Kelly, another Trump Tool!

[ballsofsteel]

My whole point in this post was to point out that this shit happens all the time. How many times the public never even hears about it cause the military covers it up if they can. This Niger tragedy is no different than what happened in Benghazi. The gutless Republicans in congress politicized it in order to take down Hillary a potential candidate for president, and make the Black president look Bad. They wasted hundred of hours and millions of dollars to accomplish this but failed. They didn't go through all this because they were outraged that American lives were lost. Anyone who believes this is an idiot.

[ballsofsteel]

(10-24-2017, 11:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: HuffPo link, lol.

Not counting myself among the Benghazi outrage coalition I still feel compelled to point out that a direct comparison between these two incidents could only be made by the highly partisan, the highly unintelligent or both.

Yeah, I know that its not the prestigious news outlet you get the majority of your news from, the Daily Wire.

Here is an example for your other favorite news organization. Trump shine boy Kelly lying his ass off. I believe this is called Fake news.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/20/fox-news-first-general-kelly-defends-trump-shuts-down-libs-politicization-tragedy.html

[GMDino]

(10-25-2017, 01:25 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Perfect example of GMDabo in action.  Explain to the class GM, how these attacks are remotely similar beyond the fact that islamic militants killed US personnel.  Your failure to ever acknowledge the most basic counter point is what puts you in GA9 status.  You're disingenuous in the extreme and every gif on the internet isn't going to cover up your bullshit.

I didn't propose they were "remotely similar".  Nor did I say they had to be exactly the same (point for point) for them to be discussed in the same breath.

It seems Leonard wanted the latter then denied it.

Someone told me once they really disliked hyperbole in comments.  Leonard's comment was just that. 

I'd rather we didn't politicize these events...but if we ARE going to discuss them we need to treat them fairly.

Wouldn't you agree Joe?

[*bfine32*]

(10-25-2017, 02:07 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: No guess needed. 0.

Any guess on how many tiki torch wielding terrorists were condoned by obama?

Point stands.  Whether your selective outrage accepts it or not.

Not sure my outrage is selective or if you are the unbiased official to determine if your point stands or not.

I have consistently said that Hillary, Obama, or any other official is to be blamed for the deaths in Benghazi. Any wrong-doing on their part was done after the attack and believe me I am every bit as "outraged" about the deaths in Niger as I am about the deaths in Libya.  I just understand the fact that the two situations have nothing in common outside of the loss of American lives. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-25-2017, 05:53 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: Yeah, I know that its not the prestigious news outlet you get the majority of your news from, the Daily Wire.

I'd never even heard of the Daily Wire before you mentioned it.  I'll let you in on a secret, trying to paint your detractorsd as more extreme than you is only going to work if you have actual evidence.  Simply stating it as fact only makes you look more unstable.

Quote:Here is an example for your other favorite news organization. Trump shine boy Kelly lying his ass off. I believe this is called Fake news.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/20/fox-news-first-general-kelly-defends-trump-shuts-down-libs-politicization-tragedy.html

I have an interesting question for you, maybe you'll actually give it some thought and answer.  Why haven't we heard about Trump's calls to the families of the other slain soldiers?

(10-25-2017, 09:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: I didn't propose they were "remotely similar".  Nor did I say they had to be exactly the same (point for point) for them to be discussed in the same breath.

Interesting then that you would be silent while others did exactly that.

Quote:It seems Leonard wanted the latter then denied it.

I believe his point, as mine, is that the situation are so dissimilar as to make any comparisons useless.  As everyone continues to miss this obvious point I'll actually state it.  The reaction to Benghazi, right or wrong, partisan or not, was fueled by the administrations failure to prepare for a more likely than usual attack and then a lack of credible response to the attack while it was ongoing.  I know you're going to mess this up and claim that I'm making these statements as gospel truth.  I'm merely pointing out where the outrage, faux or otherwise, about Benghazi is fueled.

Quote:Someone told me once they really disliked hyperbole in comments.  Leonard's comment was just that. 

No, not really.

Quote:I'd rather we didn't politicize these events...but if we ARE going to discuss them we need to treat them fairly.

Wouldn't you agree Joe?

Not sure who Joe is but the next time you catch me in an inconsistency please let me know.  You haven't had much success thus far.

[GMDino]

(10-25-2017, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting then that you would be silent while others did exactly that.

I know. Apparently if I don't share my opinion on everything people get upset. And then they get upset that I post too much. It's hard.

(10-25-2017, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I believe his point, as mine, is that the situation are so dissimilar as to make any comparisons useless.  As everyone continues to miss this obvious point I'll actually state it.  The reaction to Benghazi, right or wrong, partisan or not, was fueled by the administrations failure to prepare for a more likely than usual attack and then a lack of credible response to the attack while it was ongoing.  I know you're going to mess this up and claim that I'm making these statements as gospel truth.  I'm merely pointing out where the outrage, faux or otherwise, about Benghazi is fueled.

Well that's a good explanation. But not what Leonard said. In fact he went to the utmost extreme (everything has to be the exact same to even discuss them together) which is hyperbole.

And ignoring the fact that the failure of preparation at Benghazi isn't what was investigated but rather if the reason behind the attack was covered up is just glossing over the event.

(10-25-2017, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not sure who Joe is but the next time you catch me in an inconsistency please let me know.  You haven't had much success thus far.

I have no idea how that sentence:

Quote:I'd rather we didn't politicize these events...but if we ARE going to discuss them we need to treat them fairly.

...was read as trying to catch anyone in anything.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-25-2017, 11:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have an interesting question for you, maybe you'll actually give it some thought and answer.  Why haven't we heard about Trump's calls to the families of the other slain soldiers?

Good question.  Because leaked emails indicate the White House went into damage control after Trump decided to shift blame onto his predecessors when asked why he hadn't addressed the Niger attack and subsequently claimed he had called all the Gold Star families or virtually all.  The White House contacted the Pentagon to get a list of the fallen service members so they could retroactively contact their families.  The AP contacted 20 of the families, 10 hadn't been contacted in any form by Trump.  Letters have been sent out post marked after more of Trump's inaccurate claims.  It has also been determined Trump promised one Gold Star family $25,000 months ago.  Trump eventually did issue the check this week the same day The Washington Post reported the family was still waiting for Trump to make good on his promise.  Which, if you remember, is exactly what happen when Trump held a rally and promised the proceeds would go to veterans. Months later and after more digging by The Washington Post to determine Trump didn't keep his word, Trump eventually issued a check.  But, only after it was publicly revealed he hadn't kept his word.  It should also be noted that Trump didn't call the widow of the family we are hearing from until after he made his spurious claims.  Both the widow and the family have corroborated the Congresswoman's claims.  Even Kelly, in his defense of Trump, confirmed Trump said what Trump denies he said.  And if Trump has proof like he claims, where the f is it?  Probably locked up in Trump safe with Obama's birth certificate.

Quote:Interesting then that you would be silent while others did exactly that.

I believe my point was the attacks aren't as dissimilar as some would like to portray so that no comparison can even be made between a terrorist raid and a terrorist ambush.

Quote:I believe his point, as mine, is that the situation are so dissimilar as to make any comparisons useless.  As everyone continues to miss this obvious point I'll actually state it.  The reaction to Benghazi, right or wrong, partisan or not, was fueled by the administrations failure to prepare for a more likely than usual attack and then a lack of credible response to the attack while it was ongoing.  I know you're going to mess this up and claim that I'm making these statements as gospel truth.  I'm merely pointing out where the outrage, faux or otherwise, about Benghazi is fueled.

How did the Trump administration prepare for the attack in Niger?  What was their response while it was ongoing?


So the Trump administration gets kudos for his hands off approach and his proposed budget cuts funding for embassy security, while the Obama administration is accused of hands on micromanaging while approving increased spending for embassy security?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-25-2017, 01:48 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I would have to say there seems to be a correlation in the lack of transparency regarding the situation in both scenarios.   Not putting that on trump, because I doubt anyone tells him a gd thing that is going on because he's a basic *****, but you're high af if you think there wouldn't be a tiki torch march on the WH if this happened on a Dem pres.  

And btw, a few of these comments seem to raise the importance of the lives of 'diplomats' above that of a soldier.  Can't say I agree with that given the both ostensibly put there lives on the line in the name of our country.  

I do however, see the difference in an attack on an established embassy vs a patrol mission.  But I refuse to believe there wouldn't be some extreme grandstanding on the part of of the GOP were the niger attack happen on a dems post.

Yeah, "all lives are equally important" is a good thing to believe in, but if we're being honest, it doesn't really hold up in reality. There's a reason why the US President has over a dozen guys surrounding him, all of whom are trained and expected to give their lives to protect his.






There's a reason why he had armed guards, in part because he was a non-combative, but also because he was indeed judged to have more value. Be that right or wrong to think that way, it's reality.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-25-2017, 03:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yeah, "all lives are equally important" is a good thing to believe in, but if we're being honest, it doesn't really hold up in reality. There's a reason why the US President has over a dozen guys surrounding him, all of whom are trained and expected to give their lives to protect his.






There's a reason why he had armed guards, in part because he was a non-combative, but also because he was indeed judged to have more value. Be that right or wrong to think that way, it's reality.

He knew what he signed up for.

When conservatives pretend to be as outraged over the lies surrounding the invasion of Iraq and almost 5000 US service member KIAs as they pretend to be over the lies surrounding Benghazi and four KIAs then I'll begin to give the outrage some credence. But, until then they're completely full of shit.