New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Let's compare 9/11 and Benghazi, shall we?

Bugsy McGurk

Bugsy McGurk

President
9/11: Almost 3,000 Americans killed. Two WTC towers and 50 story building destroyed and Pentagon blasted.
Benghazi: 4 Americans killed. A few small outpost buildings destroyed.

9/11: Preceded by a blizzard of warnings telling the White House that a terrorist attack was coming. All ignored. Bushies lied afterwards, saying "no warnings" had been received.
Benghazi: No such warnings to White House.

9/11: GWB White House bitterly opposed any investigation.
Benghazi: Obama White House has welcomed a slew of investigations.

9/11: Pugs supported GWB stonewalling and defended their ignoring of warnings.
Benghazi: Pugs lie their asses off about what occurred, and screech for impeachment.

Pretty much tells you all you need to know about the GOP cult.
 
Funny, I don't remember the "Mainstream Lib'rul Media" trying to BLAME 9/11 on Bush eight months after it happened??? As Rightwing Meme suggests about Benghazi in the opposing situation.
 
Yup.

And the Dems were true patriots, supporting GWB every way they could, even giving him a 90% approval rating.

The Pugs yodeled with joy when our people got killed in Benghazi, and tripped over themselves turning it into a political football. Willard Romney did so even before the bodies had cooled. Literally.
 
You know, I had forgotten about Romney's bizarre behavior regarding Benghazi. Not that anything about Mitt Romney is all that memorable to begin with...
 
NightSwimmer said:
You know, I had forgotten about Romney's bizarre behavior regarding Benghazi. Not that anything about Mitt Romney is all that memorable to begin with...
Click to expand...

He trotted out late in the evening and bashed Obama over Benghazi before we even knew that Stevens was dead. But he knew we had been attacked, and he just couldn't wipe the smirk off his face. He just couldn't control his glee.

It was mass confusion for many hours, and Pugs now pretend that everything was known at the time.
 
In retrospect, it was probably Mitt's puking all over himself in response to the Benghazi attack that caused Fox & Co. to become so invested in this bogus story to begin with that they felt like they just couldn't afford to let it go. I hadn't really considered that because, like I said, Romney simply isn't all that memorable. I suppose if you wanted to imagine an analogy among the so-called "left wing media", it would be for them to still be giving wall-to-wall coverage of Mitt Romney refusing to disclose his tax records. Doesn't really matter though. He lost. Maybe they'll eventually figure out that Romney's loss can't be undone after the fact? Maybe... But I doubt it.
 
NightSwimmer said:
In retrospect, it was probably Mitt's puking all over himself in response to the Benghazi attack that caused Fox & Co. to become so invested in this bogus story to begin with that they felt like they just couldn't afford to let it go. I hadn't really considered that because, like I said, Romney simply isn't all that memorable. I suppose if you wanted to imagine an analogy among the so-called "left wing media", it would be for them to still be giving wall-to-wall coverage of Mitt Romney refusing to disclose his tax records. Doesn't really matter though. He lost. Maybe they'll eventually figure out that Romney's loss can't be undone after the fact? Maybe... But I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Yup, now they're onto their anti-Hillary jihad.

Recall when Mutt came out that evening the Republican Big Lie was that we had apologized for the Islam-sliming movie in Cairo. That's why Fox Noise, Hate Radio and the Pugs lied and obsessed about what Susan Rice said on TV about the movie leading to Muslim kooks going batty. They then got invested in that hooey, falsely claiming that Rice lied, and off they went....
 
Wow, you are a BIG fuckin liar....


On Sept. 11 -- the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed -- the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled "sensitive," in which he noted "growing problems with security" in Benghazi and "growing frustration" on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as "too weak to keep the country secure."

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier with local militia commanders. These men boasted to Stevens of exercising "control" over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya's internal political jockeying, "they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi."

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled "sensitive," that he entitled "The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya." Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months' time, "Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape." He added, "The individual incidents have been organized," a function of "the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes."

"Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity," Stevens cabled. "What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks." His final comment on the two-page document was: "Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable."

By Sept. 4, Stevens' aides were reporting back to Washington on the "strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment" in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a "recent increase in violent incidents," including "attacks against western interests." "Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively deal with these key issues," Stevens wrote on June 25, "the violence is likely to continue and worsen."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...curity-threats-al-qaeda-before/#ixzz2Sk9953Lc
 
Dino said:
Wow, you are a BIG fuckin liar....


On Sept. 11 -- the day Stevens and three other Americans were killed -- the ambassador signed a three-page cable, labeled "sensitive," in which he noted "growing problems with security" in Benghazi and "growing frustration" on the part of local residents with Libyan police and security forces. These forces the ambassador characterized as "too weak to keep the country secure."

In the document, Stevens also cited a meeting he had held two days earlier with local militia commanders. These men boasted to Stevens of exercising "control" over the Libyan Armed Forces, and threatened that if the U.S.-backed candidate for prime minister were to prevail in Libya's internal political jockeying, "they would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi."

Roughly a month earlier, Stevens had signed a two-page cable, also labeled "sensitive," that he entitled "The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya." Writing on Aug. 8, the ambassador noted that in just a few months' time, "Benghazi has moved from trepidation to euphoria and back as a series of violent incidents has dominated the political landscape." He added, "The individual incidents have been organized," a function of "the security vacuum that a diverse group of independent actors are exploiting for their own purposes."

"Islamist extremists are able to attack the Red Cross with relative impunity," Stevens cabled. "What we have seen are not random crimes of opportunity, but rather targeted and discriminate attacks." His final comment on the two-page document was: "Attackers are unlikely to be deterred until authorities are at least as capable."

By Sept. 4, Stevens' aides were reporting back to Washington on the "strong Revolutionary and Islamist sentiment" in the city.

Scarcely more than two months had passed since Stevens had notified the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice and other agencies about a "recent increase in violent incidents," including "attacks against western interests." "Until the GOL (Government of Libya) is able to effectively deal with these key issues," Stevens wrote on June 25, "the violence is likely to continue and worsen."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...curity-threats-al-qaeda-before/#ixzz2Sk9953Lc
Click to expand...

The "lie" being what?
 
How many "warnings" would be enough to convince you that the Libyan ambassador had fears for his security?
 
Really??

Who makes the decision as to the security level of Steven's consulate?

The White House (Obama) or the State Dept (Hillary)?
 
Dino said:
Really??

Who makes the decision as to the security level of Steven's consulate?

The White House (Obama) or the State Dept (Hillary)?
Click to expand...

I take it by that dissembling that you have no evidence of pre-attack warnings to the White House.

Just like I said.
 
I have no idea what happened in 9-11... there's some alarming bits here and there, but also no unilateral smoking gun.

However, Bush never said it was all just a spontaneous flying attack over a youtube video. That much I do know.
 
Mr. Friscus said:
I have no idea what happened in 9-11... there's some alarming bits here and there, but also no unilateral smoking gun.

However, Bush never said it was all just a spontaneous flying attack over a youtube video. That much I do know.
Click to expand...

If you want to learn what happened with 9/11, read the 9/11 commission report.

And not only did Bush never say "it was all just a spontaneous flying attack over a youtube video," neither did Obama. You have been brainwashed into thinking he did.
 
Bugsy McGurk said:
If you want to learn what happened with 9/11, read the 9/11 commission report.

And not only did Bush never say "it was all just a spontaneous flying attack over a youtube video," neither did Obama. You have been brainwashed into thinking he did.
Click to expand...

Gosh, I could have swore I heard straight from the horse's mouth, the administration lecturing me amidst questions of what happened that it was "A SPONTANEOUS PROTEST OVER A VIDEO"...

Care to deny anything else? Perhaps Kennedy was never killed, and is hiding to avoid taxes?
 
Mr. Friscus said:
Gosh, I could have swore I heard straight from the horse's mouth, the administration lecturing me amidst questions of what happened that it was "A SPONTANEOUS PROTEST OVER A VIDEO"...

Care to deny anything else? Perhaps Kennedy was never killed, and is hiding to avoid taxes?
Click to expand...

You could swear he said it because you've been brainwashed, not because he actually said it.

Don't you think you should quote someone if you claim that what they said was a lie? When you just concoct what they supposedly said, you are the liar.
 
Wow..talk about splitting hairs.

If Clinton got it...then Obama got it.

I can not believe the lengths you just went to in order to protect this shitty administration.

No.. never mind...yes I can believe it.
 
So you "forgot" what I showed you two posts ago?

No, you're a liar, not an amnesiac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top