For Conservatives

ThatOwlWoman said:
But Benghazi is different. Really. It is. Because Obama and Killary. Just remember, it was Obama and Clinton's fault because they didn't beef up security and in fact had allegedly started withdrawing funds and personnel that could have protected the ambassador. Kind of like Trump has bee......

Oh wait. You're right. It's almost exactly the same.
Click to expand...

I could almost understand the right-wingers looking for a scandal in the idea that maybe someone in the Obama administration screwed up by not having more security at that facility. The level of security there at least arguably could have made a difference in the outcome. That part of the "scandal" was comically overblown, but at least it had a sane basis in reality. The part that really broke my brain was the constant right-wing obsession over the question of whether or not State Department officials should have known that the anti-Muslim video didn't inspire the attack, at the time they were speculating it might have, and the parallel obsession over whether or not Obama's Rose Garden labeling of it as an "act of terror" was good enough, or whether the administration should have been clearer about it being a terrorist attack by ISIS from day one. None of that stuff mattered even a little, yet that's the crap they were still grilling Hillary Clinton about four years later. It was bizarre. I mean, can you picture if, four years from now, members of the Trump administration are being grilled under oath by Congress about whether they were forthcoming enough about the context of this attack in their first few press appearances? It's just unthinkably stupid.
 
Oneuli said:
ISIS took credit for the recent attack at a Syrian restaurant that killed four Americans -- two service members, and two civilians. I'd like to invite you to think through what your reaction would be if we found there was some confusion in the administration's initial communications response to the attack -- for example, if, in the immediate confusion following the attack, the administration were slow to publicly identify ISIS as the attacker, or didn't consistently call it an act of terror, or speculated incorrectly about some details about the circumstances around the attack, etc.

The reasonable reaction would be to give them some leeway. If the botched messaging or flubbed details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it just wouldn't be much of a story, right? Even the most crazed of liberals would have trouble treating that post-attack communications aspect of the story as a huge scandal. Yet now, imagine if it were a Democratic administration. Or, rather, don't imagine it, since we have a close parallel. After the Benghazi attack, there was a short period of confusion about whether or not an anti-Muslim video, which had sparked a riot at our Cairo embassy that same day, had also played a role in the Benghazi attack. Needless to say, the conservatives didn't grant the administration any leeway about that. Even though those details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it was treated as a major scandal. In fact, players in the administration were still being grilled relentlessly, four years later, about why they weren't quicker to definitively publicly identify ISIS as the attackers, why they speculated about a role for the video, and similar trivia. It was baffling to those of us outside the conservative media bubble.

The argument the right-wingers used to justify freaking out about short-term communications snafus regarding Benghazi was the idea that Obama had an incentive to maintain the illusion he was making progress in the war on ISIS, so his team tried to downplay the attack and the connection between ISIS and the attack. Well, in a similar sense, Trump clearly has an incentive to downplay this attack (he has yet to comment on it), and ISIS's continuing ability to harm us in Syria, since his plan for withdrawal was sold with the idea ISIS had already been defeated there. Yet, for the life of me, I can't imagine turning a little political spin about this attack into a massive four-year-long scandal. Can you?
Click to expand...
what the hell?..ISIS claimed responsibility. It was a suicide bomber.
It might have been al-Qaeda ( al Nusra etc.)..It could be a lot of players
if you want jihadi not to harm us in Syria, then tell your representative to get out now.
The rest of this gibberish I'll leave to others
 
If you slipped on the ice, ISIS would take credit for it. Undoubtedly, the war whores will use the incident as justification for saying. After all, it's not like the Democrats are anti-war.
 
Evmetro said:
I enjoyed your creative writing project, thanks for posting it. The above invitation does not align correctly with how we perceived the post Benghazi narrative. We perceived a gross intentional deception that was politically motivated.
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand you dreamed up a scenario that involved an intentional deception. My point is, could you imagine anyone doing that here? There was no real basis for the idea that there was any intentional deception in the case of the Benghazi attack, but even if it were intentional deception, it would be about a minor contextual detail and the deception wouldn't have mattered. So, to get an equivalent, imagine that we were to find out in a day that the attack wasn't actually at a restaurant, but instead was at a space that used to be a restaurant but actually had been rented out by the US as a staging place for supplies. And say we found emails showing some in the administration knew it was no longer a restaurant, even as the press releases referenced a restaurant. Can you imagine that utterly trivial bit of misinformation driving a four-year-long investigation of high level officials, including multiple Congressional hearings, etc.? I just can't picture the left going off the deep end the way the right did, in such a circumstance.
 
anatta said:
what the hell?..ISIS claimed responsibility. It was a suicide bomber.
It might have been al-Qaeda ( al Nusra etc.)..It could be a lot of players
if you want jihadi not to harm us in Syria, then tell your representative to get out now.
The rest of this gibberish I'll leave to others
Click to expand...

You seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. Try again.
 
Oneuli said:
I could almost understand the right-wingers looking for a scandal in the idea that maybe someone in the Obama administration screwed up by not having more security at that facility. The level of security there at least arguably could have made a difference in the outcome. That part of the "scandal" was comically overblown, but at least it had a sane basis in reality. The part that really broke my brain was the constant right-wing obsession over the question of whether or not State Department officials should have known that the anti-Muslim video didn't inspire the attack, at the time they were speculating it might have, and the parallel obsession over whether or not Obama's Rose Garden labeling of it as an "act of terror" was good enough, or whether the administration should have been clearer about it being a terrorist attack by ISIS from day one. None of that stuff mattered even a little, yet that's the crap they were still grilling Hillary Clinton about four years later. It was bizarre. I mean, can you picture if, four years from now, members of the Trump administration are being grilled under oath by Congress about whether they were forthcoming enough about the context of this attack in their first few press appearances? It's just unthinkably stupid.
Click to expand...

This short sentence ably sums up the entire GOP and its slavish followers.
 
I have to compliment you on even broaching this subject with Conservatives. They seem in love with going 'Faux Outrage' over EVERYTHING. I think they are primed and pumped up by the Fox Propaganda Network, they get their cues, then go into full Hollywood, ... swinging their arms around, pulling there hair, screaming with foam coming out of their mouths.
It's happened so many times, I view it as "The Boy Whom Cried Wolf". I ignore them, it's become boring, mundane, predictable.

I've read the first Post here, I won't read any further, it would just be a waste of my time.



Oneuli said:
ISIS took credit for the recent attack at a Syrian restaurant that killed four Americans -- two service members, and two civilians. I'd like to invite you to think through what your reaction would be if we found there was some confusion in the administration's initial communications response to the attack -- for example, if, in the immediate confusion following the attack, the administration were slow to publicly identify ISIS as the attacker, or didn't consistently call it an act of terror, or speculated incorrectly about some details about the circumstances around the attack, etc.

The reasonable reaction would be to give them some leeway. If the botched messaging or flubbed details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it just wouldn't be much of a story, right? Even the most crazed of liberals would have trouble treating that post-attack communications aspect of the story as a huge scandal. Yet now, imagine if it were a Democratic administration. Or, rather, don't imagine it, since we have a close parallel. After the Benghazi attack, there was a short period of confusion about whether or not an anti-Muslim video, which had sparked a riot at our Cairo embassy that same day, had also played a role in the Benghazi attack. Needless to say, the conservatives didn't grant the administration any leeway about that. Even though those details made no practical difference in policy, and were cleared up in fairly short order, it was treated as a major scandal. In fact, players in the administration were still being grilled relentlessly, four years later, about why they weren't quicker to definitively publicly identify ISIS as the attackers, why they speculated about a role for the video, and similar trivia. It was baffling to those of us outside the conservative media bubble.

The argument the right-wingers used to justify freaking out about short-term communications snafus regarding Benghazi was the idea that Obama had an incentive to maintain the illusion he was making progress in the war on ISIS, so his team tried to downplay the attack and the connection between ISIS and the attack. Well, in a similar sense, Trump clearly has an incentive to downplay this attack (he has yet to comment on it), and ISIS's continuing ability to harm us in Syria, since his plan for withdrawal was sold with the idea ISIS had already been defeated there. Yet, for the life of me, I can't imagine turning a little political spin about this attack into a massive four-year-long scandal. Can you?
Click to expand...
 
CharacterAssassin said:
LOL! It's funny that you are compelled you actually have a penis, Tinkerbell.
Click to expand...

It's funny that your wife refuses to play with your 1/4". She even said that the first time she saw you naked, she thought you had a vagina. It would be fitting since you're such a pussy.
 
CFM said:
It's funny that your wife refuses to play with your 1/4". She even said that the first time she saw you naked, she thought you had a vagina. It would be fitting since you're such a pussy.
Click to expand...

Why do you pay black guys to rape your entire family and then eat the cum out of them?
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
But Benghazi is different. Really. It is. Because Obama and Killary. Just remember, it was Obama and Clinton's fault because they didn't beef up security and in fact had allegedly started withdrawing funds and personnel that could have protected the ambassador. Kind of like Trump has bee......

Oh wait. You're right. It's almost exactly the same.
Click to expand...

So, we are claiming government spins the news to make themselves look better politically? Who knew?
 
Oneuli said:
Yes, I understand you dreamed up a scenario...
Click to expand...

When I described what righties "perceived", I was explaining from a neutral position to respond to your objective sounding opening essay. It does not sound like you are interested in being objective anymore. Since characterassasin is assassinating your thread, I'm out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top