11 Embassy Attacks Under George W Bush

[David / Amicus]

60 killed or wounded


Right now I'm listening to the Karel radio show on KGO.

Karel gave the above stats and listed the dates and the embassies.


However Karel did not say whether any American citizens were victims in
these attacks.


++++++++++


Unlike the 4 US citizens who were killed under Obama in Benghazi.

[David Johnston]

On 5/18/2013 10:14 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
> 60 killed or wounded
>
>
> Right now I'm listening to the Karel radio show on KGO.
>
> Karel gave the above stats and listed the dates and the embassies.
>
>
> However Karel did not say whether any American citizens were victims in
> these attacks.

Of course American citizens were victims in those attacks.

[David / Amicus]

<<Of course American citizens were victims in those attacks.>>

I don't know. The embassies hire alot of local civilians.

[David / Amicus]

Btw Karel said the reason the GOP is going after Benghazi is for two
reasons -->

1 - a preemptive strike against Hillary for the 2016 election


2 - racism against Obama

[theget]

Then who are the film makers that Obama is blaming for those attacks?

[David Johnston]

Seriously, fuck off.

[David Johnston]

On 5/19/2013 12:08 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
> <<Of course American citizens were victims in those attacks.>>
>
> I don't know. The embassies hire alot of local civilians.
>

While I realize that the death of anyone who isn't American doesn't
matter at all, yes, some of the people who died in the attacks were
Americans.

[theget]

On May 19, 6:21 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 12:08 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>
> > <<Of course American citizens were victims in those attacks.>>
>
> > I don't know. The embassies hire alot of local civilians.
>
> While I realize that the death of anyone who isn't American doesn't
> matter at all,

That's not true. What about that red line that Obama drew for gas
attacks in Syria. Then there seemed to be evidence of some gas
attacks and he stepped right up to the plate and did something about
it.

> yes, some of the people who died in the attacks were
> Americans.

I've decided to spare you this one time since it seems to upset you,
but feel free to tell me to, what was it? Fuck off? Was that it.
Well. No. But next time I'll be repeating myself to ask what film
makers Obama blamed those deaths on. Oh. Oops. My bad.

[theget]

On May 19, 2:19 pm, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
> Btw Karel said the reason the GOP is going after Benghazi is for two
> reasons -->
>
> 1 - a preemptive strike against Hillary for the 2016 election

This is probably partially true. I think they're also interested in
the mid-terms. But just because it's politically motivated doesn't
mean the GOP is wrong to pursue this.

>
> 2 - racism against Obama

Something motivated by a preemtive strike against Hillary is also
racism against Obama? Those clever Republicans. Are here I thought
that Dems thought that Reps were half-f**k-wits who couldn't tie their
own shoelaces and yet they're able to get all this mileage out of
Benghazi?

[David Johnston]

Right. If it didn't happen when Obama was president, it doesn't matter.

[theget]

Then this is the perfect opportunity for the US to correct its
attitude toward these sorts of events by making sure that we take them
more seriously, which is perhaps something that both parties are
guilty of, and don't attempt to cover them up by weakening the First
Amendment, which seems pretty specific to the Obama admin.

[David Johnston]

On 5/19/2013 8:57 PM, theget wrote:
> On May 19, 10:38 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 5/19/2013 8:26 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 19, 6:21 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/19/2013 12:08 PM, David / Amicus wrote:
>>
>>>>> <<Of course American citizens were victims in those attacks.>>
>>
>>>>> I don't know. The embassies hire alot of local civilians.
>>
>>>> While I realize that the death of anyone who isn't American doesn't
>>>> matter at all,
>>
>>> That's not true. What about that red line that Obama drew for gas
>>> attacks in Syria. Then there seemed to be evidence of some gas
>>> attacks and he stepped right up to the plate and did something about
>>> it.
>>
>>>> yes, some of the people who died in the attacks were
>>>> Americans.
>>
>>> I've decided to spare you this one time since it seems to upset you,
>>> but feel free to tell me to, what was it? Fuck off? Was that it.
>>> Well. No. But next time I'll be repeating myself to ask what film
>>> makers Obama blamed those deaths on. Oh. Oops. My bad.
>>
>> Right. If it didn't happen when Obama was president, it doesn't matter.
>
> Then this is the perfect opportunity for the US to correct its
> attitude toward these sorts of events by making sure that we take them
> more seriously,

And what do you mean by "take them more seriously"?

which is perhaps something that both parties are
> guilty of, and don't attempt to cover them up by weakening the First
> Amendment,

In what way was the First Amendment weakened?

[theget]

That we start looking for the actual people who are waging war on us.
That we stop pussy footing around calling these sorts of things
crimes. And we should stop blaming these events on our First
Amendment.

>
> which is perhaps something that both parties are
>
> > guilty of, and don't attempt to cover them up by weakening the First
> > Amendment,
>
> In what way was the First Amendment weakened?

When The Mighty O blames the attacks and murders not on the attackers
and murderers but on some film that weakens the First Amendment. When
he takes out ads apologizing for an American exercising their First
Amendment rights, that weakens the First Amendment.

[David Johnston]

You regularly assassinate the actual people. What else do you want to do?

>> which is perhaps something that both parties are
>>
>>> guilty of, and don't attempt to cover them up by weakening the First
>>> Amendment,
>>
>> In what way was the First Amendment weakened?
>
> When The Mighty O blames the attacks and murders not on the attackers
> and murderers but on some film that weakens the First Amendment.

In what way does restricting the freedom of the United States President
do say what he believes keep the First Amendment strong?

[theget]

He took an oath. That in and of itself limits what he's able to do to
some extent. Or else does the oath have any meaning? Did someone
force him to take the job?

[David Johnston]

On 5/20/2013 8:08 PM, theget wrote:

>>> When The Mighty O blames the attacks and murders not on the attackers
>>> and murderers but on some film that weakens the First Amendment.
>>
>> In what way does restricting the freedom of the United States President
>> do say what he believes keep the First Amendment strong?
>
> He took an oath.

He didn't take an oath to refrain from saying things you find
objectionable. He's in compliance with that oath as long he doesn't
violate the Constitution and does what he can to stop other people from
violating it. That does not mean he has given up his own freedom of
speech.

[theget]

On May 20, 10:45 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> On 5/20/2013 8:08 PM, theget wrote:
>
> >>> When The Mighty O blames the attacks and murders not on the attackers
> >>> and murderers but on some film that weakens the First Amendment.
>
> >> In what way does restricting the freedom of the United States President
> >> do say what he believes keep the First Amendment strong?
>
> > He took an oath.
>
> He didn't take an oath to refrain from saying things you find
> objectionable.

'Objectionable' isn't the test.

> He's in compliance with that oath as long he doesn't
> violate the Constitution and does what he can to stop other people from
> violating it.

Is that what "support and defend" means. I'm not quite sure then on
what grounds a president can be impeached. What does misdemeanors mean
in the context of the CoTUS speaking of impeachment.

> That does not mean he has given up his own freedom of
> speech.

Then he should preface what he says with "IMO" or something that
indicates that he is speaking for himself and not pretend that he is
speaking for the US.

[David Johnston]

On 5/21/2013 10:31 AM, theget wrote:
> On May 20, 10:45 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
>> On 5/20/2013 8:08 PM, theget wrote:
>>
>>>>> When The Mighty O blames the attacks and murders not on the attackers
>>>>> and murderers but on some film that weakens the First Amendment.
>>
>>>> In what way does restricting the freedom of the United States President
>>>> do say what he believes keep the First Amendment strong?
>>
>>> He took an oath.
>>
>> He didn't take an oath to refrain from saying things you find
>> objectionable.
>
> 'Objectionable' isn't the test.

And what's the test?

>
>> He's in compliance with that oath as long he doesn't
>> violate the Constitution and does what he can to stop other people from
>> violating it.
>
> Is that what "support and defend" means. I'm not quite sure then on
> what grounds a president can be impeached.

Being a rapist. Ordering mid term elections suspended. Sending out
death squads to eliminate the gangs of Los Angeles. Being caught
accepting bribes. Trying to jail members of the opposing party in
Congress. Being exposed as a Chinese spy. Ignoring Supreme Court
rulings. Appointing a director of the BATF in defiance of the law
against ever appointing a director of the BATF. Sending assassins to
kill executives of Fox News. Being caught with hookers and blow.
Having it proved that the outcome of the election was fraudulent.
Killing a helpless woman in her hospital bed because she knows about the
fraudulent election and is about to confess on her deathbed.

Actually anything provided that Congress has a wide-spread enough
feeling that they want him gone.

[theget]

On May 21, 2:17 pm, David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
> On 5/21/2013 10:31 AM, theget wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 10:45 pm, David Johnston <davidjohnsto...@block.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/20/2013 8:08 PM, theget wrote:
>
> >>>>> When The Mighty O blames the attacks and murders not on the attackers
> >>>>> and murderers but on some film that weakens the First Amendment.
>
> >>>> In what way does restricting the freedom of the United States President
> >>>> do say what he believes keep the First Amendment strong?
>
> >>> He took an oath.
>
> >> He didn't take an oath to refrain from saying things you find
> >> objectionable.
>
> > 'Objectionable' isn't the test.
>
> And what's the test?

Doing and saying things that are contrary to the CoTUS. My
understanding is that the ad that ran in Pakistan said that the US is
opposed to certain kinds of speech about religions. I'm sure that
Obama feels that it's morally wrong to criticize other religions, and
I have no problem with that. So long as he says it's his personal
opinion and doesn't spend my money doing it.

> >> He's in compliance with that oath as long he doesn't
> >> violate the Constitution and does what he can to stop other people from
> >> violating it.
>
> > Is that what "support and defend" means.  I'm not quite sure then on
> > what grounds a president can be impeached.
>
> Being a rapist.  Ordering mid term elections suspended.  Sending out
> death squads to eliminate the gangs of Los Angeles.  Being caught
> accepting bribes.  Trying to jail members of the opposing party in
> Congress.  Being exposed as a Chinese spy.  Ignoring Supreme Court
> rulings.  Appointing a director of the BATF in defiance of the law
> against ever appointing a director of the BATF.  Sending assassins to
> kill executives of Fox News.  Being caught with hookers and blow.
> Having it proved that the outcome of the election was fraudulent.
> Killing a helpless woman in her hospital bed because she knows about the
> fraudulent election and is about to confess on her deathbed.

Wow. That sounds like a very exciting weekend.

> Actually anything provided that Congress has a wide-spread enough
> feeling that they want him gone.

Well, you never know. If enough stuff goes bad, then maybe...

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-top-irs-official-fifth-amendment-20130521,0,6645565.story

Not that Obama is anything like Nixon. No. Not at all.

[David Johnston]

Since they weren't being used as political tools precisely how many of
them were Americans wasn't important.