• #10
    My beef with the Benghazi attack has never been about the fact that it was attacked. My beef has to do with the coverup. Embassies and consulates are on the diplomatic frontlines and are the easiest and most visible targets of opportunity for people bent on attacking "America." Though the fact that embassies have continued to be targets for terror suggests that the Obama Administration's idea of a "small footprint" at the expense of security and relying on locals for that security was a bad idea.

    Bush never blamed the 1st Amendment for any of the attacks during his watch and he never denied they were terror attacks until he couldn't deny it anymore.

    To the best of my knowledge he never hesitated to send in the reinforcements either which very well could have made the difference between life and death for the deceased.
  • #289
    Funny how it was the Republican Congress that wouldn't authorize money for Embassy security, but you loonies just keep howling at the moon and can't figure out why everybody is sick of your ridiculous rants. Keep howling at the moon!
  • #290
    @KimberlyB -- You're ignoring my point. What are your thoughts on the Obama Administration blaming the 1st Amendment?
  • #6
    Collective Liberal Thought Process: Bush did it. Oh, Bush did it. I can do it too. I'll do it bigger, better, and greater than Bush did it. Bush spent, I'll spend more. Bush erred in judgment, I'll err more. Someone got killed at an American embassy during Bush's term? I'll have more American ambassadors killed.

    What is wrong with liberals? Really, what is truly wrong with them? Ambassador Stevens and three other patriotic Americans were ruthlessly slaughtered, response forces were told to stand down and not respond, the obama regime tried to blame it on a YouTube video, then immediately went into cover up mode. We the American people were simply supposed to overlook this because Bush did it? Bush is out of office. Liberals, I repeat, BUSH IS OUT OF OFFICE. Let's deal with the current president who has vastly downgraded this country since Bush left.

    While we're talking about Bush did it, Bush had a 4% average unemployment rate, gas prices under $3 a gallon, lower deficits, and vastly more functional government. When obama can match Bush in those areas, we'll talk.
  • #36
    Nah, it's more along the lines of collective conservative thought process "Oops this looks bad on us lets not mention it at all and hope it goes away. A democrat is president now let's do our best to draw attention to what we couldn't have given two shits less about when we were in charge and scream bloody murder."
  • #69
    Well put! It's just the usual progressive tactic of blame anyone but the real culprit. This is exactly why Obama is so aloof to everything that happens, he needs to NOT have his fingerprint on anything so when it goes awry, he can throw someone under the bus or do his usual, Blame Bush or Blame the Republicans. I just wonder who he's going to throw under the bus for this. Otherwise, if you listen to the talking heads of the left the WH is merely the mouth piece for any decision the CIA or FBI makes, who knew, they are really running the country, Obama is simply a figurehead, ready for the odd photo op and canned speech ready to do the bidding of the CIA.
  • #140
    "While we're talking about Bush did it, Bush had a 4% average unemployment rate, gas prices under $3 a gallon, lower deficits, and vastly more functional government. When obama can match Bush in those areas, we'll talk"
    We had those things when Bush took office. We did not have those things when Bush left office.
    Don't try to be clever, it doesn't suit you.
  • #160
    There seems to be a credibility gap here. The 'Hush'ington Post? Their reserves were recently called out and to parrot the same message -- to give Pee-Wee Herman Hussein and his shoulder borne parrot in Dept of State Cover.....

    Video - Dems seeking help from their brethern to undermine Hicks....
  • #191
    @frigginhell Oddly enough. Democrats were the majority in both houses Jan 2001 to Jan 2003. Again Jan 2007-Jan 2009..... How soon liberal lunatics forget
  • R Load more replies

  • #189
    @armed_liberal You mean focused on covering Benghazi up. Blaming it on a youtube video LOL Liberal suckers circling the wagons as usual.
  • #199
    @drpeeper : So is the entire point of these hearings, is to figure out when the WH and Obama talking points said "demonstrations" and when they said "terrorist" ? Because that point really changes what happened in Benghazi ... HOW?

    No one is circling the wagons drpeeper, the simple fact is that most Americans don't give a rats ass what the talking points were or when they changed. Most see it just like the all of the other embassy attacks that have occurred over the last 4 decades ... ungrateful savages that don't deserve our help!
  • R Load more replies

  • #23
    The lies and the cover up got Bambam past the election. He, along with the idiots who believed in him ought to be real proud of themselves.
  • #81
    @slayer98_l You got that right.The left is more interested in the obama agenda and defense of the party than the defense of America's ambassadors.
  • #147
    @miketost lol you notice how all the comments on this story are grouped together. The Obama defenders are defending Obama to each other and don't want to talk about the cover up. The cover up is the issue. Not the attack itself.
    "The left is more interested in the obama agenda and defense of the party" even though this administration straight up lied to us all, including these defenders, to make sure nothing would hurt his reelection. Obama could take the podium on national TV and tell these people to F off and they'd still defend him. "He's right. He's the government." Psssh
  • #158
    This is correct! The preparation was poor before it, the reaction didn't happen followed by a coverup. Plus, Obama was apparently in bed asleep when the 3 a.m. call came. Remember in 2008 when everyone was arguing who would be better at a 3 am call? I guess it "ain't Barry."
  • #38
    And thank goodness Bush is no longer President, but unfortunantly some of the problems that befell Bush and befalls all Presidents also fall on Obama's and any Presidents watch. It is that history of Presidencies that shows the hypocrisy of todays Republicans, and try as one may that history highlighting the misplaced dirty tricks of GOP today is not going away. I feel your pain. Only if history could get amnesia...
  • #40
    @PopapillRush Not NEARLY as devastating as Obama's one term so far. But feel free to continue to obfuscate the present with the past...if that's all you've got. You know, I heard President McKinley really dropped the ball on the whole USS Maine thing to check into that for us?
  • #42
    @WMCOL Actually, I'd have voted Bush a third term over either McCain or Obama..if it were possible.
  • R Load more replies

  • #11
    HMMM.....were these "under Bush's regime" attacks preventable and known to "be happening" before the attack transpired? Did these attacks happen on a day that has been known to be a "holy day" to terrorists ((/11) and thus we should have been better prepared?
    And finally, do 2 wrongs make a right in the minds of the liberals and do the conservatives believe that only liberals need to held accountable?
    Both Bush (and his cabinet) and Obama (and his cabinet) need to held accountable.......and BOTH need to face serious charges!
  • #25
    @FFS- do think that 2 wrongs do make a right!
    Both are criminals.....there are more criminals in DC than there are not! I defend neither and I call for ALL heads to roll!
    It's time for a change and a new beginning! It's time to send them all stay!
  • #27
    @stepped_in_it I wasnt disagreeing with you in any way...i was simply making a point!
  • R Load more replies

  • #13
    Totally different. We all understood that Bush would have done anything possible to keep attacks from from happening. Obama, on the other hand, is seen as soft on terror! They did not want this attack to thought of in the American publics mind as a terror attack. Instead they wanted us to think it was a protest gone awry and went so far as to blame a guy for a film for inciting the violence! Liars! They wanted us to believe this in order for Obama to win the election! Good grief wake up and smell the coffee! So a witch hunt? Give me a break! Had the reverse occurred, well the dems would be inciting their own violence just as the Occupy morons had done.
    Get Real! We could trust Bush with the war on terror but we cant trust Obama because they are too concerned with trying to appear impartial and do not want to offend the terrorists! All references to al-queda et. al. WERE REMOVED FROM THE NARRATIVE! Hello? Hello? Sheesh!
  • #50
    @Aftermath Yeah well you just watch the IRS debacle unfold as well. Is this an inter- agency foul-up? Oh yeah, but remember as the debate here and elsewhere, that the tone is set at the top! ie. Obama "I don't care how you get them, just get them!"
  • #176
    "We all understood that Bush would have done anything possible to keep attacks from from happening."

    And yet the attack happened and 3,000 Americans perished. I guess the lesson, then, is that some things just can't be prevented. Like attacks on the eleventh day of September.
  • R Load more replies

  • #34
    Americans have been attacked forever. The difference is in the handling. Watergate wasn't about a bungled burglary, it was about the cover-up. 1) Hillary Clinton convinced the Administration not to use uniformed Marines because they might be seen as "intimidating." Defense forces were reduced, and repeated requests for additional were denied, despite previous attacks on the same compound. 2) President Bush never ordered assisting troops to stand down. 3) President Bush did not make up some lame story about a protest turned flash-mob, despite knowing the actual circumstances within hours. Nor did he ever alter the talking points 12 times before having anything to say about the attacks. 4) President Bush never slept through an attack because he had to be rested for a campaign trip to Las Vegas in the morning. He didn't lack curiosity of what happened. 5) President Bush did not refuse to send aid to a US Diplomatic station under attack, and then say, "Well, we wouldn't have gotten there in time anyway." 6) Previous attacks were mostly hit and run, not planned assaults on a compound known to be undefended. 7) President Bush's Secretary of State never testified before Congress and asked, "What difference does it make?"
  • #22
    Not entirely, the deliberate lies and misinformation of Benghazi plus the denials of requested security make a lot of difference. Plus the fact that even IF they were the same, the 13th time is still wrong. But this entire article is a straw man anyway
    Embassies will get attacked and people will get killed. It's they way Obama handled it that's the issue here.
    There was a 7 hour battle and no attempt at rescue was tried. How could they know it wouldn't last 17? No matter what, do you not TRY to get your people out or send some help. To tell the guys to stand down was inexcusable. You never know, one or two extra rifles can be night and day in any battle.
    If those guys were willing to go you let them.
    I suppose that unless you have never been out in Indian country and have had all hell break loose, you might not understand how critical it is knowing that somebody will raise heaven and earth to get your ass out of there. Or will at least try.
  • #19
    The question by Hillary, "What does it matter?" matters. The request for help before and during matter. The lies afterward matter.
  • #16
    Did the Bush Administration lie and try to blame the attacks on an American Video Maker? Can anyone justify attacks that were caused by cartoons that the Religion of Peace found offensive?
  • #80
    The Bush Administration lied and tried to blame Iraq for other stuff, causing thousands of lives.

    "Can anyone justify attacks that were caused by cartoons that the Religion of Peace found offensive"

    It's happened too many times to count now.
  • #87
    Well it took a few days but the left finally brought Bush into it. Anyone surprised? Now if they want to start comparing the 2 president lets start with unemployment, then the deficit, and on and on. Barry from Kenya is a miserable failure and we are all suffering because of it. The next 2 years are going to be even worse.
  • #116
    Yes let's start with unemployment, which began with Bush, and carried into one year of Obamas term. Get real for once, and face truth.
  • #129
    @Bleeding_Blue Truth? You can't handle the truth.

    Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
    2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
    2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
    2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
    2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
    2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
    2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
    2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
    2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3
    2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5
    2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
    2013 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.5

    Bush avg 5.2
    Barry avg 8.9 as of March 9, 2013
  • #17
    I am so tired of hearing Obama blame Bush for his own incompetence. He was not, and is not, suited to be a leader of any kind.

    Without the foreign student loans he got from the US, or monies from who knows what sources, he would be another black Minute Mart owner just like all the other foreigners.

    Useless to America.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #1
    I was wondering when it was going to be brought up. I wasn't into politics when Bush was president, only really deciding my political views as he was leaving office.
    Were these attacks as highly publicized and ridiculed by dems and congress as this recent one was?
  • #5
    "Were these attacks as highly publicized and ridiculed by dems and congress as this recent one was? "

    Not a bit. They were presented as unavoidable consequences of the war on terror.
  • #9
    @harold_lloyd I wonder if the white house had held that same stance if it would make it OK to people who don't support a democratic president?
  • #32
    Back then we honored our dead for their service to our country and the risks they we politicize everything to the nth degree.
  • #35
    @harold_lloyd - For us realists, we find all the finger pointing amusing. It puts off actually addressing issues that need addressing by either side. I call it 'constructive loitering'. Or destructive loitering. Which ever you prefer.....
  • R Load more replies

  • #61
    No, it's just the usual progressive way of trying to deflect anything bad about Obama by chanting the usual childlike "Well he did it too". Right, sorry guys but Bush NEVER turned his back on a request for help, he never told military help to stand down, he ALWAYS took any death totally to heart and if Benghazi had happened under Bush (it wouldn't have, he would have heeded all the warnings and gotten American personnel to safety or gotten them the needed protection. And if it happened despite his attempt at protection, he WOULDN'T have just gone through the photo op. stuff and winged out for another fund raiser within an hour or so. This media attempt to exonerate Obama et. al. for their, at the least, neglect is as transparent as the original progressive come back, that it was the Republicans who cut funds so Obama couldn't protect these men. How stupid was that? How much would it have cost to simply bring them home?
  • #46
    Huffington Post! HA. HA HA
    The Hard Left will sink to any level to provide cover for their Messiah, The Obama. This was to be expected. I was no big Bush fan but all of this ongoing Bush bashing is UNPRECEDENTED. It screams to all the World that America's best days are behind us. Pathetic It shows again that the Progressive freak fringe of today's Democratic Party are truly America's Enemy Within.

  • #195
    Yeah. Like the fact this attack was blamed on a video? or the fact that the ones on Bush's watch were war time attacks? BenghaziInFourWords: "Obama Can't be found"
  • #202
    @drpeeper So this wasnt a wartime attack? Youre not helping yourself out with that one!

    9-11 was NOT a wartime attack
  • #205
    @FFS- Then this admin sure didn't act like it was. 911 was an act of war. Thanks for playing. next.
  • #230
    How many attacks under Clinton's watch in addition to the preparation for 9/11. Liberals always deny the facts.
  • #234
    @fraps You mean by the people in afghanistan....who armed theme again...og right reagan...this could go on all day!
  • R Load more replies

  • R Load more comments...