Lies,Lies, and Damn lies: Obama blames Benghazi on Congress

reply to post by cholo

Yes they happened under a different president, exactly why the GOP had zero interest in
Investigating or politicizing the events. You proved my point very well!

If your point is simply to muddy the waters of responsibility today by saying bad things happened yesterday? Well..I guess it's not a hard point to prove.

The problem is....Bush could have personally murdered people. (He didn't) It wouldn't make 1 tiny bit of difference to the wrongs being seen right now, by this administration. No amount of hiding in past misdeeds can excuse current ones. That's the logic of grade school kids looking to hide in plain sight, red handed....and thinking it'll work.

Well... The media ALMOST did let that work. Not now though. They've turned with a very ugly edge and they don't often turn BACK to being nice after this begins. I've seen it before, a few times now ...as have others, old enough to recall this happening before. It gets worse from here.

reply to post by cholo


Ok let's have it Obama's way:

The ability of a government departments ability to function properly is by how many billions are thrown at it then Benghazi juistify's the entire national security/defense budget.

So who still wants to say it's a 'money' issue?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

 

It is the AMERICAN PEOPLE, and not party affiliation that is important.

Do we need the continous BS over the Benghazi affair when the facts are already evident that it was an event NO american could countrol?

You're among a growing minority who believes that. As time goes on, the numbers continue to shift and it's not supportive to that line of thinking. The only way to begin to justify any of this is to point to other leaders like Bush....which is pointing to bad behavior in justifying one's own bad behavior. Relativism at it's worst.

We are discussing politics, which is the purest art of manipulation, don't believe your own bull too much.

It is not odd that I compare the historical record, it is odd that you you give it no merit however.

reply to post by cholo

Cholo, you are comparing the historical record in VERY narrow context to obviously self benefit to the diversionary point you're pushing. You're suggesting that what Bush did and whatever may or may not have happened at other State Department Properties over the course of 8 years has any direct bearing or makes any difference with regard to outcome on the over-run and total destruction of the US Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya.

There have been any number of bad deeds in the past with Embassies. Reagan saw the SAME one bombed, not once..but twice. The second time destroyed it entirely. Should THAT also be relevant to how we view and investigate the events leading of to the destruction of the Benghazi compound?

I'm all for consideration of past events..if you can show a logical cause/effect relationship between those and the immediate issue we're discussing here. That seems to be the point of failure in the argument.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cholo

 

Yes they happened under a different president, exactly why the GOP had zero interest in
Investigating or politicizing the events. You proved my point very well!

If your point is simply to muddy the waters of responsibility today by saying bad things happened yesterday? Well..I guess it's not a hard point to prove.

The problem is....Bush could have personally murdered people. (He didn't) It wouldn't make 1 tiny bit of difference to the wrongs being seen right now, by this administration. No amount of hiding in past misdeeds can excuse current ones. That's the logic of grade school kids looking to hide in plain sight, red handed....and thinking it'll work.

Well... The media ALMOST did let that work. Not now though. They've turned with a very ugly edge and they don't often turn BACK to being nice after this begins. I've seen it before, a few times now ...as have others, old enough to recall this happening before. It gets worse from here.

edit on 16-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

No, that is not what I'm doing... I am pointing out that the GOP is using this as a platform to launch political attacks
By showing that they do no give a rats ass when These things happen during a GOP presidency. This highlights the fact that this is an act of political hypocrisy.

You pretending that this kind of thing is especially hanious, when it is actually common place.

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96

 

Fighting from above is cheaper, and American troop don't have to die.
What you think of as cowardly, sounds pretty smart to me. Maybe Obama
Should send you since you are so courageous.

However, fighting from above often does not get the job done and puts innocent people at risk, especially in urban environments that are a chaotic mix of enemies and civilians. At times like this incident, boots on the ground is what is needed.

Obviously Obama did not learn the art of war being a community organizer.

I've been boots on the ground. You?

Obama was competent enough to kill Bin Laden, and decimate al queda leadership, so

Boots on the ground in Iraq And Afghanistan has been a marvelous idea, just what we need,
Another occupation, and a couple more hundred billion in debt!

No the SEALS that he gave permission to kill Bin Ladin did so. All the president does is give permission for the professionals to handle the problem: something he denied them in Benghazi. Fast reaction teams were on the tarmac ready to go not once, but twice. Those professionals could have rescued the embassy personel but were forbidden to do so. Whomever made that call is responsible for the deaths of those people.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
You're among a growing minority who believes that. As time goes on, the numbers continue to shift and it's not supportive to that line of thinking. The only way to begin to justify any of this is to point to other leaders like Bush....which is pointing to bad behavior in justifying one's own bad behavior. Relativism at it's worst.

A nation of law can't slide things that result in deaths by incompetence simply because other scumbags have managed to get away with it before. The problem then is going BACK to see those issues brought to light as well....not to whitewash what happens now and, presumably by that logic, whatever follows in the future.

Anarchy or Tyranny lay down that path...and in that context? They're equally bad places to go.

edit on 16-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

You belong to the LOUD and VOCAL but MINORITY that concerns itself with partisan potitics as evident by your continued rants over the democrats and the president, regardless of what he had done.

YOu may hope that your foolish kind grows, but there are MORE americans whom are a heck lot more discerning, and have a wider perspective over events than the narrow ones that your kind possess.

The Benghazi case was an opened book, of unprecedented levels unheard of by other presidents. National security info is even allowed to be used in the Congress when it could have compromised the lives of agents, their methods and even the safety of the nation to enemies, all thanks to the continued time wasting by the unconscionable partisan republicans and the likes of you in USA.

THere is NO point in further slogging a dead horse. Lessons had been learnt over this issue that no american could have prevented. This is not the watergate scandal as the tea party had hoped. YOu are an american and your enemies - the terrorists whom had slaughtered the americans in Benghazi, are LAUGHING OUT LOUD at your kind as you focus on your leaders instead of on them. How more stupid do you want to be?

And yet, it is still not enough. It is never enough until your kind see the President toppled and the nation destroyed, all because of partisan motives, fooling the masses to NOT to think about the economy thanks to the belligerance of the republican party, when the economy is the MOST CRITICAL issue facing the nation today.

Cheers and continue with your foolish ranting and feign righteousness over the dead americans in blaming the administration while your enemies the terrorists are laughing behind your back at your kind's stupidity and harbor hopes that your kind continues to be stupid as they seek out more americans to slaughter.

reply to post by cholo


Okay, I'll take your point about how it happens all the time (or.. "actually common place")...and ask that you show me where else United States Ambassadors have been lost in the line of duty, let alone at the hands of foreign fighters? Please, also show the history of U.S. Diplomatic Compounds not simply being attacked, but breached and overrun to their total destruction?

I've looked into both in the past...but who knows? You may have data sources I don't by which you base your opinions. So, I'll be happy to give you the opportunity to support your points before I throw some factual reference in for supporting mine. It's the fair thing, I suppose..... besides, I do have my last final in a couple hours. I'll be back after that's over to see where this all went and respond with source material, as needed.

Hopefully...you'll support at least a bit of what your stating this time. That support was....lacking...the last time we all had a long, extended debate on this topic. Wasn't it?

reply to post by NavyDoc

No the SEALS that he gave permission to kill Bin Ladin did so. All the president does is give permission for the professionals to handle the problem: something he denied them in Benghazi. Fast reaction teams were on the tarmac ready to go not once, but twice. Those professionals could have rescued the embassy personel but were forbidden to do so. Whomever made that call is responsible for the deaths of those people.

oh well see, then that solves it, obviously Obama is NOT to blame, because he went to bed......after all he had to be in Vegas the next day to campaign

-end sarcasm....

That being said, your dead on

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with the partisan politics.

It is the AMERICAN PEOPLE, and not party affiliation that is important.

Do we need the continous BS over the Benghazi affair when the facts are already evident that it was an event NO american could countrol?

Do we need more divisions when the friggin ECONOMY is by far the most IMPORTANT issue?

Do we need the extremist petty Tea Party to DICTATE on what american PEOPLE should think?

No party is perfect. When they are wrong, we bring it up, but there is no need to CONTIUALLY harped on it till the partisan politics becomes CLEARLY evident, when there are far more important issues to tackle to the nation.

Anyone not happy, its only a few more months to the congressional elections, and another 2+ more years to the presidential elections. If not satisfied - the airport is opened 24/7. America needs not anymore of this partisan BS.

Yes, it is the American people, not partisan politics that are the most important which is why, if a public servant, even if he is the chief public servant, causes through negligence, stupidity, or overt action he or she must be held accountable and even removed from the post he or she is entrusted. Misuse of the public trust by the chief executive from targeted audits of the IRS to negligence that leads to deaths to violating the sanctity of the free press all should be investigated and those responsible should be held accountable if we wish to have a free society.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cholo

 

Cholo, you are comparing the historical record in VERY narrow context to obviously self benefit to the diversionary point you're pushing. You're suggesting that what Bush did and whatever may or may not have happened at other State Department Properties over the course of 8 years has any direct bearing or makes any difference with regard to outcome on the over-run and total destruction of the US Consulate compound in Benghazi, Libya.

There have been any number of bad deeds in the past with Embassies. Reagan saw the SAME one bombed, not once..but twice. The second time destroyed it entirely. Should THAT also be relevant to how we view and investigate the events leading of to the destruction of the Benghazi compound?

I'm all for consideration of past events..if you can show a logical cause/effect relationship between those and the immediate issue we're discussing here. That seems to be the point of failure in the argument.

Thanks for exemplifying my point even further. I bet in Reagan's case it was an act of murderous terrorists. But in Obama's case, it is something different, because Obama is not in the GOP.

You guys are busy trying to place the act of murder upon people who did not commit murder, that is arching philosophical failure of your witch hunt. They rest is just adding to that failure, especially the historic common place
Nature of attacked embassies and dead as a result.

reply to post by neo96


Obama ALWAYS blames everything on someone else, still waiting for him to say "its Bushs fault"
Hes a pathetic coward.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by cholo

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by cholo
reply to post by neo96

 

Fighting from above is cheaper, and American troop don't have to die.
What you think of as cowardly, sounds pretty smart to me. Maybe Obama
Should send you since you are so courageous.

However, fighting from above often does not get the job done and puts innocent people at risk, especially in urban environments that are a chaotic mix of enemies and civilians. At times like this incident, boots on the ground is what is needed.

Obviously Obama did not learn the art of war being a community organizer.

I've been boots on the ground. You?

Obama was competent enough to kill Bin Laden, and decimate al queda leadership, so

Boots on the ground in Iraq And Afghanistan has been a marvelous idea, just what we need,
Another occupation, and a couple more hundred billion in debt!

No the SEALS that he gave permission to kill Bin Ladin did so. All the president does is give permission for the professionals to handle the problem: something he denied them in Benghazi. Fast reaction teams were on the tarmac ready to go not once, but twice. Those professionals could have rescued the embassy personel but were forbidden to do so. Whomever made that call is responsible for the deaths of those people.

And Obama would have been racked over the coals if the Bin Laden mission failed. It might have started and international event. Obama is commander and chief, I suppose you give no credit to Eisenhower because the troops did the actual fighting

It is cute that Obama is responsible for the act of Lybian fighters, but not for the mission that he green lighted and orchestrated, that is a very cute thing you want me to buy into.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101

You belong to the LOUD and VOCAL but MINORITY that concerns itself with partisan potitics as evident by your continued rants over the democrats and the president, regardless of what he had done.

YOu may hope that your foolish kind grows, but there are MORE americans whom are a heck lot more discerning, and have a wider perspective over events than the narrow ones that your kind possess.

Seeker... I would appreciate it if you refrain from the personal attacks. I am, and will continue to. I'll simply leave the thread before I lose my perspective to the point of attacking you, as an individual...over the beliefs you hold on this topic.

Now, you may have noticed, but Democrats are also starting to call for more. The witnesses in the hearing last Wednesday were in service to this President when they came to learn and see what they testified to. It's unfortunate that the call for hearings wasn't as bi-partisan as it should have been ...but that's starting to change in surprising ways. The media is also in a feeding frenzy with few sacred cows left to avoid skewering along the way.

The whole tide on this event is turning ..and I'm sure THIS wasn't a planned event which anyone in the executive branch wanted to see happen. Other things this week were initiated as admissions from them. Benghazi was a set of hearings they fought to obstruct and play games with witnesses and their attorneys to prevent from happening. The efforts failed...and are now adding to the scandal they meant to short circuit.

reply to post by cholo

I suppose you give no credit to Eisenhower because the troops did the actual fighting

Eisenhower had military service, and was actually, a leader, not a blamer.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by cholo

 

But you're illustrating your own hypocrisy when you defend Obama by showing the wrongs that Bush did.

Hypocrite, thy name is cholo.

I don't blame Bush for embassy attacks under his watch, I blame the people who did the attacking.

I like your personal attack though. I bet when I attack back you and the gang will call the mods on me and
Pretend that I am the one dishing out all the venom I bet this post will be removed as the lot of you work to
Censor me by using the moderation system.

reply to post by cholo

I take your reply to mean..you aren't going to back up anything this time either? You really had a long running fight going on that other thread, when you claimed you were just leaving ATS forever. All anyone asked for there was support. Something to back your opinions with. Anything at all, really.

It's what I'm again asking for here. You're making claims that are supportable and provable....as true OR false. O'd love to have you show them to hold some truth. Thus far, you haven't and don't seem interested in support of any claim you're making here. That's a hard thing to debate...when the truth is pretty much, however you say it is and change as the debate goes on. Pics or it didn't happen...is a common refrain heard across ATS. In this case? Support or it's pure opinion.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by cholo

 

I suppose you give no credit to Eisenhower because the troops did the actual fighting

Eisenhower had military service, and was actually, a leader, not a blamer.

It was Obama's call to get Osama, he lead just fine then

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by cholo

 

I take your reply to mean..you aren't going to back up anything this time either? You really had a long running fight going on that other thread, when you claimed you were just leaving ATS forever. All anyone asked for there was support. Something to back your opinions with. Anything at all, really.

It's what I'm again asking for here. You're making claims that are supportable and provable....as true OR false. O'd love to have you show them to hold some truth. Thus far, you haven't and don't seem interested in support of any claim you're making here. That's a hard thing to debate...when the truth is pretty much, however you say it is and change as the debate goes on. Pics or it didn't happen...is a common refrain heard across ATS. In this case? Support or it's pure opinion.

Unfortunately this entire argument is based perspective and it is clear that you have a muddled perspective.
This entire thread is based upon the idea of culpability, which is a concept that is not based in fact, culpability is a
Judgement call, and I think you judgement is clouded by hatred for Obama.