Beruit: Reagan's Benghazi

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:Conservatives should recognize this article by Dipshit Jr. and the comment topic by Jackoff Jones for what they are, PURE REPRESSIVE SOCIALIST BULLSHIT.

There is nothing about this issue and the actions of President Reagan that needs defending or even discussing.  So why does the dipshit write the article and why does his useful idiot Jackoff Jones go to all this effort?  It is very simple; distraction and deflection from the real issue of THE DAY and the key words are “THE DAY”.

The socialists are close to getting one of their comrades elected president which just about assures them of the complete transformation of America into a living socialist hell.  However, the evil witch has some skeletons in her closet, one of them being her negligence in the Benghazi incident.  Therefore they must take the heat off and there is no better way than to compare her actions to an iconic conservative.  And as usual, it is smoke and mirrors they are using but that doesn’t matter if people will engage them and LISTEN to their story.

They simply cannot afford to have potential voters think negatively of repressive Hillary so they have to find a way to defend her.  So, demean President Reagan, (they do this all the time to the Founders) or at least put Hillary’s actions on par with Reagan’s and they win.

These slime balls are disgusting.  Don’t fall for their evil tricks.  If you want to discuss this thread with the moronic evil cretin, then keep the focus solely on the negligence of Hillary in the disaster at Benghazi.  And if you want to bring other players into the fray, then pick on Obama and John Kerry and how they have supported Hezbollah, the very people who killed our brave Marines, with their actions and financial aid.  And you can toss the Clintons into that discussion as well.  Those are the evil slime balls that are involved with taking control of the White House, stay on their trail.

Why don't you point out the differences between Beruit and Benghazi.  This should br interesting.  Good luck

The Differences:

1)
The UN MNF (Multi National Force comprised of US, France, Great Britain and Italy) peacekeeping force that was in
Beirut in 1983 was there to ostensibly act as an interposition force between Israel and Syrian/PLO forces in an attempt to bring stability to Lebanon in the civil war. It was not allowed to take sides or to engage in combat. It was only allowed to fire weapons in self defense.

The NATO force in Libya in the 2011 Civil War took an active and decisive part in combat by supporting anti-Gaddafi rebels that were comprised in part by Islamic terrorists led by former Guantanamo detainee Abu Sufian bin Qumu. Thanks to the US engineered fall of Gaddafi, various Islamic terrorist elements in east Libya filled the power vacuum. One of these groups was ISIS/ISIL (whatever).

It was a US Embassy that was attacked. Reagan had final say in all safety precautions there.  End of story.

2)
There was no coverup in Lebanon.  Iranian back Hezbollah was blamed for the bombings, not some crappy anti-Islamic video on the Internet that caused spontaneous riots. The real cause of Benghazi was a clandestine weapons program gone awry. Weapons fell into the wrong hands as Clinton/Obama tried to arm Syrian rebels in the Syrian Civil War.

Benghazi was a gun swap?!?  Brahahaha, you need to adjust your spam filter.  Also according to this Faux News  report, the video theory was entirely plausible.  Hardly a cover up.

3)
Reagan took blame. Clinton/Obama, nope. Just stonewalling, lying, dissembling and deception. Even lied to the families of the brave dead of Benghazi

Hillary took the blame.

Both are tragic situations but just like in Watergate and Clinton's impeachment Benghazi comes down to CYA and deception.


.