Do you have any evidence that Secretary Clinton denied any requests? Do you have any evidence that the Republican Congress did not cut the funding for embassy security (I provided a cite saying that they did.)
A Deadly Mix in Benghazi
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
Do you have any evidence that Secretary Clinton denied any requests? Do you have any evidence that the Republican Congress did not cut the funding for embassy security (I provided a cite saying that they did.)
Trying to keep your argument flowing into a straight line is difficult, you keep switching the issues with the complaints. You were comparing her comment, "Why does it matter" with Bush's lie about WMD, now you are trying to compare her alleged denial of extra security with Bush's WMD claims? You are very slippery and inconsistent with your arguments.
maineman
Banned
eyewitness testimony
So... when you said, and I quote, "Citation? Or is this another of those "we have to take your word on it"?" that somehow means you were NOT asking for a citation? Whatever you say, moron.
I thought we already established that you didn't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it came to Beirut bombings, especially embassy bombings - which IS the Beirut bombing in question here - but apparently, you still want to think that the purpose of the United States Embassy in Beirut was a UN Peacekeeping mission. You are dumber than I originally thought, and that is pretty fucking dumb
And AGAIN.... the van was not parked in the basement... and your security badge story is sketchy at best... The CIA operative on the scene said that the van broke through an outbuilding, crashed through the lobby door and exploded there, but since you didn't even KNOW about the Beirut embassy bombing until this morning, and you still think the truck drove down the embassy stairs and into the basement somehow... we should definitely take your account of the event as more factual than his.
OK... I guess, with the exception of the fact that they were both US diplomatic outposts in arab countries with known factions present that were hostile to the US, both missions had asked for increased security measures to be provided, both were attacked by arab terrorists... yeah... I guess with the exception of those things, there is NOTHING remotely similar between the two.,
jimnyc
New member
I only have evidence that extra security was requested, and we know it was never granted. Hillary was in charge of the department that handled any such request. Whether her directly or not, someone obviously ignored it or denied it. If granted or not ignored, I'm confident she would have stated as much and proved as much in the investigation. Are you saying that the reason the security was denied was because of funding issues? Why didn't the state department reply as such to those in Benghazi with that answer? Or is is better to just let them die and ignore them when money is not available?
I complained about her incompetence. Some went the opposite direction. I gave a Bush analogy as a comparison They are identically on the very same subject. Liberals will deny, deny, deny when it comes to Hillary but have a different outlook when it was GWB.
I'll try harder to dumb myself down when replying to you in the future.
maineman
Banned
that is not exactly true. Bush claimed there was absolute certainly.... a complete absence of doubt concerning Saddam's stockpiles.... that WAS a lie, because doubt and uncertainly definitely DID exist.
jimnyc
New member
Did anyone else in our government claim the same, about the very same country and leader? Did any other intel agencies around the world claim similar evidence? Did any Democrats who were in charge of the Senate Intelligence Committee state similar based on the evidence they saw and were given from our own agencies?
maineman
Banned
similar...but only Gore, after he left office, said there was no doubt. Everybody in every intelligence agency around the world was well aware of caveats and qualifiers that made the presence of Saddam's stockpiles less than an absolute certainty.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
You're pissing all over the place. Just grow up.
Ohhhhh, testy! Lol
jimnyc
New member
I'll grant you that GWB made a more definitive statement based on the intelligence he was given. But from 1998 onward, many democrats alone stated similarly. I recall quite a few of them with definitive statements, including the chairman of the senate intelligence committee.
Simply having some doubt or uncertainty hardly makes on a liar. But what difference does it make now?
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
Yeah. I don't often giphernaut, but when I do, I take a thwapdapewder and a big zephidwhooper.
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
I'll grant you that GWB made a more definitive statement based on the intelligence he was given. But from 1998 onward, many democrats alone stated similarly. I recall quite a few of them with definitive statements, including the chairman of the senate intelligence committee.
Simply having some doubt or uncertainty hardly makes on a liar. But what difference does it make now?
Exactly. To still be using that WMD thing is about as dumb as Nancy Pelosis diaper.
Do you need more Thorazine?
maineman
Banned
I'll grant you that GWB made a more definitive statement based on the intelligence he was given. But from 1998 onward, many democrats alone stated similarly. I recall quite a few of them with definitive statements, including the chairman of the senate intelligence committee.
Simply having some doubt or uncertainty hardly makes on a liar. But what difference does it make now?
Bush said "there is no doubt" concerning Saddam's stockpiles. That was a lie. Plain and simple. Because there ALWAYS was some doubt. And the only difference it makes is how he will be viewed fifty years from now. We cannot unfuck his fucked up decision to disarm Saddam and simultaneously lose focus on OBL... that is water over the dam....
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
Blue Dream.
jimnyc
New member
I promise, last one! But I wanted to add some more quotes that sound a bit definitive:
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
This one is from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee:
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Ishmael Pequod
Banned
Obama has money for drones to murder little innocent children and money for failed green energy that cost billions and billions, but Obama has no money for Hillary to protect Americans. How sad.
maineman
Banned
read closely jim.... none of those quotes say that stockpiles exist with absolute certainty. and if they did, they would have been lies as well.
jimnyc
New member
I think my head would explode if I further debated this issue anyway. The only one more over-debated is the 9/11 conspiracy theories!
:too lazy to look for beer smiley: