• 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!

What About President Reagan?

pbrauer said:
We should have gone after Osama bin Laden and al-qaida and then left.
Click to expand...

UBL was in Pakistan and Al Qaeda is still all over the place. We should have required the airlines to secure the cockpit cabins and arm the pilots, added federal TSA inspectors (ONLY) to assure better airport/airline security, let the two airlines (and their insurance companies) involved go bankrupt and not have attacked Afghanistan (or Iraq) for the actions of those "terrorists" known to be from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen. You cannot fight the Jihad by zapping a few "terrorist" morons at a time while leaving the funding and recruiting base for them untouched.
 
ecofarm said:
1. Truck bombs in Lebanon are common events.
2. This is not the same as an embassy being over-run in a tactical assault.
3. There is no way to stop a truck bomb occuring outside an embassy.
4. There was no security breach.
5. There was no need or attempt to muster combat troops to the scene.
6. Were any Americans killed?
7. Was the ambassador killed?
8. Were security forces killed while waiting for reinforcements or air support?


False equivalence.
Click to expand...
Two U.S. military were killed. Terrorist Attacks in the U.S. or Against Americans | Infoplease.com
 
ttwtt78640 said:
UBL was in Pakistan and Al Qaeda is still all over the place. We should have required the airlines to secure the cockpit cabins and arm the pilots, added federal TSA inspectors (ONLY) to assure better airport/airline security, let the two airlines (and their insurance companies) involved go bankrupt and not have attacked Afghanistan (or Iraq) for the actions of those "terrorists" known to be from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen. You cannot fight the Jihad by zapping a few "terrorist" morons at a time while leaving the funding and recruiting base for them untouched.
Click to expand...
Osama bin Laden was in Tora Bora, Afghanistan but escaped. President Bush was more interested in Saddam Hussein than getting Osama.
 
Vern said:
er uh Sawyer, we're not saying he's no worse than Reagan or Bush. We're saying we dont have a problem with it. And to prove our point, we didnt have a problem with it when reagan did it. But not so strangely you only have a problem with it when President Obama does it.
Click to expand...

You hated Reagan and Bush and I enjoy watching you defend Obama by saying they did it too. It is a constant Obama lover fall back position and if that is the best you can say about him.....:lol:
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You hated Reagan and Bush and I enjoy watching you defend Obama by saying they did it too. It is a constant Obama lover fall back position and if that is the best you can say about him.....:lol:
Click to expand...

Once again a con has to pretend not to understand what I posted to respond. I justify what President Obama does on its own merits. I had no problem with what he did. you had no problem with what he did when reagan did it. See the problem? My supposed hating of Bush and Reagan doesnt mean that President Obama cant play golf. My supposed hating of Bush and reagan doesn't mean that President Obama cant go on vacation. You silly cons have been wound up over easter egg hunts and christmas cards by the 'conservative entertainment complex'. And the hypocrisy of your whining was quickly exposed. Just add this narrative to the list.
 
Vern said:
Once again a con has to pretend not to understand what I posted to respond. I justify what President Obama does on its own merits. I had no problem with what he did. you had no problem with what he did when reagan did it. See the problem? My supposed hating of Bush and Reagan doesnt mean that President Obama cant play golf. My supposed hating of Bush and reagan doesn't mean that President Obama cant go on vacation. You silly cons have been wound up over easter egg hunts and christmas cards by the 'conservative entertainment complex'. And the hypocrisy of your whining was quickly exposed. Just add this narrative to the list.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you bring up vacations as it is a perfect example of my point. Libs were constantly bashing Bush for his vacations and now defend Obama by pointing to Bush.
 
ecofarm said:
1. Truck bombs in Lebanon are common events.
2. This is not the same as an embassy being over-run in a tactical assault.
3. There is no way to stop a truck bomb occuring outside an embassy.
4. There was no security breach.
5. There was no need or attempt to muster combat troops to the scene.
6. Were any Americans killed?
7. Was the ambassador killed?
8. Were security forces killed while waiting for reinforcements or air support?


False equivalence.
Click to expand...


4 deaths < 24 deaths.

Face it, there was so much more death in Lebanon.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You have it backwards, they say Reagan and Bush were so much better than Obama, they do not however excuse anything Bush or Reagan did by saying Obama does it too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. Some righties want Reagan cannonized, for ****'s sake.
 
Middleground said:
Yeah, right. Some righties want Reagan cannonized, for ****'s sake.
Click to expand...

If you can name a time when conservatives defended any action by Bush or Reagan by saying Obama does it too I will donate 10 bucks to the forum, if you cant then pony up, YOU PAY. Deal?
 
Middleground said:
4 deaths < 24 deaths.

Face it, there was so much more death in Lebanon.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you would pretend that a truck bomb outside an embassy killing two gate guards (and whomever was on the street) is the same as an embassy (and CIA safehouse?) being overrun in a tactical assault and failing to provide assistance.

False equivalence.
 
iliveonramen said:
They know they hate him...they are still just searching for a valid reason
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Obama... seems many here are not picking the right ones. But I digress. No matter how much a sitting President wants to lead, it simply does not happen. The system--or what it has become-- simply does not allow it.
 
ecofarm said:
I can't believe you would pretend that a truck bomb outside an embassy killing two gate guards (and whomever was on the street) is the same as an embassy (and CIA safehouse?) being overrun in a tactical assault and failing to provide assistance.

False equivalence.
Click to expand...

Why do you have to nitpick to see which terrorist attack is higher on the totem pole? People died because American embassies were attacked. Period. Why are some lives more important to you than others? If you think it was okay for Reagan to continue on his campaign trail yet not Obama, then to me, you're biased.
 
Middleground said:
There are plenty of reasons to criticize Obama... seems many here are not picking the right ones. But I digress. No matter how much a sitting President wants to lead, it simply does not happen. The system--or what it has become-- simply does not allow it.
Click to expand...

No doubt...I agree there are reasons to criticize him, I'm talking HATE! Like a visceral deep seated hatred.
 
Middleground said:
Why do you have to nitpick to see which terrorist attack is higher on the totem pole? People died because American embassies were attacked. Period. Why are some lives more important to you than others? If you think it was okay for Reagan to continue on his campaign trail yet not Obama, then to me, you're biased.
Click to expand...

You think the two attacks are the same? I think they are VERY different, rendering the OP a false premise based on false equivalence.

I don't have a problem with either continuing their campaign. I just wanted to point out how the OP is BS.
 
ecofarm said:
You think the two attacks are the same? I think they are VERY different, rendering the OP a false premise based on false equivalence.

I don't have a problem with either continuing their campaign. I just wanted to point out how the OP is BS.
Click to expand...



The type of attacks were different but they both had the same target -- Americans embassies. Also, both attacks left plenty of questions marks in the aftermath. And, like you, I have no issues with either President fulfilling their commitments shortly afterwards.
 
iliveonramen said:
No doubt...I agree there are reasons to criticize him, I'm talking HATE! Like a visceral deep seated hatred.
Click to expand...


Yep, it's plenty evident here at DP. Not sure where it stems from but it's utterly asinine.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I'm glad you bring up vacations as it is a perfect example of my point. Libs were constantly bashing Bush for his vacations and now defend Obama by pointing to Bush.
Click to expand...

still you deflect from my point: the hypocrisy of cons obediently complaining when instructed to.

How strange you wont address points I brought up, the easter egg hunt and the Christmas card (I'm sure if I put some time into it I could find more just as laughable examples of cons obediently whining) and the points you obediently complained about,campaigning after a terrorist attack.

As far as vacations go, Bush broke the record for vacations in his first year and decided to stay on vacation even after the CIA traveled to Texas to implore Bush do something about the impending terrorist attack. (on a side note, that's what "ignoring all the warnings" looks like). From David Suskind's book:

"The alarming August 6, 2001, memo from the CIA to the President -- "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" -- has been widely noted in the past few years.

But, also in August, CIA analysts flew to Crawford to personally brief the President -- to intrude on his vacation with face-to-face alerts.....

"And, at an eyeball-to-eyeball intelligence briefing during this urgent summer, George W. Bush seems to have made the wrong choice.

He looked hard at the panicked CIA briefer.

"All right," he said. "You've covered your ass, now."

so sorry if 4000 people dying in a preventable attack created a theme about Bush's vacations. Now can we address the hypocrisy of cons who only complain about things as instructed only when President Obama does it.
 
ecofarm said:
I can't believe you would pretend that a truck bomb outside an embassy killing two gate guards (and whomever was on the street) is the same as an embassy (and CIA safehouse?) being overrun in a tactical assault and failing to provide assistance.

False equivalence.
Click to expand...

uh, the only thing false I see is the republican narrative of "and failing to provide assistance". again I say, I've yet to see an intelligent or honest criticism of President Obama. You cant even get that lying narrative from the discredited republican Benghazi "report". Your post is just another example of the "conservative entertainment complex" doing its job. Mission Accomplished
 
Reagan supported jihadists of the type that attacked in Benghazi. Indeed, he called al Qaida terrorists freedom fighters in Reaghanistan and sent them money and missiles.

That's the Reagan conservatives know and love.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom