 |
| Real Obama Bumper Sticker |
Well, given this story, I'd like to tell you the bumper sticker I would like to create:
 |
| Sketch created by Biblical Conservatism with MS Paint |
So what did Obama tell us after this attack? It was a You Tube video. That's what caused the attack. Also it was SPONTANEOUS! It was a spontaneous attack...apparently using rocket propelled grenades, by the way...and just so happened to occur on 9/11.
Then we found out that it wasn't the video. It was simply 9/11. We also learned it wasn't a spontaneous attack. It was a planned attack. And it wasn't a protest. It was Al Qaeda. Whoops!
Now that this fact has been proven, the story is "we had bad intelligence!" Yes. That story was absolutely accepted by the Drive-By Media when it was the global intelligence community from our nation and others agreed basically universally that Saddam Hussein had WMD, right? Oh.
More news comes out and we learn that Ambassador Stevens had legitimate threats prior to the attack. We find out the embassy essentially begged the White House for more security. They were told no.
So why is it that the Obama Administration lied to us immediately after the attack? Simple. The President has spent months upon months spiking the football about killing Osama Bin Laden (see the above real Obama bumper sticker). The insinuation is "with Bin Laden's death, so died Al Qaeda." Except, that's not what happened.
So, and this is with all due respect to our late ambassador: Ambassador Stevens is dead. Al Qaeda is alive. Vote Romney-Ryan 2012.
I think the difference is that Bush reacted on bad intelligence, where as the current administration simply just reported what they had and are waiting for all the details to come in. The attack wasn't on US soil; it's in a country in a state of anarchy that's fighting a civil war. It's much harder to get information in that environment than it is in the US. Personally, I'd rather wait for all of the dust to settle before making knee-jerk reactions and dropping bombs on a trillion countries because of bad, or incomplete, intelligence.
ReplyDeleteSo many things to respond to:
ReplyDeleteOne, Bush reacted on intelligence gathered over months upon months. Your argument that Iraq was a knee jerk reaction is simply revisionist history.
Two, the ENTIRE WORLD INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY agreed. Not just the CIA or the NSA in Iraq.
Three, we are learning that we absolutely had the correct intelligence by the next day and had intelligence to say an attack was imminent BEFORE IT HAPPENED. And since we weren't talking about declaring war but rather just beefing up security (or letting our Marines have live ammo) it's not a hard decision. You beef up security and if it's unnecessary then it's better safe than sorry. That's not a knee-jerk reaction. That's just basic precautions.
Furthermore, the Obama administration DID make a knee jerk reaction: They blamed a video immediately. It turns out this was completely false. They knew it to be so almost immediately then continued to press that lie.
"One, Bush reacted on intelligence gathered over months upon months. Your argument that Iraq was a knee jerk reaction is simply revisionist history."
ReplyDeleteThat's what makes it even more laughable. The intelligence was conflicting since 1998. There was no consensus, either nationally or globally, that Iraq had WMDs.
"Two, the ENTIRE WORLD INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY agreed. Not just the CIA or the NSA in Iraq."
False, per the reason I listed above.
"Three, we are learning that we absolutely had the correct intelligence by the next day and had intelligence to say an attack was imminent BEFORE IT HAPPENED."
False. There is *always* rumors of an attack, that's why Bush neglected 9/11; even by his own admission and Rice's admission: there were always threats of an attack.
"And since we weren't talking about declaring war but rather just beefing up security (or letting our Marines have live ammo) it's not a hard decision."
Republicans cut funding for security.
"They blamed a video immediately."
1) That's not a knee-jerk reaction, that's an explanation based on the evidence given.
2) The speech made it very clear that they were still gathering evidence and that the *initial* evidence pointed this way.
"They knew it to be so almost immediately then continued to press that lie."
Being wrong does not make it a lie.
"That's what makes it even more laughable. The intelligence was conflicting since 1998. There was no consensus, either nationally or globally, that Iraq had WMDs."
ReplyDeleteThat's lovely revisionist history. It's not true, but it is lovely revisionist history.
"False, per the reason I listed above."
Despite what the Left wants to believe, hindsight "facts" are not real time intelligence.
"False. There is *always* rumors of an attack, that's why Bush neglected 9/11; even by his own admission and Rice's admission: there were always threats of an attack."
OK let's go with that. Please explain why it doesn't make sense to a) have Marines guarding our ambassador instead of locally hired security b) have Marines with live ammo in their guns.
"Republicans cut funding for security."
I think you should be aware that just because the President or VP says something doesn't make it a fact. The GOP did not cut funding for security. The truth is the line items on the budget changed. That's it. Overall funding has increased. It was simply moved from "Worldwide Security Protection and Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance" to "Overseas Contingency Operations funds." Total funding for overseas security went UP $31 million over 2011. But a nice red herring from the Obama Administration nonetheless.
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/10/11/libya-security-lapse-the-budget-for-embassy-security-is-not-responsible/
"1) That's not a knee-jerk reaction, that's an explanation based on the evidence given."
False. State Department officials have testified before Congress under oath that the video was never a part of the issue. This was Obama hoping to blame something other than terrorism. That's because the whole "Bin Laden is dead" line is focused on saying "the War on Terrorism is over" when it isn't (wars don't end unless both sides stop fighting).
2) The speech made it very clear that they were still gathering evidence and that the *initial* evidence pointed this way.
"Being wrong does not make it a lie."
One, something tells me you were one of the people who said Bush lied when the intelligence was incorrect. Two, again, see what the State Department officials (including intelligence reports) testified under oath to Congress. They said it was NEVER about the video. It was just another Obama Administration red herring.
Fact 1: In the Spring, Summer, and earlier fall of 2001 Bush was shown CIA assessments that Al Queda operatives were in the USA planning attacks and an attack on American soil was eminent.
ReplyDeleteFact 2: September 11 happened. On American soil. 3 planes struck targets and a fourth crashed in rural Pennsylvania.
Fact 3: The request for additional security in Libya was not for the Benghazi mission. It was for the embassy in Tripoli.
Fact 4: Experts have testified that the requested additional security, even if they had been assigned to Benghazi, could not have done much to ameliorate this attack.
"Fact 1: In the Spring, Summer, and earlier fall of 2001 Bush was shown CIA assessments that Al Queda operatives were in the USA planning attacks and an attack on American soil was eminent."
ReplyDeleteRight. You have a source, I assume? Because until you provide a source I'm not playing the "everyone knows!" game in a debate. (Everyone is defined as me and 3 people I know at the student lounge at college.)
"Fact 2: September 11 happened. On American soil. 3 planes struck targets and a fourth crashed in rural Pennsylvania."
Duh. Not at all sure what your point is.
"Fact 3: The request for additional security in Libya was not for the Benghazi mission. It was for the embassy in Tripoli."
Straw man. Our embassy in FRANCE is guarded by Marines with live ammo. These people were not protected in a remotely acceptable way.
"Fact 4: Experts have testified that the requested additional security, even if they had been assigned to Benghazi, could not have done much to ameliorate this attack."
We're not talking about stopping the attack. Yet another straw man. We're talking about successfully protecting our ambassador and three other Americans who died.
Now here's the reality you're willfully ignoring: The President went on television and flat out lied about the attack being due to a spontaneous demonstration to a You Tube video (that to date almost nobody has seen, by the way). Then he sent our UN Ambassador and others out to perpetuate this lie on the Sunday talk shows.
It was testified that we KNEW what happened when the President was giving this speech and when the UN Ambassador was going around to the Sunday talk shows.
These are the facts you want to avoid.