[bdjackass318]

From Bob Cesca, Huffington Post.

The Benghazi attacks (the consulate and the CIA compound) are absolutely not unprecedented even though they're being treated that way by Republicans who are deliberately ignoring anything that happened prior to Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009.

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.

June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.

October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.

February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.

May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.

July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.

December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.

March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers. (I wonder if Lindsey Graham or Fox News would even recognize the name "David Foy." This is the third Karachi terrorist attack in four years on what's considered American soil.)

September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.

January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.

March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.

July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.

September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband (they had been married for three weeks when the attack occurred). This is the second attack on this embassy in seven months.

By the way I hate both Republicans and Democrats but it does seem like the Right sure is making a big deal about Benghazi. Where were they when all this other shit was happening during Bush's watch? This just smacks of hypocrisy to 10th degree. Fuck both parties they are all whores in my eyes.

[rob666]

Its all about politics and trying to make the other guy look bad anyway possible.

Totally agree they are all whores, but IMHO the republicans are WAYYY worse. I saw a guy on CNN last night ( republican congressman ) talking about inpeaching Obama over this

[gatagato]

I'll post this update here rather than starting a new thread, as it's strictly related to this

The White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi emails

The White House on Wednesday released 100 pages of emails related to the development of talking points used by the UN ambassador Susan Rice about the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. The White House said the emails show there was no cover-up.
The release of what the White House says is the full set of emails related to the development of the talking points drawn by the White House, the State Department and the CIA, was in response to charges of "cover-up" from congressional Republicans.
Republicans lawmakers have accused the Obama administration of deliberately misrepresenting the character of the attack by downplaying the role of an al-Qaeda affiliated group and pushing the suggestion that it was a spontaneous mob action in response to an anti-Islam film, only to protect the image of the administration in the approach to the 2012 election.


The emails, however, appear to water-down the persistent charges of a "cover-up" and give a more rounded picture than the email leaks earlier in the week that portrayed the State Department as editing the talking points primarily to protect the image of the administration. They appear to show active engagement between the White House, the State Department and the CIA over what to say to the public.
The Huffington Post reports that in a media briefing at the White House Wednesday, officials said the emails show that other government agencies besides the State Department influenced the changes to the talking points that Rice eventually used.
According to The Washington Post, the initial CIA draft said that the attack was carried out by a group consisting of al-Qaeda-affiliated Islamic extremists from Ansar al-Sharia and angry demonstrators. Although the White House did not raise any issues with the assessment, the emails show that the CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell removed the reference to al-Sharia because that assessment was classified at the time and because FBI officials said making the information public could compromise investigations.
This appears to contradict claims by Republican lawmakers that the White House was responsible for removing references to the al-Qaeda affiliated group and that the White House resisted efforts to portray the attack as terrorist.

Full article here:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...#ixzz2TQsttJ7p

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...ed-white-house
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3280734.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-white-house/

Full set here.

[Major Bludd]

Perhaps the reason we never heard a peep from Fox news in regards to the previous attacks is because it didn't appear that the Bush administration misled (on purpose or by accident) the American people as to the reason for those attacks. The current administration may not have lied or purposefully misled anyone, but they did blame the attacks on a video which turned out to not be the true reason. It only makes sense to question why they did that. Can anyone show where Bush or his cronies after any of the other 13 attacks lied as to the reason for those attacks? If not then bringing up the "13 Benghazis" is pointless.

[rottenflesh]

So how many generals were dismissed for refusing to stand down under Cheney? How many videos, of the so-called Prophet, were passed off as the excuse for these tragedies? How many Admirals of Carrier Groups were relieved of duty for wanting to intercede? The Benghazi attack was over 4 hours, were the attacks mentioned over that long of a time period?

Was Cheney busy getting ready for a fund raiser in Las Vegas when the attack happened?


If you wonder why I use Cheney rather than Bush, you obviously don't know who was actually running the show.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Major Bludd ↗

Perhaps the reason we never heard a peep from Fox news in regards to the previous attacks is because it didn't appear that the Bush administration misled (on purpose or by accident) the American people as to the reason for those attacks. The current administration may not have lied or purposefully misled anyone, but they did blame the attacks on a video which turned out to not be the true reason. It only makes sense to question why they did that. Can anyone show where Bush or his cronies after any of the other 13 attacks lied as to the reason for those attacks? If not then bringing up the "13 Benghazis" is pointless.

I don't think its been proven that anybody lied yet?

And as far as the attacks that happened under Bush's term, John McCain didn't seem to think it was a big deal back then........ Bush's reaction to the attacks or lack thereof was never put under a microscope like the Bengazi Incident was, so why would he have to lie about it?

Its not pointless at all IMHO to bring up prior attacks on Consulates, if the person doing the accusing said nothing when his party was in power.

[Major Bludd]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

I don't think its been proven that anybody lied yet?

And as far as the attacks that happened under Bush's term, John McCain didn't seem to think it was a big deal back then........ Bush's reaction to the attacks or lack thereof was never put under a microscope like the Bengazi Incident was, so why would he have to lie about it?

Its not pointless at all IMHO to bring up prior attacks on Consulates, if the person doing the accusing said nothing when his party was in power.

Please reread the op's first post and then read my comment again. Take your time and fully digest the content of both. Then look at your comment above and hopefully you will see that it makes no sense whatsoever.

Please clarify a couple of things for me.
In your first sentence are you asking me a question or making a statement?
Exactly what was it that the person doing the accusing should have said when their party was in power?

It all seems pretty simple to me.
For starters security was never made an issue of with any of the prior attacks. No reasons for the prior attacks were given by McCain, Bush or any Republicans that turned out to be false. There are at least as many left leaning news outlets as right leaning if not more. They could have put anyone they wished under a microscope for security failings or false statements just like Fox News is doing with Benghazi. They didn't. Perhaps that's because neither of those two things happened. They did however happen with Benghazi. That's why the situation is under a microscope. Bringing up the prior attacks is just a distraction tactic that does nothing to help the current situation.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by Major Bludd ↗

Please reread the op's first post and then read my comment again. Take your time and fully digest the content of both. Then look at your comment above and hopefully you will see that it makes no sense whatsoever.

Please clarify a couple of things for me.
In your first sentence are you asking me a question or making a statement?
Exactly what was it that the person doing the accusing should have said when their party was in power?

It all seems pretty simple to me.
For starters security was never made an issue of with any of the prior attacks. No reasons for the prior attacks were given by McCain, Bush or any Republicans that turned out to be false. There are at least as many left leaning news outlets as right leaning if not more. They could have put anyone they wished under a microscope for security failings or false statements just like Fox News is doing with Benghazi. They didn't. Perhaps that's because neither of those two things happened. They did however happen with Benghazi. That's why the situation is under a microscope. Bringing up the prior attacks is just a distraction tactic that does nothing to help the current situation.

I misread what you posted, I think we're on the same page with this.

[Major Bludd]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

I misread what you posted, I think we're on the same page with this.

We definitely agree on them all being whores.

[AmericanIllusions]

Moral of it all: Fuck the govt