The American public will be able to see right through this BS. They usually do when blatant politics is being played in the high (or low) handed way the GOP plays their hand. What you & Republicans are missing is that while the Benghazi talking points AFTER THE EVENT itself should have stated clearly it was a terrorist attack they didnt lead to or cause the death of anyone.<quoted text>
Relate back to Bush? Benghazi?
You just went off the radar, sonic. Have fun in space.
People have a right to be upset about the political spin, but it didnt cause one death.
Republicans are again hoping to derail Obama & drag down his 2nd term, while also wrestling their foreign policy failures during Bush back from Dems. Relate back to Bush? Yeah. Ya know, like when George W. Bush marketed his Iraq war campaign prior to the 2002 election. Lie by Lie.
9/26/02 In a speech in Houston, Bush says of Saddam: "After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad."
9/27/02 Rumsfeld calls link between Iraq and Al Qaeda "accurate and not debatable."
9/28/02 Bush's address to nation: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more, and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given."
Oct.2002 National Intelligence Estimate produced. It warns that Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program" and "has now established large-scale, redundant and concealed BW agent production capabilities"an assessment based largely on Curveball's statements. But NIE also notes that the State Department has assigned "low confidence" to the notion of "whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qaeda." Cites State Department experts who concluded that "the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapons program." Also says "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa" are "highly dubious." Only six senators bother to read all 92 pages.[Date the public knew:[7/18/03]
Oct. 2002 Administration decides not to take out Abu Musab al-Zarqawi because, though he is not yet working with Al Qaeda, any terrorist in Iraq helps case for war. "People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists," a former NSC member later says.[Date the public knew: 3/2/04]
You and your party don't have a leg to stand on. Move along folks, nothing to see here.