jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (45 posts)

Does The Right Care About Consistency?

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 4 years ago

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/05/13 … een/194050

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives. … 913-5.html

    The right was silent over this.  Is this an example of actually holding principles, but only applying them when the opposite party is in power, or pure political nonsense?

    And embassy attacks are common occurrences.  They happened under Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43, and Obama.   There was no outrage from the right when embassies were attacked under Bush.

    Again I ask, is this a selective application of real principles (like liberals denouncing Bush's violations of civil liberties while being silent on Obama's), or is this pure political nonsense?

    My hunch is the latter answer in both cases.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You too!

      PUT DOWN YOUR BIG BRUSH!

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So you're saying the attack on Benghazi is the cost of having embassies in dangerous countries?  That there is no scandal?  If so, I applaud you.

        1. profile image56
          Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Can't answer for him but I sure don't think that is what he said.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If not, then my criticism is justified of most of the right.

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Nope.

          You don't even understand what Benghazi is about. It's not that it was attacked, and it's not that Americans died.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Alright, what's your beef with it?  If you are upset about the talking points, I can understand, but that's not anything out of the ordinary when it comes to politics.

            What about this "scandal" makes it so egregious to you?

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I've said this in other threads, but here we go.

              1 - The structural security in Benghazi didn't meet a single security standard, therefore it wasn't a location that should have been used according to policy. Ambassador Stevens shouldn't have been sent there until it was up to code.

              2 - The security teams in Benghazi were not up to standard. As policy, Ambassador Stevens shouldn't have been sent there without a sufficient security force to defend the complex.

              3 - The area was listed as high-threat, which according to testimony of the RSO, means that any security request or problem had to personally go through Hillary.

              4 - The consulate was attacked half a dozen times in the year leading up to 9/11. The DoS knew about this, but claimed they didn't, and didn't do anything about it.

              5 - Requests for additional personnel were rejected, by Hillary, and she lied about it(again, according to testimony of the RSO)

              6 - Requests for improvements to the grounds were rejected, again by Hillary.

              7 - Hillary told Congress that these issues were up to the RSO, which is patently false as we have the rejection cables.

              8 - The Department of State individual who was in charge of distributing resources testified that available resources were not an issue.

              9 - We had intelligence that an attack was being planned, and that was ignored.

              10 - Every piece of intelligence going into Washington during the attack was 100% that it was a terrorist attack, not a protest. There was no protest, nobody was protesting. Just men with guns and RPGs. Therefore, there was no reason to call it a protest, except for political.

              11 - We had at least two rapid-response, special-forces teams who could have deployed to Benghazi before the third round of attacks began, which is when 2 of our ex-military guys trying to defend the annex.

              12 - We never requested air clearance and never scrambled a fighter. More WH officials lied about how long it would have taken to get a fighter in the air.

              13 - Obama went to bed so he could go to a fundraiser while our men were fighting for their lives.

              14 - The administration placed blame on our first enumerated right of freedom of speech.

              There's more, plenty more, but the dereliction of duty is horrifying. Obama didn't do his job, Clinton didn't do her job, and who knows what information hasn't been released yet.

              1. profile image0
                Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Why would Stevens go then, instead of resigning in protest over the lack of adequate security?

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't know. Maybe he thought the risk was worth it. Maybe he was working with people smuggling weapons or tracking down manpads. Maybe he felt it was his sense of duty.

                  It doesn't matter, and we may never know his thoughts on the matter.

                  1. profile image0
                    Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm not contesting what you're saying.  It's probably all true.  I just find it strange to think Stevens wasn't fully aware of the dangers he was in, and still decided to be there.

              2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Did you know eight people lost their lives during an attack at the US Consulate at Peshawar?
                Yep.
                April 5, 2012.
                Just one of the 44 attacks on US embassies and consulates over the past several
                presidencies.
                Some of them killing more than 4 people.

                If we're  going to sit in our armchair quarterback chairs, probabably ought to
                re-scrutinize the full game tape on US presence in volatile countries, not just the last touchdown.

                1. profile image0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That has nothing to do with a single thing I said, and I fully addressed your concern in the other thread.

                2. profile image56
                  Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Did the obama bunch lie about that one too? What might be the similarities between this one and Libya?

    2. Seth Winter profile image80
      Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not familiar with the other cases of embassy attacks, perhaps you could fill us in. Did any of them (embassy) have help denied to them. And then once the attack took place did of of the other cases involve a pretend manhunt for the Movie Producer (in LA) that angered a people (with his video) into attacking an embassy but later debunked as an actual terrorist attack by a group that was supposedly squashed; but turns out that (the smiting!) might of been a bit premature but look it was said at just the right time to look good for re-elections ;-).

      PS. Now the governments are going to send the IRS out to audit me ;-(

      1. profile image56
        Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Its some attempt to frame conservatives as blaming Obama for a terrorist attack, nobody blamed him for that attack just for the coverup that followed.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image83
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Coverup of what?

          1. profile image56
            Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I would answer but I'm sure you already know.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image83
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, I don't.  At least not for certain.  I'd like to hear what, exactly, was covered up.

              I mean, I understand the initial assessment was wrong and then corrected.  When did this cover up occur and what, exactly, was being covered up?

              1. profile image56
                Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What was covered up? The attack on the embassy was an orchestrated attack but was presented to the American people as a protest that simply got out of hand! The attempt to keep that narrative alive lasted for about two weeks until the administration finally understood that their lies were no longer believable. Why the cover-up? Your leader had been telling us bin laden was dead and al qaeda was on the run, any acknowledgement of an attack by them could possibly have adverse effects on Obama's reelection bid.

                You know why it occurred I'm not sure why you feign ignorance.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, if that is the coverup, then I understand why more people aren't jumping on the GOP bandwagon.

                  And I was not feigning ignorance; I honestly don't see how that can be viewed as a coverup, so I was asking in case I have been missing something bigger. 

                  But hey, you all can keep at it; either the GOP will get more people on board or they will start to look foolish.

                  https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfAH9vDbv_uKkHyISy-wE0ZTo8TmZapDM9_aGJJzmVscaHYoEPGA

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    PP, I made points earlier in the thread explaining all these questions that the 'Benghazi isn't a big deal' people keep asking.

                  2. profile image56
                    Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I wouldn't expect you to be on board with any investigation of Obama and his administration, you would always find an excuse for them.

      2. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Are you being intentionally unfamiliar?  This is like someone saying a bill wasn't signed on February 12th, when it's easy to verify it was.  Do you want me to google for you?  I already posted this on another thread, but I guess since you are unable to research for yourself something easily verified...

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … ama-romney

        Reagan had the highest smile.

        Let's also not forget Robert Gates, a Republican, claiming the Republicans in a tizzy over Benghazi have a "cartoonish" perception of the military's capacity to respond to crises around the world.  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57 … apability/

    3. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ummm...........Bush didn't blame it on a video,  thereby blaming Americans (especially Christians) for terrorism committed by fanatical Islamists.
      So excuse you,  but the two scenarios are light years apart.   As are the two Presidents,  in so many ways it ain't even funny.


      Edit---------well JaxsonRaine already said it basically.   But I was being "consistent" and will continue to be.   Yup,  we do care about consistency!  lol

      1. HowardBThiname profile image89
        HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Good point, Brenda.

        It's a fact of life that embassies are attacked and lives are lost. It's quite disheartening, though, when our President tries to push it off on a protest over a film, when it clearly was not.

        The bigger issue is that this administration tried to manipulate the facts to keep Obama from looking like a fool for going into Libya in the first place. And, not only was that act foolish, it was illegal. He was trying to cover his ass after Benghazi - and Americans are just plain tired of coverups.

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree that intervening in Libya was the wrong decision.

      2. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        No Bush blamed THE WRONG COUNTRY and had several warnings beforehand.

        What if Obama said Lebanon had sent terrorists into Libya to attack our embassy, when there was no evidence, and it was actually Syria who had sent them in?  That would be more of a "scandal".

        A politician lying isn't a scandal.  Like I said, I'm not contesting that the administration may have played fast and loose with the facts, but you need something more severe to quality as a scandal.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          How do you or anyone know it was the wrong Country at the time?   Osama could've been anywhere,  and Iraq was a known dictatorship with a leader who killed his own people and wouldn't get rid of his own weapons of mass destruction.   
          And where was it that Bin Ladin ended up anyway?   I don't think it was Afghanistan where they finally found him.

          Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken, but I believe the "war on Terror" was and is supposed to be a deterrent and/or war against terrorism,  including holding any Nation that allows a monstrous dictatorship or that harbors known terrorists responsible.   Am I right or wrong?

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He was hiding in Pakistan, but was in Afghanistan when we invaded.

            Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

          2. Disappearinghead profile image84
            Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The purpose behind using the term 'war on terror' is to prolong the activities associated and to treat terrorist criminals as enemy combatants. It represents a redefinition of war to be something with no end in sight. This pleases hawks, the military and defence contractors. By definition 'war on terror' means that the government will never seek peaceful settlements as might be expected in a conventional war.

            1. profile image56
              Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Its not a conventional war.

              1. Disappearinghead profile image84
                Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                It isn't a war and as long as we've had terrorists it was never a war. It only became a war when the idiot George Dubya invented the term for the reasons I gave above.

                The American media which loves to be brainlessly sensationalist in order to boost ratings and thus advertising revenue, also adopted the term and used it to great effect at 9/11 with headlines like 'America at War'. In America news is sold as entertainment so it must tickle the emotions of the consumers. Consequently objective factual and intelligent journalism goes out the window.

                1. profile image56
                  Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Very well thought out argument. Its a war!

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image84
                    Disappearingheadposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It's not a war. You think it's a war because your government and media want you to think its a war.

  2. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    Consistency is not a in the current administration except when it comes to attempting to get out of things. I see no way the president can describe something as an "act of terror" only then to refer to it as a "YouTube Video" which set off a crowd.  That is a reach.  At the same time, why did the president not inquire as to the whereabouts of the Ambassador at any time after his 5:00 PM meeting with Panetta.  There is no record that the president was in touch with anyone until the next day.  If things are so innocent here and distorted by the right, how come the president has not been more cooperative and forth coming?  We impeached Nixon for that type of stonewalling.  If the president is so inclined to honesty on the issue, then why has he allowed Jay Carney to continue to perpretrate lies in his press briefings on the issue?  How can this president stand before the American people and proclaim his faith in Eric Holder and his leadership when Holder is responsible for botching Fast N' Furious and when he elected to recuse himself from a matter (the AP wire taps) more than a year ago so that he could deny plausible responsibility...how can you have faith in that type of leadership? ~WB

    1. Zelkiiro profile image86
      Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Can we please find a different unintelligent, shameless, attention-grabbing name for this? I can't take you seriously when you're constantly reminding me of a movie franchise that's essentially a dark and gritty Speed Racer.

    2. profile image0
      Sooner28posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well I don't think Obama is actually that honest, so if you take out that assumption, it's not as hard to understand.

      Jason made some good points about the lack of security in Benghazi.  The lesson we should learn from this is if we are going to go into countries that hate us, make sure our embassies are well protected.

    3. Quilligrapher profile image90
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Wayne. How are you doing these days.

      It seems you are having as much trouble with your facts as you accuse the President of having.   

      You are probably one of just a few Americans who think that President Nixon was impeached when he was not.

      Secondly, after an intense investigation, Inspector General Michael Horowitz reported to congress that Attorney General Eric Holder had no involvement with the highly flawed Fast and Furious operation conducted by ATF and the Arizona Attorney General's office. {1}

      I will leave it to you to verify President Nixon’s resignation.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.html

  3. profile image0
    Beth37posted 4 years ago

    The right what?

 
working