138727-viral-meme-13-benghazis-happened-bush-taken-apart-destroyed-eyes/
Many of us have seen the narratives refuting “Benghazigate.”
“Where was the outrage about all those embassy attacks under Bush? What about all the people killed in those attacks? Where was Fox News then?”
Let’s put aside for now that this line of questioning has nothing at all to do with why people are concerned about what happened during and after the Benghazi terror attack. Just take a look at this meme:
Poster_Terrorist-Attacks-Bush_Deaths-at-Embassy-Consulates_List_zps6c5a5a5e
One of the best-known versions of this meme is the ridiculous screed at Huffington Post “13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News,” which has around 90K shares and likely well over a million views.
The post was nearly replicated on numerous left-wing sites, such as DailyKos, the Daily Banter, and PolicyMic.
Here goes: the “13 Benghazis That Occurred on Bush’s Watch Without a Peep from Fox News” – cases versus reality.
1. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (The Tribune)
2. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (BBC)
3. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of ‘Bali Bombings.’ No fatalities.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN.
You said it, Huffington Post.
4. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (Fox News)
5. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.”
REALITY: NINE AMERICAN DEFENSE CONTRACTORS KILLED.
After numerous State Department warnings, and Saudi Arabia investigating al Qaeda for a potential planned attack, three defense compounds were assaulted with car bombs and armed attackers. Nine defense contractors were killed.
Bush immediately called the attack part of the “war on terror,” and two of the attackers that survived the raid were killed by Saudi police forces. You know, just like Benghazi. (CNN)
6. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (BBC)
7. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (Guardian)
8. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name ‘David Foy.’ This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what’s considered American soil.)”
REALITY: ONE U.S. DIPLOMAT KILLED.
Finally, something that’s like Benghazi! Except that the Ambassador wasn’t missing, he was killed instantly. There wasn’t an 8-hour-long siege, an AWOL president and Secretary of State, or service personnel hung out to dry with no rescue attempt. It wasn’t a recent warzone, and there weren’t requests for additional security turned down. Oh, and no one falsely blamed a video for causing a non-existent protest. Except for those caveats, just like Benghazi.
9. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting ‘Allahu akbar’ storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (CNN)
10. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN.
You said it, Huffington Post.
11. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“March 18, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (CNN)
12. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN. (Reuters)
13. HUFFPO: THIS WAS JUST LIKE BENGHAZI.
“September 17, 2008. Sana’a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.”
REALITY: NONE WERE AMERICAN.
“Attackers used vehicle bombs, rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons to mount a coordinated assault on the U.S. Embassy here Wednesday, leaving 10 guards and civilians dead outside the main gate but failing to breach the walled compound. No Americans were killed.” (Washington Post); (CSM)
(Even if there was misreportage, no embassy officials were killed or missing, and those who were killed were done so in a matter of minutes.)
So of all the Americans killed, only one was a diplomat, and he was killed almost instantly. Nine others were defense contractors.
It is my belief that this “13 Benghazis” post was published with the intention of deceiving the public. It may have been an attempt at persuading Americans to dismiss further inquiry into how the Benghazi terror attack was handled and how it was reported to the public.
The post also suits the purpose of running political cover for Hillary Clinton and President Obama. Of course, all conclusions are left up to the reader to decide.
-
So Repubs would have been outraged at Bush if Americans were killed
Is that what you're suggesting Joe?
-
boom
-
boom
what's that ?
the ringing sound you here inside your empty skull
-
what's that ?
the ringing sound you here inside your empty skull
Just more lib talking points shot down
-
Just more lib talking points shot down
yes, your empty skull ringing like a bell is a liberal talking point
-
yes, your empty skull ringing like a bell is a liberal talking point
Must really suck to be a lib right now. Funny you mever responded to fcc thread.
-
Must really suck to be a lib right now. Funny you mever responded to fcc thread.
Why should it suck. I live in a beautiful state and life is great
You live in a shithole and spend your day posting gay fantasies about Obama and other nonsense you you just imagine
BTW - I responded to the first thread you started about Bill Moyers and net neutrality
Remember I took you seriously and it turned out to be just another thread where you had nothing to say other than to troll
-
Failed obama admn gonna get destroyed in november
Why should it suck. I live in a beautiful state and life is great
You live in a shithole and spend your day posting gay fantasies about Obama and other nonsense you you just imagine
BTW - I responded to the first thread you started about Bill Moyers and net neutrality
Remember I took you seriously and it turned out to be just another thread where you had nothing to say other than to troll
-
Failed obama admn gonna get destroyed in november
The Dems will try to lie, cheat and steal the election just like they did with Obama. Surprisingly enough, there are still some dumbass freeloaders who'll vote for them. (Straw, Benny, etc)
-
The Dems will try to lie, cheat and steal the election just like they did with Obama. Surprisingly enough, there are still some dumbass freeloaders who'll vote for them. (Straw, Benny, etc)
I've been self employed for the last 23 years and paid ~ 50k in taxes last year (not including property tax) so how exactly am I free loader you fucking moron
-
I've been self employed for the last 23 years and paid ~ 50k in taxes last year (not including property tax) so how exactly am I free loader you fucking moron
I meant to put an "and" between dumbass and freeloader. Don't worry, you're still a dumbass for voting left.
-
So Repubs would have been outraged at Bush if Americans were killed
Is that what you're suggesting Joe?
One day it might occur to him that over 3,000 Americans died under Bush's watch.
Not at some foreign embassy/ consulate / CIA safe house, ...but at home right on American soil.
Of course, this was much different than Benghazi. The victims never asked for additional security,
and the President was warned well in advance by multiple countries ahead of time.
-
One day it might occur to him that over 3,000 Americans died under Bush's watch.
Not at some foreign embassy/ consulate / CIA safe house, ...but at home right on American soil.
Of course, this was much different than Benghazi. The victims never asked for additional security,
and the President was warned well in advance by multiple countries ahead of time.
This.
-
One day it might occur to him that over 3,000 Americans died under Bush's watch.
Not at some foreign embassy/ consulate / CIA safe house, ...but at home right on American soil.
Of course, this was much different than Benghazi. The victims never asked for additional security,
and the President was warned well in advance by multiple countries ahead of time.
Ahhh, I see the liberal reasoning is right at work with the spin of it being "Bush's fault" yet once again. But how quick they forget how their very own Bill Clinton actually knew his whereabouts not just one time, but over 10 times and did nothing despite the other attacks that happen on HIS watch on our soil. Yes, US embassies in other countries are considered OUR soil as well as the FIRST WTC bombing in 1993 and not to mention the USS Cole. BTW, those were just a few that he did NOTHING in response to those attacks.
-
Editor’s note: When it comes to Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism, there’s no need to invent fictional scenarios to show how ineffective he was; the truth is bad enough. A few months after 9/11, Byron York went through the record — including the former president’s habit of taking polls to see how he should respond to terrorist attacks — and came up with this report, from the December 17, 2001 issue of National Review:
June 25, 1996, a powerful truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, tearing the front from the building, blasting a crater 35 feet deep, and killing 19 American soldiers. Hundreds more were injured. When news reached Washington, Presi dent Bill Clinton vowed to bring the killers to justice. “The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished,” he said angrily. “Let me say again: We will pursue this. America takes care of our own. Those who did it must not go unpunished.” The next day, leaving the White House to attend an economic summit in France, Clinton had more tough words for the attackers. “Let me be very clear: We will not resist” — the president corrected himself — “we will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them.”
Advertisement
As Clinton spoke, his top political strategist, Dick Morris, was hard at work conducting polls to gauge the public’s reaction to the bombing. “Whenever there was a crisis, I ordered an immediate poll,” Morris recalls. “I was concerned about how Clinton looked in the face of [the attack] and whether people blamed him.” The bombing happened in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign, and even though Clinton enjoyed a substantial lead over Republican Bob Dole, Morris worried that public dissatisfaction with Clinton on the terrorism issue might benefit Dole.
Indeed, Morris’s first poll showed less support for Clinton than he had hoped. But by the time Morris presented his findings to the president and top staffers at a political-strategy meeting a few days later, public approval of Clinton’s response had climbed — something Morris noted in his written agenda for the session:
SAUDI BOMBING — recovered from Friday and looking great
Approve Clinton handling 73-20
Big gain from 63-20 on Friday
Security was adequate 52-40
It’s not Clinton’s fault 76-18
The numbers were a relief for the re-election team. But soon there was another crisis when, on July 17, TWA Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on its way from New York to Paris. There was widespread suspicion that the crash was the result of terrorism (it was later ruled to be an accident), and Morris’s polling found the public growing uneasy not only about air safety but also about Clinton’s performance in the Khobar investigation. Morris found that the number of people who believed Clinton was “doing all he can to investigate the Saudi bombing and punish those responsible” was just 54 percent, while 32 percent believed he could do more. Morris feared that White House inaction would allow Dole to portray Clinton as soft on national security.
“We tested two alternative defenses to this attack: Peace maker or Toughness,” Morris wrote in a memo for the president. In the “Peacemaker” defense, Morris asked voters to respond to the statement, “Clinton is peacemaker. Brought together Arabs and Israelis. Ireland. Bosnia cease fire. Uses strength to bring about peace.” The other defense, “Tough ness,” asked voters to respond to “Clinton tough. Stands up for American interests. Against foreign companies doing business in Cuba. Sanctions against Iran. Anti-terrorist legislation held up by Republicans. Prosecuted World Trade Center bombers.” Morris found that the public greatly preferred “Toughness.”
So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism.
At the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his administration was just beginning, and he was embroiled in controversies over gays in the military, an economic stimulus plan, and the beginnings of Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. Khobar Towers happened not only in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign but also at the end of a month in which there were new and damaging developments in the Whitewater and Filegate scandals. The African embassy attacks occurred as the Monica Lewinsky affair was at fever pitch, in the month that Clinton appeared before independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s grand jury. And when the Cole was rammed, Clinton had little time left in office and was desperately hoping to build his legacy with a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whenever a serious terrorist attack occurred, it seemed Bill Clinton was always busy with something else.
The First WTC Attack
Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president’s reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against “overreacting” and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who “did something really stupid.”
From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government’s most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. “Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access,” says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. “It was all under grand-jury secrecy.”
Another problem with Clinton’s decision to assign the investigation exclusively to law enforcement was that law enforcement in the new administration was in turmoil. When the bomb went off, Clinton did not have a confirmed attorney general; Janet Reno, who was nominated after the Zoë Baird fiasco, was awaiting Senate approval. The Justice Department, meanwhile, was headed by a Bush holdover who had no real power in the new administration. The bombing barely came up at Reno’s Senate hearings, and when she was finally sworn in on March 12, neither she nor Clinton mentioned the case. (Instead, Clinton praised Reno for “sharing with us the life-shaping stories of your family and career that formed your deep sense of fairness and your unwavering drive to help others to do better.”) In addition, at the time the bombing investigation began, the FBI was headed by William Sessions, who would soon leave after a messy forcing-out by Clinton. A new director, Louis Freeh, was not confirmed by the Senate until August 6.
Amid all the turmoil at the top, the investigation missed some tantalizing clues pointing toward a far-reaching conspiracy. In April 1995, for example, terrorism expert Steven Emerson told the House International Relations Committee that there was information that “strongly suggests . . . a Sudanese role in the World Trade Center bombing. There are also leads pointing to the involvement of Osama bin Laden, the ex-Afghan Saudi mujahideen supporter now taking refuge in Sudan.” Two years later, Emerson told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the same thing. In recent years, according to an exhaustive New York Times report, “American intelligence officials have come to believe that [ringleader Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman] and the World Trade Center bombers had ties to al-Qaeda.”
But the Clinton administration stuck with its theory that the bombing was the work of a loose network of terrorists working apart from any government sponsorship. Intelligence officials who might have thought otherwise were left out in the cold — “I made repeated attempts to see Clinton privately to take up a whole range of issues and was unsuccessful,” Woolsey recalls — and some of the nation’s most critical intelligence capabilities went unused. In the end, the U.S. tried six suspects in the attack. All were convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Another key suspect, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was released after being held by the FBI in New Jersey and fled to Baghdad, where he is living under the protection of the Iraqi government. Today, with many leads gone cold, intelligence officials concede they will probably never know who was behind the attack.
Khobar Towers
“In June of 1996, it felt like an entire herd was converging on the White House,” wrote Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos in his memoir, All Too Human. A herd of scandals, that is: In late May, independent counsel Kenneth Starr had convicted Jim and Susan McDougal and Jim Guy Tucker in the first big Whitewater trial; in June, the Filegate story first broke into public view, and Sen. Alphonse D’Amato issued his committee’s Whitewater report recommending that several administration officials be investigated for perjury. It was also in June that the White House went into full battle mode against a variety of allegations contained in Unlimited Access, a book by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich.
All these developments were heavy on the minds of Clinton, Dick Morris, and the other members of the re-election strategy team when the bomb went off at Khobar Towers on June 25. As it had after the World Trade Center bombing, a distracted White House gave the case to law enforcement. But there is significant evidence to suggest that the White House was even less interested in finding answers than it had been in the World Trade Center case. In the Khobar investigation, the Clinton administration not only failed to follow potentially productive leads but in some instances actively made the investigators’ job more difficult.
From the beginning, the administration ran into significant Saudi resistance (the Saudis quickly identified a few low-level suspects and beheaded them, hoping to end the matter there). According to a long account of the case by Elsa Walsh published earlier this year in The New Yorker, FBI director Louis Freeh on several occasions urged the White House to pressure the Saudis for more cooperation. More than once, Walsh reports, Freeh was frustrated to learn that the president barely mentioned the case in meetings with Saudi leaders.
Freeh — whose own relations with the White House had deteriorated badly in the wake of the Filegate and campaign-finance scandals — became convinced that the White House didn’t really want to push the Saudis for more information, which Freeh believed would confirm strong suspicions of extensive Iranian involvement in the attack. Walsh reports that in September 1998, Freeh, angry and losing hope, took the extraordinary step of secretly asking former president George H. W. Bush to intercede with the Saudi royal family. Acting without Clinton’s knowledge, Bush made the request, and the Saudis began to provide new information, which indeed pointed to Iran.
In late 1998, Walsh reports, Freeh went to national security adviser Sandy Berger to tell him that it appeared the FBI had enough evidence to indict several suspects. “Who else knows this?” Berger asked Freeh, demanding to know if it had been leaked to the press. Freeh said it was a closely held secret. Then Berger challenged some of the evidence of Iranian involvement. “That’s just hearsay,” Berger said. “No, Sandy,” Freeh responded. “It’s testimony of a co-conspirator . . .” According to Walsh’s account, Freeh thought that “Berger . . . was not a national security adviser; he was a public-relations hack, interested in how something would play in the press. After more than two years, Freeh had concluded that the administration did not really want to resolve the Khobar bombing.”
Ultimately, Freeh never got the support he wanted from the White House. Walsh writes that “by the end of the Clinton era, Freeh had become so mistrustful of Clinton that, although he believed he had developed enough evidence to seek indictments against the masterminds behind the attack, not just the front-line suspects, he decided to wait for a new administration.” Just before Freeh left office, Walsh reports, he met with new president George W. Bush and gave him a list of suspects in the bombing. In June, attorney general John Ashcroft announced the indictment of 14 suspects: 13 Saudis and one Lebanese. It is not clear whether any of them are the “masterminds” of Khobar; none is in American custody and no Iranian officials were named in the indictment.
Both the Khobar investigation and the World Trade Center bombing presented Clinton with daunting challenges; there were sensitive political issues involved, and in each case it was not immediately clear who was behind the violence. But in neither instance did Clinton press hard for answers and demand action; Berger would not have taken the position he did if the president fully supported a vigorous investigation. In the coming years, Clinton would be faced with clear acts of terrorism carried out by an organization with undeniable state support. But again, busy with other things, he did little.
The Embassies
On August 7, 1998, bombs exploded at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 people were killed, including 12 Americans. The morning of the attacks, Clinton said, “We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes. . . . We are determined to get answers and justice.”
Investigators quickly discovered that bin Laden was behind the attacks. On August 20, Clinton ordered cruise-missile strikes on a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan and the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. But the strikes were at best ineffectual. There was little convincing evidence that the pharmaceutical factory, which admin istration officials believed was involved in the production of material for chemical weapons, actually was part of a weapons-making operation, and the cruise missiles in Afghanistan missed bin Laden and his deputies.
Instead of striking a strong blow against terrorism, the action set off a howling debate about Clinton’s motives. The president ordered the action three days after appearing before the grand jury investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair, and Clinton’s critics accused him of using military action to change the subject from the sex-and-perjury scandal — the so-called “wag the dog” strategy. Some of Clinton’s allies, suspecting the same thing, remained silent. Even some of those who, after briefings by administration officials, publicly defended the strikes privately questioned Clinton’s decision.
The accusations came as no surprise to the White House. “Everyone knew the ‘wag the dog’ charge was going to be made,” recalls Daniel Benjamin, a terrorism expert on the National Security Council. But Benjamin and others believed — mistakenly, as it turned out — that they could convince the skeptics the attacks were fully justified. “I remember being shocked and deeply depressed over the fact that no one would take seriously what I considered a grave national-security problem,” says Benjamin. “Not only were they not buying it, they were accusing the administration of essentially playing the most shallow and foolish kind of game to deflect attention from other issues. It was astonishing.”
In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration’s evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production. The attack came to be viewed, by consensus, as a screw-up. In a new article in The New York Review of Books, Benjamin suggests that that skepticism, particularly on the part of reporters, scared Clinton away from any more tough action against bin Laden. “The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al-Qaeda threat,” Benjamin writes. “That in turn meant there was no support for decisive measures in Afghanistan — including, possibly, the use of U.S. ground forces — to hunt down the terrorists; and thus no national leader of either party publicly suggested such action.”
After the cruise-missile raids, the administration restricted its work to covert actions breaking up terrorist cells. Benjamin and others say a significant number of terrorist plots were short-circuited, preventing several acts of violence. “I see no reason to doubt their word on that,” says James Woolsey. “They may have been doing a lot of stuff behind the scenes.” But breaking up individual cells while avoiding larger-scale action probably had the effect of postponing terrorist acts rather than stopping them. Woolsey believes that such an approach was part of what he calls Clinton’s “PR-driven” approach to terrorism, an approach that left the fundamental problem unsolved: “Do something to show you’re concerned. Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a few people. But just keep kicking the ball down the field.”
The Cole
The last act of terrorism during the Clinton administration came on October 12, 2000, when bin Laden operatives bombed the USS Cole in Aden, Yemen. Seventeen American sailors were killed, 39 others were wounded, and one of the U.S.’s most sophisticated warships was nearly sunk.
Clinton’s reaction to the Cole terrorism was more muted than his response to the previous attacks. While he called the bombing “a despicable and cowardly act” and said, “We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable,” he seemed more concerned that the attack might threaten the administration’s work in the Middle East (the bombing came at the same time as a new spate of violence between Israelis and Palestinians). “If [the terrorists’] intention was to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and security in the Middle East, they will fail utterly,” Clinton said on the morning of the attack. The next day, the Washington Post’s John Harris, who had good connections inside the administration, wrote, “While the apparent suicide bombing of the USS Cole may have been the more dramatic episode for the American public, the escalation between Israelis and Palestinians took the edge in preoccupying senior administration officials yesterday. This was regarded as the more fluid of the two problems, and it presented the broader threat to Clinton’s foreign policy aims.”
As in 1998, U.S. investigators quickly linked the bombing to bin Laden and his sponsors in Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. Together with the embassy bombings, the Cole blast established a clear pattern of attacks on American interests carried out by bin Laden’s organization. Clinton had a solid rationale, and would most likely have had solid public support, for strong military action. Yet he did nothing. Perhaps he didn’t want to endanger the cherished goal of Middle East peace. Perhaps he didn’t want to disrupt the 2000 presidential campaign, then in its last days. Perhaps he didn’t know quite what to do. But in the end, the ball was kicked a bit farther down the field.
In early August 1996, a few weeks after the Khobar Towers bombing, Clinton had a long conversation with Dick Morris about his place in history. Morris divided presidents into four categories: first tier, second tier, third tier, and the rest. Twenty-two presidents who presided over uneventful administrations fell into the last category. Just five — Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt — made Morris’s first tier.
Clinton asked Morris where he stood. “I said that at the moment he was at the top of the unrated category,” Morris recalls. Morris says he told the president that one surprising thing about the ratings was that a president’s standing had little to do with the performance of the economy during his time in office. “Yeah,” Clinton responded, “It has so much to do with whether you get re-elected or not, but history kind of forgets it.”
Clinton then asked, “What do I need to do to be first tier?” “I said, ‘You can’t,’“ Morris remembers. “‘You have to win a war.’“ Clinton then asked what he needed to do to make the second or third tier, and Morris outlined three goals. The first was successful welfare reform. The second was balancing the budget. And the third was an effective battle against terrorism. “I said the only one of the major goals he had not achieved was a war on terrorism,” Morris says. (This is not a recent recollection; Morris also described the conversation in his 1997 book, Behind the Oval Office.)
But Clinton never began, much less finished, a war on terrorism. Even though Morris’s polling showed the poll-sensitive president that the American people supported tough action, Clinton demurred. Why?
“He had almost an allergy to using people in uniform,” Morris explains. “He was terrified of incurring casualties; the lessons of Vietnam were ingrained far too deeply in him. He lacked a faith that it would work, and I think he was constantly fearful of reprisals.” But there was more to it than that. “On another level, I just don’t think it was his thing,” Morris says. “You could talk to him about income redistribution and he would talk to you for hours and hours. Talk to him about terrorism, and all you’d get was a series of grunts.”
And that is the key to understanding Bill Clinton’s handling of the terrorist threat that grew throughout his two terms in the White House: It just wasn’t his thing. Clinton was right when he said history might care little about the prosperity of his era. Now, as he tries to defend his record on terrorism, he appears to sense that he will be judged harshly on an issue that is far more important than the Nasdaq or 401(k) balances. He’s right about that, too.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218683/facts-about-clinton-and-terrorism/byron-york
-
One day it might occur to him that over 3,000 Americans died under Bush's watch.
Not at some foreign embassy/ consulate / CIA safe house, ...but at home right on American soil.
Of course, this was much different than Benghazi. The victims never asked for additional security,
and the President was warned well in advance by multiple countries ahead of time.
yep, that's where I was headed with my first post
-
yep, that's where I was headed with my first post
So Obama was warned about the bostom bombers and didn't do shit. is that his fault?
-
So Repubs would have been outraged at Bush if Americans were killed?
Please answer this question, Joe.
BTW, how many American defense contractors is one diplomat worth, anyway?
Not real sure why the distinction between diplomats and defense contractors, anyway. Aren't both the diplomats and the defense contractors serving of their own free will and aren't both sufficiently aware of the risks of their service?
(The people I feel sorry for are the military folks coaxed into service with talk of college money and "be all you can be" and then sent into life-threatening situations for no good reason with very little they can then do about it.)
Honestly, my takeaway from the "13 Benghazis" thing is just simply that US embassies in foreign countries (especially ones with a lot of people who harbor anti-American sentiments) are going to get attacked every once in a while. So blaming Obama OR Bush seems at least a little unfair, I think.
-
One day it might occur to him that over 3,000 Americans died under Bush's watch.
Not at some foreign embassy/ consulate / CIA safe house, ...but at home right on American soil.
...
BOOM!
-
There is a 100's of "warnings" per day. It's a adolescent argument, born of ignorance, to blame Bush for 9/11 over it just as it is to blame Clinton for letting OBL get away as it is to blame OB for Boston.
Maybe you guys can step up your game a bit? Not that all of you can :D
-
BOOM!
Figures you skipped over my post and went right to the one that made the least amount of sense ::)
-
Figures you skipped over my post and went right to the one that made the least amount of sense ::)
Which one? The one where you talk about Clinton?
-
There is a 100's of "warnings" per day. It's a adolescent argument, born of ignorance, to blame Bush for 9/11 over it just as it is to blame Clinton for letting OBL get away as it is to blame OB for Boston.
Maybe you guys can step up your game a bit? Not that all of you can :D
This, Coach.
-
There is a 100's of "warnings" per day. It's a adolescent argument, born of ignorance, to blame Bush for 9/11 over it just as it is to blame Clinton for letting OBL get away as it is to blame OB for Boston.
Maybe you guys can step up your game a bit? Not that all of you can :D
You sure as fuck can blame Clinton...he was offered to him. They could have had OBL in custody. Ob can't be blamed for Boston....domestic shitbirds are going to do what they're gonna do.
-
Good article.
-
You sure as fuck can blame Clinton...he was offered to him. They could have had OBL in custody. Ob can't be blamed for Boston....domestic shitbirds are going to do what they're gonna do.
Not really. Do you think if Clinton knew 9/11 was going to happen that he would have? You can't second guess every move made simply because some of them, years later, turn out bad.
-
So Obama was warned about the bostom bombers and didn't do shit. is that his fault?
please post proof that Obama was directly warned
I assume he must have received a presidential daily briefing about it just like Bush did about 911
-
Not really. Do you think if Clinton knew 9/11 was going to happen that he would have? You can't second guess every move made simply because some of them, years later, turn out bad.
They tried a different method in '93, Clinton wanted it to be treated as a law enforcement issue. Wish I could remember the documentary, but there was an ex-CIA, talking about numerous missed opportunities to get OBL. They were always over ruled by a team of lawyers...........
-
They tried a different method in '93, Clinton wanted it to be treated as a law enforcement issue. Wish I could remember the documentary, but there was an ex-CIA, talking about numerous missed opportunities to get OBL. They were always over ruled by a team of lawyers...........
9/11 showed how stupid of an idea approaching the war on terror like a police action was.
-
So Obama was warned about the bostom bombers and didn't do shit. is that his fault?
so you have nothing to support your claim that Obama was directly warned about the boston bombers like Bush was directly warned (i.e. Presidential Daily Briefing) ?
-
so you have nothing to support your claim that Obama was directly warned about the boston bombers like Bush was directly warned (i.e. Presidential Daily Briefing) ?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/russia-repeatedly-warned-us-about-muslim-boston-bomber
-
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/russia-repeatedly-warned-us-about-muslim-boston-bomber
so you admit you have nothing that shows Obama was directly warned about the Boston bombing
-
so you admit you have nothing that shows Obama was directly warned about the Boston bombing
Like it would have mattered? Obama was old about problems at the VA 6 years ago and he didn't do dick about it.
-
Like it would have mattered? Obama was old about problems at the VA 6 years ago and he didn't do dick about it.
then why even lie about it in the first place
-
then why even lie about it in the first place
His admn was warned about the boston bombers and didn't do shit. Remember - this worthless twink gets all his news personally from the TV so he himself personally probably didn't know - but people in his admn did and never did a fucking thing about it.
-
His admn was warned about the boston bombers and didn't do shit. Remember - this worthless twink gets all his news personally from the TV so he himself personally probably didn't know - but people in his admn did and never did a fucking thing about it.
fine, just post some proof of that claim or just admit you're a liar
-
fine, just post some proof of that claim or just admit you're a liar
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/us-usa-explosions-boston-congress-idUSBREA2P02Q20140326
Straw - you are a fucking moron and an idiot if you didn't know this.
-
There is a 100's of "warnings" per day. It's a adolescent argument, born of ignorance, to blame Bush for 9/11 over it just as it is to blame Clinton for letting OBL get away as it is to blame OB for Boston.
Maybe you guys can step up your game a bit? Not that all of you can :D
As usual as seen in above posts..... dumb arguments from ignorance.
Very comical at times:
We have on one hand someone accusing people of giving OB a free pass and NOT blaming him for everything and from the same person blaming OB for EVERYTHING.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/26/us-usa-explosions-boston-congress-idUSBREA2P02Q20140326
Straw - you are a fucking moron and an idiot if you didn't know this.
I didn't see anything in that article about Obama being warned about this at all
Where is the Presidential Daily Briefing that says "Tamerlan Tsarnaev determined to strike in the US" or something similar
you know, like Bush being given a Presidential Daily Briefing saying "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"
If you had something like that they you could legitimately claim that "Obama was warned about the bostom bombers and didn't do shit"
What you have posted only talks about the FBI investigating him and no mention the the Obama administration was warned about anything
Surely even the dumbest lawyer on the planet can understand the difference
-
I didn't see anything in that article about Obama being warned about this at all
Where is the Presidential Daily Briefing that says "Tamerlan Tsarnaev determined to strike in the US" or something similar
you know, like Bush being given a Presidential Daily Briefing saying "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US"
If you had something like that they you could legitimately claim that "Obama was warned about the bostom bombers and didn't do shit"
What you have posted only talks about the FBI investigating him and no mention the the Obama administration was warned about anything
Surely even the dumbest lawyer on the planet can understand the difference
His Admn was warned.
and spare me - al queada is always determined to attack us
-
His Admn was warned.
and spare me - al queada is always determined to attack us
fine
post the proof of that statement and try to remember that stuff you imagined doesn't count as proof
-
fine
post the proof of that statement and try to remember that stuff you imagined doesn't count as proof
The FBI is under DOJ - his admn
Now go get your tampon box you little queer
-
The FBI is under DOJ - his admn
Now go get your tampon box you little queer
so let's see if I understand this correctly
you think the administration is aware of every single investigation done by the FBI
Is that what you're saying you believe counselor ?
-
so let's see if I understand this correctly
you think the administration is aware of every single investigation done by the FBI
Is that what you're saying you believe counselor ?
It was not an investigation - the Russian Govt warned us of the brothers and we disdnt do jack shit but put the younger punk on welfare
-
It was not an investigation - the Russian Govt warned us of the brothers and we disdnt do jack shit but put the younger punk on welfare
try reading the articles you posted
you're a pathological liar (along with many other mental health problems)
You've made a claim and you can't prove it's time for you to move on to new trolling opportunities
-
We would like somebody within this clown car of an admin to take some responsibility.
-
;D......u voted for him.
-
try reading the articles you posted
you're a pathological liar (along with many other mental health problems)
You've made a claim and you can't prove it's time for you to move on to new trolling opportunities
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/russia-tamerlan-tsarnaev_n_5031694.html
WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) - Russian authorities warned the FBI in 2011 about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two Chechen brothers accused of carrying out last year's Boston Marathon bombings, but U.S. authorities missed chances to detain him, NBC News reported on Tuesday.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/russia-tamerlan-tsarnaev_n_5031694.html
WASHINGTON, March 25 (Reuters) - Russian authorities warned the FBI in 2011 about Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of two Chechen brothers accused of carrying out last year's Boston Marathon bombings, but U.S. authorities missed chances to detain him, NBC News reported on Tuesday.
yes, that point has been well established
what you need now is some proof that the FBI or anyone every warned the Administration
that's your claim.....remember?
dude - why don't you just admit you're a liar and move or or even just move on to another troll
there are plenty of more opportunities for you to lie about other stuff waiting for you
-
yes, that point has been well established
what you need now is some proof that the FBI or anyone every warned the Administration
that's your claim.....remember?
dude - why don't you just admit you're a liar and move or or even just move on to another troll
there are plenty of more opportunities for you to lie about other stuff waiting for you
The FBI is the admn you idiot
-
lol so now OB is responsible for the thousands of bits of intel the FBI receives each day?
Sorry dude, you've been evolving to complete stupid for some time now.
-
The FBI is the admn you idiot
so let's see if I understand this correctly
you think the administration is aware of every single investigation done by the FBI
Is that what you're saying you believe counselor ?
-
lol so now OB is responsible for the thousands of bits of intel the FBI receives each day?
Sorry dude, you've been evolving to complete stupid for some time now.
International Terrorists are warned to the FBI who then go on to blow up a device, yeah no ones' fault. Obama and the FBI only learned about it on TV like everything else. ;)
-
lol so now OB is responsible for the thousands of bits of intel the FBI receives each day?
Sorry dude, you've been evolving to complete stupid for some time now.
Ozmo, you need to understand that it makes perfect sense if you are truly mentally ill
If you are mentally ill then you can easily believe that Obama is aware of everything single thing happening in every one of the agencies and departments of the government
Of course if you were sane you would be aware that there aren't even enough hours in the day for him to be briefed in that level of detail. Even if he spent 24/7 he would never even make a dent in that amount of data.
If you're insane though you have no problem believing that, once elected to office you are granted the divine ability to just "know" all of that information all the time (and I guess you lose that superpower once you leave office)
-
Ozmo, you need to understand that it makes perfect sense if you are truly mentally ill
If you are mentally ill then you can easily believe that Obama is aware of everything single thing happening in every one of the agencies and departments of the government
Of course if you were sane you would be aware that there aren't even enough hours in the day for him to be briefed in that level of detail. Even if he spent 24/7 he would never even make a dent in that amount of data.
If you're insane though you have no problem believing that, once elected to office you are granted the divine ability to just "know" all of that information all the time (and I guess you lose that superpower once you leave office)
Obama was warned in 2007 about the VA - what is his excuse now for not knowing?
-
You guys allowed him to blame Bush for 2-3 years. Now he has a laundry list of scandals that he's mad as hell about but not responsible for. I wish as a leader I could get away with the shit he does. There is no accountability unless your some middle man and then u get fucked. As far as the FBI thing...there is now a culture supported within the admin of not focusing on Islam. You guys see it all the time and we hear about it as well from within the military. Obama didn't know about Boston but he and his people set the conditions.
-
From Ace of Spades....
Krauthammer notes that Obama's favorite pose is to pretend as if he's just "stumbled upon the presidency," and is both as surprised and as blameless for his own administration's incompetency and corruption as the average citizen.
He is the boss...stop making excuses. If a sailor on a ship goes on liberty in a port...after having been briefed about conduct, after having been given every phone number and been told all the off limits places he can't go...and then proceeds to kill a hooker....the CO of the ship gets fried. Obama takes no blame...and then goes on vacation. He has an excuse for everything. He holds a news conference...looks angry and baffled...takes no questions and then leaves.
-
International Terrorists are warned to the FBI who then go on to blow up a device, yeah no ones' fault. Obama and the FBI only learned about it on TV like everything else. ;)
Yeah, i tripped in the road the other day. skinned my knee, it's OB's fault because he knew if it, because the states don't enough money to fix shit.
-
Yeah, i tripped in the road the other day. skinned my knee, it's OB's fault because he knew if it, because the states don't enough money to fix shit.
Obama was warned about that bump in the road and chose to ignore it (ok, so he wasn't actually warned but he should have known about it anyway)
-
You guys allowed him to blame Bush for 2-3 years. Now he has a laundry list of scandals that he's mad as hell about but not responsible for. I wish as a leader I could get away with the shit he does. There is no accountability unless your some middle man and then u get fucked. As far as the FBI thing...there is now a culture supported within the admin of not focusing on Islam. You guys see it all the time and we hear about it as well from within the military. Obama didn't know about Boston but he and his people set the conditions.
How did he and his people "set the conditions?" What do you mean by that?
BTW, most of the other side during the Bush years ever blamed Bush for much while he was in office. It wasn't until OB that peeps started coming forward. So it's pretty typical to argue your side, no matter what that is.
-
The cultural right now is very PC. The way the ROE in A-Stan evolved as soon as Obama was put in office. I have a friend in the FBI who was with the counter terrorism task force...after 9-11 they could do anything they wanted...after 2006 the pendulum began to swing back and now its ridiculous. That's just the Muslim thing....on to the IRS thing.....I have no idea if Obama ordered all that shit but it sure as hell looks like the anti- tea party folks in the gov used their power to go after those groups. Its the culture...no responsibility or accountability for actions. Somebody does something...they scream racism, sexism...whatever, blame Bush or Fox and that becomes the narrative. They fucked up in Libya, they fucked up with the IRS deal...and now we have the VA thing. He's the President. He is not on all expense paid golf vacation with cool helicopters.
-
The cultural right now is very PC. The way the ROE in A-Stan evolved as soon as Obama was put in office. I have a friend in the FBI who was with the counter terrorism task force...after 9-11 they could do anything they wanted...after 2006 the pendulum began to swing back and now its ridiculous. That's just the Muslim thing....on to the IRS thing.....I have no idea if Obama ordered all that shit but it sure as hell looks like the anti- tea party folks in the gov used their power to go after those groups. Its the culture...no responsibility or accountability for actions. Somebody does something...they scream racism, sexism...whatever, blame Bush or Fox and that becomes the narrative. They fucked up in Libya, they fucked up with the IRS deal...and now we have the VA thing. He's the President. He is not on all expense paid golf vacation with cool helicopters.
agree with most of that.
But are you saying he has set conditions for NOT being accountable or has set conditions for Boston to happen?
-
Well both.....I would argue that an easier case can be made for the accountability argument then the Boston issue. Society as a whole covers for the Muslim thing instead of calling a spade a spade.....they can't even blame Muslims with the whole free our girls thing...while they're really blaming Muslim terrorists.
Here....The White House keeps saying these horrible cases of deception and wrongdoing are “isolated incidents” and not “systemic.” As I asked last night on Special Report, how many isolated incidents do you need before they become systemic? Right now, allegations have surfaced in 19 states. That feels systemic to me. But what do I know?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/378357/va-and-limits-liberalism-jonah-goldberg
How many times are they going to try and outright lie about this. The VA was a disaster under Bush...under Clinton...under Bush...under Reagan...under Carter etc etc etc. Obama has made it worse...just like the next guy...unless he shitcans it. Obama said he would make it better. Firing a whole bunch of people would be a start. I am considering going into the VA after I retire because I feel more OIF/OEF vets need to help each other. ......ok anyway if you owned a business you would not hire any of these people. In fact I bet many of you libs would laugh guys like Holder and Carney and Obama out the door...especially if you care about your bottom line.
-
As an aside....this you lib idiots is how you debate. Point...counter point...clarification... .debate...comment...cut and paste were needed...follow up question. This is something lacking on this board as we get hit and run Benny and some of the other idiots. 240 does a good job of original thought...as bizarre and schizophrenic as he can be. Alright go back to setting yourselves on fire. ;D
-
As an aside....this you lib idiots is how you debate. Point...counter point...clarification... .debate...comment...cut and paste were needed...follow up question. This is something lacking on this board as we get hit and run Benny and some of the other idiots. 240 does a good job of original thought...as bizarre and schizophrenic as he can be. Alright go back to setting yourselves on fire. ;D
I deal with everyone in that way but let's face facts.... this board is infected with a mental patient who trolls every thread and can't even pay attention long enough to have a point by point debate nor does he even want to.
Even when I give him the benefit of the doubt and try he's just can't do it
-
There are people who debate and argue.....and there are the hit and run shitbirds. Soul stirs the pot but lets get real gents...its one thing after another with our current admin. I could have a beer with most of the people on here and I think the debate would have different flavor...guys like benny...I'd reenact any one a dozen scenes from Good Fella's or Casino. If you believe this shit...defend it. This shit is free
-
Yeah, i tripped in the road the other day. skinned my knee, it's OB's fault because he knew if it, because the states don't enough money to fix shit.
You must have forgotten about the stimulus and those shovel ready jobs ;D
-
You must have forgotten about the stimulus and those shovel ready jobs ;D
ugh. : ( I am willing to bet there were seriously wasted funds. A school by where i live turned a 7 Arce field into a running track with planted trees, and sculpted pathways. Looks like it prolly cost 300-500K. Its no different then the dirt path circled the field before.