Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OMG its so devastating. The only thing that's devastating is the fact that right-wingers believe almost everything they read on the internet because if it is on the internet, it must be true.
No more than the left-wingers think that Obama (and government in general) could never possibly do anything wrong, and therefore discount ANY damaging information that comes out on the internet--even when the actual information is from a valid and non-biased source.
Remember, the internet is just a medium of communication, like TV. But unlike TV in America today, internet information posts do not have to go through the censorship process whereby anything damaging to Obama is entirely deleted.
Apparently liberals really think that if Obama (or anyone in his administration) did anything wrong, they could turn on CNN or MSNBC and the problem would be aired and discussed rationally. That's like thinking you could listen to Rush Limbaugh and get a full accounting of the cost of our gigantic military, along with a rational discussion of whether working class Americans really benefit from having to pay to try and police the world.
If you really want to understand what is going on, you need to look at information coming in from all sources. Each side will totally ignore information or facts or studies damaging to their point of view, while presenting information that supports their side. By keeping up with everything that is presented by both sides, you can look at all the information and see whether it is valid or biased, whether it really points to the conclusions each side is claiming, and whether other, contradictory information exists. I thought this was the process everyone went through.
Which is why I am always itching to try to "educate" the few people in my extended family that have an extremely biased pro-Big Government point of view--one resulting from their being born at the very beginning of the Baby Boom, working relatively hard, then retiring before the age of 62 with fat pensions, full retirement health care coverage, and of course Social Security/Medicare. This couple is intelligent and logical in daily life, and basically have Libertarian views when it comes to government oversight and/or assistance in their lives. They would never think of asking for government assistance, and speak disparagingly of those in the extended family who pretend disability and get "the Dole" whlle raising large families.
They have always been frugal and intelligent with their own money, paid of all their debts before retirement, and didn't waste money on interest payments. Since they had been involved in the building industry and built their own homes, they have run across (and been frustrated by) ridiculous government red tape while trying to get local "permission" to do construction projects. They have more than once fallen into police speed traps or trumped-up traffic stops, and hate having to grovel to someone who is both on a power trip, and out to secure his job by collecting lots of money from whoever he chooses to target. Yet this same couple parrots back the Liberal Party line as if they knew nothing better: Big Government is great and protects citizens from evil businesses; extensive welfare is necessary and not counter-productive (except for all those cases he knows personally, which are just exceptions); massive spending, debt, and interest payments by Washington don't matter at all; Social Security will be there for my generation because Washington politicians will want it to be, etc. Things like the Fed's QE and "dollar devaluation" are just made-up scares by those evil Republicans, and have nothing to do with the dollars they have sitting in the bank. In other words, 1 + 1 = 5.
I just don't get it--why do they not simply look into the issues raised? Why do they not just Google the issues to see all that everyone has to say? Because this couple watches MSNBC, and actually thinks they are watching the "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." Any information presented by ANY other source is simply lies or distortions of the truth. All their personal experiences with government bureaucracy, waste, fraud, or abuse of power, is just the exception to the rule that "Government is Great." The fact that my spouse and I became both horrified and disgusted as we learned how things really work in the Military and in local and Federal government, means nothing. The fact that the generations of the family AFTER theirs are not doing anywhere near as well (and not for lack of education, skills, hours at work, or even interpersonal skills), just means they did everything right and somehow everyone after them did not.
For this couple, Big Government is their God, switching on MSNBC is going to Church, and they will entertain no thoughts of blasphemy.
When will you Righties understand that your narrative dosn't deserve serious consideration?
President Obama and his administration hold the superior position, viewpoint, and perspective on Benghazi, which was an action FAR BETTER than anything Republicans could have and would have done under similar circumstances.
Tremendous edge. once again, to this fine President as he continues to represent the well-being of this country against the backwards Republican agenda.
The last two people were not killed until 7 hours after the initial attack. There was plenty of time to save them. Obama went to bed while these men were fighting for their lives. Then off to a Vegas fundraiser the next day. Hey, just a dead ambassador and a few others, what's the big deal.
The irony is that those men he left to die after fighting all night are the ones who saved the election for him. They were ordered not to go help, but they ignored those orders. They saved dozens of people. If they had followed orders, it would have been a much bigger slaughter and harder for the news to ignore.
They saved his political career, and he left them to die. And then he went to the UN to claim over and over about some stupid video. What a coward.
For whom to save them? Where were these live savers comming from?
You go on and giveing all kinds of senarios...without even answering a basic question. What troops...where were the closest troops?
If you mind is set, then logic won't work...go on condemming what you clearly dont have the least idea of what happend.
Quote:
But because of the lack of precise information, they didn't make that decision until after the attack was over, officials said. A small team of soldiers flew to Benghazi from Tripoli, 400 miles away, and ultimately helped evacuate about two dozen diplomats and other embassy employees.
No I didn't really skip. There were 2 fights. The 1st started at 9:30pm and was over around 11:00pm. The 2nd started around 1:30am. A force from Tripoli arrived just after that (2 in it were killed) for the 2nd fight. It would have taken the force in Aveoli, Ita about the same time to get there.
The question remains. Was there a US military force close by that could have got there in the 9:30pm - 11:00pm timeframe?
Zero looking in the mirror is all he does..... That doesn't cut it.
I would assume we could have had support there in a few moments time.. Had Zero decided he wanted any....
If we can't then we have no business having embassies around the world.
Of course Zero can't defend the southern border and he can't defend the northern one either.
Pretty much all he can do is nothing worth doing..... That's why he is ZERO, and will end the ERROR in 3.5 years.
I see nothing wrong with that... It's not like we have any real world leaders around anyway.
In the early 50's we had Ike, then we had Reagan...... everyone else was a joke.
it's like money........ There is almost no one alive who has even held a real dollar in their lives but to hear it from me they just think I am nuts.
But I was 6 in 1957 when the last vestige of a dollar was still in use. I still have some in silver and in paper notes. These say Silver Certificate, not Untied States Note not Federal Reserve Note.
The young people just don't know. What they know is all about image. Concerning USA Security Obama knows nothing about even image. He is a poser, a puppet for someone else.
No I didn't really skip. There were 2 fights. The 1st started at 9:30pm and was over around 11:00pm. The 2nd started around 1:30am. A force from Tripoli arrived just after that (2 in it were killed) for the 2nd fight. It would have taken the force in Aveoli, Ita about the same time to get there.
The question remains. Was there a US military force close by that could have got there in the 9:30pm - 11:00pm timeframe?
I've heard a lot about Benghazi, but I'm not sure I understand the administration's critics on this issue, so maybe someone can explain it. I'm generally liberal on most issues, but I think it's important for all sides to be heard, and for every administration to be held accountable.
I mean, I disagreed vehemently with W. on Iraq, and I think his judgment was terrible, but even I can't imagine he was completely indifferent to the war's casualties. I suspect that in his mind the awful price of war had to be paid to gain an important objective, and therefore, as he saw it, it was justifiable. Of course this sort of strategic thinking, even with sometimes horrific results, is not uncommon in politics.
But even from the most cynical standpoint, why would Obama just let people be killed, knowing he could have prevented it, and knowing that the press could hold him accountable? What could he possibly hope to gain? Doesn't it seem the more likely answer is that in the chaotic situation, no clear solution was practical or evident?
After a tragedy, it seems that every poster on every forum in the country is ready to deliver an upbraiding to the Powers That Be ("They should have deported those hijackers", "They should have committed that serial killer to a mental hospital", "They should have taken everyone's guns away," etc.)
I have the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Obama's fiercest critics are suggesting a scenario where Obama (or his staff) knew the Americans were under attack, and simply shrugged, said "Oh well, " and went to sleep.
I've heard a lot about Benghazi, but I'm not sure I understand the administration's critics on this issue, so maybe someone can explain it. I'm generally liberal on most issues, but I think it's important for all sides to be heard, and for every administration to be held accountable.
I mean, I disagreed vehemently with W. on Iraq, and I think his judgment was terrible, but even I can't imagine he was completely indifferent to the war's casualties. I suspect that in his mind the awful price of war had to be paid to gain an important objective, and therefore, as he saw it, it was justifiable. Of course this sort of strategic thinking, even with sometimes horrific results, is not uncommon in politics.
But even from the most cynical standpoint, why would Obama just let people be killed, knowing he could have prevented it, and knowing that the press could hold him accountable? What could he possibly hope to gain? Doesn't it seem the more likely answer is that in the chaotic situation, no clear solution was practical or evident?
After a tragedy, it seems that every poster on every forum in the country is ready to deliver an upbraiding to the Powers That Be ("They should have deported those hijackers", "They should have committed that serial killer to a mental hospital", "They should have taken everyone's guns away," etc.)
I have the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong) that Obama's fiercest critics are suggesting a scenario where Obama (or his staff) knew the Americans were under attack, and simply shrugged, said "Oh well, " and went to sleep.
Is that your position?
I think Obama feared a failed attempted rescue would have cost him the election. Jimmy Carter's chances for a 2nd term were doomed when he approved 'Operation Eagle Claw', the military attempt to rescue the hostages in Iran failed killing many military servicemen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another nonsense narrative from the Right
