MovieChat Forums > 2016: Obama's America (2012) Discussion > 13 Benghazis occurred under Bush! WHERE ...

13 Benghazis occurred under Bush! WHERE is the outrage there?

posted 11 years ago by megafauna005
25 replies | jump to latest

The article below shows what a bunch of racist scumbags the GOP and Herb are! There were 13 attacks on US consulates under Bush with around 20 Americans yet NONE of this phony outrage like the GOP has about Benghazi! YOU GOP SCUM ARE CAUGHT RED HANDED AS NOTHING BUT HYPOCRITICAL RACIST LIARS!

The Daily Banter's Bob Cesca produced this astounding timeline of 13 separate incidents where U.S. consulates were attacked during President Bush's, and then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's, tenure.

The incidents below include all kinds of attacks — gunmen on bikes, suicide bombs, car bombs, gunmen shooting outside, and terrorists storming Consulate compounds similar to what happened in Benghazi. During each of those incidents Fox News was only supportive of the adminsitration's reactions and there were no calls for the removal of Secretary Condoleeza Rice.

The GOP and Fox's fixation on Benghazi is partisan propoganda. In some of these attacks the State Department had been forewarned about potential threats, unlike Benghazi. Instead of reporting the incident and the recent allegations from a whistleblower, Fox News is hacking together their own version of the events to further convolute the story's reality.

http://m.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing

Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!

[–] FirstBlood1982 11 years ago

The deaths in those incidents consisted mostly of terrorists, and of serviceman/women that were doing their job and trying to stop terrorists...also, none of them went on for a full 24 hours without help being sent.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] iroquoisjoe 11 years ago

5. May 12, 2003: 36 People Including 9 Americans Die After Terrorists Storm U.S. Compound in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

The State Department had warned of a potential strike against the Saudi days before gunmen infiltrated the Al Hamra Oasis Village and two others killing 36 people and wounding 160. This was the most devastating attack on a State Department employees to occur under Bush. The Saudi government cracked down on terrorists group but that did not prevent another attack to occur a year later in Jeddah.

On November 6, 2012...God blessed America

[–] herbsuperb 11 years ago

The then US President George W. Bush was informed of the attacks while on a national trip, and called them "ruthless murder".[4] Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah condemned the attacks as the work of "monsters" and vowed to destroy the terrorist group that ordered them. After the attacks, Saudi Arabia began a harsh crackdown on the insurgency, arresting more than 600 terrorist suspects and seizing bomb-making materials, bomb belts, and thousands of weapons.[5]

On 7 June 2003, an official Saudi statement[6] identified twelve men as the perpetrators of this attack. According to that statement, the identification was based on DNA found at the scene. The names were Al-Qaeda member Khaled Muhammad bin Muslim Al-Arawi Al-Juhani, Muhammed Othman Abdullah Al-Walidi Al-Shehri, Hani Saeed Ahmad Al Abdul-Karim Al-Ghamdi, Jubran Ali Ahmad Hakami Khabrani, Khaled bin Ibrahim Mahmoud, Mehmas bin Muhammed Mehmas Al-Hawashleh Al-Dosari, Muhammed bin Shadhaf Ali Al-Mahzoum Al-Shehri, Hazem Muhammed Saeed Kashmiri, Majed Abdullah Sa'ad bin Okail, Bandar bin Abdul-Rahman Menawer Al-Rahimi Al-Mutairi, Abdul-Karim Muhammed Jubran Yazji, and Abdullah Farres bin Jufain Al-Rahimi Al-Mutairi.

Abdul Rahman Jabarah was killed in a gunfight with Saudi security forces, believed to have been involved in the attack, as was Zubayr Al-Rimi.

There was one more large-scale attack in Saudi Arabia in 2003. On 8 November, on the day the US State Department warned of further attacks in that country, a suicide truck bomb detonated outside the Al-Mohaya housing compound in Laban Valley, West of Riyadh, killing at least 17 people and wounding 122. Those killed in the attack were all Arabs, many of them workers from countries such as Egypt and Lebanon. Among the injured were people from India, Bangladesh, Philippines, and Eritrea.[7]

Saif al-Adel and Saad Bin Laden are believed to have ordered the attacks.[8] However, according to Saad's family and an interrogation of al-Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Saad and al-Adel were in Iranian custody at the time of the bombing.[9][10][11] Saad was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan in 2009.[12]

Where in all that does it say anything about Bush blaming some idiotic internet video inciting otherwise innocent muslims to get a little out of control instead of calling it EXACTLY what it was? A terrorist attack against American interests that needed to be met with a stern response. No coverup here. Totally different than Obama's reaction to Benghazi, which was abysmal. Never once did Bush try to make this tragedy out to be anything less than it was for his own political gain.

[–] iroquoisjoe 11 years ago

Where was Bush (& co.) when the CIA ( and British intelligence, weapons inspectors, and well...just about everybody) was telling him that his assertions about Iraq pursuing/having WMD capability were unsupported by any reliable facts? Oh yeah...he was pushing that b.s. anyway, for his (& co.) own political motives.

On November 6, 2012...God blessed America

[–] herbsuperb 11 years ago

Saddam had such weaponry in the past. He'd used such weaponry in the past. He'd murdered hundreds of thousands in the past. He'd invaded three other countries in the past. America was thrown back on its heels after 09/11 in the eyes of our enemies. In such a situation, with so much uncertainty, and after YEARS of being met with nothing but lies, distrust, and a complete lack of goodwill on the part of Saddam Hussein, it is FAR better to overestimate such an enemy, than to underestimate him. Schwarzkopf drastically overestimated Hussein's capabilities during the Gulf War, and won one of the most lopsided and decisive victories in military history. I suppose if Bush hadn't gone in, and played it safe with a monster like Hussein, and a nuclear weapon killed hundreds of thousands of people in Tel Aviv, or Kuwait City, or Riyadh, or New York, on Saddam's orders, you'd be criticizing him and calling him an idiot because 'he should have known'......am I right?

Keep in mind, Bush had congressional support, and a UN mandate to start that war. You don't get that based solely on 'the president's word'. A LOT of other people, from all over the world, were saying, and believed, the exact same thing.

The Iraq War was a noble effort, regardless of whether or not there indeed were stockpiles of chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry in that country during the invasion. In a sane world, decent people from decent nations would be lining up around the block for the opportunity to destroy cruel despots like Saddam Hussein who have no right to exercise lordship over other human beings. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I'm sure if a Democrat had made that choice, you'd be all for it. I would be too, because it was the right thing to do. That's the difference between you and me. Mistakes were made along the way, as is ALWAYS the case in war. But those 'lies' were not nearly as ridiculous and blatantly partisan as the stretchers Obama repeatedly told (and continues to tell to this very day) after the ambassador was murdered. The truth still has not come out, because Obama's people will do anything to defend his political position at the expense of the truth, because they know the truth will make him look like a complete ****ing idiot. I have no trust in Obama anymore.

[–] iroquoisjoe 11 years ago

yeah...just about everything you have posted is b.s......but I've already addressed those falsehoods and it is not worth my time to re-run arguments (unless you posted something new in there) so I am moving on.

Where was Bush (& co.) when the CIA ( and British intelligence, weapons inspectors, and well...just about everybody) was telling him that his assertions about Iraq pursuing/having WMD capability were unsupported by any reliable facts? Oh yeah...he was pushing that b.s. anyway, for his (& co.) own political mot

<---your diatribe, quite tellingly, didn't address this central premise. If Obama is bad for following a political agenda...Bush is worse. Casualties much higher on this agenda. In the hundreds of thousands.

On November 6, 2012...God blessed America

[–] herbsuperb 11 years ago

If Obama is bad for following a political agenda...Bush is worse

What is 'political' about toppling a dangerous despot responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

Obama turned a minor failure in policy that got an American ambassador killed (forgivable, if honestly addressed in an up front way) and turned it into a game of 'let's blame somebody else so I don't look bad'. That is symptomatic of weakness, dishonesty, and a deplorable lack of true leadership qualities. Since Benghazi, he has done NOTHING to restore my faith in him as a leader, or as a man.

It would behoove you to admit to yourself, for the sake of honesty, that whatever Bush did DOES NOT MATTER! Deal with the here and now. By comparing Obama's mistakes, to Bush's mistakes as a way of justifying them, only lowers the standards to which you hold your own President. If you say 'Obama can be a ****up because Bush was a ****up', you must think very little of him. Granted, you shouldn't. He is not a man worthy of respect, admiration, or esteem of any kind. He is a shallow, self-serving, dishonest, schmuck! During the administrations response to the disaster in Benghazi, he showed those colors clear and bright. He showed who he really is, not who he told everybody he was during his campaigns.

The tragedy is that he had an opportunity to show some real character in the wake of that disaster. He threw it away, which tells me that character means very little to him.

[–] iroquoisjoe 11 years ago

What is 'political' about toppling a dangerous despot responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people?

It's political when you do it for political reasons....and not for say, because you give a fck.

Obama turned a minor failure in policy that got an American ambassador killed (forgivable, if honestly addressed in an up front way) and turned it into a game of 'let's blame somebody else so I don't look bad'. That is symptomatic of weakness, dishonesty, and a deplorable lack of true leadership qualities. Since Benghazi, he has done NOTHING to restore my faith in him as a leader, or as a man.

But no one cares what you think about President Obama.

It would behoove you to admit to yourself, for the sake of honesty, that whatever Bush did DOES NOT MATTER!

Please note that the comparison that was being made was YOUR response to larger crimes...and your lack of desire to see those crimes more. I've told you my response to about Benghazi itself. I am not going to repeat it. If you want clarification, feel free to quote me...if you can .

On November 6, 2012...God blessed America

[–] herbsuperb 11 years ago

It's political when you do it for political reasons....and not for say, because you give a fck.

You are going to have to explain that one a little further. Give it a shot.

But no one cares what you think about President Obama.

Obviously you do, else you'd let me say whatever I want unchallenged. So don't try to claim you don't care, just because you can't win. That's the cowardly Obama way out of a problem.

Please note that the comparison that was being made was YOUR response to larger crimes

Again, what I think, and how I respond....DOES NOT MATTER!!!! I'm not the President of the United States. There is no sense in trying to turn anything around on me. All that is, is you trying to deflect anything you can away from 'your guy'. You can't tolerate him being challenged, so you instead challenge those who rightly criticize instead of dealing with the here, and the now. If Obama truly did nothing wrong, then defend him on THAT basis. Quit with all that 'well Bush did this and Bush did that so' nonsense. That's bull**** and you know it.

The way this President his hapless, partisan administration's response to what happened in Benghazi was appalling by any measure. Indefensible. Yet you insist on defending in a very clumsy, unfocused and misleading way. Tell me why?

[–] iroquoisjoe 11 years ago

Obviously you do, else you'd let me say whatever I want unchallenged.

Hmmm...you may have a point.

On November 6, 2012...God blessed America

[–] herbsuperb 11 years ago

Hmmm...you may have a point.

I won't hold it against you. I care about stuff I really shouldn't all the time. No crime in that. I just hope you can understand that the behavior of the current political administration in response to what happened in Libya really upsets me, and I simply don't feel that the two situations (Benghazi and the run up to the Iraq War under Bush) are all that comparable. There are plenty of things I would have done differently regarding Hussein and the Iraq problem. There are plenty of things I wish the Obama administration had done differently after the attack in Benghazi.

All I know is that the vast majority of American politicians are complete ****ing douchebags (all sides, and all parties are guilty), and I simply wish it wasn't true. Bush was no saint, Obama is no saint, and I have serious doubts as to whether the next one will be one either.

Peace friend. You are more reasonable than most.

[–] iroquoisjoe 11 years ago

I simply don't feel that the two situations (Benghazi and the run up to the Iraq War under Bush) are all that comparable.

I am still stuck with the same observation: 4 dead vs hundreds of thousands. I (and many others) have not had our desires fulfilled that those who lied or deliberately misled us into a war that killed so many people have not been punished. That's what we want. We feel that that is a far more horrible crime. Legal crime. Morality crime. Crime against democracy. MOST people did not want a war. Most people did not get their wishes respected. When you can start a war under false pretext (even if you, in theory, had some other "good" reason, but just couldn't sell it to the American people) you should be punished. This has happened before. It continues to happen. If we can't stop it...when will it end. When's the next war? Who benefits. Why can't the people control the government on this most important element.

The opinions of the American populace are easy to find out. Polls are taken ALL the time. Politician know EXACTLY what the majority of Americans want...and yet the actual policies don't match up! That's FCKED UP! 1% of America is influencing our "democracy" way out of proportion to their numbers. That's FCKED UP! THAT IS THE MOST FCKED UP THING HERE! Look at our policies. Cuba? MOST americans couldn't give a flying F what or who is the head of Cuba. We mostly have the opinion that the 50 years of b.s. sactions, terrorism, and isolating we have done on that tiny nation should have stopped A LONG TIME AGO. And yet POLICY totally ignores that opinion of the populace. You got people making the national debt a "crime" against the future american generations...it tops the concerns of the 1% every time. What is at the top of MOST american's agenda? JOBS. Ya see the difference?

Yep...in comparison, 4 people don't add up that high for me right now. If you go for it in order to beat-up Hillary Clinton...honestly I won't fight you on that because she's an AIPAC prostitute for all I care so I hope she gets crushed in the primaries.

But in comparison to the years when we were saying "whoa...no need for a war in Iraq just yet" just to find out...yep THERE REALLY WAS NO NEED for it...4 deaths vs hundreds of thousands really does NOT compare.

On November 6, 2012...God blessed America

[–] Katz5 11 years ago

Not only did BushCheney oversee 13 Benghazis during their reign, they also have these doozies:

1. Neither (as well as Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) are permitted to travel to most westernized nations for fear of being arrested for war crimes.

2. The Downing Street Memo - remember that one? The release of which Fox News claimed "Americans didn't care about?" The smoking gun that proved the Cheney cabal was going to get their Iraq war, by hook or crook, no matter how many lies, cover ups and fabricated Intel was necessary. How many "Investigative Hearings" did Fox News demand for that.

3. Ignored warnings issued to the United States in the months leading up to 9/11/01....for attacks that killed a few more than four people.

Not to mention: The Iraq occupation quagmire, allowing Osama Bin Laden's family to flee the country in the days after 9/11....

Republicans love to scream "Bush is no longer the President!" yet that does not undo the eight years of miserable leadership under BushCheney and the Neocon thugs.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] FirstBlood1982 11 years ago

And yet more have died in acts of war in one term of Obama's leadership than two under Bush, increased drone strikes, extension of the patriot act + the atrocious NDAA provisions added under Obama, etc...

It's obvious to anyone paying attenion that Obama is nothing more than Bush's flaws on steroids.

However bad Bush was, Obama has been atleast twice as bad by any reasonable standard...and the people of this country are far more divided because of him.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] megafauna005 11 years ago

Katz you are right on! There WAS a hateful youtube video called the "Innocence of Muslims" that caused Muslims to riot all over the middle east! The useless Repukes know Hillary will destroy any GOP challenger so they lie and make up stories!

Great point on how Bush's war on false pretenses have killed HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS and Bush and Cheney cannot travel to Europe or they'll be arrested for war crimes!

Jesus NEVER existed! He is Judeo Christian MYTH!

[–] FirstBlood1982 11 years ago

White House emails have already proven that a video had nothing to do with the attacks.

If you know the significance of the date of September 11th to Islam, you'd know why the date has been repeatedly chosen for terrorist attacks against who they perceive to be their enemies.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] !!!deleted!!! (33407653) 11 years ago

Yeah, not a day goes by that I do not thank Bush for turning Iraq into a terrorist state.

And where in that addled mind of yours do you equate the loss of 4 Americans (Yes, a tragedy) with the loss of 4500 Americans. not to mention over 100,000 Iraqis, AND over two trillion dollars in that disaster known as the invasion of Iraq, the WORST foreign policy decision this country has ever made?

Noble effort indeed.

[–] mill722002 11 years ago

The Benghazi investigation is more about the cover up and not the attack itself. Bush never blamed an attack on some fake video nor he did he not disclose any information like this administration has. If Obama and Hillary simply owned up to everything from the get go, this investigation would not be taking place. But evidence was covered up for election purposes

[–] Katz5 11 years ago

1. The video was not fake.
2. "Owned up?" How so? By admitting the attack was an act of terrorism? Really? Is that all you Cons have?

The "War on Terror" BS was BushCheney propaganda. Americans would still have voted for Obama over Romney regardless of whether or not Obama/Hillary blamed the attacks on a video, terrorism, sunspots, or skunk farts.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] mill722002 11 years ago

How can you watch this link and not want to know more about Benghazi? The democrats and their supporters make me sick. They're all losers, lowlifes or deadbeats

http://mash.network.coull.com/activatevideo?video_provider_id=2&pid=8165&website_id=23863&width=549&height=339&embed_type=IFRAME&video_provider_url=http://www.youtube.com/embed/A1jeJmeeMjs?version%3D3%26rel%3D1%26fs%3D1%26showsearch%3D0%26showinfo%3D1%26iv_load_policy%3D1%26wmode%3Dtransparent&mobile=true&referrer=http://allenwestrepublic.com/2013/11/10/allen-west-here-is-truly-one-of-the-exceptional-good-guys-on-capitol-h

[–] iroquoisjoe 11 years ago

How can you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 and not want Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Blair, Berlusconi, much of the congress, and almost all of the obedient press (like the supposedly liberal New York Times) arrested and put on trial for crimes against peace, America, and Democracy...until a full enhanced interrogation investigation garnered convictions for the most egregious of these criminals?

On November 6, 2012...God blessed America

[–] Katz5 11 years ago

Moore took too much poetic license with that film.

If you really want the facts behind how corrupt / greedy / criminal the Cheney administration was, see No End in Sight.

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are pure evil. As is Fox News for giving those war criminals a platform and the brainwashed zombies who still support those lying scumbags.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] Indifferent_Observer 11 years ago

1. The video was not fake.

Correct, but it wasn't the reason for the attack and the White house knew this.

2. "Owned up?" How so? By admitting the attack was an act of terrorism? Really? Is that all you Cons have?

After or before apologizing to the attackers?

The "War on Terror" BS was BushCheney propaganda. Americans would still have voted for Obama over Romney regardless of whether or not Obama/Hillary blamed the attacks on a video, terrorism, sunspots, or skunk farts.

Really? So the attempted WTC attacks during the Clinton years we're B.S?

The actual attacks against the WTC during the Bush years that succeeded we're also "propoganda"?

How about embassy's around the world being attacked by terrorists? Was that just "propaganda" too?

Educate yourself on what really happened and stop going to liberaltalkingpoints.com for your arguments and you may not sound so silly.

-------------------------------------------
I am against what you stand for.

[–] Katz5 11 years ago

Correct, but it wasn't the reason for the attack and the White house knew this.

So what are you implying? That the White House knew about the attacks ahead of time? Or just that they blamed the video for the attacks? And failed to use the term "terror" or "terrorism?" Weak case for impeachment or criminal charges (against Hillary). Especially in light of the lies fed to Congress and the American people by the Cheney cabal before during and after the Iraq invasion.

After or before apologizing to the attackers?

Who apologized, exactly?

Really? So the attempted WTC attacks during the Clinton years we're B.S?

Not BS. The "War on Terror" declared by the Cheney cabal to get their needless/pointless trillion dollar war against Iraq was BS.

The actual attacks against the WTC during the Bush years that succeeded we're also "propoganda"?

The attacks were not propaganda. The "War on Terror" BS declared by the Neocons was propaganda.

How about embassy's around the world being attacked by terrorists? Was that just "propaganda" too?

You mean the Embassy attacks under Cheney that didn't spark one bit of outrage by the Republicans? THOSE attacks?

Educate yourself on what really happened and stop going to liberaltalkingpoints.com for your arguments and you may not sound so silly.

Educate yourself and stop going to Fox Entertainment for your arguments and you may not sound so brainwashed.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] Indifferent_Observer 11 years ago

13 Benghazis occurred under Bush! WHERE is the outrage there?

Such lies..or rather convenient truths.

Or perhaps you fail to understand the real issue here. We have the white house crafting talking points and conspiring to mislead the American's for political gain and to protect the enemy. We have a President apologizing to Muslims extremists the day after they killed our people.

Now, if you can give me one example of the Bush Admin doing this(as inept as Bush was) then I will change my opinion.

And please lets keep it intelligent here, not Liberal talking points 101( which are lies easily refuted), like Bush lied to get us into the Iraq war which is a blatant untruth. He was acting on intelligence info and Democrats voted to go to war also.

Stop being a useful idiot and a partisan hack. I am a Libertarian and was actually against the war, but I remember it like it was yesterday and many dems jumped on the bandwagon. They just fell out of favor and like most lazy liberals( except when it comes to sex) they wanted to pull out too quick once they saw we were going to be in there for the long haul.

-------------------------------------------
I am against what you stand for.