House panel finds Obama and Clinton responsible for Benghazi errors

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

NG53, they are both gun running programs, the execution was different. Operation Wide receiver had less guns and a tracking device that did not work. IBH failed to mention that Bush had a gun running program at all in his post. Did he fail to mention that because it did not help his agenda? Bush raised the debt ceiling 8 times. Was this different also?

Flghtr65, did you even read what I said in my post? The link said these 2 programs had "some similarities" and you mischaracterized this as "the same exact program". Will you acknowledge that you were wrong about this? You also made the statement in another post that the Fast and Furious program was started under the Bush administration. Will you acknowledge that this is wrong too?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

If you want to be critical of the gun running programs, then be critical of Bush and Obama not just Obama. Uh, Bush is not President. I thought you knew; it was in all the papers. But sure, Bush's program was stupid, ill-conceived and poorly executed. Obama's was worse, and resulted in a number of deaths, including at least one border agent. Your guy Ron Paul got a grand total of 66 delegates and will never be President. So? That doesn't mean he was the wrong man for the job. It means the electorate is not paying attention to burgeoning police state that America is becoming.

If your city is destroyed by a tornado, don't look to FEMA for help, just fend for yourself like we did in the 1940's. Ron Paul - March 2012. Oh, and FYI, there is no provision in the Constitution which allows the Federal Government to provide disaster relief.

So what's your point, Fluffy? Your argument appears to be that if Bush does something, even if it's wrong, it's ok for Obama to do something similar. Is GW Bush really the measuring rod by which we evaluate Presidential performance? Wow!

[JD Barleycorn]

Yes, I saw the name "Wide Reciever" but there were other names like "Gun Runner" which where different aspects of the same program. The fact of the matter is that many of the things that you say happened where the creations of the Eric Holder and the Justice Department. The weapons that killed Americans came from Eric Holder's Justice and no place else. The weapons that have to date killed over 400 Mexican citizens came from Eric Holder's Justice. No one, NO ONE, has proven that any weapon that was sold (sold only but not allowed to cross) under the Bush program has killed anyone. The program itself was shutdown when it was proven to be unworkable. Eric Holder did not take the same reasonable action even after evidence indicted problems. That is the unvarnished truth. Anything else you say is part of a conspiracy programs for Obamatons. They want you to hate Bush, they want you to hate Republicans, and they want you to hate the typical American even if you think you are one. You have heard about self hating gay, black, or Jewish people. Well you are a self hating typical American and a conspiracy nut to boot.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

So what's your point, Fluffy? Your argument appears to be that if Bush does something, even if it's wrong, it's ok for Obama to do something similar. Is GW Bush really the measuring rod by which we evaluate Presidential performance? Wow!

The point is both presidents had a gun running program. Guys like IBH just want blame Obama, or just leave out the fact that another president was doing the same thing. It's ok to compare performance with all the presidents. If you can't understand that I really can't help you. Like I said before, please continue to not vote so the democrats can keep winning.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

It seems you have problems keeping up with your own posts. I was responding to your last post, post#50. The one about if you remove the word "exact", the phrase "the same program" is mostly true. Well, I just pointed out to you what the major differences in the 2 programs were. But I guess you can not comprehend that. LMAO! Also, how can you say that the objectives were mostly the same, when there was no attempt to track these guns under Fast and Furious? FYI, I mostly agreed with your other previous post, post#48.

No problems here.

It's "spell it out" time.

Below, I am red, niceguy is black, and sog, of course, is pink.

48 is a response to 46

49 was a response to 48

50 was a response to 49

52 was a response to 50

54was a response to 52

56 was a response to 55

57 was a response to 54

You made no mention of any differences in posts #46, 49, the first 2 posts I addressed. That is why post #50 contained no reference to differences. You then went on to say I had avoided the subject because it didn't back up what I said. That at best would be your opinion. The truth is that the only thing I avoided was going into a rehash of a story only the "conservatives (that's a laugh)" on this board think is a front burner issue. It is not.
I've said it was a bad program. That's all you get.

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Do I need to spell that out to?

Show proof of your statement and I will admit I'm wrong and retract my statement.

You yucking it up with the premier cocksucker on this site because you have no other response, other than your mistalen order and content of the posts, only counts as right in the soggy world.

You picked well on somebody to get on your side.
You picked a guy who hates to read and loves to watch video.
sog is personally committed to devaluing a post on this site.

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

No problems here.

It's "spell it out" time.

Below, I am red, niceguy is black, and sog, of course, is pink.

48 is a response to 46

49 was a response to 48

50 was a response to 49

52 was a response to 50

54was a response to 52

56 was a response to 55

57 was a response to 54

You made no mention of any differences in posts #46, 49, the first 2 posts I addressed. That is why post #50 contained no reference to differences. You then went on to say I had avoided the subject because it didn't back up what I said. That at best would be your opinion. The truth is that the only thing I avoided was going into a rehash of a story only the "conservatives (that's a laugh)" on this board think is a front burner issue. It is not.
I've said it was a bad program. That's all you get.

You were wrong then and you are wrong now.

Do I need to spell that out to?

Show proof of your statement and I will admit I'm wrong and retract my statement.

You yucking it up with the premier cocksucker on this site because you have no other response, other than your mistalen order and content of the posts, only counts as right in the soggy world.

You picked well on somebody to get on your side.
You picked a guy who hates to read and loves to watch video.
sog is personally committed to devaluing a post on this site.

Your response is laughable!! In post #46, I was not addressing you. I was responding to some false statements made by another poster. I had no substantial differences with your conclusions in post #48 (the last 3 lines), other than your apparent need to "spell out" to me what the link said, in the rest of your post. If you had stopped there, me and you would have been in basic agreement. But you could not stop there, you had to go on and state in post #50 that "the same program" is mostly true if you remove the word "exact", which I then rebutted in my post #52. So there was no need to talk about any differences until your "the same program" is mostly true comment. I am not the one here who is having trouble keeping up with the posts.

Your comment about me "yucking it up" with COG because I had no other response is laughable! In my very next post, post I gave you a response which you can not refute other than to imply, like most libturds, that Fast and Furious is a non issue.

And COG was dead on right about you doubling down on your ignorance when it is exposed.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

IBH, you left out one piece of information. From the link that you provided, in the 8th paragraph, Operation Wide Receiver was the exact same program and from the same ATF field office. Operation Wide Receiver was run under Bush. IBH, did you skip over paragraph 8 or you just read up to paragraph 7? What this amouts to is two presidents running the same program with different names. IBH, go do some more homework.

Didn't miss anything! PolitiFact -- and others -- maintain Odumbo lied when he claimed "Fast and Furious" started under W. Plain, verifiable fact is that it didn't! Suggest you attend a remedial reading course.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...gan-under-bus/

Originally Posted by flghtr65

NG53, they are both gun running programs, the execution was different. Operation Wide receiver had less guns and a tracking device that did not work. IBH failed to mention that Bush had a gun running program at all in his post. Did he fail to mention that because it did not help his agenda? Bush raised the debt ceiling 8 times. Was this different also?

What you failed to note – and willfully ignore – is that the “gun walking” program under Bush was ended BEFORE Odumbo took office. The program was ended because it did not work.

So you libertards can keep deflecting all you want, but in the final analysis, the Odumbo administration ignorantly re-initiated – as in: "did not continue" – a failed program! So, blindly stand by the incompetent buffoons you elected to office all you want! It only further proves that you are a Kool Aid sotted minion of the Odumbo administration.

[Yssup Rider]

There you go, making wild accusations like "willfully ignore" and "sotted"

That sounds like you really meant "soiled," doesn't it Corpy?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

There you go, making wild accusations like "willfully ignore" and "sotted"

That sounds like you really meant "soiled," doesn't it Corpy?

You’d need to have intelligence to either “willfully ignore” or “understand,” you ignorant golem fuck – and you notably lack intelligence as a subhuman golem. Hence, you are just plain stupid, and your post contributed nothing but more libertard ignorance to the discussion as you attempted to defend by deflection the indefensible stupidity of the Odumbo administration’s “Fast and Furious” program.

[Jackie S]

None of this means jack-shit. In case nobody has noticed, Hillary's popularity and approval numbers are in the 70's.

Nobody gives a shit what she did. She is Mrs. Bill Clinton, and that makes her invulnerable. If she gets the nomination, who the hell are the Republicans going to run against her?

The only person the Republicans could run against her and have any kind of shot at all would be Condi Rice. But she says she has no interest in the job.

I wonder what ole Joe Biden thinks. Here he is kissing the Presidents ass at every occasion, and he is sitting at 12 percent right now among Democrats to gain the 2016 nomination.

[JD Barleycorn]

All the more reason to get out the facts about Ms Rodham.


I think that is why the dems were do afraid of Sarah Palin. She was probably not one of the 900 FBI files that Hillary had her hands on.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

All the more reason to get out the facts about Ms Rodham.


I think that is why the dems were do afraid of Sarah Palin. She was probably not one of the 900 FBI files that Hillary had her hands on.

The facts mean nothing. I honestly believe that there is NOTHING she could do to make her followers turn away.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Back on topic, but not forgetting similarities to BenGhazi that happened under Bush.....

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Let's not forget that Fast and Furious was started by Bush.

Republicans are politicizing the country's international relations and diplomacy for short term political gain. Period. If Dems did this, conservatives would be screaming to high heaven about it. If and when Dems do it, there is almost always a core in the Democratic Party that calls it out as deplorable. Republicans these days rarely if ever call even the most outrageous obviously false right wing claims out as bad anymore.

Let's not forget that there were 11 embassy attacks (and Benghazi was a mission, NOT the embassy which is in Tripoli and NOT even a consulate) under Bush. Who did he fire for those (or did he not know about them like he didn't know about Fast and Furious?)

• In 2002 the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan, was attacked and 10 were killed?
• In 2004 the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured?
• In 2004, the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and 8 lost their lives?
• In 2006, armed men attacked the US Embassy in Syria and one was murdered.
• In 2007 a grenade was thrown at the US Embassy in Athens.
• In 2008, the US Embassy in Serbia was set on fire.
• In 2008, bombings in the US Embassy in Yemen killed 10.

How about the biggest, most catastrophic terrorist attack and murder of Americans in our history, 9/11? 3,000 perished and an entire section of NYC was devastated not to mention the Pentagon hit and four commercial aircraft taken down in a brutal act of terror - under a Republican administration. George W. Bush and his team had nine warnings that Al-Qaeda would attack within the United States, but they did absolutely nothing (talk about willful disregard, this is it, especially after the recent U.S.S. Cole bombing and the PDB). No one in that administration’s head rolled for that stunning incompetence. Now Republicans want Hillary Clinton's head and/or President Obama’s head for Benghazi?

An excerpt from the Ninth Public Hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, held Thursday April 8, 2004, where Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice is testifying:

MS. RICE: I remember very well that the president was aware that there were issues inside the United States. He talked to people about this. But I don't remember the al Qaeda cells as being something that we were told we needed to do something about.

“MR. BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the Aug. 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB.

MS. RICE: I believe the title was "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."

Pure rank hypocrisy. Perhaps we should handle BenGhazi as we did the U.S.S. Cole bombing in 2000? Did heads role for that? No, because it is dangerous being a symbol of the U.S.A. overseas in many areas. Simple as that. We found the culprits and brought them to justice and instituted new procedures to keep it from happening again if at all possible.

President Bill Clinton declared, "If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable".

An investigation was done, much like the Accountability Review Board and FBI investigation of the BenGhazi incident, and these were the main results:

On 29 September 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing. Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack.

In June 2008 the United States charged Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri with planning and conducting the attack. Charges were reinstated in 2011 and he remains incarcerated in Guantanamo. In 2009 U.S. federal judge Kimba Wood released $13.4 million in frozen assets belonging to Sudan to be awarded to 33 spouses, parents, and children of the sailors killed in the attack. The money was awarded based on the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.

Let's all get a grip. The terrorists are responsible NOT Republicans or Democrats, politicians, diplomats or soldiers as much as some people would like them to be for political reasons. Was security perfect in any of these cases, no. Did anyone in authority want any of this to happen, no. Shit happens and unless there is solid evidence of negligence we need to focus on the terrorists not each other.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Your response is laughable!! In post #46, I was not addressing you. Duh. I was responding to some false statements made by another poster.Post # 48 agreed with that. I had no substantial differences with your conclusions in post #48 (the last 3 lines), other than your apparent need to "spell out" to me what the link said, in the rest of your post. If you had stopped there, me and you would have been in basic agreement. So because I dared to disagree by saying more than you thought I should and because I post links and information that backs up my position, you decided to come after me. Egged on by sog. Pretty funny But you could not stop there, you had to go on and state in post #50 that "the same program" is mostly true if you remove the word "exact", which I then rebutted in my post #52. So there was no need to talk about any differences until your "the same program" is mostly true comment.Good point. There was no need to speak of them, yet you called me out for not having done so in your post #52. You remember, "While there were some similarities between the 2 programs, there were also major differences which you have conveniently failed to acknowledge. I am not the one here who is having trouble keeping up with the posts (You claimed that of me. You were wrong again)".So after you point out I didn't acknowledge differences (differences you claim there was no need to talk about in the paragraph above) you went on with purpose to not acknowledge similarities or to mention them.
Typical douche-bag to mis-represent any and everything.

Your comment about me "yucking it up" with COG because I had no other response is laughable! In my very next post, post I gave you a response which you can not refute other than to imply, like most libturds, that Fast and Furious is a non issue.

You didn't refute me.

I said they were both bad programs. I've only said that numerous times.

Who "implied" it was a non-issue? I said, not implied, that this isn't currently a front burner issue.

It isn't.

Now you've been truly refuted.

In other words you had not responded at the time of the post I made. You had no better reply until I pointed that out.

And COG was dead on right about you doubling down on your ignorance when it is exposed.

Can you read? Obviously not
.

I spelled it out and you went sog on me.


#48 were comments about #46. I never claimed 46 was aimed at me.

When you're wrong you should try a different way to run away other than being glib. That's buying ignorance insurance.

sog hasn't been right on in over 19000 posts. Let me take that back, The odds are good he has to have been right a few times.

Would like to see some links proving it.

[JD Barleycorn]

Aus, I'm flabbergasted. You actually said that democrats did not politicize foreign policy? Do you really believe that or are you paid to say you believe that. Look up the entire eight years of George Bush foreign policy. "No Blood for Oil", "Bush lied, People died",...that is all the democrats did during those eight years. Did Bush do anything that the democrats liked when it came to foreign policy? Be very careful because many democrats voted for those actions and Obama continued many of them (though the execution was less than stellar). That in itself is evidence of politicizing foreign policy. They supported it before they were against it before they were for it again (under Obama).