Well primarily because your death figure is inflated by including terrorist deaths in that figure. How many defenseless and unprepared Americans are in that total, hmmm?
Every one of these represents a failure by the Bush administration to protect diplomatic missions, with pretty much a blank check provided to him by the government.
Sixty AMERICANS died because Bush did not adequately protect those missions. Bush and his administration also did not adequately protect the soldiers they sent into war either, causing more loss of life.
There were no 'defenseless and unprepared' Americans in Benghazi; we knew it was in an unsecured area, and the decision was made to go anyway, KNOWINGLY to take the chances that were taken.
There is no cover up; that is an attempt to gin up something about nothing by the right. Obama has CONSISTENTLY done a better job than Bush. He got bin Laden on his watch and under his orders, there have been no other foreign attacks either. He accomplished more with diplomacy and limited military action in Libya and across all the other nations that experienced the changes of the Arab Spring than what Dubya did with a foreign invasion based on lies and the neglect of pursuing the more legitimate Afghanistan war properly.
Outraged Republicans at 60 deaths - ZERO. Because they don't care about dead Americans, and they are clearly interested ONLY in exploiting those more recent deaths for political gain. And they keep failing over and over every time. It makes the right look like the boy who cried wolf when there wasn't one.
WOW, Look at that! Look at all those lives lost! And that president didn't have to lie to the American people at all about it! Keep spinning it Libtards! Bush did not have to lie about these events, he had nothing to hide. You worry about where was the repubs outrage? Well, where was the Dems outrage? Keep that sin coming, it only makes you look more, uhm, Stupid?
All of these were during a time of war and nothing was done to cover up the actions or hide the perpetrators. The people responsible were, to the best of anyone's abilities, tracked down and dealt with. That is the difference between then and now. I wish you pro-Obama clowns would pull your heads out of the collective progressive arse known as Obama and see that. While Bush had his problems, being honest with us about crap like this was not one of them. Try pulling the myth about the WMD lie too and I'll set you straight on that.
Hey Vic -- did you happen to notice we're still at war? Did you happen to notice this was during EXACTLY the same kind of conflict - an undeclared war by us, a civil war in the country we were in - as Iraq.
The only difference is in Libya, we were there by valid invitation, and in Iraq, we were there against the will of the people, and under false pretenses.
I already know that the claim of WMDs was a lie, a fraud. It is established fact. You give Dubya too much credit when you call it a myth; that was no religiously based fantasy; that was a plain old garden variety whopper of a lie.
Dubya has never been honest. Remember all those claims about not torturing anyone? Hah! The man is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He did a crappy job as president, and we are probably lucky that he spent a FULL THIRD of it on vacation -notably during disasters like Katrina - instead of being on the job making things even worse.
He had 9/11 at the beginning of his term in office, where he clearly IGNORED warnings, and he had the economic crash of 2007-8 at the end. In between his domestic policies resulted in some of the worst failures of any president EVER.
That makes him the worst president in our history on BOTH domestic and foreign affairs.
Go set yourself straight. I am quite prepared to surpass you on facts on either area.
And let us not forget that right wing secular saint Ronnie Ray-gun was an even bigger failure to safeguard Americans with the disastrous and completely avoidable loss of American soldiers in Lebanon. That as more than three times the epic fail of Dubya to keep people safe.
Although not as bad as the treachery of Dick Nixon in prolonging the Viet Nam war by secretly negotiating with the South Viet Namese......
@ DOG Done Runaway! If you would take your face out of the left wing watch dog media long enough to inform yourself about the news surrounding the mis-information given to the American public in order to not jeopardize election chances. The hearings yesterday has shed a large amount of light on the intimidation of state dept. employees. The thug type tactics to silence whistle blowers. the 12 revisions to the talking points removing all reference to terror. the attempts to revert blame back to the CIA. MSNBC said today, this is an immense embarrassment for the white house and state dept. They even went as far as saying it may cost Clinton a possible candidacy. Once again.....this is not about the attacks so much as the deliberate attempt to falsify and mislead. This is not a Dubya issue, Lets join the rest of us in the current decade of the Obama presidency. Your spin has been spun.
This is bupkis. I agree it is a pathetic ATTEMPT to go after Clinton, because the right has no candidate that can come close to her, including with Republican voters.
Obama was clear and straightforward. Every statement he made was clear that it was preliminary information.
This is NOT a huge embarrassment to EITHER the Obama administration OR Clinton.
This is no more a scandal than the effort to try to squeeze something out of Solyndra, another failed attempt - althogh that one too goes back to Dubya, in part.
You seem to conveniently leave out all of the overwhelming testimony that discredited the two lone supposed 'whistleblowers'.
Aww Lensflare, do you still believe that everyone was watching events in real time on closed circuit TV -- the TVconnection that didn't exist? Or that if the assistance from Tripoli that could not possibly have arrived in time to do anything had gone, that this would all be different? You poor deluded soul. Look at a map, look at the documented reports those forces were needed to defend the more important location of the embassy.
If you want to point fingers, point them at the cuts to the State Dept. security funding by Republicans -- the funding the right still has not restored, so I guess you right wing nuts don't really give a damn about security much, do you?
I don't 'run away' Lensflare. I'm known as the Penigma pitbull. I have sharp teeth and a large supply of well-researched facts.
Bottom line - Dubya did a bad job of protecting Americans, particularly those in diplomatic missions. NO Republicans gave a damn when Americans died from his bad management.
This is just the most crass kind of politics that try to exploit people's deaths for advantage - and you're losing, badly.
Long run, I wouldn't be surprised if this BENEFITS Clinton by the time we get to 2016.
What do you mean, Obama doesn't lie? wow are you drinking the Kool-Aid... http://youtu.be/yc3J5ZLf9W0 Give this montage of Lies try on for size. These are verifiable.
Mark Levin is far right wing extremist hack known for his conspiracy theories and the kind of blatant partisan inaccuracy that has plagued Hannity and Limbaugh and Glen Beck. He's no better than Alex Jones.
These are all crap.
You gotta do better than that Lensflare, you've flamed out.
These are all crap? Really? Try attacking the lies, not the commentator. I guess when you sit so far on the left even those in the center look extremist.
So, flame out, you don't have a non-crazy /extremist source for any 'facts', you just have fringie extremists.
While there are instances where I'm much less happy with how the Obama administration has treated whistleblowers, this is not one of them.
It is pretty clear that the terrorist allied people had planned to attack, but did not have a day and date selected, until they found out last minute about the ambassador being there. It is also clear that there were a variety of efforts to make assaults on embassies and consulates look like protests that turned out not to be protests.
It has also been offered as explanation, which seems pretty clear, that the administration was being very careful so as not to compromise their intel sources in that area, where conflict was going on for awhile between different partisan local groups - some strongly pro-America, like those who came to the aid of our diplomatic mission, and those who attacked it, on the other side.
But none of this is anything that reflects badly on the Obama administration.
I can't say the same for the right that cut the budget to pay for the safety of Americans - something you continue to try to dodge addressing.
First, let's agree that ALL politicians lie. Is thate news? All politicians say things in a way which is most favorable to them, again, news??
All politicians leave out details, shape the words, have talking points and to a degree, dissemble about things they don't want to say exactly the way YOU or I might want them to say it? News? Hardly.
When Michelle Bachmann said that the Administration was being infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, when in fact the singular example I know if was that someone happen to be the daughter of a man who once was a friend of someone in the Muslim Brotherhood. Her father died years ago and HIS association was more than 30 years old. Were those words accurate, to say it (the Administration) was being "infiltrated"? Of course not. When confronted, she said, "I'm just asking questions." The now famous Republican meme' that when you say something outrageous and false, just say you're asking questions, I mean, there's nothing wrong with questions. She wasn't asking a question, but she lied and said she was. The NEWS was the ludicrous accusation, not the lie. Politicians lie.. even the President.
Yet, it's important WHAT they lie about. George Bush lied about uranium, lied about Saddam Hussien developing nuclear weapons, to get us to go to war, a war that cost us 4000 American lives, $500 BILLION dollars, and 500,000 Iraqi lives.
Barrack Obama it seems, allowed someone or didn't prevent someone, from going on TV and saying they didn't know it was terrorism - and you and the other RepubliCONS want to fling pooh, even though Obama SAID it was terrorism the next day. The point is, your outrage is a joke. I don't think you give a damn about anything other than attacking President Obama. He lied, or at least apparently Susan Rice presented a lie, a lie which was wordsmithing meant to diffuse concerns about terrorism ahead of an election. Candidly, it was craven conduct by the Administration, but it pales to insignificance next to lying to get into a war. NOTHING they did cost us lives, the cuts in funding probably did that, nothing they said or failed to say, meant a tinkers damn in fact other than that they'd lie, they'd wordsmith - and I have two words about that.
I would point out further that Lensflare, Vic, and Chris miss the point.
The fuss from the right about Benghazi is bullshit, motivated SOLELY by a desire to go after Hillary Clinton. It is not sincere, it is not about American deaths, it is not even really about a cover up of any kind, or lies.
The picture above makes the only distinction that is important here - that Obama has done a hugely more impressive job than Dubya ever did, and better by far than any Republican has, of protecting our diplomatic missions. It is unreasonable to believe that any president will have a perfect record on this - every administration has had some losses during their tenure in office.
But Obama and Clinton had far far far fewer losses of American life and property than Reagan or either of the Bush administrations.
So, however much you try to avoid that core and foundational fact, every argument on this topic has to proceed from that comparative job performance -- and the right loses on BOTH the count of protecting diplomatic missions AND on giving the public truth. The left doesn't have to be perfect; no one ever will be. But the left is BETTER.
Well primarily because your death figure is inflated by including terrorist deaths in that figure. How many defenseless and unprepared Americans are in that total, hmmm?
ReplyDeleteNope, not inflated by including terrorist deaths.
DeleteEvery one of these represents a failure by the Bush administration to protect diplomatic missions, with pretty much a blank check provided to him by the government.
Sixty AMERICANS died because Bush did not adequately protect those missions. Bush and his administration also did not adequately protect the soldiers they sent into war either, causing more loss of life.
There were no 'defenseless and unprepared' Americans in Benghazi; we knew it was in an unsecured area, and the decision was made to go anyway, KNOWINGLY to take the chances that were taken.
There is no cover up; that is an attempt to gin up something about nothing by the right. Obama has CONSISTENTLY done a better job than Bush. He got bin Laden on his watch and under his orders, there have been no other foreign attacks either. He accomplished more with diplomacy and limited military action in Libya and across all the other nations that experienced the changes of the Arab Spring than what Dubya did with a foreign invasion based on lies and the neglect of pursuing the more legitimate Afghanistan war properly.
Outraged Republicans at 60 deaths - ZERO. Because they don't care about dead Americans, and they are clearly interested ONLY in exploiting those more recent deaths for political gain. And they keep failing over and over every time. It makes the right look like the boy who cried wolf when there wasn't one.
STILL isn't one.
WOW, Look at that! Look at all those lives lost! And that president didn't have to lie to the American people at all about it! Keep spinning it Libtards! Bush did not have to lie about these events, he had nothing to hide. You worry about where was the repubs outrage? Well, where was the Dems outrage? Keep that sin coming, it only makes you look more, uhm, Stupid?
ReplyDeleteAnd Obama hasn't lied to anyone either. Dubya has lied plenty, and he has a lot that he has hidden, much of it still appears to be hidden.
DeleteAh, the poor pathetic right - the facts are NOT your friends. You don't seem to know them at all.
All of these were during a time of war and nothing was done to cover up the actions or hide the perpetrators. The people responsible were, to the best of anyone's abilities, tracked down and dealt with. That is the difference between then and now. I wish you pro-Obama clowns would pull your heads out of the collective progressive arse known as Obama and see that. While Bush had his problems, being honest with us about crap like this was not one of them. Try pulling the myth about the WMD lie too and I'll set you straight on that.
ReplyDeleteHey Vic -- did you happen to notice we're still at war? Did you happen to notice this was during EXACTLY the same kind of conflict - an undeclared war by us, a civil war in the country we were in - as Iraq.
ReplyDeleteThe only difference is in Libya, we were there by valid invitation, and in Iraq, we were there against the will of the people, and under false pretenses.
I already know that the claim of WMDs was a lie, a fraud. It is established fact. You give Dubya too much credit when you call it a myth; that was no religiously based fantasy; that was a plain old garden variety whopper of a lie.
Dubya has never been honest. Remember all those claims about not torturing anyone? Hah! The man is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He did a crappy job as president, and we are probably lucky that he spent a FULL THIRD of it on vacation -notably during disasters like Katrina - instead of being on the job making things even worse.
He had 9/11 at the beginning of his term in office, where he clearly IGNORED warnings, and he had the economic crash of 2007-8 at the end. In between his domestic policies resulted in some of the worst failures of any president EVER.
That makes him the worst president in our history on BOTH domestic and foreign affairs.
Go set yourself straight. I am quite prepared to surpass you on facts on either area.
And let us not forget that right wing secular saint Ronnie Ray-gun was an even bigger failure to safeguard Americans with the disastrous and completely avoidable loss of American soldiers in Lebanon. That as more than three times the epic fail of Dubya to keep people safe.
DeleteAlthough not as bad as the treachery of Dick Nixon in prolonging the Viet Nam war by secretly negotiating with the South Viet Namese......
@ DOG Done Runaway! If you would take your face out of the left wing watch dog media long enough to inform yourself about the news surrounding the mis-information given to the American public in order to not jeopardize election chances. The hearings yesterday has shed a large amount of light on the intimidation of state dept. employees. The thug type tactics to silence whistle blowers. the 12 revisions to the talking points removing all reference to terror. the attempts to revert blame back to the CIA. MSNBC said today, this is an immense embarrassment for the white house and state dept. They even went as far as saying it may cost Clinton a possible candidacy. Once again.....this is not about the attacks so much as the deliberate attempt to falsify and mislead. This is not a Dubya issue, Lets join the rest of us in the current decade of the Obama presidency. Your spin has been spun.
ReplyDeleteThis is bupkis. I agree it is a pathetic ATTEMPT to go after Clinton, because the right has no candidate that can come close to her, including with Republican voters.
DeleteObama was clear and straightforward. Every statement he made was clear that it was preliminary information.
This is NOT a huge embarrassment to EITHER the Obama administration OR Clinton.
This is no more a scandal than the effort to try to squeeze something out of Solyndra, another failed attempt - althogh that one too goes back to Dubya, in part.
You seem to conveniently leave out all of the overwhelming testimony that discredited the two lone supposed 'whistleblowers'.
Aww Lensflare, do you still believe that everyone was watching events in real time on closed circuit TV -- the TVconnection that didn't exist? Or that if the assistance from Tripoli that could not possibly have arrived in time to do anything had gone, that this would all be different? You poor deluded soul. Look at a map, look at the documented reports those forces were needed to defend the more important location of the embassy.
If you want to point fingers, point them at the cuts to the State Dept. security funding by Republicans -- the funding the right still has not restored, so I guess you right wing nuts don't really give a damn about security much, do you?
I don't 'run away' Lensflare. I'm known as the Penigma pitbull. I have sharp teeth and a large supply of well-researched facts.
Bottom line - Dubya did a bad job of protecting Americans, particularly those in diplomatic missions. NO Republicans gave a damn when Americans died from his bad management.
This is just the most crass kind of politics that try to exploit people's deaths for advantage - and you're losing, badly.
Long run, I wouldn't be surprised if this BENEFITS Clinton by the time we get to 2016.
What do you mean, Obama doesn't lie? wow are you drinking the Kool-Aid...
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/yc3J5ZLf9W0
Give this montage of Lies try on for size. These are verifiable.
Mark Levin is far right wing extremist hack known for his conspiracy theories and the kind of blatant partisan inaccuracy that has plagued Hannity and Limbaugh and Glen Beck. He's no better than Alex Jones.
DeleteThese are all crap.
You gotta do better than that Lensflare, you've flamed out.
Big butthurtz for you.
These are all crap? Really? Try attacking the lies, not the commentator. I guess when you sit so far on the left even those in the center look extremist.
Deletehttp://youtu.be/6yRac2EVvRI
Your sources are all crap, and all they have are lies.
DeleteYou are so far from the center you're in danger of falling off the edge entirely.
So, flame out, you don't have a non-crazy /extremist source for any 'facts', you just have fringie extremists.
ReplyDeleteWhile there are instances where I'm much less happy with how the Obama administration has treated whistleblowers, this is not one of them.
It is pretty clear that the terrorist allied people had planned to attack, but did not have a day and date selected, until they found out last minute about the ambassador being there. It is also clear that there were a variety of efforts to make assaults on embassies and consulates look like protests that turned out not to be protests.
It has also been offered as explanation, which seems pretty clear, that the administration was being very careful so as not to compromise their intel sources in that area, where conflict was going on for awhile between different partisan local groups - some strongly pro-America, like those who came to the aid of our diplomatic mission, and those who attacked it, on the other side.
But none of this is anything that reflects badly on the Obama administration.
I can't say the same for the right that cut the budget to pay for the safety of Americans - something you continue to try to dodge addressing.
LensFlare,
ReplyDeleteFirst, let's agree that ALL politicians lie. Is thate news? All politicians say things in a way which is most favorable to them, again, news??
All politicians leave out details, shape the words, have talking points and to a degree, dissemble about things they don't want to say exactly the way YOU or I might want them to say it? News? Hardly.
When Michelle Bachmann said that the Administration was being infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, when in fact the singular example I know if was that someone happen to be the daughter of a man who once was a friend of someone in the Muslim Brotherhood. Her father died years ago and HIS association was more than 30 years old. Were those words accurate, to say it (the Administration) was being "infiltrated"? Of course not. When confronted, she said, "I'm just asking questions." The now famous Republican meme' that when you say something outrageous and false, just say you're asking questions, I mean, there's nothing wrong with questions. She wasn't asking a question, but she lied and said she was. The NEWS was the ludicrous accusation, not the lie. Politicians lie.. even the President.
Yet, it's important WHAT they lie about. George Bush lied about uranium, lied about Saddam Hussien developing nuclear weapons, to get us to go to war, a war that cost us 4000 American lives, $500 BILLION dollars, and 500,000 Iraqi lives.
Barrack Obama it seems, allowed someone or didn't prevent someone, from going on TV and saying they didn't know it was terrorism - and you and the other RepubliCONS want to fling pooh, even though Obama SAID it was terrorism the next day. The point is, your outrage is a joke. I don't think you give a damn about anything other than attacking President Obama. He lied, or at least apparently Susan Rice presented a lie, a lie which was wordsmithing meant to diffuse concerns about terrorism ahead of an election. Candidly, it was craven conduct by the Administration, but it pales to insignificance next to lying to get into a war. NOTHING they did cost us lives, the cuts in funding probably did that, nothing they said or failed to say, meant a tinkers damn in fact other than that they'd lie, they'd wordsmith - and I have two words about that.
So.
What.
Thanks Pen.
DeleteI would point out further that Lensflare, Vic, and Chris miss the point.
The fuss from the right about Benghazi is bullshit, motivated SOLELY by a desire to go after Hillary Clinton. It is not sincere, it is not about American deaths, it is not even really about a cover up of any kind, or lies.
The picture above makes the only distinction that is important here - that Obama has done a hugely more impressive job than Dubya ever did, and better by far than any Republican has, of protecting our diplomatic missions. It is unreasonable to believe that any president will have a perfect record on this - every administration has had some losses during their tenure in office.
But Obama and Clinton had far far far fewer losses of American life and property than Reagan or either of the Bush administrations.
So, however much you try to avoid that core and foundational fact, every argument on this topic has to proceed from that comparative job performance -- and the right loses on BOTH the count of protecting diplomatic missions AND on giving the public truth. The left doesn't have to be perfect; no one ever will be. But the left is BETTER.
DEAL WITH IT.
Lensflare, I hope you are properly embarrassed by how wrong your sources of information were.
ReplyDeleteWe were right, the Benghazi fuss was ridiculous.
And Obama has done a better job of providing security for consulates and embassies. You know - COMPETENCE.