• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

General: We Should Have Tried in Benghazi

Jack Hays said:
Politically, Gates is to my right. Moreover, please note that neither the General in the OP nor I blame anyone for not launching a rescue.
Click to expand...

Uh Huh. Excuse me if I roll my eyes.

The General's regret was that no order to initiate planning for a rescue was issued or received.:peace
Click to expand...

I've basically stopped paying much of any attention after both parties turned on this event. There is no finding the facts when both are using it for political purposes.

But your posting history does suggest you would criticize the administration regardless of what it did.

The KEY difference I've noticed between people who hated Bush was that when he did something they liked, they basically pretended it didn't happen and said nothing. People who hate Obama will criticize him when he does things they like and will find a way to criticize him on both sides of a position. No rescue? Criticize for not doing anything. Rescue? Criticize for risking lives on no intelligence.
 
obvious Child said:
Uh Huh. Excuse me if I roll my eyes.



I've basically stopped paying much of any attention after both parties turned on this event. There is no finding the facts when both are using it for political purposes.

But your posting history does suggest you would criticize the administration regardless of what it did.
Click to expand...

If that's what you believe then you haven't been paying attention. I've supported the BHO administration on several issues.:peace
 
obvious Child said:
Way to fail to understand what was written (as your usual). There's a difference between taking risks and taking blind risks.

But I cannot expect partisan hacks to understand that. Nothing you have ever said suggests you are even remotely more credible, knowledgeable or wiser than Gates. Tell me why anyone should consider your opinion to be of greater value than Gate's.
Click to expand...

"No plan survive's first contact with the enemy", which is why blind risks are usually the order of the day. I don't expect someone whose never spent a single day in uniform to understand that. "Because it's dangerous", is a coward's excuse to shirk his duty. It's not a wonder you believe that's ok.
 
obvious Child said:
Uh Huh. Excuse me if I roll my eyes.



I've basically stopped paying much of any attention after both parties turned on this event. There is no finding the facts when both are using it for political purposes.

But your posting history does suggest you would criticize the administration regardless of what it did.

The KEY difference I've noticed between people who hated Bush was that when he did something they liked, they basically pretended it didn't happen and said nothing. People who hate Obama will criticize him when he does things they like and will find a way to criticize him on both sides of a position. No rescue? Criticize for not doing anything. Rescue? Criticize for risking lives on no intelligence.
Click to expand...

And you're going to supporr the administration, regardless of how incompetant it proves to be. Birds of a feather, I guess...
 
obvious Child said:
Way to fail to understand what was written (as your usual). There's a difference between taking risks and taking blind risks.

But I cannot expect partisan hacks to understand that. Nothing you have ever said suggests you are even remotely more credible, knowledgeable or wiser than Gates. Tell me why anyone should consider your opinion to be of greater value than Gate's.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. The only hack here would seem to be you. The OP does not concern Gates or even DoD. The General's problem was that no one ever ordered them even to start planning/moving for a possible rescue. And at the beginning there was no way to know how much time or intel they would or would not have.:peace
 
apdst said:
And you're going to supporr the administration, regardless of how incompetant it proves to be. Birds of a feather, I guess...
Click to expand...

Is that why I called Obama back in 2009 "Bush III?"

Try again. And fail less next time.

Is that why I didn't vote for Obama twice? Because I'm supporting the administration?

Try again. And fail less next time.
 
obvious Child said:
Is that why I called Obama back in 2009 "Bush III?"

Try again. And fail less next time.
Click to expand...

As far as apdst is concerned, anyone who doesn't outright condemn in the harshest language possible every single thing the administration does is an Obama bootlicker.
 
Jack Hays said:
Hmmm. The only hack here would seem to be you. The OP does not concern Gates or even DoD. The General's problem was that no one ever ordered them even to start planning/moving for a possible rescue. And at the beginning there was no way to know how much time or intel they would or would not have.:peace
Click to expand...

Since when was the discussion purely limited to the OP? Oops.

Seems you didn't like the fact I'm pointing out what you didn't like, namely, you'd criticize the administration regardless of what it did.
 
obvious Child said:
Is that why I called Obama back in 2009 "Bush III?"

Try again. And fail less next time.

Is that why I didn't vote for Obama twice? Because I'm supporting the administration?

Try again. And fail less next time.
Click to expand...

Go ahead run away from the topic, because you know you're SOL.
 
obvious Child said:
Since when was the discussion purely limited to the OP? Oops.

Seems you didn't like the fact I'm pointing out what you didn't like, namely, you'd criticize the administration regardless of what it did.
Click to expand...

You might check the forum rules for your answer.
 
obvious Child said:
Since when was the discussion purely limited to the OP? Oops.

Seems you didn't like the fact I'm pointing out what you didn't like, namely, you'd criticize the administration regardless of what it did.
Click to expand...

I've already demonstrated that your claim was false about my views of the administration. That was never an issue. :peace
 
obvious Child said:
Since when was the discussion purely limited to the OP? Oops.

Seems you didn't like the fact I'm pointing out what you didn't like, namely, you'd criticize the administration regardless of what it did.
Click to expand...

I believe the point of the OP addresses what the administration did not do.
 
apdst said:
Go ahead run away from the topic, because you know you're SOL.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Do you realize just how ridiculous you look? You're calling me a die hard Obama supporter despite 5 years of calling him Bush III AND not voting for him twice.

You might check the forum rules for your answer.
Click to expand...

Forum rules do not state that there can be no discussion outside of the OP.
 
humbolt said:
I believe the point of the OP addresses what the administration did not do.
Click to expand...

And my point is that Hays, and implicitly others would criticize the administration regardless of what it did. The difference between Bush Haters and Obama Haters is that Bush Haters will pretend the stuff he did they like didn't happen. Obama Haters will start hating the very things they like that Obama does.
 
obvious Child said:
And my point is that Hays, and implicitly others would criticize the administration regardless of what it did. The difference between Bush Haters and Obama Haters is that Bush Haters will pretend the stuff he did they like didn't happen. Obama Haters will start hating the very things they like that Obama does.
Click to expand...

We can't know what Obama or Bush would have done in any given circumstance. We only know what they did. What you are suggesting is unknowable.
 
humbolt said:
We can't know what Obama or Bush would have done in any given circumstance. We only know what they did. What you are suggesting is unknowable.
Click to expand...

It apparently serves the purpose of belittling someone, though - can't miss the chance of doing that, I guess. Sheesh! :thumbdown:

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
 
obvious Child said:
And my point is that Hays, and implicitly others would criticize the administration regardless of what it did. The difference between Bush Haters and Obama Haters is that Bush Haters will pretend the stuff he did they like didn't happen. Obama Haters will start hating the very things they like that Obama does.
Click to expand...
+1.
This is a picture perfect encapsulation of the last decade of partisanship.

Perspective is something that's woefully lacking. Iraq, Katrina and Torture were definite low points. The irresponsible tax cuts, unpaid new entitlements, and two wars have a lot to do with our current monetary issues. However, Bush acted against his ideologies gut reaction to create TARP which though flawed, helped to save our economy. He was strong after 9/11 when the US desperately needed a reassuring hand. He also did more for AIDS victims in Africa than any President in history. The left never mentions those.

On the other hand; the ACA is Republican idea thought up by the Heritage foundation, pushed by the 94 Congressional Republicans, and implemented first by a Republican governor and presidential nominee. When you juxtapose the recent problems the single payer VA is having with the current success of the ACA; it may be that this market based approach with emphasis on outcome based payments is actually the best health care system.

So why aren't the Republicans taking a victory lap? Because there's a Democrat in the Whitehouse.
 
polgara said:
It apparently serves the purpose of belittling someone, though - can't miss the chance of doing that, I guess. Sheesh! :thumbdown:

Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Yup, and crying partisanship over Benghazi conveniently ignores this administration's political considerations which trumped all else in this event as we now know.
 
I am getting sick of this story.

I am neither a rep nor a dem, but this is clearly little more then Rep politicalizing.

Over 1,000 times more Americans were killed in Iraq...but no, the Reps don't want to talk about that since it was their PATHETIC POTUS that started that mess.
But 4 people are killed in Libya thanks to the Dem's PATHETIC POTUS's policies there and they freak out.

So, the Obama WH was trying to spin the event in their favor by coaching what's-her-name before she went on TV?
Well DUH...are you Rep's really so staggeringly naive to believe that had the same happened under a Rep WH that they would not have done EXACTLY the same thing?

The Benghazi deaths were a terrible tragedy...but they were less then 1,000th the tragedy that Iraq was.
But the way the Reps were going on about it, you would think Iraq was just unfortunate but Benghazi was horrific.

Partisan politics makes me sick.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom