What About President Reagan?

[ecofarm]

ccording to The Associated Press, Gibson told a Republican-led congressional committee on June 26 that he was never ordered to "stand down."

To be honest, I'm not so interested in the details. I don't hate Obama. I have no problem with Obama continuing to campaign the next day. I don't think that Reagan or Obama was wrong to do so. My point is simple:

The bombing in the OP did not require assistance. Benghazi (obviously) did. That's a major difference. I have outlined other major differences between the attacks. But some people are so interested in making whatever partisan argument they have in mind that they ignore the fact that the OP is based on a false equivalence.

 

[dad2three2001]

By April of last year Obama had held more fundraisers than the last 5 Presidents combined per Obama has held more fundraisers than previous five Presidents combined as he visits key swing states on 'permanent campaign' | Mail Online

"But his supporters say the president is simply adjusting to the realities of a new fundraising world.

“Given that our opponents have the ability to fundraise full time — and that their special interest allies have committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars in an attempt to defeat the President — it is necessary to raise significant resources now to build our organization across the country,” Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman, said in an email statement.

He has a point: Republicans have far outpaced Democrats in capitalizing on the relaxing of campaign finance rules that has taken place in recent years. Obama will have to contend next year with hundreds of millions in spending by outside groups like the Karl Rove brainchild American Crossroads, which plans to raise $240 million to help elect Republicans."

LA TIMES

 

[dad2three2001]

To be honest, I'm not so interested in the details. I don't hate Obama. I have no problem with him continuing to campaign. My point is simple:

The bombing in the OP did not require assistance. Benghazi (obviously) did. That's a major difference. I have outlined other major differences between the attacks. But some people are so interested in making whatever partisan argument they have in mind that they ignore the fact that the OP is based on a false equivalence.

AND THE False equivalence? lol

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.

2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan

2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia

2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria

13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush and Fox News Said Nothing


The GOP and Fox's fixation on Benghazi is partisan propoganda

13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush and Fox News Said Nothing

 

[dad2three2001]

One helped to abolish the Berlin wall and to disolve the USSR, the other wants to play games with UN approval and lead from behind.

Obama was helping the wall come down? Because HONEST historians say it was 50 years of containment AND the USSR coning apart from within that did that 'wall' thing... BEFORE THE GOP CREATED THE REAGAN MYTH...


The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan


A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration


Vox Verax: The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

 

[ecofarm]

AND THE False equivalence? lol

The attack in the OP and the Benghazi attack are very different events. To pretend they are the same and attempt to draw any conclusion from such is a logical fallacy.

Reagan was not wrong to campaign the next day. Obama was not wrong to campaign the next day. That said, let's not let a false equivalence slide in the interest of partisan politics.

 

[Lord of Planar]

AND THE False equivalence? lol

2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.

2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan

2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia

2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria

13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush and Fox News Said Nothing


The GOP and Fox's fixation on Benghazi is partisan propoganda

13 Benghazis Happened Under President Bush and Fox News Said Nothing

Yes, attacks happen. However, when else in history, did we put an Ambassador in a country fresh out of a civil war, without adequate protection? More protection was asked for and denied.

 

[Lord of Planar]

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

I would like to see that poll. I'll bet this blogger you are relying on has an incorrect interpretation of that poll.

Since when are blogs accurate information?

 

[Lord of Planar]

got bin laden

He was president when it happened. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Fisher]

"But his supporters say the president is simply adjusting to the realities of a new fundraising world.

“Given that our opponents have the ability to fundraise full time — and that their special interest allies have committed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars in an attempt to defeat the President — it is necessary to raise significant resources now to build our organization across the country,” Ben LaBolt, a campaign spokesman, said in an email statement.

He has a point: Republicans have far outpaced Democrats in capitalizing on the relaxing of campaign finance rules that has taken place in recent years. Obama will have to contend next year with hundreds of millions in spending by outside groups like the Karl Rove brainchild American Crossroads, which plans to raise $240 million to help elect Republicans."

LA TIMES

McCain pledged to stick to public financing and Obama did not in 2008. He opened the floodgates, not the GOP. Clinton was the one who announced his candidacy a previously unheard of 13 months before the election. We now have states trying to play primary leapfrog to the head of the line to get the huge chunks of money that are wasted in the early primary states on TV advertising. Please do not try to pretend that the democrats have clean hands in all this.

 

[Lord of Planar]

McCain pledged to stick to public financing and Obama did not in 2008. He opened the floodgates, not the GOP. Clinton was the one who announced his candidacy a previously unheard of 13 months before the election. We now have states trying to play primary leapfrog to the head of the line to get the huge chunks of money that are wasted in the early primary states on TV advertising. Please do not try to pretend that the democrats have clean hands in all this.

I thought that was one of Obama's first broken promises. That he didn't stick to his pledge to only use public funding.

Am I wrong?

 

[Lord of Planar]

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans.

Again, I would like to see that poll. My first visit to a gallop search took me here. It would seem to defy what your blogger says.

Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review

 

[Fisher]

I thought that was one of Obama's first broken promises. That he didn't stick to his pledge to only use public funding.

Am I wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?_r=0

 

[Lord of Planar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?_r=0

Your article says I was right. Deeper in it does say Obama changed his mind, and even signed a pledge he would stick to public financing.

 

[Fisher]

Your article says I was right. Deeper in it does say Obama changed his mind, and even signed a pledge he would stick to public financing.

Barack Obama's $745 Million 2008 Campaign Ended Public Financing - US News and World Report

Barack Obama's candidacy wasn't just the beginning of the end of public financing. His meteoric fundraising spree rendered the system instantly extinct. Opting out of public financing, despite earlier pledges to the contrary, Obama raised $745 million entirely in private contributions. So much for keeping campaign spending down. Although candidates have been forgoing the public system for primaries since 2000, Obama's record-breaking haul set a new precedent for general elections. The maximum amount available under public financing in 2008 was $126 million—a sum that will seem quaint when Obama raises $1 billion for his next campaign.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Cost of Obama’s Trip is Dwarfed By George And Laura Bush’s Africa Spending Spree

Cost of Obama's Trip is Dwarfed By George And Laura Bush's Africa Spending Spree

You purposely miss my point. No pres has taken two 727 jets, his and hers on a Hawaiian vacation while lecturing us about AGW. I would say nice try but it was a pathetic try.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You purposely miss my point. No pres has taken two 727 jets, his and hers on a Hawaiian vacation while lecturing us about AGW. I would say nice try but it was a pathetic try.

Obomba: Do as I say, not as I do...

 

[head of joaquin]

Ok, I tell you what... We'll pretend that assistance was not needed at Benghazi.

Can you address the other major differences between the two attacks?

Nothing to pretend about. Stevens and Smith were dead within 50 minutes of the attack, and within 30 minutes of notifying the CIA of the attack. A rescue team was there within three hours.

What rightwing narrative are you buying into here? That we should have bombed a crowd of Libyans after Stevens was killed?

 

[head of joaquin]

Again, I would like to see that poll. My first visit to a gallop search took me here. It would seem to defy what your blogger says.

Ronald Reagan From the People’s Perspective: A Gallup Poll Review

Remind people that Reagan armed and praised al Qaida jihadists, and their view of him is less favorable.

 

[Linc]

R. Wilson Reagan switched parties so he could get elected to something, though his WW II experience qualified him to be a Vietnam war pacifist. He broke the law but but didn't remember it when it went to Congress. He signed the first trade giveaway pact, nwith Israel.

 

[dad2three2001]

Wasn't Obama's trip a vacation, and all of the Bush's trips dealing with aid to Africa?

NO....


Obama was in Africa to promote an increased partnership amid criticism the United States has, outside of military interests, focused its attention on other areas of the world.

The three-nation trip began last week and included stops in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania.

Obama concludes Africa trip - CNN.com


BUT HOW MUCH DID MRS BUSH'S Safari with the kids cost, you know one of 2 trips without the Prez? lol

 

[ecofarm]

Nothing to pretend about. Stevens and Smith were dead within 50 minutes of the attack, and within 30 minutes of notifying the CIA of the attack. A rescue team was there within three hours.

What rightwing narrative are you buying into here? That we should have bombed a crowd of Libyans after Stevens was killed?

I'm not buying into any narrative. I'm just saying that the two attacks were very different and should not be equated for any partisan reason by either "side".

Fact: The attack in the OP did not warrant assistance, it was handled with resources immediately on hand. Benghazi could not be handled with resources immediately on hand. Why? Because an organized military assault including dozens of fighters, RPGs and coordinated mortar fire that results in the embassy being overrun is very different than a common truck bomb (which there is really no way to avoid). There are other major differences between the two.

As someone without a partisan agenda in this thread (I have no problem with Reagan's or Obama's campaigning the next day), I can only wonder why people would be so interested in a false equivalence in order to further their partisan arguments.

I'm not saying Obama was better or worse than Reagan. I'm not saying that Obama screwed up with Benghazi. I'm just saying that some people are using two very different events to draw conclusions based on a logical fallacy (false equivalence).

Can't anyone else admit that a car bomb killing two soldiers is different than an organized attack that overruns an embassy? Why is there a need to see them as the same thing?

Of course we should not have bombed the crowd of Libyans (though precision ordinance on site during the event would have been nice). That's ridiculous.

 

[head of joaquin]

I'm not buying into any narrative. I'm just saying that the two attacks were very different and should not be equated for any partisan reason by either "side".

Fact: The attack in the OP did not warrant assistance, it was handled with resources immediately on hand. Benghazi could not be handled with resources immediately on hand. Why? Because an organized military assault including dozens of fighters, RPGs and coordinated mortar fire that results in the embassy being overrun is very different than a common truck bomb (which there is really no way to avoid). There are other major differences between the two.

As someone without a partisan agenda in this thread (I have no problem with Reagan's or Obama's campaigning the next day), I can only wonder why people would be so interested in a false equivalence in order to further their partisan arguments.

I'm not saying Obama was better or worse than Reagan. I'm not saying that Obama screwed up with Benghazi. I'm just saying that some people are using two very different events to draw conclusions based on a logical fallacy (false equivalence).

Can't anyone else admit that a car bomb killing two soldiers is different than an organized attack that overruns an embassy? Why is there a need to see them as the same thing?

Assistance was sent to Benghazi, so what are you really asking?

 

[dad2three2001]

I would like to see that poll. I'll bet this blogger you are relying on has an incorrect interpretation of that poll.

Since when are blogs accurate information?

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan


With the Gipper's reputation flagging after Clinton, neoconservatives launched a stealthy campaign to remake him as a "great" president.

The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan’s legacy across America.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away


THERE IS A LINK THERE TO THE HISTORIANS

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com




Gallup poll found that just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of him. By contrast, Jimmy Carter, the man Reagan had defeated in a 44-state rout in 1980, was viewed favorably by 63 percent of the American public. The Reagan presidency stood in something approaching disrepute.


When Reagan was (much) less popular than Carter - Salon.com






Reagan’s image improved substantially in the years after he left office

Ronald Reagan From the People

 

[Lord of Planar]

NO....


Obama was in Africa to promote an increased partnership amid criticism the United States has, outside of military interests, focused its attention on other areas of the world.

The three-nation trip began last week and included stops in Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania.

Obama concludes Africa trip - CNN.com


BUT HOW MUCH DID MRS BUSH'S Safari with the kids cost, you know one of 2 trips without the Prez? lol

Did they go there supporting US corporate friends?

Symbion Power

From Afghanistan to Africa & Haiti.

In 2007, Symbion expanded its operations to Afghanistan, where most of the U.S. government’s investment in electrification is being made through a $1.4 billion dollar Cost-Plus Prime Contract to a joint venture of two U.S. firms, the Louis Berger Group / Black & Veatch Joint Venture (the LBG/B&V JV). Symbion won a bid to build a 100MW Power Plant in Kabul.

Symbion is now pursuing power plant work in Africa and Haiti.

Partnership with the USA, or government dependance with Halliburton type friends of Obomba?

 

[dad2three2001]

R. Wilson Reagan switched parties so he could get elected to something, though his WW II experience qualified him to be a Vietnam war pacifist. He broke the law but but didn't remember it when it went to Congress. He signed the first trade giveaway pact, nwith Israel.

Ronnie ALSO promoted the future 'NAFTA' treaty Heritage Foundation came up with the day he announced his run in 1979

His first post convention speech in 1980 used the 'code words' states rights in Philadelphia, Mississippi where 3 black civil rights workers had been lynched...