In Politicizing Benghazi Attack, Republicans Ignore Their Own Terrible Security Record – 9/11 Happened on Their Watch, As Did Seven Attacks on U.S. Diplomatic Sites Overseas

The Fox News-generated hysteria among Republicans over the government’s handling of the Benghazi attacks relies heavily on the assumption that Fox viewers have incredibly short memories. Watching Fox present this issue, you might quickly assume that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was unique — that nothing like it had ever happened before. You might also assume that, if there had been other similar attacks in the past, American patriots and their representatives in Washington would be entirely justified in politicizing the attacks and using the failures that led to them, whether real or imagined, for partisan gain.

In the wake of the attacks on their country on Sept. 11, 2001, liberals reflexively saw themselves as Americans first and partisans last.

In reality, of course, there have been many attacks on U.S. embassies and consulates — more than 40 in the past half century, according to The International News, a newspaper based in Pakistan.

The chart above from Mother Jones, for example, shows the frequency of attacks on U.S. diplomatic sites over the past 40 years. What Fox would like to erase from its viewers’ memories is that, as the chart shows, there were many attacks on U.S. missions overseas during the administration of the most recent Republican president, George W. Bush. It is crucial to Fox’s politicizing of Benghazi to make those attacks disappear down the memory hole, because there is an inconvenient fact associated with them: In the wake of the seven or more attacks on American overseas interests on Bush’s watch, Democrats did not politicize them the way Republicans are politicizing Benghazi today.

In particular, no Democrat ever suggested forming a Watergate-style select committee to investigate the attacks during the Bush era, like the one Republicans are demanding now.

There was one full-scale investigation — the one that looked into the terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, which were the most egregious national security failure in U.S. history — but that investigation was outsourced to a bipartisan commission controlled by Republicans.

Speaking of 9/11, Republicans need to be reminded that after the attacks that September day, Democrats rallied around George W. Bush, a president they rightly viewed as an illegitimate Supreme Court appointee, because, in the wake of the attacks on their country, liberals reflexively saw themselves as Americans first and partisans last.

Bush awards George Tenent, his CIA director, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, not long after the Sept. 11 terror attacks
Republicans should also be reminded that no one who served on the Bush national security team at the time of 9/11 was ever held accountable — quite the opposite, in fact. Republican voters rewarded Bush and Cheney by reelecting them in 2004. After Secretary of State Colin Powell resigned at the end of Bush’s first term, as secretaries of state usually do, Bush rewarded National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice by promoting her to secretary of state. Bush also rewarded CIA Director George Tenet by giving him a Presidential Medal of Freedom!

Have Republicans really forgotten all that? Seriously? It was just 11 years ago.

There are other parallels, of course. When Bush nominated Condoleeza Rice as secretary of state, Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham both defended her even though it was clear that as Bush’s national security advisor, Rice had misstated the facts during Bush’s fall 2002 “marketing” of the invasion of Iraq. Rice and others went before the media and repeatedly claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Here is what Condoleeza Rice said in 2002, a year or so after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks:

“We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

Rice and her bosses were looking at intelligence developed during a decade of post-Gulf War U.N. weapon inspections in Iraq and U.S. intelligence-gathering — and yet, whether intentionally or not, they got it wrong. But when Condoleeza Rice made that statement and others like it, was she lying or just repeating lies or faulty intel (take your pick) fed to her by the CIA and others?

Now — probably motivated entirely by spite over harsh rhetoric leveled at Condoleeza Rice in 2005 — McCain and Graham are hurling insults at U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice (no relation) over statements she made in a television interview just five days after the Benghazi attack.

Here is what Ambassador Susan Rice said about Benghazi based on a few dozen hours of investigation:

BOB SCHIEFFER: And joining us now, Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador — our U.N. ambassador. Madam Ambassador, he [the Libyan president of the National Assembly] says that this is something that has been in the planning stages for months. I understand you had been saying that you think it was spontaneous? Are we not on the same page here?

SUSAN RICE: Well, Bob, let me tell you what we understand to be the assessment at present. First of all, very importantly, as you discussed with the president, there is an investigation that the United States government will launch, led by the FBI that has begun.

SCHIEFFER: But they are not there yet.

RICE: They are not on the ground yet but they have already begun looking at all sorts of evidence of various sorts already available to them and to us. And they will get on the ground and continue the investigation.

So we’ll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions. But based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is in fact what — it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by this hateful video.

But soon after that spontaneous protest began outside of our consulate in Benghazi, we believe that it looks like extremist elements, individuals, joined in that effort with heavy weapons of the sort that are, unfortunately, readily now available in Libya post-revolution. And that it spun from there into something much, much more violent.

SCHIEFFER: But you do not agree with him that this was something that had been plotted out several months ago?

RICE: We do not — we do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.

SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al-Qaeda had some part in this?

RICE: Well, we’ll have to find out that out. I mean, I think it’s clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al-Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al-Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we’ll have to determine.

As always happens in investigations like this one, the government’s original assessment was faulty. As new information was uncovered and confirmed, the assessment was corrected. By using the tragedy for its own partisan political gain, Fox is exaggerating both the failures that led to the attack as well as its impact on national security. As tragic as it was, the attack in Benghazi pales in comparison with the Bush administration’s record on Iraq — its looking at years’ worth of intel, coming up with a faulty claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and using that threat to take the nation to war, a war that cost the lives of tens of thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians, not to mention trillions of dollars.

Now McCain and Graham are threatening to block Rice’s prospective appointment to secretary of state and are even hurling adolescent, dog-whistle racist insults at her, including accusing her of being “not very bright,” a smear that is eerily similar to an insult leveled against Pres. Obama last month by the Romney campaign’s designated racist surrogate, disgraced former White House Chief of Staff John Sununu.

What happened in Benghazi was a tragedy, and certainly there was a failure in the system along the chain of command. The buck stops with the president, as he has said, but Obama is far less culpable for the deaths of the US Ambassador and the three CIA agents in the Benghazi compound than Bush, Cheney, Rice and Tenet were for the thousands of deaths on 9/11 or the tens of thousands who died in Iraq.

Here are details compiled by Media Matters on seven of the attacks on U.S. diplomatic targets during the Bush administration:

  • 2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured. From a June 15, 2002, Chicago Tribune article:

    Police cordoned off a large area around the U.S. Consulate late Friday and began combing through the carnage and debris for clues after a car explosion killed at least 10 people, injured 51 others and left Pakistan’s largest city bleeding from yet another terrorist atrocity.

    No Americans were among the dead, and only six of the injured were inside the consulate compound at the time of the blast Friday morning. One Pakistani police officer on guard outside the building was among the dead, but many of those killed were pedestrians or motorists in the area at the time of the explosion.

    The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad reported that five Pakistani consular employees and a Marine guard were slightly wounded by flying debris.

    Suspicion for the attack immediately fell on Islamic militants known to be active in Karachi. [Chicago Tribune, 6/15/02, via Nexis]

  • 2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan. From a July 31, 2004, Los Angeles Times article:

    Suicide bombers on Friday struck the U.S. and Israeli embassies in Uzbekistan, killing two local guards and injuring at least nine others in the second wave of attacks this year against a key U.S. ally during the war in Afghanistan.

    The prosecutor general’s office also was hit in the coordinated afternoon attacks in the capital city of Tashkent. It sustained more damage than either of the embassies, where guards prevented bombers from entering.

    The attacks came as 15 Muslim militants linked to the Al Qaeda terrorist network went on trial in a series of bombings and other assaults in March that killed 47 people.

    The explosions Friday caused relatively little physical damage but rattled a country in which the U.S. has maintained an air base crucial to the battle against Islamic militants in neighboring Afghanistan. [Los Angeles Times, 7/31/04, via Nexis]

  • 2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia. From a December 6, 2004, New York Times article:

    A group of attackers stormed the American Consulate in the Saudi Arabian city of Jidda today, using explosives at the gates to breach the outer wall and enter the compound, the Saudi Interior Ministry said in a statement. At least eight people were killed in the incident, in which guards and Saudi security forces confronted the group, according to the ministry and news agencies.

    Three of the attackers were killed. Five non-American employees were killed, an American embassy spokesman, Carol Kalin, told Reuters. She declined to provide the nationality of those killed, but said they were members of the consulate staff.

    Reuters reported that Saudi security officials said four of their men also died in the incident, which would bring the death toll to 12. [The New York Times, 12/6/04]

  • 2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria. From a September 13, 2006, Washington Post article:

    Four armed men attacked the U.S. Embassy on Tuesday, killing one Syrian security guard and wounding several people in what authorities said was an attempt by Islamic guerrillas to storm the diplomatic compound.

    Just after 10 a.m., gunmen yelling ” Allahu akbar ” — “God is great” — opened fire on the Syrian security officers who guard the outside of the embassy in Damascus’s Rawda district, witnesses said. The attackers threw grenades at the compound, according to witnesses, and shot at the guards with assault rifles during the 15- to 20-minute clash, which left three of the gunmen dead and the fourth reportedly wounded. [The Washington Post, 9/13/06]

  • 2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times:

    An antitank grenade was fired into the heavily fortified American Embassy here just before dawn today. The building was empty, but the attack underscored deep anti-American sentiment here and revived fears of a new round of homegrown terror.

    Greek officials said they doubted the attack was the work of foreign or Islamic terrorists, but rather that of regrouped extreme leftists aiming at a specific, symbolic target: a huge American seal, of a double-headed eagle against a blue background, affixed to the front of the boxy, modern embassy near downtown. [The New York Times, 1/12/07]

  • 2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia. From The New York Times:

    Demonstrators attacked the U.S. Embassy here and set part of it ablaze Thursday as tens of thousands of angry Serbs took to the streets of Belgrade to protest Kosovo’s declaration of independence.

    Witnesses said that at least 300 rioters broke into the embassy and torched some of its rooms. One protester was able to rip the American flag from the facade of the building. An estimated 1,000 demonstrators cheered as the vandals, some wearing masks to conceal their faces, jumped onto the building’s balcony waving a Serbian flag and chanting “Serbia, Serbia!” the witnesses said. A convoy of police officers firing tear gas was able to disperse the crowd. [The New York Times, 2/21/08]

  • 2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen. From The New York Times:

    Militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen, on Wednesday morning, killing 16 people, including 6 of the attackers, Yemeni officials said.

    No American officials or embassy employees were killed or wounded, embassy officials said. Six of the dead were Yemeni guards at the compound entrance, and the other four killed were civilians waiting to be allowed in.

    It was the deadliest and most ambitious attack in years in Yemen, a poor south Arabian country of 23 million people where militants aligned with Al Qaeda have carried out a number of recent bombings. [The New York Times, 9/17/08]


  • Elijah O.Samson
    November 17, 2012 - 2:19 pm | Permalink

    John McCain has nothing of substance in his head. He has no idea on how to generate useful discussions on matters that affecting Nation such as the economy, the budget cliff, the Jobs Act, immigration reform and things like those. McCain relies heavily on taking every issue out of context and spinning it so that he can create an ongoing and long running controversy to keep him busy. McCain believes wrongly or otherwise, that President Obama is incapable of doing anything right. He harbours bitter resentment of the President from the election defeat of 2008.

    Because of this bitter bill which he has not been able to swallow, he is constantly looking for something anything that he can use to besmirch the President and his reputation. He harbours feelings of jealousy and painful memories of losing the elections. It is because that and other reasons, McCain would want to dent the President’s image even if it is on appointment of his cabinet or other senior staff. Susan Rice is a young lady about half, McCain’s age.

    It is a shame for McCain to have stood at a platform to swear that he will do everything within his powers to block Susan Rice’s appointment as Secretary of State. Ms Rice is half McCain’s age, in fact Susan could be McCain’s grandchild. What kind of man is this? What kind of nonsense is this from an aging old, rusty man? McCain has the audacity to stand in public to swear long before he knows what exactly happened in Benghazi and how it happened. He has been crowing for so long on how the President mishandled the Benghazi issue, but the President is not the head of the CIA or even FBI. These are the Agencies McCain should have held responsible for what happened in Benghazi, but even then; what would any Agency of government have done on an issue that took place in a matter of a few minutes to perhaps an hour or so?

    McCain should have faced the press yesterday to crow the same way he has been crowing all along about the Benghazi attack. Why did he run away like a scared fox that has been found stealing chickens? People who are grown up should mature and behave responsibly. McCain’s going around vomiting venous language at everything and being antagonist all the time at the president shows not only a bonkers mentality but immaturity and stupidity as well. McCain is a complete idiot and buffoon who does not deserve to be in the Senate at this late stage in his life. He has no new ideas to contribute in this information age. McCain’s ideas are from the last century, archaic, unschooled, and completely out of place with reality. It is embarrassing for McCain to be going around vomiting bellicose language, sounding cantankerous and absurd when he has no facts on the issues he whines about. McCain should have faced the press yesterday to answer questions and to explain why he keeps whining about the President and anything he does or does not do

  • Pal Madden
    May 8, 2013 - 3:18 pm | Permalink

    Those attacks were very spontaneous with suicide bombers, car bombers, grenade throwers, etc., all steming from for the war being waged on terror that at that time was at its height. Troops were not being told to stand down and sit pat when they was clear evidence they could have been there in time to save lives.

    These attacks also occuured at a time when the presidents in office took strong stands for liberty, and did it wherever they could. You do remember Reagan telling Gorbachev to tear down the Iron Curtain, don’t you? They also classified terrorists for what they were, not remove language that waters it down. Unlike the one in office now who does just that, and is well on his way to spreading his socialist ideology wherever he can.

    Your article ends with, “liberals saw themselves as Americans first, and partisans last”. I guess that’s reflective of the way they stood behind a draft dodging president who looked directly into the camera, and lied to the American people about his deep throat experience abusing and overpowering an intern in the White House instead of joining as non-partisan Americans to throw him out of office completely – not just impeach him.

    Below is the video of Clinton’s “mea culpa”. The Democrats take pride in calling him one of the “greatest”.

  • Madison
    May 8, 2013 - 4:58 pm | Permalink

    Wow, Fox viewers really will believe anything. Even if everything you said were true — and it is all bullshit of the highest order — there is still no “scandal” here. And even if there were, it would be a nothing compared with Bush’s being handed a briefing two weeks before 9/11 that said, “Bin Laden determined to strike in US,” then handing it back to his briefer and telling him, “Now you’ve covered your ass, so fuck off,” after which he resumed his vacation.

    He should be rotting in the Hague, not working on his abs and painting naked pictures of himself.

  • Pingback: Big Benghazi Bombshell Turns Out To Be Another Big Dud - Page 3 - Defending The Truth Political Forum

  • Pingback: Right-Wing Media Push New Benghazi Myths Ahead Of Hearings - Page 3 - Defending The Truth Political Forum

  • Pingback: Scott Spiegel | Liberals Don’t Know What Politicization Is

  • Pingback: Benghazi and IRS scandals prove liberals don’t know definition of ‘politicization’

  • a j
    May 5, 2014 - 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Through all these attacks you listed i do not see any dead americans or diplomats that died. Unlike the 4 from bengazzi that died begging for help and yet thier pleas went unanswered!!

  • May 6, 2014 - 6:44 am | Permalink

    aj – Many people who work at US embassies and consulates are “American diplomats.” It’s more than likely that all the brave Americans in the list died “begging for help” from the Bush administration but that their pleas went unanswered. What you and others who consume undigested the bullshit Fox puts out have missed is that working in perilous situations is part of the job of a diplomat. It’s also amazing how you right wingers hate every single person who works for gubmint, except for the four who died in Benghazi, including the ambassador who was a liberal!

  • dw
    May 28, 2015 - 9:02 am | Permalink

    It doesn’t matter to me (a right winger) whether the AMERICANS being killed are liberal or not. It only matters that over the past half century that several ARBs (look it up. its a review board) have made hundreds of recommendations to the State Department to increase threat analysis for our foreign posts and yet the attacks still happen. ARBs have been formed after the bombings in Behrut, attacks in East Africa, and now after Benghazi. Guess what? The ARB created after Benghazi recommended the State Department do the same things that were recommended after the previous attacks. There is no excuse for gross negligence on the part of the State Department. During the first hearing of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Gregory Starr, the Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security for the State Departments admitted that the State Department was not going to implement the #1 recommendation made by the Benghazi ARB. Why you might ask? They felt that they didn’t need it. The State Department thought that if an Ambassador (like Stevens, whom the State Department called and “expert on Benghazi, Libya”) needed extra security, they should have to go through several levels of bureaucracy just to make that request. The ARBs recommendation was that they appoint an Undersecretary to hear these requests in order to make the process more efficient. And finally, not only did the State Department not approve an increase in security for the Benghazi Compound, they actually decreased the number of American security personnel (both contractors and military) and relied entirely on the “security” provided by the Libyan militia. (just in case you were wondering, the Libyans were not fans of the Americans)

  • May 28, 2015 - 3:30 pm | Permalink

    All diplomats rely on security from the host country. Would you want Russian and Chinese soldiers patrolling the streets of Washington? The fact that Libyan security betrayed Ambassador Stevens to the terrorist is the scandal here. What Republicans are doing is just partisan politics. Their constant empty charges deflect attention away from new revelations confirming what non-Fox watchers have known for years — that Bush and Cheney knowingly lied in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq when they claimed Saddam had nukes. Starting a war based on lies is a war crime, and Bush, Cheney, Rice and others should be sitting in the Hague right now. Benghazi was a tragedy but, at worst, it was a sin of omission by Petraeus and others, not a crime.

  • dw
    May 29, 2015 - 6:43 am | Permalink

    Then how would you explain the gaps of missing e-mails that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has in her records. You don’t see the negligence in this? Even after Hillary released her private e-mails, several gaps have been found during times of key Libyan involvement. Also, our security forces were not “patrolling the streets”, they were protecting the compound from inside and at the gates. At the end of the day, nobody can deny that the current administration did not fail in one of its most essential duties, protecting the Americans representing our country oversees. Not only did they fail in providing protection, they DECREASED the amount of protection in an area labeled by the State Department as High Threat.

    • Jon
      May 29, 2015 - 8:22 am | Permalink

      Let me restate what I said earlier. When an ambassador from any country is in his or her host country, the ultimate responsibility for the ambassador’s security lies with the host country. When the Libyan ambassador is in Washington, for example, he’s protected by US security. Under the same diplomatic protocol, when Ambassador Stevens was in Libya, the Libyan government was responsible for keeping him safe in Benghazi. Instead, Libyan security personnel tasked with protecting the compound betrayed Stevens’ whereabouts in the secret “panic room” to the terrorists. They burned the building, and he died from smoke inhalation. No one could have predicted that.

      Pres. Obama, Hillary Clinton and every administration official I’ve heard quoted agree that they wish more could have been done. Similarly, I’d give Dick Cheney the benefit of the doubt and suggest that somewhere in his black, black heart he harbors a wish that he and Bush had not ignored the CIA warning on Aug. 6, 2001: “Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.” Bush’s reaction instead was to fling the document back in the face of his briefer and snark,”Okay, you’ve covered your ass.” Thirty-five days later, 4,000 people died because of this act of criminal incompetence. Just this week we learned that Bush dismissed the CIA warning because Cheney believed bin Ladin was bluffing.

      Bush’s CIA briefer also confirmed last week what we have long known — that Bush, Cheney, Rice and others were lying when they claimed Iraq had a nuclear bomb, when they asserted that if we did not invade Iraq, the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud. Four-thousand US servicemembers Bush ordered into Iraq based on a lie died because of that lie, tens of thousands more were wounded and two trillion dollars of taxpayer dollars was wasted. That is prima facie a war crime.

      In 1983, Reagan ordered 241 US Marines into Beirut where they occupied barracks “protected” by unarmed guards. Terrorists entered the barracks and killed all those US Marines. (Fox News: Weinberger: Reagan Left Marines Vulnerable in Beirut) Interestingly, the Democrats who controlled Congress then did not attempt to trivialize that tragedy — one for which the president was directly responsible — by, for example, holding eight separate kangaroo-court investigations into Reagan’s gross incompetence and then, say, timing the release of their report on the eighth investigation to come out a month before his reelection in 1984, in the way that Chairman Gowdy has announced he’ll release the Republicans’ eighth bogus report a month before the 2016 presidential election. How much more nakedly politically partisan could Republicans get than that?

      Benghazi was a tragedy but, after seven Republican-led investigations, there’s been no evidence that anyone in the administration was aware that the compound in Benghazi was going to be attacked by terrorists and did nothing.

      As for reducing security at embassies, Republicans in Congress are proud of the fact that they voted to cut $300 million in funding for that purpose. In an interview a few weeks after the attack — before Republicans had decided to trivialize the tragic deaths there by using them as fodder in their partisan attacks on Clinton — Rep. Jason Chaffetz, now the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, was asked to confirm that Republicans had steamrollered through the cuts to embassy security.

      “Absolutely,” Chaffetz replied. “Look, we have to make priorities and choices in this country.”

      It’s a mystery to those of us outside the Fox/Limbaugh/Hannity bubble what the right-wing base believes might be in Hillary Clinton’s purported missing emails — Hillary ordering Stevens to go to Benghazi unarmed, as Reagan did the Marines in 1983? Hillary dismissing a warning that the compound was going to be attack by telling her briefer, “Okay, you’ve covered your ass,” as Bush did a month before 9/11? Hillary lying about the threat level, as Bush, Cheney, Rice and others did as a pretext for taking the country to war?

      As I said, Hillary Clinton agrees that more should have been done. For those who only get their “news” from Fox et al, here is the full quote in her Senate testimony, in which she diplomatically does not point out that Republicans are blaming the administration for the attack, when they should be blaming the terrorists, as, for example, as Democrats did after 241 Marines were killed because Reagan ordered them into harm’s way unprotected:

      HLLARY CLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The [intelligence community] has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

  • dw
    June 1, 2015 - 6:30 am | Permalink

    I understand exactly where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree with your overall opinion on the Bush administration. At the end of the day, I know that my opinions on the matters at hand are mine. I have watched both conservative and liberal media, read various online sources, watched the hearings from the committees, debated my government teacher at school, and along the way, I know I have made an informed opinion that I will defend.

    Isn’t it amazing that we live in a country that gives us the freedom to openly debate about and criticize our public officials? Thank you Jon for righting this piece, it has been wonderful bantering back and forth with you, but I must now right a 3 page paper on the House Select Committee on Benghazi for my US Government Final Exam.


  • Jon
    June 2, 2015 - 6:50 am | Permalink

    As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. The facts about Bush and Cheney are clear. They ignored the warning that the 9/11 attack was coming. They lied about Saddam’s nuclear capabilities for the sole purpose of driving the country to war, and they set up and then covered up a torture regime that was a violation of an international anti-torture treaty that Reagan signed in 1948.

  • Jim Gatt
    October 2, 2015 - 10:09 am | Permalink

    I Was Raised A Republican But Switched To Independent BC Of Pres BUSH The Worse Pres Of My Life & Possibly Of All Time ut Add The Rise Of FOX In 1996 Has Only Drove PPL Apart Who Are Uninformed & w Misinformed Im No Fan Of Obama But Its The 2010+GOP Who Are The Problem As Of Late Wasting Money & Time Investigating Benghazi Over & Over Shutting Down The Gov Costing Taxpayers Money & Causing A Credit Rating Drop “First In US History” Increasing The Debt Interest Payments & Debt While Also Waiting To The Last Minute & Only Passing Short Term Budgets Raising Of The Debt Ceiling Ect Hurting The Overall Economy With All The Uncertainty & Blocking Of Infrastructure Investment Jobs Bills & Only Passing Short Term Transportation Bills.
    This Is In Part Why The Recovery Is Lacking & Help With Policy Suggestions That Benafit The RICH
    Republicans Call Themselves Conservative To Trick PPL who Are Conservative The GOP Give Themselves More Raises When In Power $174,000+Salaries & Millions In Allowance For (Travel,Staffers,Furniture,Ect) & Lush Retirement Pensions So While They Complain & Attack Hardworking American Union Workers Their In A Super Union Deciding What Us Taxpayers Will Pay Them With Only 8% Job Approval
    But This Is All BC We Have One Ofe The Richest Congress In History Most Are Millionaires Many Are Worth $10s Of Millions & Some $100s Of Millions So They Care More About Thei RICH Donors & Our News Broadcasters Are Now Making Millions Entertaining Rather Than Giving athe Info The Free Press Is Suppose To In A Thriving Democracy So They To Give Us Bias Info Tha Benafit Them The RICH Rather Than Whats Best For The Country Economy & Average American…
    Lastly PPL Dont Know Or Understand What Socialism “IS” Because The Us Became A Great SuperPower Using The Best Parts Od (Socialism & Capitalism) BC They Both Have Bad Parts But Everything The Gov Really Does Now Is socialism We Just Need To Decide What That Is Infact Things Have Got Worse As We Continue To Privatize Things The Gov Did So Lets Return To The (Good Ol Days) When We Had The Best Mix Of Socialism BC As We Continue To Privarize Things That The Gov Should Do Not Based On Profits Alone Have Helped Drive Up The Income Inequality That PPL Know Is Bad But Is Worse Not Seen Since The Roaring 30s Leading To The Great Depression

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *