Why didn't Dubya protect our citizens better?

[gabosaurus]

During the Dubya years, U.S. Consulates and American military were often targets of terrorist attacks. The Bushies did little to protect them.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13333916-number-of-embassies-attacked-during-the-bush-years-before-benghazi-many


2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including 1 American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005 - Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians.

Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans

[jimnyc]

I love the link, the title spells it all. Obama's minions, once again looking to Bush for excuses instead of facing the reality in front of them. NOTHING THAT BUSH EVER DID would change anything Obama DIDN'T do in Benghazi. Himself and Hillary, as the superiors, ultimately should take full responsibility for these dead Americans. And rather than handle the current issue, they, and those like yourself, prefer to once again talk about the Bush years.

In the instances provided, were there 2 months long worth of security requests made directly to the secretary of state? What was done wrong in advance, prior to these incidents? Who dropped the ball?

I'll concede ahead of time that I would want something done about the incidents, "revenge" if that's what it's called. But we're talking about accountability for someone dropping the ball. I don't see that in any of your examples. FAIL!

[gabosaurus]

Sure it needs to be addressed. But Republicans have made it seem like this is the first time an attack like such has ever happened.
It has happened before and it will happen again.

If American embassies had been better guarded over the last half century or so, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected president.

[jimnyc]

Sure it needs to be addressed. But Republicans have made it seem like this is the first time an attack like such has ever happened.
It has happened before and it will happen again.

If American embassies had been better guarded over the last half century or so, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected president.

Again, we're talking about the failure to answer to requests and the subsequent deaths, and then subsequent ignoring of anything involved in the situation. NONE of those examples had such failures - NONE.

[Voted4Reagan]

Sure it needs to be addressed. But Republicans have made it seem like this is the first time an attack like such has ever happened.
It has happened before and it will happen again.

If American embassies had been better guarded over the last half century or so, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected president.

Iran let the Hostages go 1 minute after Reagan was sworn in...

They feared him...

The Iranians laughed at Carter

[aboutime]

During the Dubya years, U.S. Consulates and American military were often targets of terrorist attacks. The Bushies did little to protect them.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13333916-number-of-embassies-attacked-during-the-bush-years-before-benghazi-many


2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including 1 American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005 - Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians.

Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans


Gabby. Are you, by any chance related to Obama, or are you a part of his propaganda, excuse, blame committee?

[SassyLady]

During the Dubya years, U.S. Consulates and American military were often targets of terrorist attacks. The Bushies did little to protect them.

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/13333916-number-of-embassies-attacked-during-the-bush-years-before-benghazi-many


2002 - June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.

2003 - May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.

2004 - May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including 1 American.

June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.

Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.

2005 - Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.

Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.

Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians.

Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans

How many were actually Americans? And, because you are bringing up what happened during the Bush years, perhaps we should bring up what happened in the Clinton years. What say you?

[SassyLady]

Gabby, tell us again how well Obama and Clinton are protecting "our people" at the embassies?


US Embassy Bombing in Turkey Was Eighth Embassy Attack During Secretary of State Clinton’s ReignPosted by Jim Hoft on Friday, February 1, 2013, 10:21 AM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/us-embassy-bombing-in-turkey-was-eighth-embassy-attack-during-secretary-of-state-clintons-reign/

[Anton Chigurh]

Gabby the shameless hack and propagandist.

[Kathianne]

I love the link, the title spells it all. Obama's minions, once again looking to Bush for excuses instead of facing the reality in front of them. NOTHING THAT BUSH EVER DID would change anything Obama DIDN'T do in Benghazi. Himself and Hillary, as the superiors, ultimately should take full responsibility for these dead Americans. And rather than handle the current issue, they, and those like yourself, prefer to once again talk about the Bush years.

In the instances provided, were there 2 months long worth of security requests made directly to the secretary of state? What was done wrong in advance, prior to these incidents? Who dropped the ball?

I'll concede ahead of time that I would want something done about the incidents, "revenge" if that's what it's called. But we're talking about accountability for someone dropping the ball. I don't see that in any of your examples. FAIL!

Indeed. In all of these incidents there was either an immediate and deadly attack or kidnappings. I seem to remember some rescues of kidnapped citizens, often at the cost of those that went to save them.

The issues with Benghazi begin with the long call for additional security; then the long, drawn out attack, where nothing effective was done.

[taft2012]

Again, we're talking about the failure to answer to requests and the subsequent deaths, and then subsequent ignoring of anything involved in the situation. NONE of those examples had such failures - NONE.

Bingo.

I'll just add that none of those incidents occurred on the anniversary of 9/11, when security is inevitably tightened.

Nor were any of them followed up with an orchestrated lie from the Bush administration about why the attack occurred.

Gabby, when will you learn we're more powerful than your liberal talking points?

[fj1200]

If American embassies had been better guarded over the last half century or so, Ronald Reagan would never have been elected president.

Yeah, that's why Carter was bad. :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

Iran let the Hostages go 1 minute after Reagan was sworn in...
They feared him...
The Iranians laughed at Carter

:laugh::laugh:

The Iranians laughed at Reagan as well. Right after they concluded the Arms for Hostages deal with him. Which is why they released the hostages. It had nothing to do with "fearing" Reagan.
Your boy Reagan negotiated a deal with Islamic extremists behind the backs of the American government. Basically paid them off to win the 1980 election. Very patriotic of him, don't you think?

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/f/me081109f.htm

[jimnyc]

So I suppose you'll ignore my posts, and forget about the fact that you are comparing apples and oranges, and NONE NONE NONE NONE of these examples had requests made like Benghazi where McChimpy and Shrillary dropped the ball and lied about it?

[gabosaurus]

Again, we're talking about the failure to answer to requests and the subsequent deaths, and then subsequent ignoring of anything involved in the situation. NONE of those examples had such failures - NONE.

There has been plenty of explaining. Clinton offered all sort of responses at the hearing. Didn't satisfy all the questions, though.
I believe that, if you go back, previous situations had plenty of failures.

[jimnyc]

There has been plenty of explaining. Clinton offered all sort of responses at the hearing. Didn't satisfy all the questions, though.
I believe that, if you go back, previous situations had plenty of failures.

How many of them had direct requests for support and/or protection? NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

And that's EXACTLY the complaint about Benghazi, therefore it IS apples and oranges, no comparison.

[gabosaurus]

How many of them had direct requests for support and/or protection? NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE NONE

And that's EXACTLY the complaint about Benghazi, therefore it IS apples and oranges, no comparison.

I think, considering the situation, it is quite the same.

[jimnyc]

I think, considering the situation, it is quite the same.

One is a DIRECT failure in leadership, one is not. One literally dropped the ball, one did not. Only ONE, being Benghazi, was there a direct request made, for additional support and such. Don't fret though, I wouldn't expect you to look at it honestly.

[Robert A Whit]

:laugh::laugh:

The Iranians laughed at Reagan as well. Right after they concluded the Arms for Hostages deal with him. Which is why they released the hostages. It had nothing to do with "fearing" Reagan.
Your boy Reagan negotiated a deal with Islamic extremists behind the backs of the American government. Basically paid them off to win the 1980 election. Very patriotic of him, don't you think?

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/f/me081109f.htm

I suppose you would believe all things stated on the WWW then?

Far too many errors in that so called report (fiction hardly qualifies as a report) to pick apart.

I started checking on your claims of US operations as to, as I recall this, where you tried to give Obama a pass on Benghazi due to other events in Pakistan, et al, but right out of the gate your claim about Pakistan, for instance, shows that Pakistanis got killed. What does that have to do with Americans who pleaded for help, not getting help?

If any of you are tempted to believe Gabby's use of wrong information sites, refer to the book called Reagan by Strober/Strober, a husband and wife investigative team.

They as far as I am aware are the only source that gathered up statements from all or most of the participants and put those statements into a book.

You get to see all sides of all issues.

Strober exposed for instance that Saudi Arabia was funding the Contras once the Boland law kicked in. That rather than pull illegal stuff, weapons were purchased legally from the USA and it was those weapons in civilian hands that went to the Israelis and later to Iran. Notice they don't mention that the weapons were anti tank weapons. The purpose of the weapons was to blow up Iraq's tanks. I can't see where that was a loss to the USA.

No law stopped Israel from handing over said weapons and no law prevented Reagan from resupplying the weapons Israel took from their armory.

[cadet]

Alright, so, the point gabby is trying to make is that we'll look over bushes mistakes but point out all of obama's.

Which we could easily make that point for all liberals with obama.

What she doesn't realize, is one of the few differences between right and left. The left will say "I dunno, i guess, he's in charge." with their guy, where the right will say "What the hell does he think he's doing??" with theirs.

I don't know about you guys, but I believe being right includes not blindly following, and fighting bad decisions no matter who's in charge.

I was pointing out all the things i disagreed with bush during his term. I will not stand up for some of the things he did. But today, he's not in office. We're gonna make fun of everything of obamas that we disagree with till he's gone.

[fj1200]

Your boy Reagan negotiated a deal with Islamic extremists behind the backs of the American government. Basically paid them off to win the 1980 election. Very patriotic of him, don't you think?

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/f/me081109f.htm

Those aren't the hostages in question.

[Robert A Whit]

Thank god I have studied just about any piece of material I can get my hands on so am able to put to rest the lies told by Democrats about Reagan.

Several are.
1. Reagan illegally traded hostages for weapons. First, what hostages? What weapons? Who did what? a. Hostages in Lebanon. Reagan was beseiged by the families of said hostages who wanted them out. Reagan aside from caring about Americans easily could recall the mess Carter made and he did not want to repeat such a mess over hostages. Any attempt to recover American hostages had to run outside normal channels. Israel got the ball rolling. Weapons sent were anti tank weapons. Rather low grade types to be honest. Strobers published a very good book. Look it up. Called Reagan by said authors. They collected data from a huge number of people. Some hated Reagan. You want to read a claim, it is there. But the truth is also published.
2. Reagan signed a presidential finding and that my kiddies is what made what he did in his role all legal.
3. Claims Reagan negotiated with Iran prior to his first term are wishful thinking. Reagan even made sure that Carter got full credit. Reagan could have pulled an Obama and took off in AF-1 to get the hostages. But Reagan put Carter on that airplane so he got full credit.

[Voted4Reagan]

:laugh::laugh:

The Iranians laughed at Reagan as well. Right after they concluded the Arms for Hostages deal with him. Which is why they released the hostages. It had nothing to do with "fearing" Reagan.
Your boy Reagan negotiated a deal with Islamic extremists behind the backs of the American government. Basically paid them off to win the 1980 election. Very patriotic of him, don't you think?

http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/f/me081109f.htm

Iran Contra was 6 years after Reagan was elected and he was never implicated in it.

From your own Article:

"The scandal entailed illegal funding and arming of Nicaragua’s right-wing contras fighting the leftist Sandinista regime as well as illegally trading arms with Iran in exchange for the release of seven American hostages held by Iranian-sponsored militants in Lebanon."

It had nothing to do with the 1980 or 1984 election and NOWHERE in your linked article does it say that.

Youre a LIAR.. it had nothing to do with the EMBASSY HOSTAGES and everything to do with Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

You really cant read can you?

BTW... Ollie North took full responsibility for the entire Iran Contra Affair. Reagan had no part of it.

[aboutime]

Gabby. Today is March 7, 2013.

When you finally catch up with the rest of the Universe. Maybe then, you'll learn how George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan have both been out of office for a long time.

But. Until someone tells you about today's date, and reality.

You will continue to sound just like OBAMA, and his famous BLAME GAME agenda.

Must really feel terrible to be YOU Gabby. Someday...you may even get a Brain of your own...4648

[gabosaurus]

BTW... Ollie North took full responsibility for the entire Iran Contra Affair. Reagan had no part of it.

It is widely accepted fact that North fell on his sword for Reagan. And the "Iran Contra" affair was not the start of Reagan's duplicity in the scandal involving the hostages held by Iran.
Reagan’s campaign team negotiated directly with Iran behind Carter’s back to free the hostages. After he won the 1980 election, Reagan followed up their release by authorizing secret shipments of weapons to Iran via Israel.
An Israeli arms dealer named William Northrop stated in an affidavit that that even before Reagan’s inauguration, the Israeli government had informal discussions with the incoming administration regarding its attitudes toward more weapons shipments to Iran and got “the new administration’s approval.”
Reagan was a liar, a crook and fairly poor excuse for an American.

[aboutime]

It is widely accepted fact that North fell on his sword for Reagan. And the "Iran Contra" affair was not the start of Reagan's duplicity in the scandal involving the hostages held by Iran.
Reagan’s campaign team negotiated directly with Iran behind Carter’s back to free the hostages. After he won the 1980 election, Reagan followed up their release by authorizing secret shipments of weapons to Iran via Israel.
An Israeli arms dealer named William Northrop stated in an affidavit that that even before Reagan’s inauguration, the Israeli government had informal discussions with the incoming administration regarding its attitudes toward more weapons shipments to Iran and got “the new administration’s approval.”
Reagan was a liar, a crook and fairly poor excuse for an American.


Gabby. You are just like jafar, and Obama. Always looking for someone else to blame for your endless stupidity.

[jimnyc]

It is widely accepted fact that North fell on his sword for Reagan. And the "Iran Contra" affair was not the start of Reagan's duplicity in the scandal involving the hostages held by Iran.
Reagan’s campaign team negotiated directly with Iran behind Carter’s back to free the hostages. After he won the 1980 election, Reagan followed up their release by authorizing secret shipments of weapons to Iran via Israel.
An Israeli arms dealer named William Northrop stated in an affidavit that that even before Reagan’s inauguration, the Israeli government had informal discussions with the incoming administration regarding its attitudes toward more weapons shipments to Iran and got “the new administration’s approval.”
Reagan was a liar, a crook and fairly poor excuse for an American.

And yet is highly regarded as one of the better presidents our country has had. You can call him a cabbage and a poor excuse for an American, so be it. History itself disagrees with you as do the majority of historians. And if he wasn't a good American, I'm afraid what that might say about you.

[aboutime]

And yet is highly regarded as one of the better presidents our country has had. You can call him a cabbage and a poor excuse for an American, so be it. History itself disagrees with you as do the majority of historians. And if he wasn't a good American, I'm afraid what that might say about you.


jimnyc. Most of us recognize what Gabby, and jafar do all the time. They choose to defame, or express their hatred against almost anyone they hate. And use that technique to distract attention from themselves. But...sadly for jafar, and gabby. It only works for people who are just like them.

[Robert A Whit]

[QUOTE=gabosaurus;622887]It is widely accepted fact that North fell on his sword for Reagan. And the "Iran Contra" affair was not the start of Reagan's duplicity in the scandal involving the hostages held by Iran.
Reagan’s campaign team negotiated directly with Iran behind Carter’s back to free the hostages. After he won the 1980 election, Reagan followed up their release by authorizing secret shipments of weapons to Iran via Israel.
An Israeli arms dealer named William Northrop stated in an affidavit that that even before Reagan’s inauguration, the Israeli government had informal discussions with the incoming administration regarding its attitudes toward more weapons shipments to Iran and got “the new administration’s approval.”
Reagan was a liar, a crook and fairly poor excuse for an American.[/QUOTE

OK, Since I happen to have the FACTS: (replies to above fibs all below)

Comment in red is not true. North was completely investigated and he assumed powers he did not have.
Statement 2 makes no sense. The hostages in Iran were held and Carter's military operation failed. Nobody went behind Carters back. Give Carter credit for getting them out. Carter deserves plenty of credit and Reagan did not try to slow down the release.

Israel still smarting over the Pollard affair wanted desperately to have relations with the USA improve and concocted the scheme to trade weapons from Israels store of weapons to Iran hoping that they could get prisoners released hoping to also get Pollard released.

You must be too young to know who Pollard was or what he did for Israel.

I can't find any such person called Northrop but I do happen to own the best book on this topic. And my book does not mention such a man.

OK, so why trust my book?

Because it is true. Because it is a collection of many many players who were there. Worked on all the things you accuse Reagan of. The two Authors, Strober, did a brilliant job in their investigation and tying it all together.

You don't even mention Manucher Gorbanifar the Iranian arms dealer. You don't mention Al Schwimmer nor Yaacov Nimrodi. You don't mention the Saudi Financier Adnan Khashoggi. In short you don't know what you are talking about.

Far from trying to mess up Carter, Reagan did not even try to do what you claimed.

Why won't you learn actual history?

You want a shock? I was debating this with left wingers when you were about 15 and still winking at boys at school.

[Voted4Reagan]

It is widely accepted fact that North fell on his sword for Reagan. And the "Iran Contra" affair was not the start of Reagan's duplicity in the scandal involving the hostages held by Iran.
Reagan’s campaign team negotiated directly with Iran behind Carter’s back to free the hostages. After he won the 1980 election, Reagan followed up their release by authorizing secret shipments of weapons to Iran via Israel.
An Israeli arms dealer named William Northrop stated in an affidavit that that even before Reagan’s inauguration, the Israeli government had informal discussions with the incoming administration regarding its attitudes toward more weapons shipments to Iran and got “the new administration’s approval.”
Reagan was a liar, a crook and fairly poor excuse for an American.

Show us you PROOF

Show us a memo, a news report or article

what do you have to back up your assertions?

[Voted4Reagan]

SNOPES already debunked this as an OCTOBER SURPRISE.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/captured.asp

Paragraph 4

[Voted4Reagan]

[QUOTE=gabosaurus;622887]It is widely accepted fact that North fell on his sword for Reagan. And the "Iran Contra" affair was not the start of Reagan's duplicity in the scandal involving the hostages held by Iran.
Reagan’s campaign team negotiated directly with Iran behind Carter’s back to free the hostages. After he won the 1980 election, Reagan followed up their release by authorizing secret shipments of weapons to Iran via Israel.
An Israeli arms dealer named William Northrop stated in an affidavit that that even before Reagan’s inauguration, the Israeli government had informal discussions with the incoming administration regarding its attitudes toward more weapons shipments to Iran and got “the new administration’s approval.”
Reagan was a liar, a crook and fairly poor excuse for an American.[/QUOTE

OK, Since I happen to have the FACTS: (replies to above fibs all below)

Comment in red is not true. North was completely investigated and he assumed powers he did not have.
Statement 2 makes no sense. The hostages in Iran were held and Carter's military operation failed. Nobody went behind Carters back. Give Carter credit for getting them out. Carter deserves plenty of credit and Reagan did not try to slow down the release.

Israel still smarting over the Pollard affair wanted desperately to have relations with the USA improve and concocted the scheme to trade weapons from Israels store of weapons to Iran hoping that they could get prisoners released hoping to also get Pollard released.

You must be too young to know who Pollard was or what he did for Israel.

I can't find any such person called Northrop but I do happen to own the best book on this topic. And my book does not mention such a man.

OK, so why trust my book?

Because it is true. Because it is a collection of many many players who were there. Worked on all the things you accuse Reagan of. The two Authors, Strober, did a brilliant job in their investigation and tying it all together.

You don't even mention Manucher Gorbanifar the Iranian arms dealer. You don't mention Al Schwimmer nor Yaacov Nimrodi. You don't mention the Saudi Financier Adnan Khashoggi. In short you don't know what you are talking about.

Far from trying to mess up Carter, Reagan did not even try to do what you claimed.

Why won't you learn actual history?

You want a shock? I was debating this with left wingers when you were about 15 and still winking at boys at school.


i was debating it before she was born

[aboutime]

[QUOTE=Robert A Whit;622900]

i was debating it before she was born



V4R. This is just another case of talking from the anal orifice without investigating actual Historic facts for gabby.

Like today's majority of Misinformed, or Uninformed Liberal, American, Obama voters who are so easily led to believe their own lies...

"If you repeat a lie often enough. People believe it, and it becomes the truth". Gobbles.

[SassyLady]

Show us you PROOF

Show us a memo, a news report or article

what do you have to back up your assertions?

Liberal talking points?

[Voted4Reagan]

It is widely accepted fact that North fell on his sword for Reagan. And the "Iran Contra" affair was not the start of Reagan's duplicity in the scandal involving the hostages held by Iran.
Reagan’s campaign team negotiated directly with Iran behind Carter’s back to free the hostages. After he won the 1980 election, Reagan followed up their release by authorizing secret shipments of weapons to Iran via Israel.
An Israeli arms dealer named William Northrop stated in an affidavit that that even before Reagan’s inauguration, the Israeli government had informal discussions with the incoming administration regarding its attitudes toward more weapons shipments to Iran and got “the new administration’s approval.”
Reagan was a liar, a crook and fairly poor excuse for an American.

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/35878689.jpg

[Robert A Whit]

i was debating it before she was born

Really? You were debating this by 1982? Iran Contra happened later than that. That did not start up till 1985 or so. 14 Americans were held in Lebanon and those were the hostages Reagan wanted freed.

I figure she was still peeing her diapers at that time.