DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Gauge
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Benghazi isn't a scandal because it happened, but because of the cover up over why it happened. That's why the 13 attacks that happened under Bush aren't the same as Benghazi.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/15/benghazi-senate-report-clinton/4490727/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/may/13/ronan-farrow/ronan-farrow-says-inadequate-security-funding-cong/
I can't find a listing for the bill, so I can't see if there were any Democrats that also voted in favor of that bill (same for the Senate version, and the final bill). Still, the State Department has the ability to move assets around to where they are needed more, based on intelligence, requests, etc. So, even with reduced funding, assets could have been moved to Benghazi. I'm not even stating that's the damning part of the attack. The attack was blamed on a video. A big deal was made over bringing the video's creator into custody, too. While the government had a reason to bring that guy into custody, it wasn't because his video caused the attack in Benghazi.
To paraphrase: It's the cover up that gets them.
See? This is why I like discussing things with you, you support your stance with information instead of rhetoric. A tip of the hat for doing so.
Right back at you.
quote:
I do not want to take the thread off the intended subject so allow me to finalize my original point and I will briefly respond to you.
My point is that I never stated that anyone's hands were clean, but all were partially responsible. The funding may well have been there however cuts were still made regardless of how those cuts are looked at. There seems to be a little game of numbers within the government that should not shock anyone so we really don't know the full unadulterated story. If the information is to be trusted, there was a breakdown in how things were handled with the security. Who is responsible for that is kind of a grey area, some point to Clinton, some point to the embassy others point to Obama and other South Park fans blame Canada. I go with option B and blame them all. Ultimately if it is that difficult to get security to someplace that needs it, then we are all fucked and our system is shit.
Whether it was a cover-up or a bungled mess in getting information, neither of which are off the table in my view, really does not change how this topic is used as a bludgeon to somehow damage the credibility of this administration. Like every other administration has been without scandal, misinformation, stupid decisions, cover-ups and the usual suspects. For instance, I could say "You're doing a great job Brownie." or "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." to the same ends, but the point is that rolling such things out when in discussion of some other political exchange is fairly useless. Does it make a point? Sure, but where exactly does it end us up when the topic is Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin or their ilk? For me, I prefer to not do those things, because it is pointless. No one has moved to impeach Obama, but they sure talk about doing it because it sounds wonderful to those that don't like him, but if they really had a case for it, it would have already been done. Regardless, the finger pointing is bullshit and only serves to keep us fighting among ourselves which allows the government to roll merrily along doing whatever it wants to do. If half the people on these boards who are so fervently passionate about their particular brand of politics would put their energy into fixing the problems and holding our politicians accountable for the shit-show they are handing us, maybe things would get a little better... maybe not. One thing is for sure, if we can't get united, then we are doomed.
I won't discuss this anymore here because we drifted way off topic and I do not want to hijack the thread. Feel free to email me.
Again, thank you for the level headed discussion.
I hope Bachmann runs. I really do. She'll have her ideas and notions exposed and either she'll be supported, or she won't be supported. After that, hopefully she'll get the idea that her ideas and notions are or aren't supported and will either excel, or ride of into the sunset. After she puts her ideas and notions out there, we'll know who she is and what she stands for. We'll either agree, disagree, or some combination of the two.
If we want to know what the people truly think, we need to have all sorts of people running for office. Obviously, Ms. Bachmann has support of her constituents, so we know, to some extent, what they want. Maybe she's simply the better of two evils and doesn't truly represent her constituents, but simply does a better job of it than her competition. If she's wildly popular to her constituents, however, why not run and see if that popularity spans the Nation?
Personally, I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Throw as much spaghetti against the wall as you can. Let's see what sticks and what doesn't. At that point, maybe I find out that my ideas and notions aren't going to be represented by any one candidate, but at least I'll know. Or, I'll find one that I can actually support, rather than simply opposing the opposition.
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: please let it be so..... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread