Does The Right Care About Consistency?

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 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.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You too!
      
      PUT DOWN YOUR BIG BRUSH!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 50

            Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
         2. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sooner28posted 11 years agoin 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?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Sooner28posted 11 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                  2. 75

                     Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

                        replyreport
                     2. 50

                        Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

                        replyreport
   2. 81

      Seth Winterposted 11 years agoin 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 ;-(

      replyreport
      1. 50

         Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Coverup of what?

            replyreport
            1. 50

               Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

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

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin 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?

                  replyreport
                  1. 50

                     Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin 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.
                        
                        

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                        2. 50

                           Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              I was all for investigating what happened at Benghazi.  It's been investigated (how many hearings do you need to go over the same material) and I already said multiple times that mistakes were made.  I just don't see any evidence of a coverup.  Spinning, sure, but coverup?  Naw.

                              replyreport
                              1. 50

                                 Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 The survivors have not been heard from, Hillary Clinton needs to clear up who denied the security requests that she said she never heard of. There is a lot to go over and I don't expect you to care.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    I didn't say I didn't care.  It just hard to get all worked up over it after enduring several years of being called a traitor and America-hater for speaking out against an unjust, wasteful, and stupid war fueled by lies and a complicit media, that resulted in immeasurable human suffering, only to be proven right, then castigated for not joining in the hypocritical GOP manufactured outrage of the week.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 50

                                       Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       You will have to excuse me I don't know what you are talking about, if you have been called an America hater or traitor it wasn't by me. The GOP didn't invent Benghazi or the other two scandals plaguing this president. The hearings will happen but as with most things coming from "the most transparent administration ever" I doubt it will be very easy to uncover the truth.

                                       report
      2. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin 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 .
         
         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/

         replyreport
   3. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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! 

      replyreport
      1. 0

         HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I agree that intervening in Libya was the wrong decision.

            replyreport
      2. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin 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.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin 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?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               He was hiding in Pakistan, but was in Afghanistan when we invaded.
               
               Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

               replyreport
            2. 60

               Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin 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.

               replyreport
               1. 50

                  Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Its not a conventional war.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin 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.

                     replyreport
                     1. 50

                        Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Very well thought out argument. Its a war!

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin 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.

                           replyreport
                           1. 50

                              Lie Detectorposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              That isn't why I think its a war.

                              replyreport
2. 82

   Wayne Brownposted 11 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

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
   3. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 11 years agoin 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.
      
      {1} http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2012/ … ledge.html

      replyreport
3. 0

   Beth37posted 11 years ago

   The right what?

   replyreport