Welcome to PatsFans.com

Where was the outrage and investigations?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by IndyPatriotsfan, Nov 17, 2012.

  1. IndyPatriotsfan

    IndyPatriotsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    When in:

    2002 - U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, attacked 10 killed.

    2004 - U.S. Embassy bombed in Uzbekistan 1 killed, 9 injured.

    2004 - Gunmen stormed U.S. Consulate in Saudi Arabia 8 killed.

    2006 - Armed men attacked U.S. Embassy in Syria 1 killed.

    2007 - Grenade launched into U.S. Embassy in Athens.

    2008 - Rioters set fire to U.S. Embassy in Serbia.

    2008 - Bombings at U.S. Embassy in Yeman, 10 killed.

    Where were the investigations? All this happened while Dubya was in office, why didn't the republicans call for investigations? No, they only want investigations when a Democrat is in charge, this happens:

    2012 - U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Lybia attacked 4 killed.

    It's when this happens, suddenly the righties are outraged and demand investigations. Such hypocrites.
  2. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Which of those bombings were the people begging for reinforcements beforehand, only to be denied by the president? And which of those bombings did Bush declare was all the fault of an American filmmaker and not, ya know, actually any sort of organized terrorism?

    Because unless you answers those questions - and we know you won't - then your analogies are epic fail.
  3. 363839

    363839 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,500
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    Were there calls for help that went unheeded when they could have been helped in those other attacks?
  4. IndyPatriotsfan

    IndyPatriotsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Really, the only epic fail is your typical sheepish response. We will
    never know if there were ever pleas for help from the president because there were never any investigations.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Oh, the Benghazi thing is b.s. and it's going nowhere. The Republicans are running for cover while they try to figure out how to get their act together. The outrage against Benghazi is bs. Quadaffi is dead, and as Petreus explained the CIA held back its cards (though revealed in classified documents that terrorists were involved) when Benghazi first happened so as to continue gathering intelligence (according to the NYT story on the Petreus testimony). At any rate, any Republicans who seriously think the Obama administration, which has been almost impeccably clean, did anything corrupt here, are probably among those losers who felt certain Romney would win. In my opinion, Benghazi is 99% a desperate attempt by an increasingly irrevelant party to buy time while it tries to modernize. I don't think anyone but Tea Partiers are focused on the Benghazi scandal. There's no smoking gun.
  6. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,134
    Likes Received:
    302
    Ratings:
    +611 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    Bush: 'Radical killers' behind Karachi bomb - CNN

    That's from the 2002 ... there are links for all of them and there were investigations for all of them. the difference between them and this one is this one is current and there was a deliberate white washing of the facts that went on for at least 3 weeks. The others were not white washed ... it was acknowledged they were attacks - terrorist attacks at that.

    So ... is it safe to say you don't mind being lied to?

    The people who are angry are the people angry because they were lied to.

    soon we will know who authorized the lying and the reason why.

    the families of the dead deserve answers as well as the American public.

    Government corruption intensifies when brave people stop asking questions.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  7. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,210
    Likes Received:
    129
    Ratings:
    +362 / 1 / -9

    We will know some day no matter how this Obama person lies and covers up, no matter how much his protectors try to cover for him, we will know the truth, Obama has the dishonest Left Wing Media on his side, he has people like Matthews and the rest of the Obama Fawners who work at NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, etc etc all in there doing everything they can to protect him but the TRUTH will be known.

    Obama didn't try to protect America's ambassador or the other DEAD americans, Obama only thought of himself and The Old Screaming Hag Hillary helped him, the truth when it is proven will also be the end of Hillary Clinton.

    The new day will come some day soon, then, we will be rid of these wretched people.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Harry, it's what you've wanted to believe all along, but frankly the Obama administration has been perhaps the most honest in my lifetime. There have been no significant scandals, and this one is not a scandal either. C'mon Harry, you really don't care that much about a dead gay ambassador appointed by Obama? Do you? You never protested so loudly against Bush when troops were needlessly dying Iraq? Were you up in arms at all the failures that Indy listed above? Did you almost have a stroke when Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after terrorists murdered 240 of our troops? C'mon Harry, be real hear. You might detest what liberals are doing to this country (making it better), but this Benghazi thing, I don't really believe it's a big deal to you. Is it?
  9. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,134
    Likes Received:
    302
    Ratings:
    +611 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey


    Do you remember the 2008 campaign promise by Obama.
    to be the most open and transparent administration ever?

    Shouldn't that matter to citizens?

    If we were deliberately lied to does that bother you?

    Bush's name has no business on this topic ... the topic is the truth ... Bush is the deflection.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Actually, Icy, the thread is not about Benghazi, it's about the absence of outrage during the Bush administration. So, if anything's a deflection, it's the discussion of Benghazi.

    Now that that is clear, onto your other point. Transparency is important, and as liberal the only way I can support big government is if it's transparent. Relative to state and local government, the federal government is highly transparent, and has been for the simple reason that it has the MSM, opposition parties, special interest groups, and others who are constantly watching it. Considering how big the federal government is, it's striking that one can find more news about scandals at the state and local level than at the federal level, despite the fact that the federal level has far more access through various laws including the FOI act.

    That said, the federal government big and sprawling, highly political, and obviously there are classes of things that must be kept secret for security reasons and some things that are kept secret in order to deal with political realities. For instance, the administration refused to share with the Tea Party Congress confidential notes on how it would deal with Congress on issues such as the Fast & Furious investigation. Turning over one's lawyer's notes to a highly partisan prosecutor obviously does not make sense.

    But, overall, the administration has done some good things, and I hope it does more. I'd like to see it work with Congress to force greater transparency throughout the system. But, my view is that the greatest political corruption in the nation is at the state and local level, not the federal level. No one pays much attention to what happens locally.

    I think this article provides a balanced view on the successes and failures of Obama's transparency efforts.

    Daily Dot | Open government report card: Grading Obama's transparency
  11. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,134
    Likes Received:
    302
    Ratings:
    +611 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    If he had stopped after the 2008 travesty I would agree with you...
    But he did not stop he opened the door:

    The difference is all those travesties while Bush was in office were acknowledged and investigated ... none were white washed.

    this one was white washed by someone.

    thread topic was answered and the door that was opened is still open and a viable part of the thread ... it's not a deflection. OP called righties hypocrites ... did you miss that part? Righties are offended as their take is they would like answers.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  12. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    There were no Congressional investigations of most if not all of those tragedies, and Bush certainly was not transparent. The entire Iraq War was based on lies and coverups, and Bush was not cooperative. The evidence of the dishonesty and ineptitude, including with regard to 9/11, came mostly from third parties. Many liberals have been complaining that Holder refuses to conduct investigations with regard to crimes under Bush. Maybe that should still be done, but it would probably not be politically wise.

    The Republicans are the ones who are investigation nuts. That's what they use the House for. They are trying to manufacture a scandal with regard to Benghazi in order to avoid dealing with the more serious issues they face as a Party. There is no Benghazi scandal as of yet. Some information was withheld early on while the investigation was going on, according to Petraeus. Petraeus claims he told the Congress consistently that terrorists were involved, but the Republicans claim they remember it differently? Who's lying? You apparently trust the Tea Partiers more. The Democrats say that Petraeus is telling the truth, and say that there are elements of the story that can't be released because they are classified. That to me makes sense. Susan Rice asked why the administration should lie? Did they have anything to gain by saying it was a spontaneous act as opposed to act by Al Qaeda?

    As far as the failure to beef up security, well no one can dispute that that was a failure, and as Indy pointed out there have been a lot of failures like that. In troubled parts of the world, there are always risks. Certainly that should be investigated and it should be understood if the request for more security was ignored or was evaluated by intelligence agencies and deemed not appropriate. There are valid questions, but there's no scandal.

    Where are you getting your information?

    This article seems to show that the administration is being quite cooperative, and I'm sure the Republicans will spend millions if necessary in the hope of finding a stained blue dress.

    Obama administration continues explanations on Benghazi decision-making – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  13. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,134
    Likes Received:
    302
    Ratings:
    +611 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    The thread was about embassies not the war ...

    don't forget Patters I was the lone wolf here who said no war ... afghanistan was the ruse. Even you said Afghanistan was the right war. I said Afghanistan was the ruse to get to Iraq.

    Now back on topic ... embassies ... there was no coverup and every one was investigated to change our policy ... yes they were investigated. Not by congress because there was no coverup ... congress does cover ups.

    someone white washed it ... if Obama had said terrorist attack there would be no current investigation. Your faulting Congress for trangressions by Obama's people. That's like the criminals who blame their parents and grade school teachers for their current crimes against the state.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  14. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ignoring your personal attack, there hasn't really been any investigation into Benghazi as of yet. It just happened a couple months ago. And yet we know so much about it.

    Stop being such an apologist. :singing:
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Icy, I don't agree there's any legitimacy to the investigation of Benghazi. From everything I have read in the news (not on political blogs), there's no issue here, except that the public face of the matter used unclassified information, while behind closed doors there was classified information. The question is: Who decided not to reveal to the public that Al Qaeda was involved? If it was Axelrod or Plouffe we have a problem. But, more than likely it was either the intelligence community or senior advisers who didn't want the election to try to complicate our interests in light of the Arab Spring.

    To me, the only valid question about Benghazi is why wasn't security beefed up when that was requested. My guess is for the same reason that there wasn't more security in the situations cited by Indy under Bush. Judgment calls are made, and the CIA and NSA don't always get it right. The Republicans are using Benghazi for political reasons. The wimpy Democrats under Bush were too often afraid to stand up to him lest they be seen as weak on defense. I really don't think the Benghazi thing will amount to much.
  16. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Patters, your opinions would be much easier to take seriously if you could just admit that gee, ya know, maybe the administration didn't handle the thing as best as possible. Maybe they said some stupid things in the aftermath. But you're too much of an apologist to do that. So with your Obama-tinted glasses on, your agenda is made quite clear.
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    Wolfie, the only issue I see is with the failure of the administration to beef up security. That is a legitimate issue, but I don't think it's politically explosive. The other piece, why the administration did not reveal all the details right away, I don't think will amount to much. I think they had many reasons not to release the details--intelligence, dealing with sensitive issues in the ME, security concerns elsewhere in the world.

    For the right wing to prevail, they need a corrupt motive for the behavior of the Obama administration. What do you think is the motivation?

    (Why do you think the Obama administration lied, since evidently that's what people with your agenda believe? Or are you simply an apologist for the rabid right's chronic attempts to weaken Obama? In other words, Wolfie, avoid the personal attacks--they are stupid and they can be thrown back in your face as easily as you throw them. Let's both try to stick to the debate.)
  18. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,134
    Likes Received:
    302
    Ratings:
    +611 / 4 / -12

    #87 Jersey

    You are saying the same thing as me in paragraph #1 ... so you do want answers also.



    As far as #2 ... that deserves answers but is way more complex. There are 2 things going on there IMO. Why not more security but more important why were we there. Why did the british leave amd why did we stay. Were we involved with illegal supplying of heavy arms (or unauthorized).

    What if Obama himself was duped by the CIA ... all valid questions at this point. I have read reports that we may have had some rogue military operations going on ... that is why some heads have already rolled. some of this investigation may benefit Obama ... politics needs to stay out of it as much as possible.

    I think the Benghazi questioning will lead to what exactly we were doing there. IMO the cover up was trying to avoid that questioning. This was not authorized by Congress ... we were there on executive order ... not good.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012
  19. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,790
    Likes Received:
    71
    Ratings:
    +116 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    Well, to investigate or not to investigate seems to be based mostly on one's political ideology. The administration has no one to blame but themselves because of all of the conflicting reports and changed stories. I think a big element was that we seemed to have been caught with our pants down on the anniversary of 911. The spontaneous uprising malarkey was arguably an attempt to save face and almost seemed like a desperate move to keep from losing votes in the election over it. I really wonder if there was no election this year we'd have ever been fed that lie.


    Security. Well the talking point is that there was indeed adequate alertness and awareness. Considering what actually happened, I find that conclusion pretty weird. The spin is we did everything right, so stop asking. Apologists abound. We have to believe the security was adequate in one instance and in the next instance we get Pelosi saying its Republicans fault for the inadequate security. I guess all the bases are covered.

    Getting back to the OP. I don't remember much about calls for investigations on those other attacks but I agree with Icy. The intentionally inaccurate story fed to us and to congress begs for an investigation. Those earlier attacks had no such tall tales surrounding them. Whenever there is though, they investigate. Remember Tillman?
  20. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,769
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +169 / 4 / -4

    I suppose Icy what I think is that the investigation is political b.s. There is no serious effort at accomplishing anything constructive. The reality, I'm guessing, is that the Obama administration did not want to reveal the Benghazi situation because it would then get caught up in political gamesmanship where the right-wing would be calling for military action, complicating the political work the administration is doing in the ME and strengthening the hands of extremists who want to sow fear of the US in the people of the ME. That said, it's also possible the info wasn't released right away for intelligence reasons.

    The second part is worth investigating, I suppose, to see if a better process can be put in place when making decisions about security at embassies. My guess is that nothing will change on that front. After all, as a rule, it's safer to be an embassy employee in the ME than a young black man in Dorchester. We can only do so much. Now if it comes out that we knew about the Al Qaeda attack much earlier and simply chose to leave the embassy staff as sitting ducks, we have a more serious problem.

    Icy, let's not forget that the neocons would love nothing more than to drag us into another war. I think that's part of the backdrop to this whole issue.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2012

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>