Skip to comments.“Bush Lied (NOT) – Romney Lied” – Will it work again?
Posted on 10/22/2012 8:14:48 AM PDT by David-Stansberry
Bush Lied" Romney Lied Will it work again?
Everyone who spoke with one of their Democratic friends during the 2008 Presidential election surely heard, Bush Lied! The Democrat Party claimed that President Bush lied about Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction so he could justify the war in Iraq was their campaign mantra. My Democratic friends believed it with all their heart and it energized their efforts. That Democrat Party mantra did have an effect on the election. Unfortunately, negative politicking works thus when the Democrat Party cant discuss policy, they attack the person. Now the same tactic is now being used to attack Governor Romney, the current Presidential Candidate on the GOP ticket. Romney Lied has become the new Democratic Party mantra! Since the Democratic Party has chosen to use this negative, misguided tactic in the current campaign it would be good to briefly review the Bush lied lie used in 2008. (If the Bush Lied mantra wasnt true, that would make the Bush Lied mantra a lie.) President Bush, along with many other people, did affirm that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Please note that weapons of mass destruction include Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear capability. The Democratic Party mantra ignored the many Democrats who also stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY) Oct. 10, 2002 In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery and his nuclear program. - Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) Oct. 9, 2002 I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. Jan. 23, 2003 he has now continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real - Former V.P. Al Gore (D) Sept. 23, 2002 We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout the country. Iraqs search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA) Sept. 27, 2002 We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction Context in which these statements were made can be found at the source where these quotes were compiled: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp If George Bush lied then so did Al Gore, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and many others not named. The truth is that none of them lied. They stated what they believed to be true, based on the best intelligence information available at the time. Did Saddam Hussein have or desire to have weapons of mass destruction? Yes: - Chemical weapons Mustard gas, Tabun and Nerve Agent used against thousands of Iranian and Kurdish civilians in the 1980s - Biological weapons- were developed in the 1990s including Sarin gas and Anthrax. Iraq claimed they destroyed these after the 1991 Kuwait conflict but Saddam never allowed confirmation - Nuclear program - In 2008, 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" uranium were removed from Tuwaitha nuclear complex (south of Baghdad) and sold to Canada for nuclear power-plant fuel. Yellowcake uranium is the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment and this was moved to prevent it being obtained by Iran to aid its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein lied about his WMD capability because he wanted to deter Iran. It appears that some of the people working in his WMD program lied to him about Iraqs capability because they feared for their lives if he learned the truth. The Democratic Party, and those Democrats who repeated the Bush Lied mantra, were less than truthful as well. I am forced to conclude that when the Democratic Party attacked President Bush with the Bush Lied tactic, they lied. Despite the claim of the radical left that the Iraqi sky would be blue, the birds would be singing, and flowers would be blooming if Saddam Hussein had not be removed, it is more probable that we would be facing both Iraq and Iran developing nuclear weapons today. If anyone asks who made the world one less nuclear nut safer in the words of President Obama, Bush did it.
ROMNEY LIED The new Democrat Party mantra Romney Lied came into use after the October 3, 2012 debate between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. Everyone, including most Democrats, agree that President Obamas debate performance was subpar in comparison to Governor Romney. They claim Mitt Romney lied because he didnt give details about tax changes he is proposing. Governor Romney first affirmed that the portrayal of his tax reform by President Obama and other Democrats was inaccurate. The Governor then indicated the principles that would guide his tax reform: - He would not allow any changes be made to the tax code which would lower the personal income tax burden of higher income individuals in America - He would not allow any changes to be made to the tax code which would increase the tax burden on middle income individuals - He would work with Congress to identify specific cuts which would close tax loop-holes used by the wealthy, ensuring the changes did not have a negative impact on the middle class The last point is where the Democrats claim to find lies. They argue that unless Governor Romney lists the specific tax details then he is lying. Perhaps they are confused by President Obamas Monarchy style of government. He routinely bypasses Congress and passes new laws via Executive Order but that is not the way our government is organized. Congress actually determines tax code (law) and the President can work with them, but must either sign or veto the law when it is given to him. With this in mind, who is really lying? The recent killing of American ambassador .. and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, has revealed a coordinated effort by the Obama administration to mislead and misinform the American public regarding terrorism on 9/11 2012. - 4/6 9/8 2012 - a variety of attacks against the embassy compound in Benghazi occur
- September 8: A local security officer in Benghazi warns American officials about deteriorating security
- 9/10 2012 - Osama bin Ladens Al Qaida successor, Ayman al Zawahiri, posted a video on the Internet calling for revenge for the June 4 death of Abu Yahya al Libi, a Libyan cleric who was his second in command.
- 9/11 2012 Benghazi Consulate and security compound approximately 1.2 miles away is attacked Ambassador Chris Stevens and US information manager Sean Smith die in the consulate. A second attack on the consulates safe house, (an annex 1.2 miles away) and additional security Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty men were killed by mortar fire.
- 9/12 2012 President Obama referred to acts of terrorism and then spoke regarding the killing of the four Americans in Benghazi. Democrat operatives now claim the President identified the attack as terrorism that day but that explanation would not be consistent with him allowing his state department personnel to spread the lie that the attack was not a pre-planned, terrorist operation but simply a demonstration in reaction to an obscure internet video, which turned violent.
- 9/12 US Intelligence agencies determine Benghazi was a coordinated terrorist attack related to 9/11
- 9/13 Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney correlates the internet video with the Benghazi violence
- 9/14 Bodies of 4 Americans killed in Benghazi are returned to US President Obama and Sec. of State Clinton speak again, the video was promoted as the cause of the attack
- 9/16 U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on at least five major Sunday talk shows and blamed the Benghazi attack exclusively on the internet video. The same day Libyan President Mohammed Magarief indicated the attack was preplanned, predetermined, and coincided with the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01.
- 9/24 - White House press secretary Jay Carney indicate that President Obama had finally concluded the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack
- 9/26 Secretary of State Clinton admits the Benghazi attack was due to terrorism
- 10/10 Congressional hearings begin. By this time it has been determined that additional security for the Libyan embassy was requested and denied by the State Department. Security professionals warnings on the ground were ignored by State Department bureaucrats and four Americans died at the hands of 9/11 terrorists. The administration began a cover-up of the attack for political purposes and lied to the American public about the whole situation. There was no demonstration in Benghazi, just two very well organized, highly planned attacks on both the Benghazi consulate and the safe house located a little over a mile away. Black Hawk Down comparisons abound.
- 10/11 Vice President Biden states at the VP debate that he and the President werent told of any requests for additional security at the Libyan embassy.
- 10/12 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says, There is much we still don't know and I am the first to say that. Any details left to learn are immaterial to the fact that she and the Department of State failed in their duty to provide adequate protection for the Libyan embassy and Benghazi compound.
- 10/16 Secretary of State Hilary Clinton takes responsibility for the Benghazi inept security situation one day before Presidential Debate #2. DUH!!! Talk is cheap and this confession is a cheap political trick, as the Administration/State Department continue their attempts to cover-up the deaths of four Americans on 9/11/12.
Some people will look at SOS Clintons statement as noble support for President Obama. It might take pressure for the deaths of the four Americans in Benghazi off of him, and help him be re-elected. It should be noted there is a 99.9% probability that SOS Clinton will only keep her job if President Obama is re-elected. If any heads roll for the denial of additional security which was requested for the Libyan Embassy, you can bet the farm that President Obama and SOS Clinton wont be punished unless the American voting public holds them responsible at the voting booth.
Who was responsible for the lies told to the American public in the weeks after the attacks? Vice President Biden claims that US Intelligence agencies failed. There was enough information about Libyan threats in open source (news agencies) that the requests for additional security should have been approved, not denied.
President Obama and SOS Clinton are willing to take responsibility as long as they dont have to face the consequences of their failed policies. Putting politics over security of Americans should be a criminal issue, but it is not. Americans who are voting for President in 2012 must decide if this administration will have to face any consequences for the deaths of the four American heroes who had their lives sacrificed for the inept politically correct policies of this Administration.
Most Muslims in our country and around the world are not of the radical persuasion. The refusal of Democrats to identify the Muslims who are radical as terrorists and treat them as actual threats to the lives of innocent Americans is not only the reason these four Americans were killed in Benghazi on 9/11/12, but also the reason almost 3,000 Americans died on 9/11/01.
Let me say that not only did the US Intelligence Agencies determine within 24 hours that this was a terrorist attack but every soldier deployed with boots on the ground who has seen action in Afghanistan or Iraq since 9/11/01, could tell you this attack was an act of terrorism. They could also tell you the embassy staff was in grave danger due to inadequate security staffing. US Marines should be guarding every embassy we in Muslim dominated countries. Special security considerations should have been given on the anniversary of 9/11. Marines guard the American Embassy in Paris, France but that same security consideration was denied the Embassy in Libya. You dont have to be a rocket scientist to see the fallacy of this situation. Apparently neither Secretary of State Clinton nor President Obama have the knowledge or experience as of the lowest ranking military person who has actually served on the front-lines, fighting terrorism. How can we continue to trust President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to protect the livesof Americans in the US military, Foreign Service, and even Americans living inside the borders of the United States, when their policies of political correctness and their political careers take precedent over common sense? If President Obama and Secretary Clinton had been in charge 9/11/01, by the time they had an FBI investigation to determine if we were under a terrorist attack
the terrorists would have spread carnage and destruction from sea to shining sea. So, did Romney lie by not giving tax change details which can only be determined by working with Congress? The answer is no. Did President Obama through his State Department personnel, UN representative, and other political appointees lie about a terrorist attack on Americans on 9/11/12? The answer is YES! Obama lied when Americans died just to protect his political hide! Stonewalling and denial of the facts continue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.