Nope. Try again.Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. Try again.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rYdvBZxPhLY
If there has ever been a bigger more blatant lie told by the POTUS, I am unaware of it.
Because of a speech 31 years ago given by a now dead President, Democrats get a free pass to lie today?
Last edited by Soonerdawg; 04-07-2017 at 07:21 AM.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
More of a comment on the Reagan loving hypocrisy in this forum.
You are a sorry sack of shit. There is not one redeeming quality about you.
Didn't realize you were a snowflake.
It isn't hypocracy to be thankful for an administration that won the Cold War; that brought town the Belin wall; that lowered taxes; that got the money supply and inflation under control; that reduced the prime rate from 21% to single didgets; that ended the gasoline lines; that got rid of the idiotic 55 mph speed limit; that put the criminal traffic controllers in their place; that forced Iran to release hostages; that rebuilt our military. There is more.
I for one was sorely disappointed in the Reagan administration for that scandal. I was thankful he was exposed. Nobody is above the law. But, it isn't hypocracy to love that Presidemt but hate that sin. He committed other sins as well. Deficit spending being one of them. But overall, that was a successful Presidency.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
Increase in violent crime was another Reagan hallmark.
But to make such a huge issue of the possibility that Hillary made comments to some people about the attack being in response to anti-Mohammad video... I feel like some perspective is needed, because the allegation that she said at the time that a video was the cause to several families when we now know that it was planned by terrorists is really not that big of a deal. Perspective.
Interesting perspective you have. Hillary didn't just whisper it in the ear of families. Rice took up the anti-Muslim rhetoric that Obama loved so much to use. They were warned. They ignored the warnings. They asked for support. They ignored those requests for support.
The irony of it all is that during the hearings Hillary's private server was discovered by Gowdy. It cost her the election.
It might surprise you, but I have never ever given Reagan a pass on that. Hillary certainly deserves no pass. Reagan had a Machiavellian attitude about what he was doing. Machiavelli believed a nations leader can lie, even to his people, if the leader thinks it was for the public good. I have never agreed with that and absolutely condemn Reagan's lie. But, Hillary was just lying to save her political ass. I don't know of anybody outside of tyrants and dictators who think that is okay.
It's time to close the doors to the Temple of Janus.
But, Hillary was just lying to save her political ass.
That is your opinion, but I just don't see statements made to victims families as a way to influence politics. These were mostly private meetings with low political risk. Doesn't pass Occam's razor for me. If she did make such statements, it seems more likely that she was still dealing with sketchy intel in the fog of war.
You have to remember that early reporting on foreign incidents often includes conflicting accounts. Some of the accounts are true, and the right wing media has focused on them in isolation of all the noise that was going on. And to this day we still cannot rule out that the video did not play a role in the recruitment of people to commit the attack. The fact of the matter is that the video could very well have been a contributing factor - not to the decision to attack - but to the magnitude of the results.
Hillary, Rice, and the liberal media reported the video as the cause, leaving no room for doubt and it was part of covering up the inept handling of a situation they had been ignoring for weeks.
Now the mantra is "could have contributed to".
What would have been her loss to say to the victims families that it was an orchestrated terrorist attack? How would that have been more damaging to her politically than if it were a more spontaneous uprising?
The fact of the matter is we had a temporary embassy in a failed state that because of its temporary status was not required to have the same level of security as other embassies. That responsibility falls at least partly on the state department. Whether they were overrun by terrorists or rioters doesn't seem to matter as far as her accountability goes.
Maybe they incorrectly determined it was the cause at the time. But, honestly, a riot overtaking the embassy seems to show greater ineptitude than the failure to stop a terrorist attack. The major flaw in Benghazi was the lack of security at the embassy IN A FAILED STATE.
Of course there were other complicating factors such as our clandestine intelligence operations - and I suspect our naive unwillingness to recognize that it's exposure was unavoidable negatively impacted our response. This was a multi-agency failure.
Dramatic increase in violent crime against innocents and policemen always happens during Dem/liberal reign not the GOP.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
