Did Bush lie about them, smart guy?
The issue here is lies, not body count, have some perspective.
Note to supporters of The Chosen One: After all this time, if to defend Obama you need to bring up Bush in any way, you’re essentially saying that Obama did fuck up and is responsible.
That is all.
You’re not getting the part about these “criticisms” being transparently hypocritical of you and your puppeteers, are you?
You’re being played for a fool - once again - and you lack the capacity to realize it.
What ever Bush did or didn’t do while in office has no bearing on how Obama handled what happened in Benghazi. I know you really, really don’t want that to be the case, but it is. Really and truly. BUt you have your nose so far up Obama’s ass you could tongu his uvula like it was a clit.
It does have a bearing on how sincere and thought-out your criticisms are, and therefore if your judgments have any credibility.
But that matter has already been established. Now go do yourself a huge favor and smarten up.
Nope. That might make sense if the point of the thread was little ol’ me, but as much as you’d like it to be, it’s not. It’s about how your guy, Barack Hussein Obama, handled what happened in Benghazi. Or perhaps do you think that Bush had something to do with the attack or after the fact, snuck back into the White House and help Michelle and the kids hostage, threatening to kill them unless Obama would handle the Banghazi explanations with lies and deceit. B
You’re pathetic.
Oh, I am! I keep reading your posts and learning just how dangerous it is when someone not very bright is hyper-partisan. Not good.
Since you insist, the answer, grounded in historical context, is “As well as anyone could reasonably be expected to, and far better than others.”
Now go smarten up.
When does your learning start to have an effect?
Oh, that Barack Obama.
Yeah, what’s that about? Trying to remind us he’s a Kenyan Muslim?
Further evidence that conservatives don’t really care about Benghazi. It’s just another chassis to try to hang Obamahate on.
Let me provide an example. Let’s say a president is greeted by a major natural disaster that affects a major population center. Let’s say that a month later, the best his disaster management team was able to do was get the power back on in about half the city and rescue all the inhabitants. This may seem terrible, and the opposition would probably try to smear him with it. If, however, it turns out that in the past 2-3 administrations, not a single one had done it better, it suddenly becomes a lot less reasonable to blame him for it, because obviously it wasn’t an unmitigated failure, but rather better than expected. If the only other administration operating under similar conditions had multiple major attacks on US embassies, then the Obama foreign policy, with it’s one attack, is obviously not doing so bad.
It’s not the incompetence, it’s the coverup and the timing of the coverup. They seized on the explanation that was most convenient at the time, then weaseled later by saying, “well, we didn’t really know.”
That’s the pattern with this administration and its supporters. Make a categorical statement, and when it proves to be wrong, just shift ground and act like we’re all stupid for not understanding.
In what way was the “spontaneous demonstration” explanation more convenient than any other?
**Sylmar **wins that round.
Spontaneous means unpredictable. Planned attacks can be detected and disrupted beforehand. It didn’t help that the planning was detected, and the administration was warned.
Not exactly true. Since the beginning of the Arab Spring almost three years ago, demonstrations have been entirely predictable. I may not be able to tell you exactly where and exactly when, but it’s no mystery that they will happen and I’m sure our diplomats in the area know that. To lose lives to a spontaneous demonstration is no less a failure on our part than to a coordinated attack.
I strongly suspect that if the attacks had been spontaneous, the Republican outcry would have used different words but been just as loud. “How could they not have known! This was entirely predictable! Launch an investigation!”
Partisans are always going to be partisans. That you can’t control. What you can control is how seriously allegations are taken. Saying things that aren’t true and being non-transparent and failing to cooperate with investigations tends to make people think you’re doing a cover up.
Compare Benghazi to the 9/11 investigation. The Bush administration turned over what was asked, even some pretty damning stuff, like the “Osama determined to attack US” memo, and then basically just said, “Whatchoo going to do about it?” I’ll take belligerent defiance over cowardly coverups any day.
Well, then, hoss, you are a lot dumber than you type.
How many Marines you figure you would need? Maybe, oh, three hundred or so? You know, if they all get killed, tradition demands that we invade some harmless Caribbean country, right?
Partisans are going to be partisan, yes. And one way to reveal such partisanship is to contrast the reaction to this attack with those that happened during the Bush administration. You have been asked to comment on that subject in this thread, but (as far I’ve seen) have not replied.
As for the investigation, how has the administration failed to cooperate? Just because you’re not getting the answers you expect doesn’t mean there’s a cover-up. As I recall, Hillary Clinton did have to postpone her testimony before a congressional committee due to a concussion, or do you believe that was a fake?
ETA: This post is meant to be directed to adaher.