It seems the crux of the issue regarding Benghazi is that even though Hilary did not personally give stand down orders that she is ultimately responsible since she was head of State Dept.

However, it has not been brought up that the lax intel or lax immigration policies that allowed the terrorists to train in airplane schools was on George W. Bush's watch. It may have started earlier but culminated on his term.

Was 9/11 W's fault?

Originally Posted by Guest

It seems the crux of the issue regarding Benghazi is that even though Hilary did not personally give stand down orders that she is ultimately responsible since she was head of State Dept.

However, it has not been brought up that the lax intel or lax immigration policies that allowed the terrorists to train in airplane schools was on George W. Bush's watch. It may have started earlier but culminated on his term.

Was 9/11 W's fault?

A thread begun to bait folks into a conversation that is DAYS old begun by Trump's stupid comments and Jeb Bush's reply.

EVERYONE knows what happened....EVERYONE knows when it happened. We have had a number of commissions and many books written to tell how and why it happened.

The only motive for a thread like this is another "bash Bush" escapade, INSTEAD of discussing what is happening in the country and the world in present day.

It appears this is a vehicle for all those who have a conspiracy theory to expound on. I think maybe a thread on UFOs would also work.

I think it totally incredibly ridiculous to even suggest it was Bush's "fault" which is defined as "responsibility for an accident or misfortune".

On his watch...yep. Pearl Harbor was not the "fault" of FDR for example but it happened while he was President.

The recent recession happened on Obama's watch....his fault ?

In 1993, the towers were bombed under Clinton...his fault ?

Originally Posted by Guest

It seems the crux of the issue regarding Benghazi is that even though Hilary did not personally give stand down orders that she is ultimately responsible since she was head of State Dept.

However, it has not been brought up that the lax intel or lax immigration policies that allowed the terrorists to train in airplane schools was on George W. Bush's watch. It may have started earlier but culminated on his term.

Was 9/11 W's fault?

I question and challenge you on your premise of what the "crux" of the issue is regarding Benghazi. It is a premise used by you to divert I believe and has no basis in actual FACT.

I have never heard anyone, anywhere EVER say that Benghazi was the FAULT of Hillary Clinton.

Thus the OP's premise is a red herring.

It is apparent that most of the democratic party, including Obama and for sure those on this forum, do not understand the managerial concept of ownership, accountability and responsibilty.

Starting with Obama the trend has been and continues, that as long as one can point to someone else to lay blame, then they are not responsible.

A testimony to the fact Obama was not, and still is not qualified to be POTUS. He sold a promise that he did not deliver. And has been blaming everybody else for anything that goes wrong, sideways or against his agenda. Just like a grade school kid.

Whether it is liked or not is not an issue. When one takes over a job or position they own it and everything good and bad that comes with it. The mark of those qualified is their ability to pick up on and change that which is not right or needs attention/fixing. And Obama has demonstrated every day of the last 7 years that is not him.

Originally Posted by Guest

It is apparent that most of the democratic party, including Obama and for sure those on this forum, do not understand the managerial concept of ownership, accountability and responsibilty.

Starting with Obama the trend has been and continues, that as long as one can point to someone else to lay blame, then they are not responsible.

A testimony to the fact Obama was not, and still is not qualified to be POTUS. He sold a promise that he did not deliver. And has been blaming everybody else for anything that goes wrong, sideways or against his agenda. Just like a grade school kid.

Whether it is liked or not is not an issue. When one takes over a job or position they own it and everything good and bad that comes with it. The mark of those qualified is their ability to pick up on and change that which is not right or needs attention/fixing. And Obama has demonstrated every day of the last 7 years that is not him.

Let's do a review:

Under the Obama administration there have been 2 embassy attacks.
Under George W's there were 13 embassy attacks.
Under Reagan there were 10 embassy attacks.

What does that demonstrate?

Originally Posted by Guest

It seems the crux of the issue regarding Benghazi is that even though Hilary did not personally give stand down orders that she is ultimately responsible since she was head of State Dept.

However, it has not been brought up that the lax intel or lax immigration policies that allowed the terrorists to train in airplane schools was on George W. Bush's watch. It may have started earlier but culminated on his term.

Was 9/11 W's fault?

Did I miss something? Did the terrorist that killed the four Americans in Benghazi receive flight training in the U.S.? No. What is your point?

Oh, by the way, Bill Clinton gutted the Intel community, not Bush

Originally Posted by Guest

Let's do a review:

Under the Obama administration there have been 2 embassy attacks.
Under George W's there were 13 embassy attacks.
Under Reagan there were 10 embassy attacks.

What does that demonstrate?

It demonstrates to me, your total inability to make a valid point.

Your premise, which you never explained at all is simply a childish implication.

IF you are suggesting anything other than the Arab Spring, etc, then you will need to act like an adult and make your point.

Your implication is this....

ACTIONS by Obama have prevented embassy attacks. What actions ?
ACTIONS by President Bush caused attacks on embassies. What actions ?
ACTIONS by Reagan caused attacks on embassies. What actions ?

This is a premise formed and propulgated by bloggers on far left web sites only and has no intellectual basis.

Now, we have had a few posters who asked for opinions on left wing governments in cities that have failed miserably. Do you feel those charges are valid ?

We just came out of a depression which was on President Obama's watch. Was that depression his fault ?

We destroyed Libya, Yemen and a few other countries on the watch of President Obama. How do you characterize that ?

Originally Posted by Guest

Let's do a review:

Under the Obama administration there have been 2 embassy attacks.
Under George W's there were 13 embassy attacks.
Under Reagan there were 10 embassy attacks.

What does that demonstrate?

If you would state the point you are trying to make it would really be helpful!!

However I cannot resist at least supplying a possible/feasible answer to your question.

The terrorists know they have gotten and will continue to get more from Obama than they would ever have gotten from the non Obama POTUS.
Obama is sympathetic to the terrorists.
Obama appeases the terrorists.

Hilary is a felon, plain and simple.
Hilary was also inept at her job as SecState, plain and simple. (ask any State employee)
Hilary was complicit in the cover up of Benghazi, video my as...
Hilary was blatantly violating Gov rules/laws in the handling of classified material.
Hilary allowed her assistant to falsify leave paperwork.
Hilary is a blatant liar. She didn't misstate something, she lied.

Hilary should receive the firing squad for endangering national security. I will accept a hanging if they do not wish to waste ammo on her.

Originally Posted by Guest

It demonstrates to me, your total inability to make a valid point.

Your premise, which you never explained at all is simply a childish implication.

IF you are suggesting anything other than the Arab Spring, etc, then you will need to act like an adult and make your point.

Your implication is this....

ACTIONS by Obama have prevented embassy attacks. What actions ?
ACTIONS by President Bush caused attacks on embassies. What actions ?
ACTIONS by Reagan caused attacks on embassies. What actions ?

This is a premise formed and propulgated by bloggers on far left web sites only and has no intellectual basis.

Now, we have had a few posters who asked for opinions on left wing governments in cities that have failed miserably. Do you feel those charges are valid ?

We just came out of a depression which was on President Obama's watch. Was that depression his fault ?

We destroyed Libya, Yemen and a few other countries on the watch of President Obama. How do you characterize that ?

My point was so clear Ronnie Milsap could have seen it. I can't help you. Reread the post and come back tomorrow night and try it again (thank you Little Richard).

Originally Posted by Guest

Let's do a review:

Under the Obama administration there have been 2 embassy attacks.
Under George W's there were 13 embassy attacks.
Under Reagan there were 10 embassy attacks.

What does that demonstrate?

To me, it demonstrates that you spend your spare time tracking embassy attacks and nothing more.

Originally Posted by Guest

Let's do a review:

Under the Obama administration there have been 2 embassy attacks.
Under George W's there were 13 embassy attacks.
Under Reagan there were 10 embassy attacks.

What does that demonstrate?

That the radical Muslims did not want to injure the reputation of our chief-radical Muslim-in-charge, so they held back?

Some great answers.
Still no response to what the point is/was/what ever....just more sarcasm.

We know making a point requires commiting to what one said.
We also know there are those who survive only by responding/attacking/ridiculing other's points made....but never ventire out on the limb of life to make their own....requires a commitment or an identifiable position....can't have that can we?

Originally Posted by Guest

Some great answers.
Still no response to what the point is/was/what ever....just more sarcasm.

We know making a point requires commiting to what one said.
We also know there are those who survive only by responding/attacking/ridiculing other's points made....but never ventire out on the limb of life to make their own....requires a commitment or an identifiable position....can't have that can we?

Most times, smugness is difficult to determine in writing, but your smugness shines through.

Your OP, if it was you is simply baiting, and YOU know it which really sheds light on a juvenile mind.

After you read the 9/11 commission report, the hundreds of reports on that day, thevolumesof books published, read the news of the last week, then come back and make whatever case you want to make.

This progressive conspiracy websites came alive when Trump made his comments and they..well, I don't think they sucked you in.....I think you are simply what you have proven to be. A very angry bitter man,who instead of becoming well read and participating in a forum, enjoys the childish play of attempting to rile up his neighbors. Just like you do on occasion on the main board.

You get into things you know nothing about, and your only pleasure is baiting people or making fun and mocking others.

You should be ashamed, but I know you are not; you may just simply pay a visit to your alter are site and go at it...might make you feel better.

If what you want is to know that you are known, irritating to others, vacant of any original thoughts, hate filled, acrimonious, sneaky....Etc

Then you have succeeded