U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-29-2014, 09:40 AM
 
3,885 posts, read 4,057,247 times
Reputation: 11338

Advertisements

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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2014, 09:41 AM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,563 posts, read 4,000,188 times
Reputation: 2127
Hm … four dead or hundreds of thousands dead? Which is more significant and tragic?

You decide.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 09:43 AM
 
3,557 posts, read 3,843,873 times
Reputation: 1632
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 09:53 AM
 
17,292 posts, read 27,796,724 times
Reputation: 8667
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.

CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

Yeah, Hillary should TOTALLY be held to the same criticism as George Bush.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 10:03 AM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,563 posts, read 4,000,188 times
Reputation: 2127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
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.

CAIRO: Ambassador Stevens twice said no to military offers of more security, U.S. officials say | Middle East | McClatchy DC

Yeah, Hillary should TOTALLY be held to the same criticism as George Bush.
^^^ This.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 10:04 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,161,212 times
Reputation: 4166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodpete View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 10:06 AM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,563 posts, read 4,000,188 times
Reputation: 2127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
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!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,893 posts, read 12,765,639 times
Reputation: 9137
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodpete View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 10:11 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,581 posts, read 9,161,212 times
Reputation: 4166
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmqueen View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2014, 10:12 AM
 
Location: On the Group W bench
5,563 posts, read 4,000,188 times
Reputation: 2127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
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.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:59 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top