Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I asked this question in the last bogus thread about Benghazi and not one conservative responded. So I'll ask again here:
When the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan was attacked and 10 were killed in 2002, did you call for an investigation? When the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured in 2004 did you demand that the president be held accountable? When the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and eight died in 2004 did you call for Congressional hearings?
Nope.
There were no hearings after any of these attacks, even though there were more casualties. Why not?
There have been no calls wanting Bush held responsible for "lies"?
The problem here really isn't the attack. You attack people and they tend to want to attack back. That's a pretty basic principle. It's not something that needs investigated. It just is.
The lame ass excuses for why the attacks happened though are another story. Will an investigation change anything? No, but I still get a kick out of the attempts to get rid of a story that is only a story because of the lies.
There have been no calls wanting Bush held responsible for "lies"?
The problem here really isn't the attack. You attack people and they tend to want to attack back. That's a pretty basic principle. It's not something that needs investigated. It just is.
The lame ass excuses for why the attacks happened though are another story. Will an investigation change anything? No, but I still get a kick out of the attempts to get rid of a story that is only a story because of the lies.
Oh, okay, so you DON'T want hearings about the attacks then? Great, good to know.
Just for the record, what were the lame-ass excuses for all the previous attacks on embassies through the years? I'd be willing to bet you neither know nor care.
Something to keep in mind if you murder someone and can remain low for about a year.
Also, Bush is ancient history relatively speaking.
C'mon. be fair. Obama had to get some sleep. Had a fundraiser in Vegas the next day. Couldn't be bothered with some inane task like trying to save lives.
Oh, okay, so you DON'T want hearings about the attacks then? Great, good to know.
Just for the record, what were the lame-ass excuses for all the previous attacks on embassies through the years? I'd be willing to bet you neither know nor care.
No, I do not recall stupid lame ass excuses.
Hearings are nothing more than dog and pony shows but as I said, I hope people continue to harass them over the stupid
excuses they came up with.
It makes no sense when the truth was the best thing to say. But when people like yourself will go out of their way to defend things like this, politicians will believe that lies are the best venue.
I asked this question in the last bogus thread about Benghazi and not one conservative responded. So I'll ask again here:
When the US Consulate in the Karachi, Pakistan was attacked and 10 were killed in 2002, did you call for an investigation? When the US embassy in Uzbekistan was attacked and two were killed and another nine injured in 2004 did you demand that the president be held accountable? When the US Consulate in Saudi Arabia was stormed and eight died in 2004 did you call for Congressional hearings?
Nope.
There were no hearings after any of these attacks, even though there were more casualties. Why not?
2004? That's back in the Stone Age, according to Obama years.
If Bush stood before the UN and lied, blaming either attack on an obscure anti-Islam video than I will be happy to write my congressmen today to ask for a hearing.
Post some videos showing us Bush lying about the attacks.
The problem here really isn't the attack. You attack people and they tend to want to attack back. That's a pretty basic principle. It's not something that needs investigated. It just is.
This is exactly right. All the rest is simply political posturing. In other words, it's not worth the massive amount of bloviating that it is garnering from the right. Thanks for your honesty.
This is exactly right. All the rest is simply political posturing. In other words, it's not worth the massive amount of bloviating that it is garnering from the right. Thanks for your honesty.
Yea, you just want it censored like the Gosnell case. Another one you liberals should be proud of.
This is exactly right. All the rest is simply political posturing. In other words, it's not worth the massive amount of bloviating that it is garnering from the right. Thanks for your honesty.
Nope but the lying is. It's a perfect textbook example of the saying that the truth is always the best reply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
