- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 31,926
- Reaction score
- 29,390
- Location
- Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, American. The blatant arrogance belongs to those who have been passionately screaming "Benghazi" for political points the last few years, yet don't give one flying **** about those who died.
Thought I'd share:
"You think people's failure to match your level of outrage is based on ignorance," Stewart said. "That after nearly 100 network news stories, hundreds of cable news stories about Benghazi, 13 Congressional hearings, 50 further Congressional briefings, and 25,000 pages of official findings concerning what happened in Benghazi, that if we all only knew about it, we would care." Right.
Rather, the reason no one can match Fox News' outrage is that we've seen this sort of thing before. You want to talk about an intelligence failure leading to the tragedy of American's losing their lives? As Stewart pointed out, there's a little something called the Iraq War.
"I commend you for finally getting in touch with your inner outrage. Because if I remember correctly, in the previous decade it was an emotion you did not seem comfortable addressing or expressing," Stewart said.
Jon Stewart Exposes Fox News' Hypocrisy over Benghazi - The Wire
Can we move this Benghazi stuff out of Breaking News? It's certainly not breaking by any mainstream source.
Yeah, let's hide it.
The Obama administration has been trying to sweep this under the carpet since oops, the Guardian blew their little cover right out of the water.
"Old news" is such a pathetic bleat. As I read though this thread I see one side posting information, analysis of the video of this sleazy little geek, and informed opinion for the most part. While you and the other defenders whine about it being in the wrong section, that it's "old news", that to even discuss it is somehow unpatriotic. Even this too-sleazy-to-be-a-car-salesman is playing down the significance with double speak. But not one fact. a lot of ridicule and mild personal attacks and claims, but not one fact. 'Not one answer, just shut up, stop asking questions, we know what's good for you.'
Did anyone catch the new mislead? He says we should be concentrating on it not happening again instead of playing "gotcha" politics. And just how are we supposed to do that when he himself and the rest of the administration refuse to come clean on what "it" is and continue to play an advanced version of Clinton's "it depends on what your definition of is, is."
He won't even admit he doctored the memos, so how can anyone know what the real story is? he changed "attacks" to "demonstrations" and won't own up to it and all of you say that's reason to stop looking.
I admire the foolish and blind loyalty, but all reason and logic is missing
Hack or not he's correct. You just don't want to own your own hypocrisy (universal your).
Yeah, let's hide it.
The Obama administration has been trying to sweep this under the carpet since oops, the Guardian blew their little cover right out of the water.
"Old news" is such a pathetic bleat. As I read though this thread I see one side posting information, analysis of the video of this sleazy little geek, and informed opinion for the most part. While you and the other defenders whine about it being in the wrong section, that it's "old news", that to even discuss it is somehow unpatriotic. Even this too-sleazy-to-be-a-car-salesman is playing down the significance with double speak. But not one fact. a lot of ridicule and mild personal attacks and claims, but not one fact. 'Not one answer, just shut up, stop asking questions, we know what's good for you.'
Did anyone catch the new mislead? He says we should be concentrating on it not happening again instead of playing "gotcha" politics. And just how are we supposed to do that when he himself and the rest of the administration refuse to come clean on what "it" is and continue to play an advanced version of Clinton's "it depends on what your definition of is, is."
He won't even admit he doctored the memos, so how can anyone know what the real story is? he changed "attacks" to "demonstrations" and won't own up to it and all of you say that's reason to stop looking.
I admire the foolish and blind loyalty, but all reason and logic is missing
Exactly. Spot on.
At the root of the issue here is the astonishing lack of leadership leading up to, during and in the aftermath of this attack on the US consulate. This administration is incapable of introspection because at every stage of the autopsy of this tragedy they have been insisting there was no fault at all, just an unfortunate, completely unforeseen accident. They tried to lump the planned 9/11 attack on a video to make it appear that it was a situation that was impossible to control in order to cover for the ever clearer truth that it was not only a foreseen tragedy, but the leadership of the administration did literally nothing at any stage to fix it.
To this day the Democrats are apologetically against an open and transparent discussion about the failure on Benghazi. Hillary Clinton is so sycophantically averse to introspection that she, under oath, mused that it makes no difference if we know what happened at this point.
Ironically, Hillary put it best in the 2008 primaries when she said that the American people needed a leader who could take the 3am phone call. Double irony that neither of the Democratic candidates on that stage at the time she said that were up to that task.
View attachment 67166027
Spare me the faux outrage. You know what I see from modern history? When Americans are attacked with a Republican president, the country pulls together. We get the bottom of what happened, and we make sure it doesn't happen again. Compare that to what happens under a Democratic administration. The GOP didn't even wait until the attack was over before they started politicizing it. When was the last time a Republican missed an opportunity to score political points in the name of patriotism? WWII?
Contrast that with Benghazi. Yes, its' a tragedy. But 13 Benghazi's happened under Bush. Did anyone try to politicize them? What about the Republican's insistence that Bin Laden was a Clinton manufactured threat? What about Bin Laden poised to attack US? What about deliberately releasing misleading intelligence to sell a war? What about families buying body armor online to send to their loved ones in harms way because that's the military we have. What about increasing the terror threat levels before elections when there was no new threat? The list goes on and on and on and on...
But obviously the real story here is Benghazi... everyone else is the problem.
View attachment 67166027
Spare me the faux outrage. You know what I see from modern history? When Americans are attacked with a Republican president, the country pulls together. We get the bottom of what happened, and we make sure it doesn't happen again. Compare that to what happens under a Democratic administration. The GOP didn't even wait until the attack was over before they started politicizing it. When was the last time a Republican missed an opportunity to score political points in the name of patriotism? WWII?
Contrast that with Benghazi. Yes, its' a tragedy. But 13 Benghazi's happened under Bush. Did anyone try to politicize them? What about the Republican's insistence that Bin Laden was a Clinton manufactured threat? What about Bin Laden poised to attack US? What about deliberately releasing misleading intelligence to sell a war? What about families buying body armor online to send to their loved ones in harms way because that's the military we have. What about increasing the terror threat levels before elections when there was no new threat? The list goes on and on and on and on...
But obviously the real story here is Benghazi... everyone else is the problem.
To some extent, sure it is. But let's see if Obama the liar will release the PDBs. Wanna bet he won't?
It is a false comparison. There was no wrong intelligence on Benghazi regardless of the lies told by the Administration, there was no international consensus on the safety of Benghazi that the administrations neglect can be excused for heeding. Nation after nation was pulling out of Benghazi because of the deteriorating conditions there and this Administration stayed because they needed to make a political point in the lead up to the election that they had pacified Libya.
And Stewart also is simply killing his own argument by arguing the number of investigations into Benghazi.... and then bringing up Iraq. Doesn't the same rule apply? And if there was nothing found in all of those Iraq hearings then why does the left keep bringing it up? Moreover, the number of Benghazi hearings is a pointless argument to begin with given that the information that sparked the current demand for hearings was actively withheld from all those other investigations. You can't claim a thoroughness of previous investigations when the evidence is new and previously withheld. By definition those old investigations were not thorough because they didn't have all the evidence.
Ironically, on a side note,. Stewart's favorite for President in 2016 has a long history of defending her vote to attack Iraq.
Do you not see the difference in the two attacks? You are trying to blame the Rules of Engagement on Ronald Reagan vs the manning of US embassy. You would have a leg to stand on if the troops and the command said they required a change in the ROE or it could lead to death, but I have never heard of them asking for that. You did hear of the embassy requesting additional personnel for protection which was not given. I find the meme you used in your rant to be misguided and that means either you are misguided as well or a liar.
Yes, Obama and Hillary concocting a fake video narrative while our Embassy was still under attack and then lying about it for the next 20 months is a "fake scandal".
The WH ignoring a Senate committee subpoena over a E-mail that would have proven they lied to Millions of Americans and the Family members of those murdered at Benghazzi is a "fake scandal".
The Obama administration and Hillary chosing their Political welfare over the welfare of the people who died in Benghazzi is a "fake scandal".
Sucks for people like you.
For months to come we get to witness a steady stream of corroborating data and evidence that will define Obama's legacy and ruin Hillary's chances in 2016 .
No amount of desperate and pathetic partisan mitigation from people like you is going to stop it.
Yes, we were ( Conservatives ) RIGHT all along about these low lifes
This is not about the Bush era and your juvenile attempts to move the thread in that directions has become far too commonplace among the leftists. Why not just stick to the topic at hand, or you can start another thread about George Bush if you have anything topical to report.
Really?
How many posts from apologists who respond to these charges with an arrogant "four people died. So what" How many have died there so far?"
You can't have it both ways. You can't claim people are heartless who are trying to find out the truth of the circumstances of how they died?
And please...not everyone who smells some leaking sewage out of Obama's White House is either a right wing fanatic or a Republican. I am a leading proponent of appointing a special prosecutor and politically am as far from a US Republican as one can get without becoming as void of conscience as a US Democrat.
''Even though there had been three bombings, even though the State Department had recommended that steps be taken, even though last week the State Department warned that protection was inadequate, even though terrorists had publicly threatened and warned they were going to attack, there were still no guard gates at the embassy.''
Reagan’s response: ''Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.''
My points are salient and with merit. Where is your outrage over the tens of thousands deaths over false intelligence? Why all of a sudden do you care?
Just won't own your (universal your) hypocrisy. You've killed any right to expect outrage by having none when we needed it most.
I see nothing equivalent, but feel free to provide some evidence.
''Even though there had been three bombings, even though the State Department had recommended that steps be taken, even though last week the State Department warned that protection was inadequate, even though terrorists had publicly threatened and warned they were going to attack, there were still no guard gates at the embassy.''
Reagan’s response: ''Anyone that's ever had their kitchen done over knows that it never gets done as soon as you wish it would.''
There have been dozens of threads devoted to this topic over the years. Now we have a new topic.
The leftists are deliberately trying to destroy threads about Benghazi by diverting back to George Bush, just as Barry Obama has done..
I wouldn't expect you to...But, in that vein, I needn't prove anything to you Joe...All I am saying is when demo's wanted Bush's PDB's, and then later used it to further a false narrative of him somehow not being prepared for 9/11, then I want to know what was in Obama's PDB's days before the attacks in 2012...At least Bush didn't have the significance of the date being special somehow...Obama, can't duck that criticism...It was after all ON 9/11!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?