"If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal."

[HenryReardon]

right

The three thousand that died under Bush's watch don't count.. .

There was a war going on, or did you somehow miss that little fact?

The invasion of Iraq was necessary and authorized and war is about killing people and breaking things. It could have been better handled with perhaps less deaths, but hindsight is always 20/20.

 

[HenryReardon]

How was the Iraq war necessary? And what hindsight? They weren't producing any weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam had to go, and most of the Democrats at the time had publicly said so.
The whole world knows that there were WMD. Again many Dems were on record
as saying so. The simple truth is that the UN inspectors screwed around for years
allowing Saddam to spirit them out of the country.

 

[T-Rexx]

It is beyond sad: All the bedwetting liberals who shed crocodile tears over every death in Iraq while blaming Bush are now showing their hypocrisy because rational people blame their Dear Leader for the same thing.

As I understand it, President Obama did not attack Libya.

President Obama did not order the Libyan ambassador to take up arms against the Libyan people and try to kill them for unexplained reasons. The Libyan ambassador was not in Benghazi or in Libya because he had been ordered to carry out a hostile action there by the president of the United States. The Libyan people were not defending themselves against outside aggression when the ambassador was murdered.

If I start a war, perhaps I am responsible for the consequences of having started a war. If somebody else starts a war, perhaps that somebody else is responsible for the consequences of that war, not me.

The concept of accepting responsibility for one's actions does not seem to make sense to Republicans. I have always found that aspect of Republicanism curious.

 

[T-Rexx]

Saddam had to go

Yes, because he had WMDs, because he was training al-Qaeda, and because he was responsible for 9/11.

Except, none of those things were actually true.

GWB started a war in which > 4,000 Americans died, on the basis of lies. And you seem to be of the opinion that he bears no responsibility for this. But, you hold president Obama responsible for four deaths when somebody else attacks us.

The simple truth is that the UN inspectors screwed around for years
allowing Saddam to spirit them out of the country.

Where did they go? Who has them now? Shouldn't we attack whoever has them now?

 

[HenryReardon]

Eveything in thoste posts were totally irrelevant.
and FYI, I'm not a Republican, nor do I have any respect for that party.

 

[T-Rexx]

Eveything in thoste posts were totally irrelevant.

If the Iraq war is irrelevant to Libya, why did you make the comparison?

It is beyond sad: All the bedwetting liberals who shed crocodile tears over every death in Iraq while blaming Bush are now
showing their hypocrisy because rational people blame their Dear Leader for the same thing.

(BTW, the Windows text editor does not use standard ascii, which is why your formatting gets messed up).

 

[chance1]

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

Bush - Iraq

Lol

The story of Obama and his apologists

Taking ownership is just not done

[Text: Removed by Moderator]

Leaders accept blame and credit others

 

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

Bush - Iraq

Lol

The story of Obama and his apologists

Taking ownership is just not done

[Text: Removed by Moderator]

Leaders accept blame and credit others

So we're allowed to shit over the last four years but the rest of recorded history is not relevant? Which I could possibly buy into if Romney were offering any new ideas... but I've asked this multiple times to the sound of crickets... what are his new ideas? He has none... and has the same economic and foreign advisors from the Bush years.... how is this NOT relevant? Is this not a tad disconcerting to you... that a man with no foreign policy exerience (nor his VP)... has the same advisors as the Bush administration? I mean... what ridiculous leap of logic do you want me to make here? And I mean this in all seriousness and reasonableness...

And, in the last debate, the prez DID at least start to take ownership and shield others (Clinton, Rice) of blame... and I suspect he will do more so in the next debate... I guess we'll see. Noone is apologizing for the prez here... I certainly am not... just trying to put things into perspective...

And that perspective does include that ethics/scandals-wise this administration is hands above any adminstration in recent memory...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States

Wikipedia hasn't gotten to "Benghazi-gate" yet... maybe even they are waiting for more evidence...
But, even adding that, I'd like anyone to compare "Executive Branch" scandals of this administration with those of the recent past... but, of course, that doesn't matter... even if someone has no new ideas and the exact same advisors of the past...

 

[JayHawk]

Romney is offering the same policies as Bush except he appears less stable and easier to anger. So it is entirely accurate to compare and contrast using Bush's results. If the two are different as I have ask on multiple occasions please free free to define a policy position that is different. No political journalist can do so with what Romney has said so I would be quite impressed.

Why doesn't any right winger on these boards address the elephant in the room. Romney is Bush and Bush presided over the worst economy since Herbert Hoover in growth without the recession numbers included. So how does that move us forward?

 

[Kulindahr]

^^^

How fucking rude is that -- the lady lost her son. Have some respect.

What does that have to do with the fact that she doesn't comprehend the English language? This whole thread is predicated on a failure to understand the English language.

 

[Kulindahr]

He made fun of the woman who lost her son. If you can point to where I or anyone else has done that ........ please do.

I'm very sorry this is uncomfortable for you. Like Obama, I'm sure you would like all this to go away.

Really? The words I said didn't make fun of her at all -- unless you think that a professor giving a student a D is making fun of the student.

This is so typically right-wing: logical thought is cast aside and derided, emoting rules.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: "If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal."

You tell me, you're the one defending stupid.

Seeing the interview and coming away from it with the idea that the president was referring the DEATHS as "not optimal" is either stupid or willfully and conveniently ignorant, take your pick.

It's been explained.

Pretending not to understand (when I know you do) is inauthentic, lame and, to use your word, stupid.

If you want to have a reasoned and rational discussion about the administration's response and behavior in the aftermath of the Libyan attacks then that's one thing. Have the discussion.

THIS shit, in which outright lies about what the president says are somehow rationalized as being A.O.K because all's fair in the minds of the Obama Haters is contemptible.

Defending this willfully misleading reading of the president's words (when you already HAVE a valid argument without needing to do so!) is proof that your reason has left the building and that the term "Obama Hater" is both apt and appropriate.

If even half the right wing could stop and think rationally, Obama would get over 500 electoral votes.

- - - Updated - - -

Lots of energy defending something stupid - your post screams it

One of the moms is irate and upset

A simple "my bad" would do

If Mitt had said it ..... I'd say it was not a good thing

It's not a good thing

So rational discourse is not a good thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

Your comment is not optimal

Now that's not a stupid thing to say

The Pres figured Jon Stewart appearance would be all good

Oooops - the perils of being Pres

The perils of engaging in intelligent conversation.

 

[andysayshi]

Reread post $42

i don't understand what you mean by this.

 

[JayHawk]

What's sad is the blind defense of a president who lied about the cause of the death our our ambassador for his own political survival. We got rid of Gadaffi only to have groups like Al Qaeda take over portions of Libya. Who says so? Our dead ambassador, who was pleading for help that never came. His blood and the blood of all the others is all over Obama's hands.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...about-libya-security-threats-al-qaeda-before/

Okay so then illustrate the different Romney Policy in Libya. Say it out loud so when Romney gets into office and doesnt proceed down that path you can say he is a failure and inept.... not that he will but just a bit of a set up.

 

[Sausy]

Sorry seems to be the hardest word

Bush - Iraq

Lol

The story of Obama and his apologists

Taking ownership is just not done

Cept for the OBL kill that is

Leaders accept blame and credit others

When our special team got Osama Bin Laden....and THEY deserve the overwhelming chunk of the credit as how much could go wrong,and almost did, in that mission.... Obama didn't celebrate, clearly stating "we don't spike the football". That lasted until the Administration decided it had to push the Bin Laden angle as part of their bona fides as tough guys on the world stage. There were leaks....who knows from which Obama operative but likely someone that basically spelled out the policies the Administration were promoting.Stuff that our adversaries shouldn't have a clear picture what we are doing,but to promote the Obama Administration view,lack of ethics proved totally compatible with their way of doing things.

The Democratic Convention was an orgy of self congratulation...as good ole Joe Biden couldn't wait to say to anyone with a pulse,"General Motors is alive and Bin Laden is dead!" Remember the stink about Obama personally involved in a kill list on who we target in the world working against our security? Obama and his flackies are duplicitous hypocrites,and his supporters ideological hacks

It took months for the revolt against Qaddafi to get going,especially with the US being so dithering. The Libyan government is unstable and yes we have more pro western feeling there but nature abhors a vaccuum and that's what we have there and jihadists are great at exploiting. Just getting a foothold is enough for them.

When we could have just sent a signal in 2009 to support the rising rebellion of the Iranian people against the theocracy the Obama Administration poured cold water on that instead trying to diplomatically engage the Iranian government. Now they have Putin in their corner,the Persian Spring aborted by Obama indifference and we are helplessly allowing the UN to handle thrying to reconcile the Syrian government with their opponents. Al Qaeda and other radical interests are pouring in and the Russians...the most amoral government on this planet... have the upper hand.Obama should work with the Turks and NATO and put up a no fly zone to prevent the monstrous Assad loyalists from raiining death from the air as one of the most potent weapons of fear and destruction they have. You don't have to invade a country to help liberate it...just stand on the right side of history. Instead that dilettante Obama is cheerleader waving pom poms , not a leader who makea a real difference in the world. Say what you will of old war horses like Franklin D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill....we would never have won WWII without their steadfastness. Obama is an amateur without standing,a poser without substance. I don't give a crap what people think...smug lefties who could protest without end but not be able to govern worth a shit. Obama is the Clinton ego without the skills to at least periodically back it up.

 

[Jack Springer]

i don't understand what you mean by this.

To understand what I said -- read # 42.

 

[andysayshi]

Yeah, I get that. But we were discussing whether or not you watched the Jon Stewart show, and the tone of that show while discussing Benghazi. And you've directed me to Kulindahr's post about the mother of one of those killed. I don't understand how his post addresses what we were discussing.

 

[Jack Springer]

^^^

He was making derogatory comments about one the of dead men's mother to make a point. I don't think that is appropriate.

 

[andysayshi]

What does that have to do with whether you watched the video in context, or Obama's tone when speaking the word in the question? (Which is what we were discussing).