arma virumque cano (et alia)
Those weren't American deaths is the counter. Of course, W(orst President Ever) failures in Iraq and the Mythical Ronnie Raygun's record of failure, should make right-wingers pause, but they are childish hypocrites who follow Republicans where ever they lead them.On April 18, 1983 the Beirut Embassy Car Bombing killed 17 Embassy personnel (and 46 Lebanese) and the follow on Truck Bombing attack 6 months later on October 23, 1983 at the US Barracks in Beirut killed 241 Marines, Soldiers and Sailors. The most despicable thing is the two attacks followed the same tactics because the Terrorists knew the Embassy Marine Guards were barred by Ronald Reagan from having ammo at their posts.
I'll admit that the Benghazi atrocity isn't a focus of mine, and I'm thus not fully conversant on the details, but my understanding is that much of the anger over it is motivated by the fact that the attack occurred over a period of hours, with ample military resources in the region to have very likely made a real difference in the outcome, had any attempt to rescue the embassy personnel been made. I further understand that in this regard, the Benghazi attack is very distinct from the above mentioned other attacks on U.S. diplomatic personnel.Am I wrong about either of those assertions?Oh--I guess some of the anger is also about the Obama administration's early, ridiculous claim that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event, motivated by some video portraying Islam in an unflattering light, rather than as deliberately planned terrorism. Is that not correct?
Tip of the Spear CIA missions sometimes go wrong. But, hey anything to try and win political points.
I'm not a big follower of Benghazi, but I thought the big beef isn't that the attack happened, but there was warning, it could have been prevented, and the ensuing coverup. That said, I think the right has overblown the controversy. An administration that lies to cover it's butt before an election, tell me what's actually new.
Benghazi. A tragedy for those involved. Obama will always have to live with this and wonder whether or not as president, he might have been able to prevent this senseless violence.September 11, 2001. Presidential Daily Brief August 6, 2001 BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S.
The hypocrisy of Conservatives who attack Obama so repeatedly for Benghazi while they've said little or nothing about all those other incidents is telling.
It's telling they care more about politics, than dead Americans. How soon they forget their lie of mushroom clouds and the thousands of American soldiers that died because of that lie.The bipartisan commission on Benghazi found no wrong doing by the president, or his administration.
As is the hypocrisy of liberals who attacked Bush so often, but are now saying nothing against Obama for doing the same things.
Guess you cannot read, the commission found no wrong doing by Obama, but of course we know you know better than experts, judges, the law, etc., you have said so. The funny one was when you claimed to know better than a dog expert, about dogs.
Greg, I suppose you never heard a thing about Obama supporters who've become disillusioned with the continuing wars and Guantanamo among other broken promises? Is that what you're saying? The truth is, you have heard plenty about that, even from me. But in order to pursue your contentions ways you disregard honest argument and just say the first thing that comes into your head.
Damn, Greg--you just can't win with Mikeb. First he chastises you for your "careful wording," and now he scolds you for saying "the first thing that comes into your head."There's just no satisfying some people ;-).
When it comes to pushing gun control, the only way to satisfy the freaks is total civilian disarmament.
That is a total lie, no surprise coming from you. Has the president asked for a total ban on guns? NO. Has the president asked for a confiscation of guns throughout the country? NO.Has the president stated the 2nd amendment should be rescinded, or even amended? NO. Next lie.
Greg says: "When it comes to pushing gun control, the only way to satisfy the freaks is total civilian disarmament."Because our proposals are perfectly reasonable, you have to exaggerate what our intentions are in order to argue against them. In other words, you have no argument against what we actually do say, only against what you imagine our true intentions are.
Mikeb, answer these questions: Since gun control groups only ever push for one ban or restriction after another, why should we believe that they don't ultimately want to ban everything? What evidence is there that they have ever accepted gun ownership and carry as a right?But what you demand is not reasonable. Do I have to put up the list again?
Typical gun loon, any attempt to save lives (that doesn't infringe on your right to own a gun) is unacceptable. Proving they are not interested in saving lives, as they have made clear many times.
Greg said, "Since gun control groups only ever push for one ban or restriction after another"When Clinton's AWB went into effect, what were the progressively stronger attempts to infringe on your gun rights that followed? Name them in chronological order.There were none, which means that oft-repeated nonsense of yours is total bullshit.
I'm not your intern, here to do your research for your lazy ass, and I'm certainly not going to put together a list "in chronological order" (for whatever damned reason that would be useful), but I will point out that before the federal AWB expired, bills were introduced to implement a new one, with a vastly expanded definition of "assault weapon."Sounds like one of those "progressively stronger attempts to infringe on [our] gun rights" to me.
Mike, Calguns has a nicely detailed chronological progression of California’s “assault weapon” bans. Pretty much exactly what you asked for:http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=83839
Yeah, I know, this is like when we say gun control folks don't want total disarmament and you go out and find obscure quotes to prove it wrong.The fact is when the one real AWB was in effect it was not incrementally increased but rather was allowed to expire. It went in exactly the opposite direction as your paranoid and bizarre claims say.
I don't get what you are trying to say. Are you calling California's AWB "obscure"? You keep bringing up the federal ban, but it expired because there were enough people against it. Those who were for it, wanted to expand it in 2004.
The fact is when the one real AWB was in effect it was not incrementally increased but rather was allowed to expire.And that, as has been illustrated, was not due to lack of effort on the part of forcible citizen disarmament jihadists to expand on the ban. You asked for attempts to double down on their legislative abominations.