Zappykins said:
I just can't take you seriously. You are comparing a grape to 10,000 oranges. It is insincere. It's like the person trying to compair this to Watergate! Do they even have clue to what Watergate was, abously not. I don't mean to offend you, but your actions seem like an excellent example the worst part of US policies, blind partisanship. As I and others have pointed out, you bias is not only showing, but has a spotlight and a Good Year Blimp in LED and 20,000 dancing sparkly outfitted cheerleaders. But remember, the more you yell and hide, the more seriously people will take you. If you want to just hate on Obama, it's a free county. But let's not make up things. |
I wonder if the new news has changed your opinion.
As it's played out now... essentially it's exactly like 9/11 in that, the state department ignored direct threats and warnings by the CIA... that were actually, more direct and specific then the 9/11 warnings. Except they whitehouse specifically said to remove all talk of the warnings because they didn't want to be hurt politically.
I mean... wanting a paragraph gone because it....
"could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?" is... way more cut and dry evidence then... pretty much anything i can think of.
Less people died... but the warnings were more specific, more localized and well... in general should of been more expected. Attack somewhere in the united states is a bit more vague then attack in this very specific province in Afghanistan... where Ambassadors have been directly attacked. This combined with the testimony that shows they were unusually unprepaired show a lack of judgement greater then 9/11.... but with less people dead.
Also... there was a coverup after the fact... as opposed to Bush... who I don't beleive covered anything up about 9/11? I could be wrong, i'm not sure.
Either way... after the ABC emails... there SHOULD be plenty of meat for even the most left wing biased person to find enough to be outraged about unless they feel the need to reflexivly "protect their own."
Which is sort of what this whole thread seems to have devolved too.... "Sure Obama got someone killed and lied about it... but bush got more people killed!"
Not really... the best arguement.
Espiecally when it's rare you'll find even your average republican willing to pick up for G Dubbs.
Quite honestly, Bush and Obama are so nearly identical in actual policy I find it amazing that people feel the need to play one off the other anyway. It's funny. Republicans call him weak on national security and the like, when he's been a more agressive bush on steroids when it comes to the war on terror... and Democrats feel the need to rush to his defense and call him better then Bush when... we'll he's basically kept around, lengthened and strengthened EVERY civil rights abuse of American citizens that was previously hated by bush... (like Fiza) while murdering a bunch of children because they were standing next to terrorists. When the definition of terroist in many CIA cases was "Adult male of a certain age standing in a specific part of a middle eastern country."
The only pro Obama really has is getting rid of Torture on American soil... which isn't much of an accomplishment, when you consider the fact that it hasn't stopped anyone from being tortured. Just that we now put them on a plane to allied countries who aren't so "moral". So they can be tortured there... probably often by the same CIA people who were doing the torturing here.
Really, the big advantage of Bush... was that when he was president... people gave a shit about the civil rights abuses and innocent deaths. While Republicans really only make a big deal when we get attacked at home due to failures....
and well... Democrats are willing to let things they find reprhensible go completley ignored... simply because it avoids political scandal.
Are the Republican congressmen in particular being hypocritical? Yes. However, I can tolerate someone being hypocritical from their base beliefs when the end result is a positive for justice. Which is why I won't critisize the Republicans and Moderate Democrats suddenly jumping over on the gay marriage bandwagon for example. However... when you are being hypocritical from your base beliefs to cover up something? Now that, is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Or to put it another, extreme way... you don't get mad at a Racist for helping out a troubled black kid who was adopted by his white friend. You DO however get mad at the guy who claims he isn't racist, yet specifically keeps black people out of his workforce because something in their inverviews make them "seem less honest".
Well, that and stuff just keeps coming out that seems to make Republicans look less and less paranoid. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/irs-admits-targeting-conservative-groups/story?id=19151646#.UY1eEco0Gf8
