Benghazi: What's the Charge Again?

[Ryantology]

I’d be interested in hearing how you measure a person’s level of bias sometime. Of course the Left wants this story to die and for everyone to focus on something else until 2016. Fortunately, it won’t die.

Oh, I have no doubt. Hillary's second term won't finish for another ten years and change, and the right wing has never met a meaningless crusade they aren't willing to run to death.

[A Theist]

DeistPaladin isn't alone in all of his opinions, but I'm just tired of hearing and debating it. I find the Republican side is far far more bias and the entire ordeal is beyond hypocritical, but that is not surprising. This dead horse has been beaten long enough. Let it die and pick something else to spam debate until 2016.

No. It's never been a dead horse, except to the Democrats, and especially the redacting of the original Benghazi email exchanges between Rhodes and other WH staffers.

[DeistPaladin]

There was a drone flying over the consulate at the time of the attack. Why don't they release the footage?

I'm sure it's a conspiracy that even endless congressional investigations couldn't unlock.

[Statler Waldorf]

No. It's never been a dead horse, except to the Democrats, and especially the redacting of the original Benghazi email exchanges between Rhodes and other WH staffers.

Isn’t it funny how this administration works?

R: Whoa! What happened? How could this happen? Why did you say it was this when it was really that?
D: We will do an investigation and get to the bottom of it, I assure you that people will be held accountable.
R: Ok…so what did you find out?
D: I told you….we are investigating and I am not about to comment on an open investigation…
R: Umm….ok…I guess I will wait….
D: Good.
R: So it’s been a year, did you get to the bottom of it?
D: Dude, why are you still bringing this up? That was an entire year ago!? You racist.
R: Huh?

[DeistPaladin]

Yes the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993 and 2001 because Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. Effects now precede their causes. Makes perfect sense.

Tsk tsk. This is dishonest. You removed the context (why the UN might have an anti-American bias) to change the topic to why terrorists attacked us. This is called quote mining. Additionally, you glossed over the "like" part of the sentence, which indicates this invasion was an example.

Which international law was violated? I need specifics.

First of all, the entire Iraq War was a war crime.

You can't just invade a country because you want to. That's called a crime of aggression.

Second, the incidents of torture at Abu Garab are examples of crimes against humanity. We have also illegally detained suspects without trial, some of whom might be terrorists and some of who might have been turned in by bounty hunters but are in reality just people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We have no idea because we won't bring them to trial.

As a result of our aggression and botched reconstruction of Iraq, the latter largely due to the previous administrations pie-in-the-sky assumptions that the people would welcome us with sweets and flowers and we'd all go off in the sunset together singing "hosanna hosanna".

But I am glad that W Bush wasn't president during World War II. The Japanese would have bombed us at Pearl Harbor and W would have responded by invading the Soviet Union.

Your eagerness to ascribe to every conspiracy theory under the sun regarding the Bush administration

Conspiracy theory? These are documented facts. We DID invade Iraq. We DO have documented lies that were told prior to the invasion. There is no conspiracy theory. There is history.

and reluctance to even consider ones under the Obama administration has nothing to do with their political affiliations would it?

The allegations against Obama over Benghazi haven't even been articulated clearly (the reason for the OP) never mind proven.

[DeistPaladin]

Isn’t it funny how this administration works?

R: Whoa! What happened? How could this happen? Why did you say it was this when it was really that?
D: We will do an investigation and get to the bottom of it, I assure you that people will be held accountable.
R: Ok…so what did you find out?
D: I told you….we are investigating and I am not about to comment on an open investigation…
R: Umm….ok…I guess I will wait….
D: Good.
R: So it’s been a year, did you get to the bottom of it?
D: Dude, why are you still bringing this up? That was an entire year ago!? You racist.
R: Huh?

Perfect. So now is the outrage because we haven't found those responsible?

Do you see how the allegations move around based on the moment? Why don't you and the rest of the GOP make up your minds what the accusation is exactly and then we can respond?

Was it because of the supposed lie about the nature of the attack?
Or was it because we haven't found those responsible?
Or was it because we didn't see it coming or provide enough security?
Or is it because nothing was done in time to save the ambassador?

[Heywood]

First of all, the entire Iraq War was a war crime.

You can't just invade a country because you want to. That's called a crime of aggression.

The situation was this:
1st Iraqi war under Bush 1.
Quasi-war where we bombed them at our whim throughout the Clinton administration.
2nd Iraqi war under Bush 2.

It was really just one long war to which Bush 2 put an end. The crime against humanity was propping up Saddam in the 80's and letting him rape his people thereafter. Our chumming up with the bastard started under Carter....so it wasn't just a republican sin.

[DeistPaladin]

The situation was this:
1st Iraqi war under Bush 1.
Quasi-war where we bombed them at our whim throughout the Clinton administration.
2nd Iraqi war under Bush 2.

It was really just one long war to which Bush 2 put an end. The crime against humanity was propping up Saddam in the 80's and letting him rape his people thereafter. Our chumming up with the bastard started under Carter....so it wasn't just a republican sin.

The first Iraq War was to combat aggression and enforce international law. This was a justified war (and I grant that to a Republican president, just to show you I'm fair). They decided to leave Saddam in power because destabilizing the region and the nation would cause more pain than leaving him in power. I thought it was a mistake at the time but it turns out they were right and I was wrong.

The bombing was not at our whim but the result of treaty violations combined with our planes being fired upon. This was justifiable.

The third Iraq War was a war of aggression. We had no justification for our invasion.

The case made for the war was false, even you must agree, since there were no WMDs or links to Al Qaida. In fact, Saddam and Al Qaida hated each other, so we took out our enemy's enemy and created a great playground for Al Qaida.

[A Theist]

No. It's never been a dead horse, except to the Democrats, and especially the redacting of the original Benghazi email exchanges between Rhodes and other WH staffers.

Isn’t it funny how this administration works?

R: Whoa! What happened? How could this happen? Why did you say it was this when it was really that?
D: We will do an investigation and get to the bottom of it, I assure you that people will be held accountable.
R: Ok…so what did you find out?
D: I told you….we are investigating and I am not about to comment on an open investigation…
R: Umm….ok…I guess I will wait….
D: Good.
R: So it’s been a year, did you get to the bottom of it?
D: Dude, why are you still bringing this up? That was an entire year ago!? You racist.
R: Huh?

Perfect!

[Minimalist]

Maybe you two bullshit artists will listen to your own Scumbag In Chief, Cheney...as he explains why going to Baghdad in the first war was not such a hot idea.





Somewhere along the line he seems to have changed his mind..... as Halliburton cleaned up on no-bid contracts.