I know a lot of you think that “partisan” people lie (when in fact it’s mostly partisan supporters of a particular party that do) and so you ignore things like this graphic when they are posted, assuming it’s just Democratic spin, not any different than Republican spin.
However, you can fact check this one yourself. I’m providing you the links to news articles in the online press that verify that each of these attacks described from 2002-2008 are authentic.
It is an _excellent_ question why Barack Obama having one of these is more important than George W. Bush having _seven_ of them.
If you think it’s unfair that I would find fault with Bush instead of the people who were attacking America in these attacks…don’t think that. I don’t find fault with Bush on any of these. Bad people were attacking Americans – that’s not the President’s fault. I concede that, in each of these cases, President Bush responded as he thought was appropriate, and I do not doubt that he took the security of the American people seriously when responding.
Why do Republicans doubt Obama does? Are they serious? After looking over these links, I think you’ll ask that question, too. How could they be?
Here are your links:
2004, Uzbekistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3532518.stm
2004, Saudi Arabia: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38692-2004Dec6.html