House panel finds Obama and Clinton responsible for Benghazi errors

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

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.

You say I am a douche bag who tries to misrepresent everything. Well, you should look in the mirror, because that is exactly what you are trying to do here. As I have stated several times (spelled out for you), we had no disagreement until your they are "mostly the same" comment. I then pointed out what the major differences of the 2 programs were, which you have not refuted. Just because the 2 programs had some similarities, they are not "mostly the same". My post #52 refuted that argument. Wise up son and quit doubling down on your ignorance.

And you sure seem to be obsessed with COG. I hate to break your heart, but I don't think he swings both ways, if you know what I mean.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by austxjr

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

Excellant post.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

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?

I will remove the word exact. Both presidents had a gun running program. Fast and Furious was more agressive than Operation Wide Receiver but they were both "Gun Running Programs" They probably did not use the tracking device the second time because it did not work the first time. My point with IBH was he did not mention that Bush had a gun running program at all.

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

I will remove the word exact. Both presidents had a gun running program. Fast and Furious was more agressive than Operation Wide Receiver but they were both "Gun Running Programs" They probably did not use the tracking device the second time because it did not work the first time. My point with IBH was he did not mention that Bush had a gun running program at all.

If you remove the word "exact", then you are still saying that it was the same program. It was not the same program. Yes, there were some similarities but there were significant differences too. See my post #52 for some of the differences between the 2 programs. You yourself even referenced 1 of the differences between the 2 programs, being that Fast and Furious did not use tracking devices. In fact, there was no attempt to track these weapons under Fast and Furious. So, how is that "the same program"? And there were other differences as I pointed out in post #52.


You still haven't retracted your false statement in post #36, that Fast and Furious was started under Bush.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

I will remove the word exact. Both presidents had a gun running program. Fast and Furious was more agressive than Operation Wide Receiver but they were both "Gun Running Programs" They probably did not use the tracking device the second time because it did not work the first time. My point with IBH was he did not mention that Bush had a gun running program at all.

I have debunked this a couple times already in different threads, but here it is yet again

Originally Posted by BigLouie

Everyone seems to think this all started under Obama but he was sworn in as President on January 20, 2009. This program was started THREE YEARS before Obama was elected by Bush and his people, NOT Obama. Like a lot of other things, Obama was left to clean up the mess.

Law enforcement operations sometimes go horribly wrong, and every indication is that Operation Wide Receiver executed by the ATF during the Bush administration while Alberto Gonzales was the attorney general was a “keystone cops” operation of the first magnitude. It was a horrible failure.In Operation Wide Receiver, Tucson agents allowed the sales of more than 500 firearms to known straw purchasers. Like Gunrunner/Fast and Furious, the operation apparently backfired.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-gu...inglepage=true

The Fast and Furious operation had none of those controls in place. And the ensuing scandal became an Obama issue the moment he decided to use executive privilege to shield documents from being released to the House Oversight Committee.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ous-documents/

And Sen. Charles Grassley astutely asks, “How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he’s supposedly never seen?”
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/...eID_1502=41368

How about a little hypocrisy?

Obama went on Larry King’s show in CNN in 2007 and accused the Bush administration of “hiding behind executive privilege” after King asked him for his opinion on its utilization. He further added that the American people have "a right to know."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpwYh...ature=youtu.be

Why did Obama change his tune? Don't the American people have a right to know now, as well? Video can be real bitch sometimes, huh?

This is a criminal investigation. An innocent American citizen was murdered. Its very likely that hundreds of Mexican citizens have been murdered. They were murdered with the very weapons that Holder and the DOJ knowingly sent to the drug cartels in Mexico, without working with the Mexican government and without tracking the weapons.

Here us a really good article on the history of this whole thing
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...ious-fall.html

You can argue it all you want, but the facts are the facts....and Fast and Furious happened on Obama's watch.

I don't recall anyone that died as a direct result of Watergate.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

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.

No Dems are afraid of Sara, the GOP on the other hand knew they would get their ass handed to them if she ran.

Regarding F&F and BenGhazi, the public does not care. That is just a political fact that people who live in a narrow political bubble seem not to understand. I do realize that you want them to but so far that hasn't changed the reality. Much like I wanted the public to understand what a fuck up the Iraq war was....they reelected Bush. That was the political reality at the time.

[NiceGuy53]

Good post CC.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence".

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

Good post CC.

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence".

http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/3235.html

speaking of quotations, youre now on record

[NiceGuy53]

Originally Posted by CJ7

speaking of quotations, youre now on record

LOL. Like facts have ever really mattered to you. You are entitled to your own opinions CBJ7 but not your own facts.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

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

Let's not forget that the concept of "Gun Running Programs" executed by the ATF field office in Phoenix, Az was started under Bush. NG53 are you happy now?

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by NiceGuy53

If you remove the word "exact", then you are still saying that it was the same program. It was not the same program. Yes, there were some similarities but there were significant differences too. See my post #52 for some of the differences between the 2 programs. You yourself even referenced 1 of the differences between the 2 programs, being that Fast and Furious did not use tracking devices. In fact, there was no attempt to track these weapons under Fast and Furious. So, how is that "the same program"? And there were other differences as I pointed out in post #52.


You still haven't retracted your false statement in post #36, that Fast and Furious was started under Bush.

Just because the quantity of the guns changed and they did not use a device that had a problem a second time, it's still a gun running program. If Microsoft changes the Windows program to put the "Start Button" in a different position on the screen, from one release to another, it's still the Windows program.

[i'va biggen]

2 programs different names = same result.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

I will remove the word exact. Both presidents had a gun running program. Fast and Furious was more agressive than Operation Wide Receiver but they were both "Gun Running Programs" They probably did not use the tracking device the second time because it did not work the first time. My point with IBH was he did not mention that Bush had a gun running program at all.

Your argument to justify and defend Odumbo’s, et al, idiotic and despicable decision to reconstitute (NOT continue) a shut-down, moribund, FAILED Bush program is hilarious.

The Bush program failed WITH tracking devices! What wisdom was there behind Odumbo's, et al, decision to reconstitute the program WITHOUT tracking devices?

And nothing you've argued mitigates the fact that Odumbo lied when he claimed "Fast and Furious" started under the Bush Administration. "Fast and Furious" began in October 2009 under the Odumbo administration. The failed, Bush program ended in 2007: there was NO continuation..

Odumbo said that the "Fast and Furious" program began "under the previous administration." That is not the case; "Fast and Furious" began during the time Odumbo held office....We rate Odumbo’s statement 'False'.

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

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Let's not forget that the concept of "Gun Running Programs" executed by the ATF field office in Phoenix, Az was started under Bush. NG53 are you happy now?

It also ENDED and did NOT continue under Bush!

http://eccie.net/showpost.php?p=1052765718&postcount=80

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

Just because the quantity of the guns changed and they did not use a device that had a problem a second time, it's still a gun running program. If Microsoft changes the Windows program to put the "Start Button" in a different position on the screen, from one release to another, it's still the Windows program.

Your earlier comment was that it was the same program...started under B2. Clearly that is wrong.

The bigger "scandal" to all this

White House Invokes Executive Privilege on ‘Fast and Furious’ Documents
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ous-documents/

Obama was covering Holders ass after everyone realized what a fuck-up had been made and actual people were dying because of it

The move comes ahead of an expected committee vote on whether to put Holder in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over the documents. It is the first time President Obama has asserted executive privilege in a dispute with Congress.

No they sacrificed a couple local ATF managers...in an effort to be seen as "doing something" about it.

The case led to the September resignation of Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke and the reassignment of ATF administrators, including acting Director Kenneth Melson and William Newell, special agent in charge for Arizona.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...#ixzz2RyDi6g2c

Throughout history, the coverup is always worse than the crime. And like Bengazhi, no one gives a fuck.

[JD Barleycorn]

WTF (what does this have to do with the OP?), now you're telling some real big lies. If the democrats were not afraid of Sarah Palin then why do YOU fall over yourselves trying to get something on her? Why not go after Elizabeth Dole? She has no impact on republican policies or who gets nominated. No, you're all afraid of Sarah Palin because she is getting things done and like little girls you want to kill what you're afraid of.