What's new
By:

This should improve Hillary's chances in 2016...

signals said:
Worried? About what? The facts? An Ambassador was killed. No big deal to someone who doesn't stray far from his liberal hood. And oh btw, Mr. I'm Not Racist For Saying The N word, What are you implying by Ben GAY zee? I hope your talking about a happy place! 😛
Click to expand...
It's all good in da' hood for a Libtard to use those phrases !
 
777 fixer said:
 
Iraq didn't hurt Bush in 2004 and that was a much bigger mess than Benghazi.
Click to expand...
 
Difference is Bush wasn't all over the TV lying and blaming you tube at Andrews to the families.
 
delldude said:
 
Difference is Bush wasn't all over the TV lying and blaming you tube at Andrews to the families.
Click to expand...
 
He said Saddam had WMD and turns out he didn't.  Sounds like a lie to me.
 
As I recall, most of the BS regarding Iraq came out after the 2004 election so he did not need to worry about telling the truth.
 
777 fixer said:
 
He said Saddam had WMD and turns out he didn't.  Sounds like a lie to me.
Click to expand...
 
So did both Houses....so whats your point?
 
Want to pull all those glorious speeches by John Kerry and Clinton and so on?
 
Oh....shiit.....they didn't lie though.
 
delldude said:
 
So did both Houses....so whats your point?
 
Want to pull all those glorious speeches by John Kerry and Clinton and so on?
 
Oh....shiit.....they didn't lie though.
Click to expand...
 
What's my point?  It's the height of hypocrisy for certain people, John McCain comes to mind, to demand congressional investigations into Benghazi yet turn around and say we just need to move on when it comes to Iraq. Iraq has far more consequences for the United States, and the world, than what happened in Benghazi ever will.
 
While both Houses might have voted for it the final decision rested with one man.
 
777 fixer said:
 
What's my point?  It's the height of hypocrisy for certain people, John McCain comes to mind, to demand congressional investigations into Benghazi yet turn around and say we just need to move on when it comes to Iraq. Iraq has far more consequences for the United States, and the world, than what happened in Benghazi ever will.
 
While both Houses might have voted for it the final decision rested with one man.
Click to expand...
 
Who asked the same people for authorization.
 
Last I checked, that's how the law works here....not up to just one man.....well until Obama came to town.
 
No comparison between Benghazi and Iraq and how they both went down
 
delldude said:
 
Who asked the same people for authorization.
 
Last I checked, that's how the law works here....not up to just one man.....well until Obama came to town.
 
No comparison between Benghazi and Iraq and how they both went down
Click to expand...
 
Authorization he really didn't need.  George Bush senior sent troops into Panama without congressional approval remember.  And in the end it was his decision and his alone on whether or not to commit US troops.
 
I agree, there is no comparison between Iraq and Benghazi.  4000+ US servicemen were killed and who knows how many Iraqi's.  Add to that the far reaching national security and geo political issues it has had and will have.  So yes, no comparison.
 
So daddy didn't ask and little george did and little george is wrong.......
 
You want to get touchy feely over the Iraq war, so be it......
 
No way you can compensate for all the lies manufactured over four US military personnel being killed because a bunch of progressive asssholes in DC don't know how to play war and make their political career the priority response after letting four men die.
 
10155047_10152353448222722_282246791_n.jpg
 
I just love revisiting the days of the Bush administration... It just makes the current group look that much more like a bunch of clowns.

Employment was up, taxes were down, the media actually exposed issues needed exposing, gas was less than half the price it is today, and the Sopranos were still on HBO.

Running a campaign against someone who isn't actually running only works when you don't have your own record to run on or hide from.

I know Obama ain't running, but both Biden and Hillary were part of the decision making machine for the first term, and that's close enough.

The only way to try and run against Bush for a third time is to pick an entirely new candidate who hasn't been part of the machine. Good luck with that.
 
777 fixer said:
Authorization he really didn't need.  George Bush senior sent troops into Panama without congressional approval remember.  And in the end it was his decision and his alone on whether or not to commit US troops.
Click to expand...
Arguably, in Panama, the canal was still a US controlled possession, US military assets were threatened, and US troops had been killed & injured by the PDF prior to the invasion.

Not taking action would have been far more like Benghazi than any other comparison attempted so far...

Iraq was a different situation. There were no existing US assets to defend, and both Congress and the UN had already been involved in the process. Bypassing the UN at that stage would have been a bit too nekulturny...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top