If it was George W. Bush in office...

[billc]

Well, NBC news is claiming that the administration hasn't quite been honest about security at the Bhengazi consulate. Imagine if this is true...imagine if this was George W. Bush as President when the U.S. Ambassador, and three others were murdered and dragged through the streets...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/17/NBC-News-Obama-Lying-About-Security-At-Libyan-Consulate

UN Ambassador Susan Rice claimed this weekend that security had been increased at the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya prior to the horrific attacks on Sept. 11. She even claimed "tragically, among those four that were killed were two of our security personnel." However, tonight, NBC News reports that "multiple US officials and other sources contradict that account. They tell NBC News that the two former SEALS Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods, who died trying to repel the attackers and who undoubtedly saved lives were not in Libya to provide personal security for the Ambassador or for consulate personnel."

According to NBC News, the security at the Benghazi consulate consisted of a US regional security officers and a "local militia." This is in direct contradiction to the Obama Administration's claim that security was sufficient.

What did NBC news say again...

According to NBC News, the security at the Benghazi consulate consisted of a US regional security officers and a "local militia." This is in direct contradiction to the Obama Administration's claim that security was sufficient.

I can't wait for November...

 

[granfire]

I can't wait for November...

Gonna cheer Obama on?

 

[Sukerkin]

Reading the comments below what BillC linked, I am struck yet again at the intensity of feeling in the Republican supporters camp.

Looking at the statements as an outsider, from a distant perspective, these people do not really come across as if they have a firm grasp on the real world and will mangle anything into a somewhat venom-coated attack on their present government. It's not pleasant to see and it certainly does not serve to convince anybody of the rightness (no pun intended) of their position. They sound more delusional than anything else when their voices are heard outside of the circle of the 'true believers'. Perhaps that is what is so disturbing to my delicate sensibilities? The messianic zeal sounds all too much like the extremists who carried out the attacks and who continue to incite 'protests'.

 

[Xue Sheng]

If it were George W Bush in Office he’d be in violation of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

 

[elder999]

If it were George W Bush in Office he’d be in violation of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

QFT :lol:

 

[blindsage]

Well, NBC news is claiming that the administration hasn't quite been honest about security at the Bhengazi consulate. Imagine if this is true...imagine if this was George W. Bush as President when the U.S. Ambassador, and three others were murdered and dragged through the streets...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/09/17/NBC-News-Obama-Lying-About-Security-At-Libyan-Consulate




What did NBC news say again...


I can't wait for November...

And you'd be defending the bailouts tooth and nail like they were the only thing to do, and explaining in detail how they helped the economy. And you'd be blaiming all the democrats in Congress for why the economy wasn't doing any better.

Sukerkin, you pretty much summed it up. They're not pro-America, their only pro their ideology and party. "Our top political priority over the next 2 years should be to deny President Obama a second term." - Mitch McConnell, Republican Minority Leader of the Senate in 2010. Not help the economy recover, not help those suffering the effects of the biggest reccession since the great depression, not find common ground to get the things we agree on done, nope. It's get Obama out of office.

 

[WC_lun]

And you'd be defending the bailouts tooth and nail like they were the only thing to do, and explaining in detail how they helped the economy. And you'd be blaiming all the democrats in Congress for why the economy wasn't doing any better.

Sukerkin, you pretty much summed it up. They're not pro-America, their only pro their ideology and party. "Our top political priority over the next 2 years should be to deny President Obama a second term." - Mitch McConnell, Republican Minority Leader of the Senate in 2010. Not help the economy recover, not help those suffering the effects of the biggest reccession since the great depression, not find common ground to get the things we agree on done, nope. It's get Obama out of office.

Party before country. They are elected to govern and instead the do everything they can to grab more power. I could understand if it was a portion of the Republicans in congress doing this. In that case, it would just be a bad personal choice. Instead it is every freaking one of them. They have blocked even bills that they themselves wrote because Obama supported it. They have said thier number one priority is Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!, yet when given a jobs bill in January(?) which contained many Republican ideas and would have added 1 million jobs, they do not let it come up for a vote. By no means are Democrats innocent in this mess, but the Republicans are totally abdicating thier responsibilities as our elected congress.

 

[billc]

Yes, if only it was George Bush in charge when the embassy was attacked and the Ambassador killed, then the media might actually pay attention to the lies being told about what the President knew about the attack and why he and his people lied about it...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...merican-People-Hoped-Media-Would-Let-It-Slide

"At question is not the wisdom of the Libya operation, at question is the honesty of the Obama administration. This was clearly deception on part of the administration in sending Susan Rice to say this was a spontaneous demonstration, when as you reported, it was known inside the administration within a day that it was not. It was a terror attack. So why did they deceive? It's obvious. Because the attack took place five days after the Democrats had spent a week in Charlotte touting, spiking the football on Osama.

And essentially, since it's the only foreign policy achievement of the four years they repeated it over and over again, the great triumph over al-Qaeda. Well, within a week, al-Qaeda sacks a U.S. embassy, kills an ambassador and the administration did not want to admit it so it spent a week deceiving Americans to think it's about demonstration, its about a film, thinking, I think correctly that if it strung it out long enough the media would let it slide and now that it becomes it's obvious and true, nobody will care, I guarantee you. This is not a headline in the mainstream media."

 

[rainesr]

Reading the comments below what BillC linked, I am struck yet again at the intensity of feeling in the Republican supporters camp.

Looking at the statements as an outsider, from a distant perspective, these people do not really come across as if they have a firm grasp on the real world and will mangle anything into a somewhat venom-coated attack on their present government. It's not pleasant to see and it certainly does not serve to convince anybody of the rightness (no pun intended) of their position. They sound more delusional than anything else when their voices are heard outside of the circle of the 'true believers'. Perhaps that is what is so disturbing to my delicate sensibilities? The messianic zeal sounds all too much like the extremists who carried out the attacks and who continue to incite 'protests'.

So does the left, they both do. It seems like if you disagree with the left they label you as champion for the rich and part of a hate group. The right is no better like you said. The parties have become so polarized that they are absurd.

~Rob

 

[James Kovacich]

Wrong. Them Dems do for the poor. The Repubs don't.

Sent from my DROID3 using Tapatalk

 

[WC_lun]

Hmmm Who's watch was it that over 3000 people died in a coordinated terrorist attack? Oh yeah, George Bush's. If I remember right, he also gained a second term.

 

[K-man]

Reading the comments below what BillC linked, I am struck yet again at the intensity of feeling in the Republican supporters camp.

Looking at the statements as an outsider, from a distant perspective, these people do not really come across as if they have a firm grasp on the real world and will mangle anything into a somewhat venom-coated attack on their present government. It's not pleasant to see and it certainly does not serve to convince anybody of the rightness (no pun intended) of their position. They sound more delusional than anything else when their voices are heard outside of the circle of the 'true believers'. Perhaps that is what is so disturbing to my delicate sensibilities? The messianic zeal sounds all too much like the extremists who carried out the attacks and who continue to incite 'protests'.

Sentiment here is similar.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/polarised-america-choose-your-own-truth-20120928-26qqr.html

 

[billc]

Hmmm...George Bush was in office 9 months, and no one considered islamic terrorism more than a nuisance at the time, even after repeated attempts on American lives.

obama elected to office after the death of those 3000 people and in office 3 and a half years...Embassy in an Islamic country, with known jihadi elements running rampant, after 12 years of active fighting against the very people who killed 3000 Americans, on the anniversary of that same attack, in an under secured embassy, and 4 embassy personel are killed along with two ex-navy seals working as private contractors. They then go on to blame a video, frog marching the director out of his home in the dead of night, knowing the whole time that the attack was by al queda and continued lying about the attack for over a week, and the press couldn't care less. Does anyone really think that if the same thing happened when Bush was in office their wouldn't have been a media anal exam of every aspect of the attack, why it happened, which would have blamed Bush not a video, and why our embassy in an islamic country filled with radical muslims wasn't protected?

Perhaps that is what is so disturbing to my delicate sensibilities? The messianic zeal sounds all too much like the extremists who carried out the attacks and who continue to incite 'protests'.

Sukerkin, comparing passionate political discussion to the monsters who tortured and murdered thousands of people is a really, really stupid thing to say, even for you.

 

[WC_lun]

More rose colored glasses when viewing history. The State Dept warned the administration that an attack was coming on home shores. There had already been terrorist attcks and attempted attacks of large scale. Remember Lebenon and the attempted first World Trade Center bombing? if that is your ides of nuisance, I'd hate to see your idea of a problem. This is just another case of the hypocritical judging of Obama as bad, while excusing anything similiar from a Republican. Bush got a pass of 911. We gave him such a huge pass, including the media, that he started a war with a country that had nothing to do with 911, costing more American lives and treasure than 911 did.


Just to keep facts straight, our embassy was not attacked. It was a safe house compound in a different city. Mr Stevens had been warned of possible hieghtened terrorist activity, but decided to go anyway. I think the first indications to the State Dept was that this was not a coordinated, preplanned attack and so they released thier statement. Then as new information was released they hesitated to change the notification to the press. Perhaps to cover the administration or thier own backsides. The thing is, you or I don't really know what information they were privy to, but why wait for the facts when you can use it to attack Obama, huh?

When you do not use the facts to creat an informed opinion to have your "passionate political discussions" it does start to sound like messianic zeal. When the truth cannot change an opinion, the passion is turning into something else. Its a trend through many post.

 

[Sukerkin]

Stupid? Are you sure you wanted to say that, BillC? I would contend that your statement is demonstrably inaccurate but I am a raging egotist so my opinion is clearly suspect.

To elaborate, I have been struck on more than one occasion here at MT that the use of non-literal language is prone to misinterpretation. I wasn't saying that they are the same thing but that one reminds me of the other. Political zeal that rises to such a fever pitch is inherently disturbing as it is a triumph of emotion over reason. Allowing that to flower and be the root of decision making is one of the steps along the road that leads from extreme rhetoric to extreme acts.

So no, scarily venomous Republicans are not the same as the loonies that make up the Taliban, for example. But the seeds that make it possible for them to be so are there. It is all too easy for the unthinkingly angry to be exploited and channelled - you don't see it, perhaps, as you are in the midst of it but I do as I am looking in from afar.

We have it over here with the members of the BNP and the EDF. People who are not necessarily evil but are angry about what they see changing in their country and, with their emotions running high, are susceptible to being manoeuvred into supporting positions that they rationally would not hold (or might not hold at least).

 

[billc]

Yes, Bush got the list of all the threats to the country and on that list they were told, these radical islamists want to attack the United States. Yeah, that was really a well defined threat assessment. Add them to hundreds of other threats, and then add to that a new, distinct attack of using commercial planes and it doesn't come close to the warning obama had.

For years now, the Tea party has held peaceful rallies, people have attended Glen Beck rallies, peacefully, they have gone to town hall meetings on obamacare and at no time have they ever engaged in violence, vandalism or hints at antisocial activity. They contribute to political campaigns, they discuss the issues and then they go out and vote. When our side loses, wether elections, as in obama getting elected, or in the courts, with Roberts siding with obama care, there hasn't been one hint of violence in their reactions. They simply go out and redouble their efforts to get their guys elected the next time. Peacefully, without any violence. What do they get for their peaceful civic participation. They are constantly called racists, extremists on the verge of violence and compared to the left wing socialists and their violence.

What do we have on the other side of the aisle, the side that you would be a part of over here? We have union thugs beating people up at town hall meetings over healthcare, using racial slurs as they do it. You have OWS protesters engaged in rape and vandalism, you have g8 and anti-nato protestors vandalizing property and attacking police.

Members of the OWS movement, the leadership, tried to blow up a bridge in Ohio...they were not Tea party members, Glen Beck fans, republicans or conservatives.


You have violence and threats of all kinds coming from that side of the aisle, and the conservatives and republicans are the ones called extremists. The republican convention features minority speakers, and the left media dismisses them as window dressing or just doesn't show their speeches by cutting away. You just had signs put up on the subway system of New York that advocated supporting civilization against the jihadi...and a left wing nut job gets caught spray painting over them saying she doesn't want "hate" speech displayed. Time after time the violence and intimidation comes from the left, wether organized by unions or other left wing political organizations, or by left wing individuals, and all you hear is "the conservatives/republicans are the dangerous extremists." So the real world is peaceful political participation by republicans/conservatives with violence and threats from the democrat/liberal side of the aisle. You don't want to see it, but that is how it really is.

The attack...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Consulate_attack_in_Benghazi

On September 11, 2012, an unidentified facility referred to as the United States diplomatic mission by the U.S. State Department and a separate location referred to as the "annex" in Benghazi, Libya, were attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades, various small arms (AK-47 and the Belgium-made FN F2000 NATO assault rifles), gun trucks, and mortars in a sustained gunbattle that lasted nearly 5 hours. Killed in the attack were visiting United States Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Management Officer Sean Smith, and private security employees and former U.S. Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods; two other Americans were injured.

The left wing subway vandal defending jihadi violence...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...nt-Subway-Rampage-Rewarded-by-MTA-Rule-Change

Just one day after a left-wing activist attempted to deface private property (and a woman who got in her way), the Metropolitan Transit Authority in New York has announced they will amend their rules regarding the types of advertisements that offended her.

The New York Times is now reporting the MTA will prohibit any advertisements that it“reasonably foresees would imminently incite or provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.” Those “viewpoint” ads that do not meet this criteria will be allowed, so long as a disclaimer is included saying the MTA does not endorse them.

Sooo...after a lefty vandalizes someone elses sign, the left wing led MTA decides to prohibit free speech even more.


Here is an oldy but a goodie, Michelle Malkin has an entire list of the left wing hate...

http://michellemalkin.com/2011/01/1...mate-of-hate-an-illustrated-primer-2000-2010/

The progressive climate of hate: A comprehensive illustrated primer in 8 parts:
I. PALIN HATE
II. BUSH HATE
III. MISC. TEA PARTY/GOP/ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE
VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE
VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection

 

[billc]

Here is a fun one...a democrat politician hitting a libertarian/republican when asked about obamacare...the video is interuppted by the attack...

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2010/06/more-democrat-violence-against.html

Coming only days after a Tea Party activist was punched and his wife assaulted at a rally in North Carolina by a Democrat supporter of Obama. Now a young conservative is struck by a NC Congressman.

Yes, even democrat politicians engage in violent behavior...

Hmmm...more union violence underreported by the media...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/09/union_violence_of_little_interest_to_media.html

Over 500 people "storm" private property, break windows and vandalize other property, wield baseball bats and crowbars, make death threats, and allegedly hold six guards hostage. Fifty law enforcement officers respond. U.S. Marshalls are placed on standby to enforce a related injunction issued by a federal judge.
It happened yesterday at a grain terminal at Port of Longview in southwest Washington State. The perpetrators? Members of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). The local police chief was quoted as saying, "A lot of the protesters were telling us this is only the start."
Not surprisingly, the incident didn't garner much national attention. Imagine how the coverage by the so-called mainstream media would have differed had anything even remotely similar occurred at a gathering of people of a different political persuasion, say those Tea Party SOBs.
Union violence is not rare. The National Institute for Labor Relations (NILR) has collected over 9,000 reports of union violence since 1975 and the actual number is much higher--by as much as a factor of ten. Only a fraction of such offenses result in arrest and conviction.

Yeah, the republicans/conservatives are the dangerous ones...:lfao:

 

[K-man]

Bill, I'm surprised any of that stuff worries you. Isn't that what you guys love to claim as free speech​?

 

[WC_lun]

Wow, you do forget any wrongs done by the right, don't you? Your link fu is so good that I am sure you can do a simple search that will bring up all kinds of violent act by people from the right. That does not mean the right wing is inherently violent, but made up of people, which can be idiots no matter what political affiliation they follow. All of those stories go directly against the nonsense you post about Democrats being devils and Republicans being angels. You can't seriosly believe this crap you post, do you? Its more playing the this team against that team retorci, right? Way to change the subject too.

 

[billc]

Organized and individual violence is something the left engages in all the time...and then they accuse the republicans/conservatives of being extremists and dangerous. It is the judo of the political world.

The National Institute for Labor Relations (NILR) has collected over 9,000 reports of union violence since 1975 and the actual number is much higher--by as much as a factor of ten. Only a fraction of such offenses result in arrest and conviction.

Unions thuggery is well documented, as is OWS vandalism and rapes, and the anti-g8, anti-nato violence and vandalism and then the attempt to blow up the bridge in Ohio by the OWS guys...it goes on and on...

To be clear,

Democrats being devils

Not all democrats engage in violent behavior, but too many of their organizations do. The average American who calls themselves democrat doesn't endorse or engage in violence, but too many of the democrat party affiliates do.

Isn't that what you guys love to claim as free speech​?

Violence against innocent people is never "free speech." Spray painting a poster legally displayed in a public place is not free speech.