THU 900PM, MSNBC documentary 'Why We Did it' (the REAL reason we went to IRAQ)

This is all just blind partisanship. Even Bush admitted that he was wrong.

Show me where I stated that Hillary was duped by Obama. You are not an honest debater.

 

STRAWMAN! I said "apparently". I used that word because Obama refuses to tell us what happened that night. Until then we can only assume Hillary was duped by Obama. Apparently is used because they first attempted to get the public to swallow the youtube video story, then when that went bad, they are now singing different tunes. Hillary if not a liar, was therefore duped. Those are the only two options in reality. If she is that easily duped she has no business being even a town selectman.

 

I'm just asking you to show me where I stated that Hillary was "apparently" duped by Obama.

Asking you to back up your claim is not a strawman fallacy.

 

Sorry poor choice of wording on my part. The apparently part is me saying that not you. I apologize for any reader misconception of that statement. You did not say that. I was saying it appears she may have been duped by Obama as well.
But while we are on the subject do you think Hillary was duped by Obama? I'll even cede duped is not the correct word, Im thinking strong armed is better choice for what Obama did to Hillary and Rice. You could see it in their faces

 

You won't like my answer.

Prior to the Benghazi attack, there were protests over the American-produced anti-Muslim video. I don't think that it's unreasonable to assume that the attack in on the Benghazi consulate stemmed from a protest. A terrorist group stated that they organized the attack, but terrorist groups always take credit for this kind of thing ("terrorist credit-taking"), so why should the US government have believed them?

I don't think that Obama should have mentioned that it may have been a terrorist attack the next day for the same reason why I don't think Hillary should have mentioned that it may have been from an anti-Muslim video. Until enough of the facts came in, they should not have added any conjecture to their statements.

My point is that Obama and Hillary obviously disagreed about the nature of the attack until more information came in. Due to this fact alone, I disagree that Clinton was "duped" by Obama. I also like the fact that the State Department may disagree with the White House.

One more note: When Obama said, "get the transcript," I think he was stooping. I don't think it matters that he may or may not have said it was a terrorist attack. Republicans are oddly obsessed about this fact that, as Hillary suggested, makes very little difference; knowing that it was or wasn't a terrorist attack doesn't bring back four dead Americans. So, when Obama won that argument with Romney, it didn't seem like much of a victory. When Rand Paul compared the Benghazi incident to 9/11, 2001, I pretty much gathered that this incident was being politicized, so I can see why obsession over details can happen.

 

There weren't any WMDs, the CIA told Bush there weren't any WMDs, Bush knew the curveball data was bogus, Bush knew that 30 CIA agents had returned saying the WMD programs had all ended in the 90's.
But congress didn't know that, because congress only got half the data, congress got the curveball data that listed WMD production facilities, they didn't get a followup when weapons inspectors actually went to those sites and found nothing.
They were never told about the 30 agents who went into Iraq to speak with former WMD scientists, who all returned saying the programs were ended.
Why don't you do this, show the world who the fool is in this exchange, link to the congressional briefing that says the curveball data is bogus, link to the congressional briefing that tells congress about the results of sending in 30 agents and what they reported..

 

Nope, you can do it. Keep in mind millions of people tried to get Bush on something illegal. No one ever did and its never going to happen because dems agreed with Bush as well. If Bush is guilty so are many dems.

 

Why would anyone want to get Bush on something illegal now, he is done with, he can't hurt the country anymore than he already did.
I'm not saying he did anything illegal, what he did was evil, but it was all legal.

 

Preaching to the choir.

 

The president doesn't have to tell the truth to congress, and he can send Americans to their death it's all legal under US law.

Bush is a war criminal, but he won't be prosecuted, at least not in the US, and he won't go to any country that doesn't agree in advance to allow him to return to the US.

 

So is Hillary then right? RIGHT?

 

Well, if you don't have a problem with Bush, I don't see how you could possibly object to Hillary....

I mean, Bush sent people to their deaths by the thousands for political gain, legally under the constitution, not under international law.

 

Its the other way around actually

 

Hillary has never been as completely evil as Bush, Bush is clearly the most evil person ever to live in the White House....

 

Well I guess that's open to opinion. Seems to me letting four people die for votes is just as evil.

 

As killing a million people for a political advantage? OK, if you say so...

 

Killing a million people makes you more evil than killing 1? Seems to me an evil killer is an evil killer regardless of the body count. Same as you cant be a little pregnant. You either are or you aren't.

 

OK, so Bush killed a million people for political purposes, we agree on that.

But Hillary didn't kill anyone.....so you'd have to agree that Bush is by far, more evil than Hillary....

 

mmm no we dont agree. We are still waiting on benghazi

 

LOL, you're still waiting for Fast and Furious to amount to something, and probably for the "Real Birth Certificate" to get here from Kenya.....

Meanwhile, heres what we know, Bush was probably the worst president in history....Iraq was an unmitigated disaster, Afghanistan is just as bad, and he set a record that will stand for quite a while. He left a deficit that was $1.7 TRILLION higher than when he took office.....worse than Reagan.....

 

Actually, its the Congress that authorized the use of Military force.

 

Congress that was mislead by who?

 

Well, it was Putin who said that Saddam planned terrorist attacks on the US. It was French Intelligence that said the aluminum tubes couldn't be for anything other than a centrifuge. It was British Intelligence that said Saddam could deploy Chemical weapons in 45 minutes and I don't know that any of them mislead us.

 

So while congress was told that the aluminum tubes were for use in centrifuges, they were not given the opinion of the US Atomic Energy agency, that the tubes were the wrong size, and were the wrong material to be used in centrifuges.
It was the CIA that sent 30 agents into Iraq to interview people who had been involved in Iraq's WMD programs, and 30 returned saying the programs had ended in the 90's, congress wasn't told that, Bush was.
Congress was given the curveball data, listing a number of sites used by Iraq to produce WMDs, what they weren't given was that when those sites were inspected, nothing was found, they also weren't told that the Germans considered Curveball to be an alcoholic liar.

Bush mislead congress, he could do that, he could choose what they saw, and what they didn't see.