Bush Did It, Reagan Did It, What Does it Matter?

[occupied]

How does that even answer my questions?

It won't matter when all the people like you stop making posts trying to portray Obama supporters as hypocritical because of some other stance they took.

I'm not doing that. They arent hypocrites (OK, they're that too, but not my point here). They're clueless. What difference does it make if Obama screws up that somene else screwed up too?

The timing of republicans sudden interest in executive transparency and accountability is suspicious to say the least.

 

[NYcarbineer]

About half the posts by libs in response to any criticism of Obama consist of "BUt Bush did it!" Or "But Reagan" Or, But Abraham Lincoln!
Naturally all of those comparisons are false equivalents and there are always significant differences between whatever Bush etc did and what Obama did.
But since liberals consistently rate Bush as the worst president ever, what kind of defense of Obama is it to say he is acting just like Bush?
Further, something is either right or wrong on the merits. If Bush robbed banks, would that make robbing banks OK? So why this constant moral equivalence game?

If Bush robbed a bank he would be tarred and feathered, raked over the coals via the Ds and media.

If obama robbed a bank he would be doing it in the name of social justice and would therefore be a hailed by the Ds and media as a great guy, o-bam-a!, free pass.

If either robbed a bank they should be tossed and thrown in jail.

lol, you're doing what the OP is complaining about.

 

[occupied]

How does that even answer my questions?

It's all the answer you need to understand any part of anyone's opinion on this matter. The republican witch hunt/fishing expedition on this matter should be embarrassing to anyone who values truth and justice but instead we are dealing with people who think the ends justify the means. If conservatives think this is such an awesome thing to pursue towards their foregone conclusion of guilt then it is their place to defend it against charges of being a purely political stunt in light of the free pass they have afforded their own presidents in similar circumstances. You want this whole thing to be about Obama but it is going to end up being about shitty republican tactics whether you like it or not.

You have this confused with one of the many Benghazi threads. This isn't really about that.

You didnt answer my question. How does pointing out that Bush or Reagan or whatever did what Obama did make Obama's mistakes any better?

I haven't been directly addressing Benghazi, I've been talking about the republican's clearly political motives in pursuing this matter. When someone brings up Bush or Reagan it's to directly ask; Why the sudden interest in executive accountability? Why did you people not care then and are out for blood now? Ask yourself why Karl Rove is still a free man and you will have the answer of why the incredulous reaction to the republican call for executive accountability. It's not something you demand of your own leaders.

As for how I feel about it, I can accept that people are going to get killed in dangerous places and the president cannot protect them all. It was a tragedy and perhaps we will learn from it and do better in the future. I feel that's a reasonable attitude. What we have here is like a cop using a broken tail light as an excuse to search your car for something that can lead to arrest. Perhaps he is within his rights to do so but it is still an unreasonable thing to do.

 

[The Rabbi]

It won't matter when all the people like you stop making posts trying to portray Obama supporters as hypocritical because of some other stance they took.

I'm not doing that. They arent hypocrites (OK, they're that too, but not my point here). They're clueless. What difference does it make if Obama screws up that somene else screwed up too?

You're premise is false because it implies that no other arguments are being made.

No, it does not. It states boldly that this particular argument is a loser.

 

[The Rabbi]

It won't matter when all the people like you stop making posts trying to portray Obama supporters as hypocritical because of some other stance they took.

I'm not doing that. They arent hypocrites (OK, they're that too, but not my point here). They're clueless. What difference does it make if Obama screws up that somene else screwed up too?

The timing of republicans sudden interest in executive transparency and accountability is suspicious to say the least.

Because they should have started the investigation a year ago when the White House began stonewalling? I tend to agree.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's all the answer you need to understand any part of anyone's opinion on this matter. The republican witch hunt/fishing expedition on this matter should be embarrassing to anyone who values truth and justice but instead we are dealing with people who think the ends justify the means. If conservatives think this is such an awesome thing to pursue towards their foregone conclusion of guilt then it is their place to defend it against charges of being a purely political stunt in light of the free pass they have afforded their own presidents in similar circumstances. You want this whole thing to be about Obama but it is going to end up being about shitty republican tactics whether you like it or not.

You have this confused with one of the many Benghazi threads. This isn't really about that.

You didnt answer my question. How does pointing out that Bush or Reagan or whatever did what Obama did make Obama's mistakes any better?

I haven't been directly addressing Benghazi, I've been talking about the republican's clearly political motives in pursuing this matter. When someone brings up Bush or Reagan it's to directly ask; Why the sudden interest in executive accountability? Why did you people not care then and are out for blood now? Ask yourself why Karl Rove is still a free man and you will have the answer of why the incredulous reaction to the republican call for executive accountability. It's not something you demand of your own leaders.

As for how I feel about it, I can accept that people are going to get killed in dangerous places and the president cannot protect them all. It was a tragedy and perhaps we will learn from it and do better in the future. I feel that's a reasonable attitude. What we have here is like a cop using a broken tail light as an excuse to search your car for something that can lead to arrest. Perhaps he is within his rights to do so but it is still an unreasonable thing to do.

So if the GOP screwed up by not asking for investigations of Bush then Obama should get a free pass for everything he does? Is that really what you want to propose?

 

[occupied]

You have this confused with one of the many Benghazi threads. This isn't really about that.

You didnt answer my question. How does pointing out that Bush or Reagan or whatever did what Obama did make Obama's mistakes any better?

I haven't been directly addressing Benghazi, I've been talking about the republican's clearly political motives in pursuing this matter. When someone brings up Bush or Reagan it's to directly ask; Why the sudden interest in executive accountability? Why did you people not care then and are out for blood now? Ask yourself why Karl Rove is still a free man and you will have the answer of why the incredulous reaction to the republican call for executive accountability. It's not something you demand of your own leaders.

As for how I feel about it, I can accept that people are going to get killed in dangerous places and the president cannot protect them all. It was a tragedy and perhaps we will learn from it and do better in the future. I feel that's a reasonable attitude. What we have here is like a cop using a broken tail light as an excuse to search your car for something that can lead to arrest. Perhaps he is within his rights to do so but it is still an unreasonable thing to do.

So if the GOP screwed up by not asking for investigations of Bush then Obama should get a free pass for everything he does? Is that really what you want to propose?

Nope, I feel there should be no free passes but neither should partisan politics be the sole motivating factor for investigations into negligence or corruption. Republicans have not even tried to frame this matter as anything other than a convenient election year political stunt while subverting our mechanism for accountability into a blunt political tool. You want to put the administration on trial, that's OK, but conservative politics is on trial as well, there is no escaping that.

 

[The Rabbi]

I haven't been directly addressing Benghazi, I've been talking about the republican's clearly political motives in pursuing this matter. When someone brings up Bush or Reagan it's to directly ask; Why the sudden interest in executive accountability? Why did you people not care then and are out for blood now? Ask yourself why Karl Rove is still a free man and you will have the answer of why the incredulous reaction to the republican call for executive accountability. It's not something you demand of your own leaders.

As for how I feel about it, I can accept that people are going to get killed in dangerous places and the president cannot protect them all. It was a tragedy and perhaps we will learn from it and do better in the future. I feel that's a reasonable attitude. What we have here is like a cop using a broken tail light as an excuse to search your car for something that can lead to arrest. Perhaps he is within his rights to do so but it is still an unreasonable thing to do.

So if the GOP screwed up by not asking for investigations of Bush then Obama should get a free pass for everything he does? Is that really what you want to propose?

Nope, I feel there should be no free passes but neither should partisan politics be the sole motivating factor for investigations into negligence or corruption. Republicans have not even tried to frame this matter as anything other than a convenient election year political stunt and subverting our mechanism for accountability into a blunt political tool. You want to put the administration on trial, that's OK, but conservative politics is on trial as well, there is no escaping that.

You're kidding, right? Republicans have framed this as an issue that the White House is stonewalling, refusing to release information, suborning witnesses and doing everything they can to cover up what happened.
What are they hiding?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not doing that. They arent hypocrites (OK, they're that too, but not my point here). They're clueless. What difference does it make if Obama screws up that somene else screwed up too?

You're premise is false because it implies that no other arguments are being made.

No, it does not. It states boldly that this particular argument is a loser.

You want liberals to unilaterally lay off making historical comparisons to current events so that field is left open to you and your rightwing pals.

 

[rightwinger]

It has something to do with the concepts of precedence and hypocrisy.

 

[occupied]

So if the GOP screwed up by not asking for investigations of Bush then Obama should get a free pass for everything he does? Is that really what you want to propose?

Nope, I feel there should be no free passes but neither should partisan politics be the sole motivating factor for investigations into negligence or corruption. Republicans have not even tried to frame this matter as anything other than a convenient election year political stunt and subverting our mechanism for accountability into a blunt political tool. You want to put the administration on trial, that's OK, but conservative politics is on trial as well, there is no escaping that.

You're kidding, right? Republicans have framed this as an issue that the White House is stonewalling, refusing to release information, suborning witnesses and doing everything they can to cover up what happened.
What are they hiding?

A political attack calls for a political defense, it sucks but it is the way of the world.

 

[The Rabbi]

You're premise is false because it implies that no other arguments are being made.

No, it does not. It states boldly that this particular argument is a loser.

You want liberals to unilaterally lay off making historical comparisons to current events so that field is left open to you and your rightwing pals.

No, I want liberals to look at the case at hand and say whether Obama did the right thing or the wrong thing or we need to investigate further because the facts are not known.
You know, an honest evaluation. I realize that's asking too much because liberals have no capacity to be honest anymore or evaluate anything beyond whether it serves their interests or not.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nope, I feel there should be no free passes but neither should partisan politics be the sole motivating factor for investigations into negligence or corruption. Republicans have not even tried to frame this matter as anything other than a convenient election year political stunt and subverting our mechanism for accountability into a blunt political tool. You want to put the administration on trial, that's OK, but conservative politics is on trial as well, there is no escaping that.

You're kidding, right? Republicans have framed this as an issue that the White House is stonewalling, refusing to release information, suborning witnesses and doing everything they can to cover up what happened.
What are they hiding?

A political attack calls for a political defense, it sucks but it is the way of the world.

Covering up, stonewalling and suborning witnesses is a political defense? Really?
Why dont they just release the information requested and let the GOP intervew people?

 

[Iceweasel]

A political attack calls for a political defense, it sucks but it is the way of the world.

What is a political defense? And if they did nothing wrong why do they need to defend themselves? Just let the facts speak for themselves and let the people have their say in the voting booth.

 

[The Rabbi]

A political attack calls for a political defense, it sucks but it is the way of the world.

What is a political defense? And if they did nothing wrong why do they need to defend themselves? Just let the facts speak for themselves and let the people have their say in the voting booth.

Liberals dont trust people to make the right choices. That is the over-riding theme in just about all these threads.

 

[The T]

A political attack calls for a political defense, it sucks but it is the way of the world.

What is a political defense? And if they did nothing wrong why do they need to defend themselves? Just let the facts speak for themselves and let the people have their say in the voting booth.

Liberals dont trust people to make the right choices. That is the over-riding theme in just about all these threads.

*The DumbMasses*

 

[occupied]

A political attack calls for a political defense, it sucks but it is the way of the world.

What is a political defense? And if they did nothing wrong why do they need to defend themselves? Just let the facts speak for themselves and let the people have their say in the voting booth.

Liberals dont trust people to make the right choices. That is the over-riding theme in just about all these threads.

That's the problem, I see nothing that even resembles objectivity in republican's actions. You have already made your choice just like all the rest, in your mind Obama is already impeachably guilty, it's just a matter of making it stick. None of you have even considered the possibility of honest mistakes or unforeseeable consequences, someone must be ruined over this and it must be a democrat, none of you will accept any other outcome, no matter what.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because both parties do it then blame the other

Because the partisans defend their guy for the same thing the other guy does

It is called Partisanship.

It's got to stop.

 

[Plasmaball]

It matters because it's a clear illustration of the narrow political motives behind the republican response and their disinterest in any conclusion that does not result in willful criminal negligence and impeachment hearings, you understand now? It's the political motive coupled with the foregone conclusion of guilt by all involved that makes this thing a dirty political circus rather than anything honorable or righteous.

How does that even answer my questions?

well if you were not so ******* stupid, you would have understood it. This isnt the shortbus of the internet. So i can understand why you would have trouble understanding logic.

 

[The Rabbi]

What is a political defense? And if they did nothing wrong why do they need to defend themselves? Just let the facts speak for themselves and let the people have their say in the voting booth.

Liberals dont trust people to make the right choices. That is the over-riding theme in just about all these threads.

That's the problem, I see nothing that even resembles objectivity in republican's actions. You have already made your choice just like all the rest, in your mind Obama is already impeachably guilty, it's just a matter of making it stick. None of you have even considered the possibility of honest mistakes or unforeseeable consequences, someone must be ruined over this and it must be a democrat, none of you will accept any other outcome, no matter what.

Why did the administration stonewall, dissemble, and thwart not just this investigation but every single other one?
How can you be objective when you know the president and his staff lied about Benghazi? It isnt even a question whether they did. We know they did.
Obama acts guilty so people assume he's guilty.