Unforced Errors Part 2… Hello Critics… Where Are You…..
Lets me get this straight. According to many in the media, and beyond, the attacks on 9/11 were Bush’s fault because there was some intelligence that something big was going to happen, and even thought there was no specificity at all about the attacks on the WTC, this is Bush’s failings. Bush and his team failed to connect the dots, as it were. Given the lack of actionable evidence concerning a specific target for the 9/11 attacks, one has to ask exactly what could have been done. That said, it’s not beyond the scope of things to say, in retrospect, it could have been handled better.
Fast forward eleven years. The current President and his Defense Department staff not only failed to provide any security to the embassy in Beghazi after they expressed concerns about a possible attack, but, after the attack actually did happen, resulting in the deaths of four Americans, the administration floats a bogus story about the attacks being the result of unrest over an anti-muslim video, knowingly lying about the real reason for the terrorist attacks on the embassy.
Yet, you don’t hear the same criticism about the current administration concerning this President and his administration.
Exactly how does that work?
Politics / Law Stuff, Stupid Government | Sonicfrog October 15, 2012
5 Comments to “Unforced Errors Part 2… Hello Critics… Where Are You…..”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Cinesnatch, October 17, 2012 @ 6:02 am
Hi Sonic, I feel compelled to pop off. Please excuse me …
Whatever admonishments Bush incurred over 9/11 security failings, did the traction not take effect until the Michael Moore documentary in 2004? I could be remembering things incorrectly, though.
Also, I don’t absolve the media for not going harder on Obama, but 9/11 resulted in 1,000 times as many deaths. Not an excuse, but, the comparison seems unbalanced. The Benghazi incident seems isolated in context of the grander scheme. It strikes me as political opportunism for the right to blow this out of proportion. The Obama administration made an error, but it doesn’t fit in specifically with the narrative the Republicans are painting of the President’s foreign policy. Something tragically went wrong and Romney/Ryan immediately took it upon themselves to say, “See, see, he’s a bad president.” And, tonight, Romney further tried to make political hay out of the administration not labeling the incident a terror attack for nearly two weeks. (Obviously, if Romney were to become president and something like this happened, I would have to give him the same leeway.)
From a personal standpoint, speaking as a libtard, while I got all up-in-arms over all the anti-Bush talking points at the time during my younger and more impressionable years, his lack of pre-emptive role in 9/11 didn’t stay with me nearly as much as getting us into the war on Iraq. For me, it’s not so much about what he didn’t do before 9/11, it’s about what he did after.
Just my grade-school thoughts.
By Sonicfrog, October 17, 2012 @ 9:04 am
Cine…. I wasn’t necessarily equating the scope of one to the other, but the current administration really did blow it on acknowledging the truth on the Benghazi attacks.
Oh, and could you refrain from using the term “libtard”. I’m not fond of it, unless it is for a very specific Derp Derp moment.
PS. Just for clarity, I was in full support of the action in Iraq. And I didn’t even think the WMD’s were that important to begin with. Sadam was a cancer to the region. At least that’s what I thought at the time. But I was sold only because I believed the notion that the occupation would be short, maybe three years. I never would have supported it. or Afghanistan if I thought we’d still be involved 11 years later. And even if i had the inclination to, I wouldn’t vote for Romney, because he is likely to get us into another direct conflict in Iran, or Turkey, or Syria, or someplace. The neocon faction of the party still idolizes G W Bush for this course of action… They just can’t help themselves.
By Cinesnatch, October 17, 2012 @ 4:10 pm
I don’t usually use the term, but I figured it was okay because of the self-deprecating context. But, yeah, it’s a stupid word.
I should clarify myself … I wouldn’t have been against the Iraq War had the Bush administration handled the lead-up differently. I thought the “intelligence” used was bull the whole time. They were selling, but I wasn’t buying. Everything was happening so fast, it struck me as very disingenuous. Some people believe that the administration honestly believed the information they had was correct. I simply believe that the administration *wanted* to believe it was true and was being misleading with the American public. That, or they weren’t very concerned about the veracity of their sources.
And I didn’t believe the occupation would be short and I was frustrated that we already had one unresolved war that “the liberal media” was underreporting. I guess some people thought that everything was okay there. I remained however unconvinced. And I found the diverting of resources troublesome.
My thinking at the time: finish what you started in Afghanistan and then move on. Yes, Saddam was a cancer, but the clock was not ticking on him. That was my mindset. I wish it had been something else, because it was worth naught.
By Sonicfrog, October 17, 2012 @ 4:43 pm
Some people believe that the administration honestly believed the information they had was correct.
I don’t see any evidence to the contrary. Yes, there was information that conflicted against the administrations position, but they chose to not head that info. They thought it was wrong. They chose the intel that supported their beliefs. It was a massive case of confirmation bias.
By Cinesnatch, October 18, 2012 @ 3:27 am
“They chose the intel that supported their beliefs.” Exactly.
All I remember is calling bullsh!t the whole time and wondering what the f@ck was wrong with this country (and the “liberal” media) for following along. But, I didn’t take to the streets, so I was just as complicit, I guess. Actions and words, etc.