Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: There were embassy attacks during Bush era, too

Comments

Return To Article
  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 6:11 a.m.

    True, there were attacks on embassies during Bush's presidency but there were no cover-ups, no stonewalling and no deceit from the White House like we see today.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 6, 2012 6:23 a.m.

    Roland,

    Agree. Consistency is all I ask for. You also left off 9/11. Can you imagine if that had happened 8 months after Obama had been inaugurated?

    It is also worth noting that the Left did not collectively make a big political deal over embassy attacks under Bush. These things are unfortunate, but they do happen. And they happen regardless of who runs the show. And they will happen in the future. The left understands that.

    And if the media does not focus on it 24/7 as Fox news does, they are branded as liberal media.

    Bottom line? The right has nothing better to elevate to a political sledgehammer.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:07 a.m.

    It's not stonewalling when you demand information that isn't available, demand answers that are unanswerable and lie that Obama didn't say it was terrorism.

    Republicans can still answer a LOT of questions about 9/11 if you really want to go there.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:16 a.m.

    The right needs something to whine about.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:22 a.m.

    @ Screwdriver. There is plenty of information available about Benghazi, its just not allowed to come out because it makes your President look bad and affronts his massive ego as the man who thinks he destroyed Al Qaida.

  • ugottabkidn Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:25 a.m.

    Hypocracy plain and simple. All precedence was thrown out the window on Jan. 20 2009.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    @Mountanman,

    You're wrong. I destroyed al-Qaeda when I was in Iraq looking for Saddam Hussein. The mission was "accomplished" aboard an aircraft carrier while I was there.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:04 a.m.

    There were no "cover ups" because nobody jumped on television in the middle of the attack and started to scream about Presidential incompentency. There was no "cover up" because as Joe Blow said the left wasn't concerned whether the perpetrators were called terrorists, killers, mad men, or para military. What we called them wasn't....and still isn't the issue. Trust me the left understands the importance between a flash mob that gets out of hand, and an organized attack. We get it. An organized attack has the possibility of re-appearing somewhere, sometime. Obama and the state department get it also, and have demonstarted that numerous times.

    PS..the left didn't even block Condelessa Rices nomination after she had lied about Iraqs nuclear capabilities, and everyone knew that wasn't true.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:06 a.m.

    @ CHS; You must mean when "I" killed bin Laden. Not the Navy seals, but "I". Nice try but as President Bush correctly said, this is a different kind of enemy not a single country, but an ideology that exists in many countries, including Iraq. Why do you demand and accept so little from Obama and demand so much from everyone else?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:16 a.m.

    Roland,
    you missed the point - as do CHS85,ugattabekiddn,ranchhand, screwdriver, and Joeblow.

    the big scandal is the lies from the WH about the attacks, that it was all the result of a video that had been out months before the attacks even occured.

    But I guess you all are perfectly fine when BO lies to you.

    We have been attacked before, and unfortunately will likely be attacked again.

    Another scandal was the refusal of BO's state department to enhance security there, despite the repeated pleas from those on the ground.

    But go ahead, leave your heads in the sand - after all, it's all bush's fault.

  • Red Headed Stranger Billy Bobs, TX
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    Because the Bush administration didn't blame those embassy attacks on some guy in the US who made a movie.

    Because the ambassador was killed in Benghazi and not in Baghdad.

    Because the news media took great effort to assist the president just before an election.

    Please get off your high horse. Any "politicizing" the Republicans do pales in significance to the Democrats did with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm still waiting for the President to follow through with his first campaign promise to close Guantanamo. Plenty of Democrats say that Bush "started" two wars. Unbelievable.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:24 a.m.

    "True, there were attacks on embassies during Bush's presidency but there were no cover-ups, no stonewalling and no deceit "

    Really?

    Perhaps not as a result of embassy attacks, but what about WMD's and claiming that Sadam had a hand in planning them?

    There is a psychological phenomenon called "projection" in which a person transfers some of his own characteristics to someone else. Are Mountainman and others posting here using projection to try to transfer blame from Bush, Reagan, and other right wing "heroes" to Obama?

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:41 a.m.

    If Benghazi was Obama's fault, 9-11-2001 was Bush's fault.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:43 a.m.

    The memo, titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," had been described by the White House as a largely historical document with scant information about domestic al Qaeda threats.

    Highlights of the report include:

    An intelligence report received in May 2001 indicating that al Qaeda was trying to send operatives to the United States through Canada to carry out an attack using explosives. That information had been passed on to intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

    An allegation that al Qaeda had been considering ways to hijack American planes to win the release of operatives who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999.

    An allegation that bin Laden was set on striking the United States as early as 1997 and through early 2001.

    Intelligence suggesting that suspected al Qaeda operatives were traveling to and from the United States, were U.S. citizens, and may have had a support network in the country.

    A report that at least 70 FBI investigations were under way in 2001 regarding possible al Qaeda cells/terrorist-related operations in the United States.

    Rice testified that the briefing included mostly "historical information" and that most of the threat information known in the summer of 2001 referred to overseas targets.
    (CNN)

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:46 a.m.

    CHS85

    --- pay NO attention to Mountaman.

    He [like 99% of the other uber-Cons wishing for wars] is not a veteran,
    nor ever worn this nation's uniform as you and I.

    Therefore, he not only doesn't know what he is talking about,
    He has no right to be talking about it.

    As as for no "cover-ups"...by Pres. Bush ---

    6,000 dead Americans,
    $2 Trillion in un-paid war debt,
    and I'm STILL waiting for someone - ANYONE - to produce or discover all those "Weapons of Mass Destruction"!

    Good grief.

    Give it wa rest AM radio listeners!

  • John Charity Spring Back Home in Davis County, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:49 a.m.

    The left-wing should be condemned for its outright lies about the terrorist attacks. Anyone who voted for the left-wing extremists should be condemned as well for fostering this dishonesty.

    If it could, the left would eliminate press coverage of this fiasco altogether. Indeed, the left knows that there is no logical explanation for its colossal failure in handling this situation, so it seeks to distract the public by using misdirection and red herrings. Thank goodness that freedom of the press has not yet been fully destroyed by the leftists in power.

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:12 a.m.

    Roland,
    I admire your courage in bringing up Benghazi. As the response shows, it's become the main delivery system for the 'hate Obama bacillus'.

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:21 a.m.

    Roland,

    Please stop bringing up uncomfortable parallels. It upsets some people.

    Here's something to think about, though. After the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Bush declared a "war on terror." In essence, he declared a war in response to what can best be described as horrific criminal acts. And because of this "war" on terror, we have fought two very real, very costly, and largely unsuccessful wars (in terms of how things are or will be in those countries before and after our involvement).

    If Bush had called them what they were--criminal acts--and treated them as such, how many American soldiers would still be alive? How much more money would we have to deal with our deficits?

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    Ah, and where would a DN forum be without John Charity Spring whining about "left-wing extremists"?

    If there's any real evidence of a conspiracy, let's see it. Otherwise, all you have is a sad attempt to politicize the deaths of four Americans for the sake of sour grapes.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    "The left-wing should be condemned for its outright lies about the terrorist attacks."

    "the big scandal is the lies from the WH about the attacks"

    Ok, lets assume this is correct for the sake of discussion.

    It would have ALWAYS been known that the truth would soon come out. So, what is the big scandal? What would have been the result had Susan Rice had immediately said that it was probably a terrorist attack?

    Now, lets compare those ramifications to those of the Bush Admin (Condoleezza Rice) that went public with known questionable information to garner support for a war in Iraq that cost a Trillion+ dollars and thousands of lives.

    Compare the two.

    You got your knickers in a bunch over the wrong RICE.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:30 a.m.

    LDS Liberal. We know that Saddam Hussein used WMD(nerve gas)on Kurdish rebels inside Iraq. We know that the Syrian government is mixing Sarin nerve gas as we speak to use on Syrian rebels. Do you think that just maybe, Syria got the WMD from Saddam? And if it turns out to be fact that is it is exactly where the WMD in Syria have come from, will you then admit that Bush was right? No, probably not!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:31 a.m.

    JoeBlow
    Far East USA, SC
    Roland,

    You also left off 9/11. Can you imagine if that had happened 8 months after Obama had been inaugurated?

    =======

    I do.
    Beacsue reality and history has already shown what he'd have done,
    He would have either used a cruise missile or Navy SEAL team and took Osama Bin Laden out.

    Not offesnively invade and ooccupy 2 non-agressive nor threatening soveriegn counties.

    When will you guys ever admit Bush totally screwed up,
    and Obama finally killed who was actually responsible for 9/11?

    P.S.
    Obama has been cleaning up the 8 year Bush train wreck for only the last 4 years.

    I think he's doing a GREAT job, despite the lack of help - better yet, America's ENEMIES - the obstuctionists in our Congress.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    How petulant for the left to tell us that because we were at war during Bush's administration; because we were attacked; because people were killed in those attacks; that Obama can lie to us; that Obama could watch the video of the attacks as they unfolded; that Obama could send Ms. Rice to tell lies; that Obama could lie to the U.N. when he blamed that "video" for the attacks.

    When anyone distorts history for their "advantage", they lose all credibility. When Obama opening and repeatedly lies to the American people, he loses all credibility. When anyone blindly supports Obama, ignoring the facts because the facts are unpleasant, they lose all credibility.

    Obama watched the attack in real time, as it happened - seven hours. He ignored the requests for assistance from a Navy Seal - who was told to "stand down", but who gave his life to save the lives of 33 others. Obama lied about the attack. Obama sent people out to lie to us about the attack. Obama jailed a film producer in California.

    That's the truth, whether it hurts or not.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    It's very interesting that Deseret News apparently has two standards regarding what it call "offensive" posts.

    Three times, I've tried to post a comment here that remarked about the dishonesty of the Cheney / Bush administration, but it has been rejected.

    At the same time, there are other comments aimed at Obama that were probably a bit more "offensive" that were published.

    Hmmmm.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    Mike, you completely (or conveniently) forget that Bush's "reasons" for going to war with Iraq were based upon pure lies.

    WMDs?

    Saddam was involved in planning the attacks?

    Chemical weapons?

    Al Queda was headquartered in Iraq?

    May I submit that anyone who repeats lies and pretends they are not lies is guilty of lying himself?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 10:03 a.m.

    Mike, you wrote: "Obama watched the attack in real time, as it happened - seven hours. He ignored the requests for assistance from a Navy Seal - who was told to "stand down", but who gave his life to save the lives of 33 others. Obama lied about the attack. Obama sent people out to lie to us about the attack. Obama jailed a film producer in California."

    Do you have any documentation of those claims? Documentation from credible sources, so Rush or Glenn or other rightwing extremist websites don't count.

    Give us some solid documentation.

    Because if you cannot, we need to call those claims what they are. Are they lies, or are they something that can be documented?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2012 10:06 a.m.

    One Old Man,

    The authorization for war against Iraq was passed October 10, 2002 by the House, 296-122. It was passed by the Senate, October 11, 2011, 77-23.

    There were 223 Republicans in the House and 209 Democrats. There were 50 Republicans in the Senate, 48 Democrats and 1 Independent.

    Those people in Congress have the duty to oversee and to authorize acts of war. Are you telling us that they mishandled their assigned duty? Are you telling us that they voted without checking the facts; those facts presented to them by the CIA; those facts that Clinton also accepted; those facts that had been gathered during Clinton's administration and during the first part of Bush's administration?

    Slanting history is fraught with danger. How about letting history stand for itself?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 10:09 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    When anyone distorts history for their "advantage", they lose all credibility. When Obama (Romney) opening and repeatedly lies to the American people, he loses all credibility. When anyone blindly supports Obama (Romeny), ignoring the facts because the facts are unpleasant, they lose all credibility.

    ============

    Mike --
    Did it ever occur to you that you just explained perfectly why Mitt Romney LOST the election.

    Granted, Pres. Obama has made some mistakes,
    but he's not the Son of Perdition you make him out to be.

    To be honest - former Pres. GW Bush has more "blood" on his hands. and trampled the Constitution [that blankety-blank piece of paper as he called it] more than any President in generations, yet you voted for him -- twice!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 10:36 a.m.

    Mountanman
    Hayden, ID
    True, there were attacks on embassies during Bush's presidency but there were no cover-ups, no stonewalling and no deceit from the White House like we see today.

    6:11 a.m. Dec. 6, 2012

    ===============

    Really?

    No cover-ups Mountaman?

    You mean like United Flight 93 being shot down by US fighter jets?

    I will not eve BEGIN to go into the Bush "Conspiracy Theories",
    but you guys on the Right have self-made and created an entire Industry around them for Obama and the Democrats.

    BTW - Yesterday we were talking about Commonalities.
    Here's one for you:

    The only other group on planet Earth that makes up and believes as many Conspiracy theories as the
    religous Christian ultra-conservative zealots in America,
    are the
    religous Islamic ultra-conservatives zealots in the Middle East.

    Beause when THEIR view of the world doesn't seem to fit their reality,
    They change their realty to fit their view of the world.

    and Conspiraracies in that world of make believe play a vital role in balancing and expaling away those misconceptions and inconsistancies.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:45 a.m.

    Some posters wrap themselves in the flag and claim that only they have a right to speak. Did they forget the Obama never served in the military? Should Obama keep his opinions to himself?

    Some posters pretend that they stood in the voting booth with other posters and watched them vote - then they attack the poster for doing his civic duty.

    Some posters tell us that Bush has blood on his hands. Is there any President who has ever had to act as Commander in Chief during times of war who could not be said to have "blood on his hands"? Have none of our sons and daughters died while serving in the military since 2008?

    Stating the facts and letting those facts stand for what they are is unacceptable to those who want us to believe something other than the truth.

    We have one President at a time. When he hides behind Ms. Clinton and Ms. Rice, when he allows brave soldiers to die as those soldiers call for help, when he lies to us about a "film", that President should be "called out" for his ACTIONS.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    To "Roland Kayser" the difference between Benghazi and the BUsh era attacks is simple, so simple that you can understand.

    Benghazi resulted in the death of a US ambassador. If that isn't enough of a reason for you, then consider the fact that they troops on the ground requested help and did not receive any eventhough help was in range. After Sandy Obama said that we never leave our own stranded, which was ironic after the ambassador was killed and never received the help requested.

    There were no ambassadors killed in the attacks under Bush. Had an ambassador been killed, the press would have destroyed Bush. However, the people who died at embassies under Bush were guards doing their duty.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    @ redshirt from the 1st line of the article "During the presidency of George W. Bush, there were 12 attacks on U.S. embassies, resulting in 53 deaths."

    Redshirt said: There were no ambassadors killed in the attacks under Bush. Had an ambassador been killed, the press would have destroyed Bush. However, the people who died at embassies under Bush were guards doing their duty.

    How many Guards lives =an ambassadors life?

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Dec. 6, 2012 1:18 p.m.

    Happy Valley Heretic
    Orem, UT
    @ redshirt from the 1st line of the article "During the presidency of George W. Bush, there were 12 attacks on U.S. embassies, resulting in 53 deaths."

    Redshirt said: There were no ambassadors killed in the attacks under Bush. Had an ambassador been killed, the press would have destroyed Bush. However, the people who died at embassies under Bush were guards doing their duty.

    How many Guards lives =an ambassadors life?

    12:40 p.m. Dec. 6, 2012

    =================

    I cought the same thing!

    Ya - RedShirt,

    Just How many "Guards" lives = an 1 ambassadors life?

    That line could have come right out of the pig's mouth in Animal Farm
    "...all animals are equal (some animals are just MORE equal than others)!"

    Thanks for trampling the U.S. Constitution, ...again.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 1:37 p.m.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" and "Closed Minded Mormon" you obviously know nothing about the military that guards the embassies. They signed up knowing that they may have to put their lives on the line to protect us soil (embassies are considered US territory). Ambassadors have not signed up to die for their country. They are appointed to represent the US.

    It isn't that life is less valuable, but the oaths that have been made. Ambassadors do not swear to die for their country. Would you want to see the President of the US personally cleaning the white house every week, or see cleaning personnel working the whitehouse or setting up banquet rooms? Different people, different jobs. In this case different oaths.

    If that isn't enough, how many ambassadors have military training, and can fight?

    Which is more tragic, a military person dying in the line of duty, or a civilian dying while being protected by the military?

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 2:56 p.m.

    @RedShirt,

    "Which is more tragic, a military person dying in the line of duty, or a civilian dying while being protected by the military?"
    ===============

    Who says they cannot both be tragic? One may certainly be more surprising, less common and shocking, but that does not make it more tragic.

    Nothing in my oath I took as a solider indicated dying for my country. I swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic (which may include dying), but a vast majority of soldiers dutifully fulfill this oath without giving their lives. Ambassadors swear the same oath with almost identical wording, as do civilian Federal Employees.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 4:02 p.m.

    @redshirt "..you obviously know nothing about the military that guards the embassies. They signed up knowing that they may have to put their lives on the line to protect us soil (embassies are considered US territory)."

    Actually redshirt, it's you who clearly needs to do some research on military guards at embassies.

    First, while embassies are considered US soil, consulates are not. Behghazi was a US consulate...our Libyan embassy is in Tripoli.

    Second, the marines on guard at Embassies are part of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group. Directly from their website, their primary mission is: "...to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.."

    Physical security for Embassies and Consulates are typically provided by the host nation, or in this case, through private contractors, not through uniformed US military.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Dec. 6, 2012 5:14 p.m.

    "Diplomats themselves still retain full diplomatic immunity, and (as an adherent to the Vienna Convention) the host country may not enter the premises of the mission without permission of the represented country." (Wikipedia)

    The TERRORISTS may not enter the premises of the mission. The Ambassador had full diplomatic immunity from any action taken by the host country.

    Obama watched at the host country allowed terrorists to enter the consulate and he watched as our Ambassador's diplomatic immunity was violated and then killed. He listened as a Navy Seal asked for military support, a Navy Seal who was "painting" the target, at the peril of his life, to guide our military to destroy the terrorist offense. Obama watched. The Navy Seal died. The Ambassador died. Others died. Obama watched.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 7:20 p.m.

    @LDS Liberal

    Funny how LDS liberal ignores the fact 10O TIMES as many soldier have died under Obama in afghanistan compared to under Bush. approximately 4000 to 40

    Then LDS Liberal has gall to bring up leftest conspiracy theories during Bush's admin, as if it some kind of comparison.

    How about we just demand the utmost and fullest truth from any administration, including and especially Obama's?

    We can't change the past, but what are we doing now that is any better?

  • silo Sandy, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:27 p.m.

    @the truth

    Perhaps LDS Liberal ignored your stats because your numbers are completely fabricated?

    Your claim: 4000 US soldiers have died
    Actual numbers per icasualties.org: 2073 US military casualties

    Your claim: only 40 dead during Bush's administration
    Actual numbers per icasualties.org: 630 US military casualties from 2001-2008

    Your claim: 100 times more deaths under Obama than Bush
    Actual numbers from icasualties.org: 3 times more deaths

    Why should you demand the "utmost and fullest truth" from the administration when you won't even demand it of yourself?

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Dec. 6, 2012 8:32 p.m.

    Re:theTruth

    Here are the figures, since you didn't bother to correctly report them:

    Troop deaths
    Iraq
    2003-2008: 4222
    2009-2012: 264

    Afghanistan
    2001-2008: 630
    2009-2012 1534

    Totals:
    Bush 4852
    Obama 1798
    (Figures from Operation Enduring Freedom)

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:17 p.m.

    "During the presidency of George W. Bush, there were 12 attacks on U.S. embassies, resulting in 53 deaths."

    Yeah, but Bush and his administration did not lie to the American people about who was behind the attacks. That's the difference. Obama insisted he had Al Qaeda terrorists on their heels. He could not afford the truth about terrorists attacking the Benghazi embassy just before an election.

  • wrz Ogden, UT
    Dec. 6, 2012 11:43 p.m.

    @JoeBlow:
    "Bottom line? The right has nothing better to elevate to a political sledgehammer."

    The right likes to elevate the truth. The left apparently likes to cover the truth with lies.

    @Screwdriver:
    "It's not stonewalling when you demand information that isn't available..."

    And the reason the information was not available, if such was the case, is because Obama and his administration didn't want the information to be available since it would likely have negatively affected his chances in the ensuing election.

    @pragmatistferlife:
    "Trust me the left understands the importance between a flash mob that gets out of hand, and an organized attack."

    And the left also understands that labeling the attack as terrorism would likely have negatively affected his chances in the ensuing election. So they blamed it on a movie trailer a out a Muslim leader out months before the attack.

    "PS..the left didn't even block Condelessa Rices nomination after she had lied about Iraqs nuclear capabilities, and everyone knew that wasn't true."

    Ms. Rice accurately identifying WMD in possession of Saddam... since some Kurds in the north lay dead from WMD poison gas.

  • Alfred Ogden, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 12:10 a.m.

    @Ernest T. Bass:
    "If Benghazi was Obama's fault, 9-11-2001 was Bush's fault."

    You might have something there... Obama shoulda moved the Ambassador home before the Benghazi attack. Bush shoulda emptied NYC before 9/11.

    @Ford DeTreese:
    "If Bush had called them what they were--criminal acts--and treated them as such, how many American soldiers would still be alive?"

    If Bush had called them criminal acts, he would have been wrong. It was a terrorist attacks by Muslim terrorists.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 8:44 a.m.

    Sorry, I got the numbers wrong, I was operating form memory.

    But the principle, whichis more important, is still the same,

    Significanly more have died in afghanistan during Obams short administration as opposed to Bush's.

    And weeks later ther estill has been no response to the attack and murder of an ambassador.

    An embassy attack is far differnet than the murder of an ambassador.

    Another very imortant question is why is the Obama administration running guns to the middle east as well as mexico? Which is the cause of the murder of the ambassador in a town away from the embassy.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 2:28 p.m.

    Joe Blow,
    I can tell you that the Intellegence agencies gave Bush the information about WMD..
    Democrats in congress believed it, England believed it, Russia Belived it.. So it is not all on bush about there being no WMD. I will tell you that they did find yellow cake urainium in IRAQ, it was shipped to Canada for disposal.

    What the issue with Obama White is that they reported the Bengazi incident as a "out of control demostration spawned by the Video, when congress investigate Diane Feinstein (D) Cal was incensed that the WH had lied about the attack.

    The ambassador called the State Department as they were attacked, asking for help.. no help came. The WH knew with in MINUTES this was a terrorist attack... but yet they send out Ambassdor Rice to the american people a complete lie.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    Dec. 7, 2012 2:40 p.m.

    One old man... Nice revisiontic history...

    Bush went into IRAQ for he following reasons

    Sadaam was paying people to blow themselevs up in Israel
    Sadaam (at least the reports said this) had WMD and was perparing to use them again.
    Sadaam habored known Al Qaida leaders (several were found in country).
    And Most important- According to the Russian Intelligence agency, Sadaam put a contract on Pres Bush father.

    So when is the left actually going to accept that with the current Intelligence reports that Bush recieved, he made the best judgment... Later they found out that the reports were wrong, and they tried to fix that with the Homeland Security act... But Bush did not have that knowledge at the time.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    Dec. 8, 2012 1:19 p.m.

    The reason is, Roland, that the reasons for this attack were not dealt with. The administration decided to try to lie about who and what was responsible for several weeks after it happened. Don't recall that happening with Bush.

    By the way Joe Blow, it wasn't Condi Rice, it was the revered General Colin L. Powell that made the case for the war in Iran. Get your history right. You lefties really have a problem with that.