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.
What a difference on who says what:
George Bush was chastised for going into Iraq on "False information" and ridiculed for claiming there were "Weapons of mass destruction" based on information given to him by various sources. For this the press and the Dems jumped all over him.
Fast forward to last week and Hillary's "Apology" for Benghazi: "My biggest, you know, regret is what happened in Benghazi...It was a terrible tragedy, losing four Americans, two diplomats and now it's public, so I can say two CIA operatives. Losing an ambassador like Chris Stevens, who was one of our very best and had served in Libya and across the Middle East and spoke Arabic". "I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU MAKE THESE CHOICES BASED ON IMPERFECT INFORMATION. AND YOU MAKE THEM TO, AS WE SAY, THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE UNFORSEEN CONSEQUENCES, UNPREDICTABLE TWISTS AND TURNS".
These quotes are taken from today's Chicago Tribune. It just goes to show how the Dems and the press respond when it's one of their own that makes a mistake. It turned out that Bush WAS wrong of course , but Hillary will be forgiven but George will not be so lucky.
These are false equivalencies. What exactly is the wrong decision involving Benghazi? To be in that city in the first place? I don't understand the tenuous comparison you are trying to make. There is a difference on having imperfect information and creating information.
Let's see... Bush and his admin's oversight (or complete fabrication, depending on your perspective) of intelligence resulted in a trillion dollars of tax payer money wasted, over 4000 American lives lost, scores of Iraqis dead, continued violence in an un-stabilized region where terror groups have increased their strength and influence....
vs.... 4 dead, including an Ambassador who TWICE refused offers of more troops and support in the weeks leading up to the attack.
Let's see... Bush and his admin's oversight (or complete fabrication, depending on your perspective) of intelligence resulted in a trillion dollars of tax payer money wasted, over 4000 American lives lost, scores of Iraqis dead, continued violence in an un-stabilized region where terror groups have increased their strength and influence....
vs.... 4 dead, including an Ambassador who TWICE refused offers of more troops and support in the weeks leading up to the attack.
What a difference on who says what:
George Bush was chastised for going into Iraq on "False information" and ridiculed for claiming there were "Weapons of mass destruction" based on information given to him by various sources.
You might keep in mind that these "various sources" included the entire Clinton Administration before him who issued dozens of reports detailing the perils of Saddam Hussein having WMDs. The din continued to the last minute, when a few reports examining the possibility that he might have gotten rid of some of them surfaced and mixed in with the hundreds saying he definitely had them.
OTOH, we now find from bipartisan Senate reports, that Obama was briefed within minutes of the start of the Benghazi attack, and told that it was carried out by terrorists, with no mention made of "a protest over a video". Yet for three weeks afterward, Obama and his surrogates continued to frantically announce that it was all caused by such a protest: basically, the attackers were simply unhappy film critics.
But the press and other leftist fanatics screamed for months that "Bush lied and people died", while carefully covering up the far clearer evidence that Obama was actually doing so right under their noses.
You might keep in mind that these "various sources" included the entire Clinton Administration before him who issued dozens of reports detailing the perils of Saddam Hussein having WMDs. The din continued to the last minute, when a few reports examining the possibility that he might have gotten rid of some of them surfaced and mixed in with the hundreds saying he definitely had them.
OTOH, we now find from bipartisan Senate reports, that Obama was briefed within minutes of the start of the Benghazi attack, and told that it was carried out by terrorists, with no mention made of "a protest over a video". Yet for three weeks afterward, Obama and his surrogates continued to frantically announce that it was all caused by such a protest: basically, the attackers were unhappy film critics.
But the press screamed for months that "Bush lied and people died", while carefully covering up the far clearer evidence that Obama was actually doing so.
Good tactic. Ignore the facts, including those posted immediately above your post, and just keep cutting and pasting the same ignorant rightwing talking points.
No wonder the public completely ignores the right on this subject. Keep up the good work!
What a difference on who says what:
George Bush was chastised for going into Iraq on "False information" and ridiculed for claiming there were "Weapons of mass destruction" based on information given to him by various sources. For this the press and the Dems jumped all over him.
.
And Dems, Hillary included, believed the so-called 'false' information.
Good tactic. Ignore the facts, including those posted immediately above your post, and just keep cutting and pasting the same ignorant rightwing talking points.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute any of the points you made, but I hate them anyway. So I'll make vague accusations of "ignoring the facts", call them names, and hope somebody believes me instead of you.
TRANSLATION: I can't refute any of the points you made, but I hate them anyway. So I'll make vague accusations of "ignoring the facts", call them names, and hope somebody believes me instead of you.
TRANSLATION: I'm doubling down on my ignorance.
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.
