Benghazi - Wing Nuts Want a Conspiracy So badly.....

They have to pretend to hold the moral high ground in order to believe their own nonsense.

 

Clinton gave intel to Bush on WMD's in Iraq? What conspiracy website are you glued to? Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi fed the administration false information and instead of believing their own insider, decided to act upon it. Res 1441 was acted upon, therefore, under false premise.

Now, can you honestly compare the loss of life in Iraq to the that of Libya? It was a "no boots on the ground" operation, just like the Republican majority endorses...when it's their fight anyways.

Kennedy and Watergate are stretching for validation on your part, as for one, they aren't war casualties.

 

Don't you know? Everything Bush did wrong was Clinton's fault. But when you absolutely wreck the economy just before you leave office, well then it is Obama's fault...for...for....not being elected before Bush? I dunno. Wing nut logic has always baffled me.

 

Benghazi was not "war causalities" either. It was just a demonstration because of a film. Remember?

Oh! You say Watergate is a stretch? Watergate was a cover-up. No one died. Benghazi is a cover-up. 4 have died so far. So, yes, Watergate may not be nearly as important as Benghazi, but Watergate cost Nixon his job and Benghazi ...........

Do you remember what 1441 was? It was permission to search Iraq - an agreement with by Iraq. The last I heard, they refused the UN permission to inspects. What "false premise" was that?

 

1441 was a disarmament agreement with Iraq and the UN. Iraq WAS disarmed, as per the agreement, as we later found out. Remember that?

 

As for Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, try this

 

You will have to show me the exemption for "as we later found out". I inspections were REQUIRED. PERIOD. Iraq denied the inspections. PERIOD!

 

You bring up video from five years before the war as some sort of argument? Clinton struck weapons facilities. Bush started a WAR. Obama struck weapons facilities. Bush stared a WAR. You understand the differences? Nobody said Bush lied here. I said he was fed false information by a supposed Iraqi insider, and instead of checking the facts, he acted upon that intelligence, or lack thereof, and persuaded the UN through lies, not of his own making, to back his war. Clinton did not start Bush's war, no matter how badly Republicans want it to be true. 1441, by the way, did not allow for armed conflict if it was not followed, as it was the latest of half a dozen such agreements that hadn't been followed for the last two decades before that.

 

The "straw that broke the camel's back"! So the UN had had enough. So!

 

That is what their arguments usually come down to when facts are applied to their idiocy.

 

That is your problem. Facts can be argued/discussed and maybe even come to conclusions. Lies cannot.

 

So you're saying that "facts" CAN be argued? Wouldn't that make them opinions?

All you wing nuts have already made up your minds. Nobody else is following your lunacy but after all, you've already decided that lies have been told and therefore everything is a lie.

Tell me the things that you've heard that you don't believe are lies. Certainly some of what has come out has to be true. You seem to be absolutely certain that lies have been told. Are you just as certain that any truths have also been told? Hum?

 

You certainly believed the lie that was told regarding the anti-Islam video. Do you think any truths have been told?

 

The funny part about your camels back is that the UN did not authorize attacking Iraq.

Security Council vote

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:

“​

[T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2]

”​

The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:

“​

We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" – the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3]

”​

The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:

“​

Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]

 

Don't answer a question with another question if you have any intention of being taken seriously.

Wing nuts!

 

Yikes...can't argue with "logic" like that
If a fact isn't already concluded, then maybe it wasn't a fact after all. Not to mention, one could argue and discuss facts till pigs fly, but it doesn't change the fact. True, you can spin a fact, which I see a lot of here, but that doesn't alter the fact. Facts are conclusive. That, in itself, is a fact. Fact.

 

I guess those statement would be kind of like "you can keep the insurance you have". Or “When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what’s in it before I sign it.”Or [I will] “eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses.” Or "I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over." Or "And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

 

And he dances away on several other tangents.

 

Oops! The UN eh? That makes your buddy Bush a war criminal.
Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal.
Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."
He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq

 

Everybody blames the camel...

View attachment 1626