Why the embassy attacks during Bush’s presidency wasn’t investigated
Good morning folks! Here we go …
We all realize that liberals have been on a blame-Bush rage for the past five years. I mean Obama had barely finished perjuring himself while taking the oath of office when he immediately set on making excuses like “look at the debt I inherited”, etc. (look what he’s leaving for the next guy) Liberals have followed suit every step of the way repeating the identical line of crap that proceedes out of Obama’s mouth. Obama’s blame game is common knowledge. Obama is the only president who gets the PDB (President’s Daily Brief) from the news papers and Good Morning America.
Anyway I saw a typical liberal rant this morning about … who else … G.W. Bush. I first had to sort through all the references to conservatives which included classics such as douche-tards, asshats, butt munchers, and of course the list wouldn’t be complete without the old standard, haters. Once I got past about four paragraphs of that stuff I arrived at the “meat of the matter” which was about three sentences, of which one claimed that 96 people were killed during embassy and consulate attacks during Bush’s presidency. In the next sentence the person said he didn’t hear about any investigations during Bush’s presidency … and then the piece was summed up with … what is the difference between then and now?
Now that is a fair question, though I have no idea where the number “96” came from as there were no links to sources.
Anyway, of course there are many differences between then and now. I found the following piece which eloquently points out the differences.
Via: The Anchoress
“Why Weren’t Embassy Attacks Under Bush & Clinton Investigated?” – UPDATES
There is an argument I am seeing show up pretty regularly on Twitter. Someone tweets a link to a news story asking valid questions about Benghazi, or suggesting that there has been a cover-up (and history shows that fallout from coverups are always worse than the incidents that preceded them, but politicians never learn) someone intent on protecting the administration or Hillary Clinton tweets the equivalent of a sneer: “oh yeah? Well there were this many attacks on US Embassies while Bush was president, where were you then, huh? Why wasn’t anyone demanding investigations, then, huh?”
Okay, well, I was wrong in calling that an argument; it’s really just your basic distraction tactic, meant to obfuscate and confuse, as we see Jon Stewart try to do, here. Must not discuss Obama and Benghazi and today. Let’s keep repeating the talking points from ten years ago.
But the answer is actually pretty simple: yeah, there were x-number of embassy attacks under Bush and they did not require investigations. For that matter there were all of these attacks on embassies and American interests under President Clinton, and they didn’t require investigations, either.
Why not? Well, because under Bush the embassy attacks were taking place mostly in Iraq, and during a time of acknowledged war — right in the thick of it, in fact — and no one tried to argue that they were anything but planned and executed attacks.
And during the Clinton years, the attacks — which took place an average of every 18 months — were recognized as planned, organized attacks and no one tried to argue that they were anything different, either.
And while our embassies were attacked under these presidents, and others, none of our Ambassadors were murdered (along with Navy Seals) while multiple stand-down orders were given against mounting a rescue.
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations sought to mischaracterize the attacks on their embassies. Neither of them disseminated weirdly vague stories that was “really” took place was a spontaneous protest over an unseen, stupid video. And it was not the Bush (or Clinton) administration that — even after acknowledging a terror attack had occurred — repeated those lies to grieving parents or (weeks later) in a speech to the UN where the “video” was blamed six times
Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations first claimed that it was too early to talk about the attacks, and then too late. None of their Secretaries of State first flatly said — two days after the event — that they would not talk about the attack, declared to congress “what does it matter” or fell back on stereotypical behavior of yelling and emotionalism to distract the press and scare her mostly-male congressional inquisitors into silence. And none of their Secretary of State’s successors started out his term by quickly announcing that he didn’t intend to talk about the attacks, either. (::::UPDATE::::Just breaking, now he says he will!:::END:::)
But mostly, the reason “no one investigated” attacks under Bush or Clinton is because no one lied about what they were, or refused to be clear about what their responses had been.