| Submit your comments on this article | |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- | |
| Ronald Reagan's Benghazi - The New Yorker | |
| 2014-05-17 | |
Then there was that time back in '98 when evil Republican President William Mckinley sent the U.S.S. Maine to Havana, and look what happened !
| |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #14 Wow Bangkok Billy is nails today. As for 1998 in Beirut, trust me, we hunted those bastards down like dogs. Difference between Ronnie and empty suit is that Ronnie did it with out a lot of press conferences, chest pounding, or posturing. Ronnie didn't feel the need to prove anything. Fear is a great deterrent, if you just vanish, are found dead for no apparent reason with no witnesses, or your bones are found in the desert speaks volumes. When the bad guys don't know "who done it" they don't know where to turn. If you will check the records I bet you will find most of the turbans involved in the planning of the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing died under strange circumstances with a bullet. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2014-05-17 19:11 |
| #13 I don't get the twisted logic that our lack of outrage that 17 shitheads died is somehow hypocritical when we go after Champ and Hildebeast on Benghazi.Posted by Bangkok Billy Nor do I. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-05-17 18:46 |
| #12 BB will fact check your ass! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2014-05-17 18:44 |
| #11 But Jimmie was just as bad, is no defense. I broke my kids of using that excuse than they were four. It's not that the annex was attacked, that will happen to every president. It's that the Obama admin tried to cover it up, blame it on a video, call it a riot, not an attack. They lied to the citizens of the United states about it. That is what was wrong. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2014-05-17 18:34 |
| #10 The one I like is the "During the Bush/Hitler Regime, our embassies were attacked 15 times and 60 people died and the Rethuglicans said nothing" defense. What the Libtards seem to overlook is that fact that out of the 60 deaths - 17 were terrorists who did the attacks, 41 were security forces/civilians, and 2 were Americans 1 of whom was a diplomat. I don't get the twisted logic that our lack of outrage that 17 shitheads died is somehow hypocritical when we go after Champ and Hildebeast on Benghazi. |
| Posted by: Bangkok Billy 2014-05-17 12:54 |
| #9 Should have hunted them down and killed them all after 21 December 1988 [Lockebie]. Could have saved ourselves and everyone else a lot of grief and pain. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2014-05-17 12:36 |
| #8 I think that we could talk about how the USS Cole was left exposed in Aden since we're on the subject of failures to prepare for terror attacks. That was long after Beirut by which time you might think Bill Clinton should have known better about how Islamic terror works. There were the Khobar towers in Soddy Arabia too and let's not forget the first attack on the World Trade Center. We are long, long past the point where we should be surprised when muslims come up with new and ever more chickenshit ways to attack us. There isn't any excuse anymore for being unprepared. There is no more reason why we should let students from cat box countries come here to study, no reason to apologize for giving them extra scrutiny when we do. There are fewer and fewer reasons for our people to go over there. And, BTW, what was the ambassador doing in Benghazi? The article mentions how there was an investigation after the Beirut barracks attack. I'm guessing the White House, Pentagon, State Department and CIA didn't lie, stonewall, redact and point out squirrels during that investigation. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2014-05-17 12:20 |
| #7 We ought to encourage every liberal publication in the world to write as many comparisons of Obama to Reagan as their pages will accommodate. Go ahead. Make my day. |
| Posted by: Matt 2014-05-17 12:03 |
| #6 Classic fallacy and propaganda technique. Tu quoque. Whatever happened in Lebanon 30 does NOT excuse this Administrations lies and coverups. Its like arguing that a mistake in mid WW2 excuses a completely different one in Vietname in the 70's. Aside from that, the situations were completely different. Among the many differences that break any analogy attempted, Reagan didn't make up some cockamamie story about a movie causing it. He blamed terrorists, plain and simple. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2014-05-17 11:02 |
| #5 I remember the barracks bombing in Beirut. The idiot local SOP had guards that were not locked and loaded and unobstructed high speed avenues of approach into the compound. Officers should have seen a courts martial. Still that President went on television and took full responsibility for what happened. The difference between integrity and sniveling. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2014-05-17 09:25 |
| #4 Or, at this point, what difference does it make? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2014-05-17 08:17 |
| #3 I couldn't bear to read more than two lines. So somebody tell me, please - do they want to exhume Reagan and make him testify? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2014-05-17 08:16 |
| #2 SQUIRREL!!! Yet more battle space preparation by the propagandists of the Democrat party. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2014-05-17 08:04 |
| #1 ----- <--- That is a straw, talk to me about grasping for straws, next you will tell me the earth is flat... you are all past the point of no return, your intellect has left the building and will never return, few will believe you for now on, you are bankrupt. The New Yorker will fold in 1 year and seven months. |
| Posted by: Au Auric 2014-05-17 00:27 |