What would Republicans say if a terrorist bombing killed 220 Marines on Obama’s watch? (Congress, extremist)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by stayinformed40

And they know it! That is why they are waxing poetic about being historians on this thread.

They don't WANT to stay current because the scandals increase every moment involving their Messiah.

WAKE UP!

There IS NO messiah!

There is plenty of stench on both sides of the aisle and the finger pointers are merely chanting the mantra "Do as I say, not as I do"

[hawkeye2009]

Originally Posted by Shankapotomus

Because it happened on Ronald Reagan's watch, even after he had been warned to move the base.



In 1983 debacle, Reagan escaped the blame game - phillyburbs.com: Entertainment

220 marines died. Republicans said nothing. No outrage aimed at Reagan. No accusations of "scandal." No calls for impeachment. As a matter of fact, the name "Reagan" is synonymous with "great President" to Republicans.

Why the double standard?

My own opinion is, until conservative denounce Reagan as a horrible failure as a president, I am not entertaining any criticism of President Obama on Benghazi and nobody else should.

"A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen. "I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials."

Big difference-

1. In Lebanon, there was no cover up
2. In Lebanon, there was not a ten hour fire fight
3. In Lebanon, available help was not ordered to "stand down"
4. In Lebanon, there were not multiple warnings of an impending attack

Gee............ why not bring up Pearl Harbor?

[lucknow]

Originally Posted by stayinformed40

I will repeat what I just posted on another thread.....lefties need to stay FOCUSED and CURRENT. The CURRENT President is in scandal up to his eyeballs. Any mention of past President's just makes one look extremely idiotic.

The fact the GOPers had nothing to say when it was a GOP president on watch makes THEM look extremely idiotic!!!!!!!!!

Not 4 American dead mind you BUT over 200.

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by stayinformed40

And they know it! That is why they are waxing poetic about being historians on this thread.

They don't WANT to stay current because the scandals increase every moment involving their Messiah.

You Cons are so cute, you guys are the only one who look at Obama like his is some sort of "messiah," the rest of us just look at him as a President.

[eRayP]

Originally Posted by burdell

Many would say one's failure to acknowledge history makes one look extremely idiotic and the failure to be consistent in applying the same standard(s) of judgement over time makes one appear extremely hypocritical.

One would say to repeat negative history would be idiotic. It does not justify Obama.

[wjtwet]

Originally Posted by Shankapotomus

Because it happened on Ronald Reagan's watch, even after he had been warned to move the base.



In 1983 debacle, Reagan escaped the blame game - phillyburbs.com: Entertainment

220 marines died. Republicans said nothing. No outrage aimed at Reagan. No accusations of "scandal." No calls for impeachment. As a matter of fact, the name "Reagan" is synonymous with "great President" to Republicans.

Why the double standard?

My own opinion is, until conservative denounce Reagan as a horrible failure as a president, I am not entertaining any criticism of President Obama on Benghazi and nobody else should.

"A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen. "I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials."

I would say Reagan did not send out his UN ambassador to talk shows to lie about it

[Spaten_Drinker]

Originally Posted by Shankapotomus

Because it happened on Ronald Reagan's watch, even after he had been warned to move the base.



In 1983 debacle, Reagan escaped the blame game - phillyburbs.com: Entertainment

220 marines died. Republicans said nothing. No outrage aimed at Reagan. No accusations of "scandal." No calls for impeachment. As a matter of fact, the name "Reagan" is synonymous with "great President" to Republicans.

Why the double standard?

My own opinion is, until conservative denounce Reagan as a horrible failure as a president, I am not entertaining any criticism of President Obama on Benghazi and nobody else should.

"A former defense secretary for Ronald Reagan says he implored the president to put Marines serving in Beirut in a safer position before terrorists attacked them in 1983, killing 241 servicemen. "I was not persuasive enough to persuade the president that the Marines were there on an impossible mission," Caspar Weinberger says in an oral history project capturing the views of former Reagan administration officials."

How is it President Reagan's fault if TRAINED AND ARMED MARINES cannot protect their own home? Marines are PAID to get shot at. DIPLOMATS are civilians. They should not be put in harms way like "bait".

[bcattwood]

Originally Posted by stayinformed40

I will repeat what I just posted on another thread.....lefties need to stay FOCUSED and CURRENT. The CURRENT President is in scandal up to his eyeballs. Any mention of past President's just makes one look extremely idiotic.

Would it be equally idiotic to, say, bring up a previous President's moral failings in order to deflect criticism of a current Republican senator-elect?

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by stayinformed40

I will repeat what I just posted on another thread.....lefties need to stay FOCUSED and CURRENT. The CURRENT President is in scandal up to his eyeballs. Any mention of past President's just makes one look extremely idiotic.

Without looking to the performance of past administrations there's no developing a baseline. Which is of course why you and the rest of the Professionally Offended insist that history began in January 2009 and not one day earlier.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by Shankapotomus

What would Republicans say if a terrorist bombing killed 220 Marines on Obama’s watch?

hmmm


1983 or 2013...big difference 30 years make

all obozo has done is LIE, LIE, and LIE