One could argue that you think that because you don't like Obama.

That's exactly what I argued to the democrats: they believed the various "evidence" of any number of conspiracies BECAUSE they didn't like Bush.

Did the state department censor information about the attacks? Yes. Did they do so for their own benefit? Yes.That's politics and not (necessarily) a conspiracy. Did they do so because they didn't want the public to find out they had willfully allowed 4 Americans to die because they didn't want something even more sinister to get out? Well, maybe, but there is zero hard evidence of that so far. If you believe there is hard evidence please see my first sentence.

BUD: Prolly. We can throw in a few more just for good measure, too.

edit: Holy crap! Bush never lied?! Wow. Just... wow. Not touching that with a 10 foot pole other than to say we went to war in Afghanistan because a group of (mostly Saudi) terrorists pulled of a heinous attack on us, then we went to war with Iraq because they wouldn't show us WMD's that they didn't have and many Americans supported it because they thought Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. You just don't think of what the Bush Administration said as lies because you agreed with the outcomes. They were lies in the same way this Benghazi BS is lies: they were wilfull distortions of the truth.

Do you enjoy putting words in peoples posts and then acting all incredulous over something nobody actually said?  Who said "Bush never lied?"  I missed that part.  I was speaking specifically about the wars, which is because YOU brought them up as Bush's "body count."

Try to stay on point and don't get all excited about things you THOUGHT you read when it couldn't be any further from the truth.

And by the way, attacking the person and their motives instead of using facts to support your case is straight out of the Liberal debate playbook.  Looks like you've been taking notes!  (Re: One could argue that you think that because you don't like Obama/Bush.)  Whether or not a person LIKES a President is irrelevant if the facts are supported by the truth.  I suppose I would have been shouted down if I criticized Hitler, too, just because it appeared I hated the man?

Second, Bush never lied about what was happening in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  We had embedded journalists reporting on the facts.

Did I misunderstand something? (Edit: Or perhaps I didn't make it clear that I do consider the misinformation that lead up to the wars as lies "about what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan")

What I am not making clear is that what you consider fact - as per your posts as I understand them - is based on your belief. I'm not saying that the belief is wrong, just that there are no facts, yet, that support it. Suspicions, allegations, possibilities - yes. Facts? No.

Fact: Administration knew about the terrorists
Fact: The edited references to terrorists out of the talking points
Assumption: Because they were covering up a conspiracy.

That's not a "liberal tactic", that's pointing out a basic fallacy in logic.

Then, in an attempt to demonstrate how everyone does this, I pointed out how the liberals fall prey to that same fallacy of logic. (edt: damn. No, I erased something a little clearer that I wrote along those lines because I thought it was ranging too far off topic. Apologies. I see now that my post does look more like an attack than I originally intended it to.)

Relax, boo.

Democrats, Republicans.... How can you tell if a politician is lying? 










...... Their mouth is moving.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to lump the good with the bad but it seems that people nowadays don't hold politicians accountable enough against lying.)

Did I misunderstand something? (Edit: Or perhaps I didn't make it clear that I do consider the misinformation that lead up to the wars as lies "about what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan")

What I am not making clear is that what you consider fact - as per your posts as I understand them - is based on your belief. I'm not saying that the belief is wrong, just that there are no facts, yet, that support it. Suspicions, allegations, possibilities - yes. Facts? No.

Fact: Administration knew about the terrorists
Fact: The edited references to terrorists out of the talking points
Assumption: Because they were covering up a conspiracy.

That's not a "liberal tactic", that's pointing out a basic fallacy in logic.

Then, in an attempt to demonstrate how everyone does this, I pointed out how the liberals fall prey to that same fallacy of logic. (edt: damn. No, I erased something a little clearer that I wrote along those lines because I thought it was ranging too far off topic. Apologies. I see now that my post does look more like an attack than I originally intended it to.)

Relax, boo.

Lies that lead up to the wars?  Maybe you have forgotten we were attacked by terrorists, and taking the war to the Middle East prevented any further such attacks ... until Boston and Benghazi at least.

If you are referring to the WMD's, we covered that,  Syria is the most likely location where Saddam hid them.  We KNOW he had them ... he used them.  That's indisputable.  We know he refused UN inspections to ensure he didn't have more.  That's indisputable.  We found many signs of the chemicals and manufacturing/storage for WMDs in Iraq.  Again, indisputable.  Today, Syria has been assessed to have chemical weapons of the type Iraq was supposed to have.  I'm inclined to think 2+2 is still four.

If you know of actual lies that Bush relied upon DURING the wars, then I'm all ears.  We are comparing Obama lying for political gain.  Bush didn't lie so he could be reelected ... he was in office less than a year when 9/11 happened.  Obama is guilty of ATTEMPTING to mislead the nation (world?) so he could win reelection.  Even though he won, many, if not most, were never fooled.  We knew it was terrorism.  Only a lying politician had any doubts!  It was the anniversary of 9/11.  Get real!.  The motivations of the two CinCs, even if you showed there were intentional lies as opposed to inadequate intel as was suggested, make this no comparison at all to me.

BTW, for all the times people say Bush lied about why we went to war, the CONGRESS voted to support the decision, not based on Bush telling them what was happening, but based on the exact same Intel Bush was being provided. 

I saw him on TV in a interview

In one of Bushes books he wrote recently he says they found a lot of WMD's but didn't want to let the Enemies know what they found because Saddam hid them all over the place.  So he lied to keep them out of the hands of the terrorists.

Of course the MSM is not going to report this.

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/05/benghazi-the-biggest-cover-up-scandal-in-u-s-history-was-benghazi-a-cia-gun-running-operation-for-muslim-brotherhood-other-insurgents-fighting-in-syria/

WOW!

The liberal conspiracy theorist view of the "misinformation" that lead to the Iraq "War:"

We knew Saddam had WMDs because he got some of them from us and he had used them in the past. (fact)

The CIA created that regime as a cold war ally. When he used them as our cold war buddy we said "Tsk! Tsk!" and did nothing. (fact)

When the cold war was over and we realized that our cold war buddy was now a monster, who still didn't have a fractional reserve central bank, we decided to take him out and install a fractional reserve central bank. (Assumption)

Saddam was never a threat to the US and his Iraq was not a breeding ground for anti US islamic terrorists. Nor did he ACTUALLY have weapons of mass destruction at the time we got medieval on his country.. I don't care where the "most likely" place they went was - if the police stormed your house, shot your family and tore the place apart because they thought you had a ton of cocaine in the basement and you did not, in fact, have any illegal substances in the house at all you would be a little upset. And if the US said to the UN "Screw your inspectors! The United States isn't subject to the UN!" most conservatives would cheer - yet because Saddam said exactly that to the UN we removed his regime by force - without the approval of the UN.

So if you start at the point of "We invaded because he wouldn't let the inspectors in and we ~knew~ he had WMDs because of history and current intel", then yes, 2+2 =4. When you look back a little further, include that the UN, who's inspectors we were all outraged about, did not sanction the "war" at first, that MANY other countries do heinous things to their people and we do nothing about it and ask the question "Then WHY did we invade Iraq?"....

That is where you get into the mucky territory of amateur internet sleuthing and tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Easier to just buy that 2+2=4, we're the good guys cleaning up WMD messes and everything the Administration told us was true as far as they knew. So the intel wasn't accurate. We all make mistakes, right? Relax! You can trust the government!

Which is my only point: when you like the guy in office it is really easy to say "Relax! You can trust the government" and ignore a lot of inconsistencies. When you don't like the guy in office articles like the one Speedtek linked to seem like the must be true.

So... seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like the dems from 11 years ago. There are facts and then there are assumptions about what those facts mean. The outrage about Benghazi is entirely fueled by assumptions about about the relatively few facts that we have.

hey guys
we're getting to the point where everyone should consider agreeing to disagree
this thread and the one that turned into a theology lesson have remained remarkably civil
but they are reaching the point where things start to get ugly
i admire the fact that you guys have made it several days in both threads without them exploding, but i can sense a disturbance in the force
just sayin...

The liberal conspiracy theorist view of the "misinformation" that lead to the Iraq "War:"

We knew Saddam had WMDs because he got some of them from us and he had used them in the past. (fact)

The CIA created that regime as a cold war ally. When he used them as our cold war buddy we said "Tsk! Tsk!" and did nothing. (fact)

When the cold war was over and we realized that our cold war buddy was now a monster, who still didn't have a fractional reserve central bank, we decided to take him out and install a fractional reserve central bank. (Assumption)

Saddam was never a threat to the US and his Iraq was not a breeding ground for anti US islamic terrorists. Nor did he ACTUALLY have weapons of mass destruction at the time we got medieval on his country.. I don't care where the "most likely" place they went was - if the police stormed your house, shot your family and tore the place apart because they thought you had a ton of cocaine in the basement and you did not, in fact, have any illegal substances in the house at all you would be a little upset. And if the US said to the UN "Screw your inspectors! The United States isn't subject to the UN!" most conservatives would cheer - yet because Saddam said exactly that to the UN we removed his regime by force - without the approval of the UN.

So if you start at the point of "We invaded because he wouldn't let the inspectors in and we ~knew~ he had WMDs because of history and current intel", then yes, 2+2 =4. When you look back a little further, include that the UN, who's inspectors we were all outraged about, did not sanction the "war" at first, that MANY other countries do heinous things to their people and we do nothing about it and ask the question "Then WHY did we invade Iraq?"....

That is where you get into the mucky territory of amateur internet sleuthing and tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Easier to just buy that 2+2=4, we're the good guys cleaning up WMD messes and everything the Administration told us was true as far as they knew. So the intel wasn't accurate. We all make mistakes, right? Relax! You can trust the government!

Which is my only point: when you like the guy in office it is really easy to say "Relax! You can trust the government" and ignore a lot of inconsistencies. When you don't like the guy in office articles like the one Speedtek linked to seem like the must be true.

So... seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like the dems from 11 years ago. There are facts and then there are assumptions about what those facts mean. The outrage about Benghazi is entirely fueled by assumptions about about the relatively few facts that we have.

macsak: Probably right. Thanks. 

The even worse crime is my belief that the POTUS is in a position because many people in the DNC and the Hawaii Health Dept have covered up the backround an ineligible Marxist community organizer who is totally unqualified to make life and death decisions and allowed 4 Americans to be killed in order to perpetuate a HUGE LIE... These people ALL have the BLOOD on their hands.

Unfortunately "qualified" has nothing to do with it.  It's about being the duly elected POTUS.  Heck there are a lot of people in the military who are unqualified to make decisions, but they are making them every single day.

....................edit: Holy crap! Bush never lied?! Wow. Just... wow....................

IMHO we need to recognize that all people in those positions lie.  Some for the greater good, some for the not so good, etc.  I do think the general American population has the right to know the truth, but not necessarily all of it.

Democrats, Republicans.... How can you tell if a politician is lying? 




...... Their mouth is moving.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to lump the good with the bad but it seems that people nowadays don't hold politicians accountable enough against lying.)

Truth man.

The liberal conspiracy theorist view of the "misinformation" that lead to the Iraq "War:"

We knew Saddam had WMDs because he got some of them from us and he had used them in the past. (fact)

The CIA created that regime as a cold war ally. When he used them as our cold war buddy we said "Tsk! Tsk!" and did nothing. (fact)

When the cold war was over and we realized that our cold war buddy was now a monster, who still didn't have a fractional reserve central bank, we decided to take him out and install a fractional reserve central bank. (Assumption)

Saddam was never a threat to the US and his Iraq was not a breeding ground for anti US islamic terrorists. Nor did he ACTUALLY have weapons of mass destruction at the time we got medieval on his country.. I don't care where the "most likely" place they went was - if the police stormed your house, shot your family and tore the place apart because they thought you had a ton of cocaine in the basement and you did not, in fact, have any illegal substances in the house at all you would be a little upset. And if the US said to the UN "Screw your inspectors! The United States isn't subject to the UN!" most conservatives would cheer - yet because Saddam said exactly that to the UN we removed his regime by force - without the approval of the UN.

So if you start at the point of "We invaded because he wouldn't let the inspectors in and we ~knew~ he had WMDs because of history and current intel", then yes, 2+2 =4. When you look back a little further, include that the UN, who's inspectors we were all outraged about, did not sanction the "war" at first, that MANY other countries do heinous things to their people and we do nothing about it and ask the question "Then WHY did we invade Iraq?"....

That is where you get into the mucky territory of amateur internet sleuthing and tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Easier to just buy that 2+2=4, we're the good guys cleaning up WMD messes and everything the Administration told us was true as far as they knew. So the intel wasn't accurate. We all make mistakes, right? Relax! You can trust the government!

Which is my only point: when you like the guy in office it is really easy to say "Relax! You can trust the government" and ignore a lot of inconsistencies. When you don't like the guy in office articles like the one Speedtek linked to seem like the must be true.

So... seriously, you all sound ~exactly~ like the dems from 11 years ago. There are facts and then there are assumptions about what those facts mean. The outrage about Benghazi is entirely fueled by assumptions about about the relatively few facts that we have.

You left out a little event:  Iraq invaded the country of Kuwait (fact).  That was the reason the US & UN forces initially engaged Iraq.

During the war between Iran and Iraq, we supported the lesser of the 2 Muslim evils.  I don't think Iran has done or said anything to make us believe that was the wrong path.  When an Iraqi jet deliberately hit the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf with a missile in 1987, it marked the rapid decline of diplomatic efforts between The US and Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Stark_incident

And trying to imply the US is inconsistent in it's relationship with another country is lame.  We start out trying to build a coalition, but sometimes things turn sour.  It's not a guarantee that the friendly countries remain friendly forever!

We have an international policy for a reason.  We try to strategically choose the nations as friends who can further our national interests, or who would be even worse were they in bed with another country (Russia or China?).  There is no perfect solution.  The US has backed many leaders, even though they were not playing by the rules we'd like, to prevent an even more evil or less US-friendly leader coming to power.  You have to play the hand you're dealt.  The only other solution would be to militarily force these leaders out and establish another government in its place, like we did in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt.  So far, all we've done is prove Al Quaeda knows how to take advantage of an unstable country and either take it over or make it that much more unstable.

...............We have an international policy for a reason.  We try to strategically choose the nations as friends who can further our national interests, or who would be even worse were they in bed with another country (Russia or China?).  There is no perfect solution.  The US has backed many leaders, even though they were not playing by the rules we'd like, to prevent an even more evil or less US-friendly leader coming to power.  You have to play the hand you're dealt.  The only other solution would be to militarily force these leaders out and establish another government in its place, like we did in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt.  So far, all we've done is prove Al Quaeda knows how to take advantage of an unstable country and either take it over or make it that much more unstable.

How has the US used its military to force out leaders in Libya and Egypt?

We knew Saddam had WMDs because he got some of them from us and he had used them in the past. (fact)

Easier to just buy that 2+2=4, we're the good guys cleaning up WMD messes and everything the Administration told us was true as far as they knew. So the intel wasn't accurate. We all make mistakes, right? Relax! You can trust the government!

1) What WMD's did Iraq acquire from us? Just so we are talking about the same "basic" definition of WMD, I assume you are referring to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons?

I know "destructive devices" defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) section 921 is included in the official definition, which includes just about every thing you could imagine, but when most people (general public) think or hear of WMD's, they believe it to be chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons and not a destructive device. If you're including destructive devices in the use of the term WMD, I agree with your point.

2) Heard this on Huckabee over the weekend but I believe he said it perfectly when some were using the same Bush/Benghazi analogy on him. I'm paraphrasing but this is basically what he said, which is also how I see it.

"Benghazi is not the same because in the case of WMD’s, people and Intel agencies really thought there was WMD’s but they were mistaken. There is a big difference between a mistake, when you think you’re telling the truth and it turns out you’re not, and a lie, when you know you’re not telling the truth. In the case of Benghazi, we had people that knew it wasn’t caused by a video but continued to say it anyway.
 

How has the US used its military to force out leaders in Libya and Egypt?

NATO aircraft then fired on 11 of the vehicles, destroying one. A U.S. Predator drone operated from a base near Las Vegas[8] (almost certainly Creech Air Force Base) fired the first missiles at the convoy, hitting its target about 3 kilometres (2 mi) west of Sirte. Moments later, French Air Force fighter jets continued the bombing.[10] The NATO bombing immobilized much of the convoy and killed dozens of loyalist fighters. Following the first strike, some 20 vehicles broke away from the main group and continued moving south. A second NATO airstrike damaged or destroyed 10 of these vehicles. According to the Financial Times, Free Libya units on the ground also struck the convoy.[11]

According to their statement, NATO was not aware at the time of the strike that Gaddafi was in the convoy. NATO stated that in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1973, it does not target individuals but only military assets that pose a threat. NATO later learned, "from open sources and Allied intelligence," that Gaddafi was in the convoy and that the strike likely contributed to his capture.
...
Immediately after Gaddafi's death, NATO released a statement denying it knew beforehand that Gaddafi was traveling in the convoy it struck. Admiral James G. Stavridis, NATO's top officer, said the death of Gaddafi meant that NATO would likely wind down its operations in Libya.

"Oopsie!  We didn't see him there!!"  That looks like military force to me, whether intentional or (if you believe it) unintentional !

I have been particularly interested in how the U.S. has been discussed in relation to the revolution. From my observations of events and numerous discussions with others, Egypt’s relationship with the U.S appears, in some ways, to be absent from most of the heated discussions going on today. But upon closer examination, this relationship has been present in the revolution, not only during and after the peak of events—from January 25 to February 11—but also, I would suggest, in the very anti-imperialist underpinnings of the revolution, a revolution that the mainstream American media has miscast as one generated purely internally.

We (the US) had been propping up Mubarak since 1975.  We were providing $1.5billion in support annually.  Suddenly, he was so hated, an internal uprising succeeds without outside intervention?  And is this how the US treats our allies, turning our backs when the leader we supported for so long comes under assault?  The US may not have had drones attacking THIS leader's convoy, but there was no dividing wall separating the US from the events of this revolution.

Moosed if I'm not mistaken the US took a backseat in the involvement, basically forcing the other members to act.


I would point out that lack of military aid does not constitute military involvement.  That means we are involved one way or the other with every single country on this planet.  As far as lack of support, when the dog cannot be controlled and has bit someone, you gotta put it down.  Saddam was propped up a lot due to his involvement with Iran in their conflict in the '80's...........didn't stop us from going in after he invaded Kuwait. 

For me, in regard to Libya, it rubs me the wrong way how Obama handled the situation.  Sure, it was a very quick operation.  But you could argue that he violated the War Powers Act without going through Congress first.  Some argue in contrast to that, so I guess it depends on what side of the political spectrum you find yourself on.  Benghazi, I believe, was part of the fall out, as it was Gaddafi's weapons caches that were being raided and run to Syria (speculation at this point, though reported by some news outlets and so-called "sources."  One example HERE).  But essentially, knowing about the violence in the region, having intel concerning a possible terror attack on the US, not providing any additional security when requested, telling soldiers to stand down and then trying to blame it all on a stupid YouTube video all during an election year makes me seriously question the decision making ability of our leaders.  Have there been other egregious acts performed by administrations in the past?  Obviously.  But to point the finger at Iraq but give the current administration a pass just because he's your "guy," or you're more concerned about political fall out is just sickening.  When do we as a people look past party lines and demand accountability because we're honestly concerned about holding government accountable?  Or are we just divided along political lines and only hold the other party responsible when they muck up?

I hold Bush 100% responsible for the unnecessary invasion of Iraq.  Iraq (Iraqi Freedom, not the Bush #1 campaign), to me it was a side show.  We knew that the Saudi's were the ones who funded 9/11, yet we give them a pass every single time they're tied to any terror event.  So we go invade Iraq on the premise of the Global War on Terrorism?  Nice distraction.  Sure, Congress approved the invasion, which essentially makes it legal.  But definitely not the most prudent thing to do.  Very poor use of our resources and I still do not agree with the invasion.  Now we're left with a country that is still suffering from the aftershock of the war, still has to deal with warring religious factions and has, in my opinion, no identity whatsoever.

Egypt, we helped supply them with money and weapons but had no reported boots on the ground.  Thanks to our resources, the Muslim Brotherhood, a.k.a. al Qaeda, gain political power in yet another country who we helped topple their tyrannical dictator (Libya being another).  Not very smart on our part, as they are still protesting in Tahrir Square over a (new) tyrannical government, so what did we accomplish except lots of wasted tax dollars?

And good grief, with top DC IRS officials linked to the unfair and basically illegal audits of conservative, tea party and Jewish organizations, the DOJ secretly obtaining AP phone conversations under direct approval from Eric Holder, this administration has some explaining to do.  And not just in regard to Benghazi.  Most transparent government in history, eh?  This 2nd term of Obama's is starting out pretty darn bleak.  His chickens are coming home to roost.  I wonder how they're going to recover from this?  This not only affects Republicans, but has implications for both sides.  Wow.  What a $h!t storm this has turned into.  I bet that they're wishing Benghazi was the only so-called "scandal" they have to deal with.  Now it's a 3-headed monster. 

The murder of the ambassador and 3 additional brave Americans were hushed up to keep BHO in office. Now the career state department officials testifying before congress will also be destroyed by the libs. After the death of ambassador Stevens, his second in command courageously testified. I wish this brave man good luck, they will do their very best to punish him. The IRS tried to retaliate against the tea party, jews, and conservative groups. Now we hear of the AP press scandal. What's next? Is this the hope and change that was promised? 

I am not a Bush lover but didn't Sadam gas the Kurds and Iranians? Are chemical weapons still considered WMD's? 

   

O'Reilly's talking points memo yesterday entitled "Truth and the Federal Government" fits with this topic.

http://nation.foxnews.com/irs-scandal/2013/05/13/oreilly-truth-and-federal-government

"To be sure, issues like personal privacy and national security must be treated with the care they demand. But the mere fact that you have the legal power to keep something secret does not mean you should always use it. The Freedom of Information Act is perhaps the most powerful instrument we have for making our government honest and transparent, and of holding it accountable. And I expect members of my administration not simply to live up to the letter but also the spirit of this law.

I will also hold myself as President to a new standard of openness. Going forward, anytime the American people want to know something that I or a former President wants to withhold, we will have to consult with the Attorney General and the White House Counsel, whose business it is to ensure compliance with the rule of law. Information will not be withheld just because I say so. It will be withheld because a separate authority believes my request is well grounded in the Constitution.

Let me say it as simply as I can: Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

REMARKS BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN WELCOMING SENIOR STAFF AND CABINET SECRETARIES TO THE WHITE HOUSE -- January 21, 2009