Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 292
  1. #101
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Challenge to support a claim. Please support or retract that President Trump did indeed have a "full package for the attack" and that it is not a fact that he didn't, or, as you put it it is "fake news".
    I'm not sure what you mean when you say "full package." That isn't a doctrinal term in the military, hence why I never used it in my response. That was a term used by a New York Times reporter, all the more reason to be suspect of his understanding. [If a reporter said they inside knowledge that the Patriots were going for 4 baskets during the Super Bowl, you'd be suspicious, right?]

    What I said consisted of three claims.

    1) The operational planning was conducted under the Obama administration. This was supported in post 96.

    2) That the execution was delayed for a new moon by the Navy. Also supported in post 96.

    3) That the CDE isn't a Presidential approval document, rather it is a CENTCOM approval document and so wouldn't have been up for approval at the alleged meeting anyway. For support I offer the fact that I work as a planner in CENTCOM and supervise the officers who write CDEs every day.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I absolutely refuse to believe both you and Squatch don't believe that if Hillary Clinton had done the same exact thing the right would be HOWLING about the death of that SEAL.
    Interesting belief given that I didn't, in fact, give President Obama a hard time on any of the Tier One missions (like the 2011 mission where several DEVGRU guys died, or the 2012 raid) he authorized during his Presidency that resulted in the death of an Operator, and literally in my last post argued that this one wasn't his fault either.

    It is unreasonable to lay operational blame at President Obama's feet. He isn't a military planner, nor does he have operational experience. The President, of course, is responsible by virtue of his position, but to expect President to understand MDMP, COA analysis, false insertion, surveillance, movement techniques, dynamic entry, METT-TC, overwatch, the technical capabilities of the UH-60 Blackhawk mod, or a host of other tactical considerations is unreasonable. He, as an executive, creates a team and relies on them for operational details.

    He made some tough choices, and sometimes people died because of them. That is the nature of being a commander, perhaps I have a unique sympathy for him in that role, but I can absolutely tell you I've never blamed him for any of the fates of war that happened on missions he authorized. I can't help what you believe that I believe, but if you look back, you'll see I've been remarkably charitable to Mr. Obama's military actions.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  3. #102
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Not. "President @BarackObama's vacation is costing taxpayers millions of dollars----Unbelievable!" Tweet from Donald Trump.
    Cherry picking at it's finest.
    The context of all the tweets is that they are too often.

    From your link
    "When will Obama next go on vacation if he wins the election? The day after. "
    IE.. he goes often.

    "While our wonderful president was out playing golf all day, the TSA is falling apart, just like our government! Airports a total disaster! "
    IE .. things are going on that needs his attention at that time.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    I absolutely refuse to believe both you and Squatch don't believe that if Hillary Clinton had done the same exact thing the right would be HOWLING about the death of that SEAL.

    and there would be hearings and calls for investigations and she hates the military and blah, blah, blah.
    Why? The only reason we howled about other operations is because of apparent negligence on her part.
    You will note that we did not howl about Obama with regards to Benghazi but to his appointee's failure. (IE the one in charge of it)

    So our disbelief is more based in your ignorance or misunderstanding of our actual positions. Which given the strawmen you generally put out... I wonder if you even know what they really are.

    Maybe you should go back and remember our comments about Obama "killing" benladen.
    We (or at least I.. I won't really speak for squatch personally) generally said that Obama didn't do anythings special.. the military and the marines did.
    And that operation didn't exactly go super smooth. I guess I am accurate in concluding that you would not have been so generous to Trump if he had O.ked that operation and instead you would blame him for the helicopter crash, and the fact that Benladen was killed instead of captured like so and so really, really wanted or intended?

    So no, the mission must be a very poor one in concept for the president to get real blaim, and in this case your really, really reaching so as to create another straw-man.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  4. #103
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean when you say "full package." That isn't a doctrinal term in the military, hence why I never used it in my response. That was a term used by a New York Times reporter, all the more reason to be suspect of his understanding. [If a reporter said they inside knowledge that the Patriots were going for 4 baskets during the Super Bowl, you'd be suspicious, right?]
    "Usually, a president goes down in the Situation Room, is presented with what they call a full package for the attack. There’s a legal assessment of the legal authorities under which they’re doing these. There’s a risk assessment to the commandos who would be doing it. There is a risk assessment of what could happen to civilians who are in the area."

    It doesn't matter what its called and it looks like it involves more than just the military components.

    Please support or retract that President Trump did indeed have a "full package for the attack" and that it is not a fact that he didn't, or, as you put it it is "fake news".

    ---------- Post added at 02:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Interesting belief given that I didn't, in fact, give President Obama a hard time on any of the Tier One missions (like the 2011 mission where several DEVGRU guys died, or the 2012 raid) he authorized during his Presidency that resulted in the death of an Operator, and literally in my last post argued that this one wasn't his fault either.

    It is unreasonable to lay operational blame at President Obama's feet. He isn't a military planner, nor does he have operational experience. The President, of course, is responsible by virtue of his position, but to expect President to understand MDMP, COA analysis, false insertion, surveillance, movement techniques, dynamic entry, METT-TC, overwatch, the technical capabilities of the UH-60 Blackhawk mod, or a host of other tactical considerations is unreasonable. He, as an executive, creates a team and relies on them for operational details.

    He made some tough choices, and sometimes people died because of them. That is the nature of being a commander, perhaps I have a unique sympathy for him in that role, but I can absolutely tell you I've never blamed him for any of the fates of war that happened on missions he authorized. I can't help what you believe that I believe, but if you look back, you'll see I've been remarkably charitable to Mr. Obama's military actions.
    I think you should read what I wrote again.

    ---------- Post added at 02:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    "While our wonderful president was out playing golf all day, the TSA is falling apart, just like our government! Airports a total disaster! "
    IE .. things are going on that needs his attention at that time.
    Again, not. Sometimes cherry picking is appropriate. All I have to show is that a specific vacation was criticized rather than the volume. I did that and you helped me above. Thank you.

    ---------- Post added at 02:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:14 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Why? The only reason we howled about other operations is because of apparent negligence on her part.
    You will note that we did not howl about Obama with regards to Benghazi but to his appointee's failure. (IE the one in charge of it)
    Just like Squatch, I suggest you read what I wrote again.

    ---------- Post added at 03:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 AM ----------

    Looks like it's not as simple as it was presented:http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politi...ket/index.html

    "Ned Price, former special assistant to Obama and the National Security Council, tweeted Thursday that the operation was "never presented to or considered by the Obama Admin for approval."
    Follow
    Ned Price ✔ @nedprice
    Except it was misleading. The specific operation in question was never presented to or considered by the Obama Admin for approval. https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/stat...13843071901696
    4:18 PM - 2 Feb 2017
    776 776 Retweets 793 793 likes
    Another former senior government official involved in Obama's National Security Council told CNN: "In a nutshell, Trump and his team owns the process and the ultimate decision -- and the consequences.""



    "A former senior Obama administration official said that plans for the raid were presented to the Obama national security team before the inauguration as part of a menu of potential actions that represented a significant expansion of U.S. activity in Yemen. After a full interagency review, the official said, the Obama administration decided to pass the decision on the series of operations off to the Trump administration, since they would have to commence under the new president.

    The hesitation, the official said, related to the number of troops that would be involved and that the plans represented a wider use of ground troops than the U.S. had previously considered in Yemen. The official said the specific raid mounted on Sunday was not presented for a decision." http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...l-raid-n716216
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #104
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    "Usually, a president goes down in the Situation Room, is presented with what they call a full package for the attack. There’s a legal assessment of the legal authorities under which they’re doing these. There’s a risk assessment to the commandos who would be doing it. There is a risk assessment of what could happen to civilians who are in the area."

    It doesn't matter what its called and it looks like it involves more than just the military components.

    Please support or retract that President Trump did indeed have a "full package for the attack" and that it is not a fact that he didn't, or, as you put it it is "fake news".
    It does matter what it is called, words have meaning Cowboy. There is a reason professions have specific terms with specific contexts and vernaculars. Lawyers use specific words to mean specific legal concepts. It isn't sufficient to say "it doesn't matter that he hasn't be tried yet, we are just using the term guilty." The DoD, like every profession, has the same thing. When I say "raid" it is different than "attack" which is different than "occupy." Those are specific tasks which convey radically different meanings. That the reporter uses a non-technical term rather than the specific, professional term indicates he is unaware of the details of the situation. (The fact he says commandos is another give away).

    You are asking me to support a term that doesn't exist. It would be like being asked to prove that a jury had a cricket match. That isn't a thing that they do and the term doesn't mean anything specific. If you would like to define that term in a professional context, I'm happy to explore the concept with you.

    However, the larger, and more relevant point has already been supported. The operational details were already approved by President Obama, thus the argument that Trump was negligent in reviewing them is "fake news," they had already been approved by National Command Authority.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I think you should read what I wrote again.
    Ok.

    With that done, I'm not sure what distinction you are drawing. Could you elaborate?


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sometimes cherry picking is appropriate.
    Actually, no it isn't ever appropriate. That is why it is a fallacy.

    You could argue that it isn't cherry picking because of the nature of the claim, but not that cherrypicking is ok. [You'd probably have a hard time making that argument as well given the nature of the relative claims being made here].
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #105
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Again, not. Sometimes cherry picking is appropriate. All I have to show is that a specific vacation was criticized rather than the volume. I did that and you helped me above. Thank you.
    Well, as squatch said, cherry picking is a fallacy for a reason. You admit it is cherry picking, thus you are committing a logical fallacy, and your "support" doesn't follow logically to your claim.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Just like Squatch, I suggest you read what I wrote again.
    The "you refuse to believe" part?
    Because we both gave reasons why your lack of belief was poorly founded and poorly reasoned as a conclusion from our positions.
    I am sure someone out in the internet aether would have said something about it.. but it isn't consistant with our views.. so your lack of belief and incredulity stands as unreasonable partisan handwringing.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Looks like it's not as simple as it was presented:
    You just repeated what squatch has already pointed out. I'm confused as to why you think you have offered some kind of distinction.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  7. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  8. #106
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    The "you refuse to believe" part?
    Because we both gave reasons why your lack of belief was poorly founded and poorly reasoned as a conclusion from our positions.
    I am sure someone out in the internet aether would have said something about it.. but it isn't consistant with our views.. so your lack of belief and incredulity stands as unreasonable partisan handwringing.
    Well, reading comprehension, its a thing:

    "I absolutely refuse to believe both you and Squatch don't believe that if Hillary Clinton had done the same exact thing the right would be HOWLING about the death of that SEAL."

    Your response: "Why? The only reason we howled about other operations is because of apparent negligence on her part.
    You will note that we did not howl about Obama with regards to Benghazi but to his appointee's failure. (IE the one in charge of it)"

    Notice the difference as to who is howling?

    ---------- Post added at 11:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:35 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, as squatch said, cherry picking is a fallacy for a reason. You admit it is cherry picking, thus you are committing a logical fallacy, and your "support" doesn't follow logically to your claim.
    Thanks.
    If I'm baking a cherry pie and picking the most delicious cherries it's appropriate. And since I didn't have to support that all statements were not about volume just that some were, in this case it is appropriate.

    ---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post


    You just repeated what squatch has already pointed out. I'm confused as to why you think you have offered some kind of distinction.

    "The specific operation in question was never presented to or considered by the Obama Admin for approval."

    Squatch pointed that out?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #107
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Notice the difference as to who is howling?
    As with the "full packet" the "right" [sic] isn't a definable object to compare against. It is a vague and nebulous term that allows you to offer unclear and imprecise arguments. Who on the Right? Please be specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    If I'm baking a cherry pie and picking the most delicious cherries it's appropriate. And since I didn't have to support that all statements were not about volume just that some were, in this case it is appropriate.
    Do you know what an equivocation fallacy is? Can you point out where you are committing one here?

    ---------- Post added at 08:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:44 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Looks like it's not as simple as it was presented
    Well, if you equate the unverified report of a single aid over an official DoD report vetted and confirmed by several Obama administration officials.

    Do those sources have the same credibility?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #108
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are asking me to support a term that doesn't exist. It would be like being asked to prove that a jury had a cricket match. That isn't a thing that they do and the term doesn't mean anything specific. If you would like to define that term in a professional context, I'm happy to explore the concept with you.
    I emailed Mr. Sanger about it, we'll have to see if I get a response.

    ---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As with the "full packet" the "right" [sic] isn't a definable object to compare against. It is a vague and nebulous term that allows you to offer unclear and imprecise arguments. Who on the Right? Please be specific.
    I'll take anyone. Do you have any?

    ---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Do you know what an equivocation fallacy is? Can you point out where you are committing one here?[COLOR="Silver"]
    Sure, but since I didn't have to cherry pick to begin with (I only needed one statement, not all) I wasn't really cherrypicking was I? Or was I since I picked the statement that best supported my argument...which is what I needed to begin with.

    So no to cherrypicking fallacy but yes to cherrypicking?

    Now I'm hungry for cherries.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #109
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I emailed Mr. Sanger about it, we'll have to see if I get a response.
    Fair enough, I'll wait for his response and then we can have a discussion, if you wish, on whether that was the appropriate information or not.

    Until then all we have is a single NYT reporter using improper terminology at odds with information presented by a) The DoD, b) senior Obama officials, and c) not in accordance with standard operational planning timelines (these events are not planned in two weeks, they take several months). Given the definition bandied about so often, that would be "fake news."


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I'll take anyone. Do you have any?
    Sure, there is guy named Squatch who is generally conservative. He said this:

    Interesting belief given that I didn't, in fact, give President Obama a hard time on any of the Tier One missions (like the 2011 mission where several DEVGRU guys died, or the 2012 raid) he authorized during his Presidency that resulted in the death of an Operator, and literally in my last post argued that this one wasn't his fault either.

    It is unreasonable to lay operational blame at President Obama's feet. He isn't a military planner, nor does he have operational experience. The President, of course, is responsible by virtue of his position, but to expect President to understand MDMP, COA analysis, false insertion, surveillance, movement techniques, dynamic entry, METT-TC, overwatch, the technical capabilities of the UH-60 Blackhawk mod, or a host of other tactical considerations is unreasonable. He, as an executive, creates a team and relies on them for operational details.

    He made some tough choices, and sometimes people died because of them. That is the nature of being a commander, perhaps I have a unique sympathy for him in that role, but I can absolutely tell you I've never blamed him for any of the fates of war that happened on missions he authorized. I can't help what you believe that I believe, but if you look back, you'll see I've been remarkably charitable to Mr. Obama's military actions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sure, but since I didn't have to cherry pick to begin with (I only needed one statement, not all) I wasn't really cherrypicking was I? Or was I since I picked the statement that best supported my argument...which is what I needed to begin with.

    So no to cherrypicking fallacy but yes to cherrypicking?

    Now I'm hungry for cherries.
    I'm not sure that response makes sense (aside from being hungry for cherries). You can't "cherrypick" without it being a cherrypicking fallacy. You were either cherrypicking or not.

    You seem to now be saying that you weren't. Let's see.

    Cherry picking is: "This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner." http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ed-sample.html

    Your sample was a single tweet by Mr. Trump.

    The population is about the criticisms leveled by Republicans, an entire group. Surely even you don't mean to argue that Mr. Trump is a representative sample of all Republicans everywhere, right? Let alone that a single tweet was representative of Mr. Trump himself.

    Thus, you are using an inappropriate sample size (a single tweet by a single Republican) for the population under review (all Republicans).
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  13. #110
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Well, if you equate the unverified report of a single aid over an official DoD report vetted and confirmed by several Obama administration officials.
    Where's that report?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #111
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Where's that report?
    It is cited in the article I originally linked.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #112
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    [QUOTE=Squatch347;554168]
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    Sure, there is guy named Squatch who is generally conservative. He said this:

    Interesting belief given that I didn't, in fact, give President Obama a hard time on any of the Tier One missions (like the 2011 mission where several DEVGRU guys died, or the 2012 raid) he authorized during his Presidency that resulted in the death of an Operator, and literally in my last post argued that this one wasn't his fault either.

    It is unreasonable to lay operational blame at President Obama's feet. He isn't a military planner, nor does he have operational experience. The President, of course, is responsible by virtue of his position, but to expect President to understand MDMP, COA analysis, false insertion, surveillance, movement techniques, dynamic entry, METT-TC, overwatch, the technical capabilities of the UH-60 Blackhawk mod, or a host of other tactical considerations is unreasonable. He, as an executive, creates a team and relies on them for operational details.

    He made some tough choices, and sometimes people died because of them. That is the nature of being a commander, perhaps I have a unique sympathy for him in that role, but I can absolutely tell you I've never blamed him for any of the fates of war that happened on missions he authorized. I can't help what you believe that I believe, but if you look back, you'll see I've been remarkably charitable to Mr. Obama's military actions.
    Fair enough, you can claim to be a part of the right. The spirit of my statement warrants a move of the goal posts. My statement excludes both you and MindTrap and support must have been published before said statement.

    "I absolutely refuse to believe both you and Squatch don't believe that if Hillary Clinton had done the same exact thing the right would be HOWLING about the death of that SEAL."

    ---------- Post added at 12:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is cited in the article I originally linked.
    Post 96? I don't see it.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  17. #113
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post

    Fair enough, you can claim to be a part of the right. The spirit of my statement warrants a move of the goal posts. My statement excludes both you and MindTrap and support must have been published before said statement.
    Understandable, no worries. Katie Pavlich is a writer at Townhall, a source I think we can agree is generally right of center. Her book is titled, " Assault and Flattery: The Truth About the Left and Their War on Women." I think we can also agree she is a right of center writer.


    She has reported on several deaths within the SEAL community (groups like Delta, and others are generally a bit more secretive and get no special attention). In her reporting she hasn't "howled" about the deaths of SEALs. When she has disagreed with the President's assessment of the US's role in Iraq she has been extremely careful to not question his military leadership or imply there should be "hearings" or anything of the like.

    Her only reporting about the tragic 2011 crash was rather a well wishing article to their families:

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...in_afghanistan

    Likewise, when a SEAL died in Iraq advising the Peshmerga (a POTUS sponsored mission by definition), she simply noted the passing and the US's role in advising the Peshmerga against ISIS. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...roops-n2157478



    Likewise National Review, a prominent Conservative site was mute on any criticism of the President after the 2011 crash. The sole article was from Andrew McCarthy and is notably absent of criticism of the President after authorizing a hasty rescue by tier one assets. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...rew-c-mccarthy





    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Post 96? I don't see it.
    It is the only link in that post. The article references the report and the link embedded to the New York post also references the report and senior Obama Administration officials.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  18. Likes CowboyX liked this post
  19. #114
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Notice the difference as to who is howling?
    .. the "we" was the "right" and squatch and I.
    If you need clarification you will still note that the right didn't howl bout obama, so much as Hillary for benghazi.

    So I stand by my statement.
    .. I see you wish to exclude us personally. That is fine.
    I don't think I ever heard Glen Beck (I'm sure you would agree far right nutjob) claim that Obama Killed military personnel on a legit mission. Again, killing Benladen didn't go perfect and the complaint was not about Obama in that way.
    Rather, they "howled" about how he WASN'T responsible. Again Benghazi, they (the right) "howled" about Hillary's poor judgment. Not Obama' killing them. .. A cover up.. yea but that is different then what we are discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    "The specific operation in question was never presented to or considered by the Obama Admin for approval."

    Squatch pointed that out?
    no
    Your quote
    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY POST 103
    "A former senior Obama administration official said that plans for the raid were presented to the Obama national security team before the inauguration as part of a menu of potential actions that represented a significant expansion of U.S. activity in Yemen. After a full interagency review, the official said, the Obama administration decided to pass the decision on the series of operations off to the Trump administration, since they would have to commence under the new president.

    The hesitation, the official said, related to the number of troops that would be involved and that the plans represented a wider use of ground troops than the U.S. had previously considered in Yemen. The official said the specific raid mounted on Sunday was not presented for a decision." http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...l-raid-n716216
    Specifically...
    "After a full interagency review, the official said, the Obama administration decided to pass the decision on the series of operations off to the Trump administration,"

    That is what Squatch said that Obama passed on the operation.

    ----
    Also I fully endorse Squatches responses to your cherry picking, and the discussion about it.

    Look I know you really want this to be a thing.. but it isn't. The right generally is pro military, which means we give a lot of leeway to presidents in their decisions unless they are really, really bad.
    Carter comes to mind with the hostage situation, but I think the complaint is more about him being viewed weakly by the world and contrasting that with Reagan. ( A bit before my time)
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  20. #115
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Cowboy, Trump (and later Pence's) comments about the moral equivalence of US and Russia might be more fitting to your OP than the examples you've offered thus far. http://www.dailywire.com/news/13163/...wamericana.com

    This kind of comment is one usually issued by Democrats with a very negative reaction. Pence's support is clearly for political convenience.

    Now, that said, Rubio has taken him to task, as has the WSJ Opinion writers. The picture isn't quite as black and white as I think we often want to make it.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  21. #116
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    .. the "we" was the "right" and squatch and I.
    If you need clarification you will still note that the right didn't howl bout obama, so much as Hillary for benghazi.

    So I stand by my statement.
    .. I see you wish to exclude us personally. That is fine.
    I don't think I ever heard Glen Beck (I'm sure you would agree far right nutjob) claim that Obama Killed military personnel on a legit mission. Again, killing Benladen didn't go perfect and the complaint was not about Obama in that way.
    Rather, they "howled" about how he WASN'T responsible. Again Benghazi, they (the right) "howled" about Hillary's poor judgment. Not Obama' killing them. .. A cover up.. yea but that is different then what we are discussing.
    Squatch has satisfied the requirements of my statements even after I moved the goalposts so I'll concede that. Though I will note for the possible future your referencing of a Benghazi "cover up".

    Like I said, I'm satisfied with Squatch's response although I'm disappointed in your lazy attempt to answer by simply using yourself.

    That being said there are examples of criticism of the administration's handling of military events when soldiers died, even to extremes. I seem to remember Alex Jones, and possibly others, suggesting that the seal team six members were killed due to their knowledge of the Bin Laden raid.

    and you mentioned Carter, I surmise you are talking about the failed rescue attempt?

    ---------- Post added at 05:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    Specifically...
    "After a full interagency review, the official said, the Obama administration decided to pass the decision on the series of operations off to the Trump administration,"

    That is what Squatch said that Obama passed on the operation.
    I don't see how that's different from what I've argued. I've presented support that it was more complicated than just waiting for a moonless night and that the specific plan was never presented to the president.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  22. #117
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,346
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I seem to remember Alex Jones, and possibly others, suggesting that the seal team six members were killed due to their knowledge of the Bin Laden raid.
    To be fair, Alex Jones wasn't really a Republican back then. His ilk tend to move between parties to suit their particular tin foil hat ideas. He accused Bush of being behind chemtrails for example.



    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    I've presented support that it was more complicated than just waiting for a moonless night and that the specific plan was never presented to the president.
    You have presented support for that take, but to be clear, it was weaker support than offered against that opinion. A single source who currently works for the President he is defending is less reliable than multiple sources who used to work for the same President confirming details of an official report.


    Obviously there are some examples of individual Republicans (the President included) engaging in some pretty ridiculous hypocrisy, this just doesn't appear to be one of those cases.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  23. #118
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,251
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    Though I will note for the possible future your referencing of a Benghazi "cover up".
    Feel free to cherry pick in the future as you see fit. Reason hasn't really stopped you yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    That being said there are examples of criticism of the administration's handling of military events when soldiers died, even to extremes. I seem to remember Alex Jones, and possibly others, suggesting that the seal team six members were killed due to their knowledge of the Bin Laden raid.
    You painted it as mainstream, not fringe.
    That isn't support for a mainstream objection. You can always find SOMEONE who says SOMETHING, that doesn't make it reasonable to conclude it as a "conservative" or "right wing" idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by COWBOY
    and you mentioned Carter, I surmise you are talking about the failed rescue attempt?
    Yea, but as I said kinda before my time.. and really not sure how it would apply as you are trying to make your case.
    I just don't remember much complaining on the right about what you are accusing them of.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  24. #119
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You painted it as mainstream, not fringe.
    I did neither.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  25. #120
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,926
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Magnitude of Trump adviser Flynn's Russia scandal gains clarity

    "Multiple reports from late last week indicate that White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, despite repeated denials from leading members of Donald Trump’s team, spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about U.S. sanctions before Inauguration Day. Flynn, who previously insisted no such conversations took place, is now saying he’s not sure whether sanctions came up during his calls with Kislyak or not.

    The scandal is starting to snowball, and as the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, who first broke the news of Flynn’s calls a month ago, noted in a new column over the weekend, there’s no shortage of questions in need of answers.
    Michael Flynn’s real problem isn’t the Logan Act, an obscure and probably unenforceable 1799 statute that bars private meddling in foreign policy disputes. It’s whether President Trump’s national security adviser sought to hide from his colleagues and the nation a pre-inauguration discussion with the Russian government about sanctions that the Obama administration was imposing.

    “It’s far less significant if he violated the Logan Act and far more significant if he willfully misled this country,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a telephone interview late Friday. “Why would he conceal the nature of the call unless he was conscious of wrongdoing?”
    That’s a good question, and it’s one of many.

    Why did Vice President Mike Pence, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer tell the public Flynn didn’t talk about sanctions with the Russian ambassador?

    There are really only two possibilities: Either Flynn told his colleagues a lie, which they repeated because they believed him, or Flynn told them the truth, and they chose to help cover up his alleged wrongdoing.

    For his part, Pence and his office have gone out of their way to say that the vice president relied entirely on Flynn’s word when he addressed the subject publicly. In other words, the VP is arguing that he was lied to, not that he did the lying.

    If the White House national security advisor misled his own West Wing colleagues, how can he keep his job?

    When Trump World lies to the American electorate, the president and his team don’t seem to mind. When top officials on Team Trump lie to each other, it seems likely to create an untenable dynamic. Then again, this president hates admitting mistakes, so traditional rules and common sense may not apply.

    What does Donald Trump have to say about this?

    So far, alarmingly little. Despite the uproar on Friday, the president spoke briefly to reporters on Friday aboard Air Force One, where he claimed to have no idea what story journalists were even referring to. “I don’t know about that, I haven’t seen it,” Trump said. “What report is that? I haven’t seen that. I’ll look into that.”

    To hear Trump tell it, the White House national security advisor is accused of having potentially illegal talks with Russia, but the president was, and is, out of the loop.

    If the allegations are true, is it possible Flynn was freelancing without Trump’s involvement?

    It seems hard to believe that Flynn, one of Trump’s closest advisors, had multiple communications with Russia, but he did so without any guidance or instructions from his boss, who at the time was the incoming president of the United States. Moreover, if evidence emerges that Flynn was acting on Trump’s orders, this scandal is going to take an even more dramatic turn.

    Is there some kind of potentially incriminating tweet that should be part of the mix?

    Actually, yes. On Dec. 28, President Obama took actions against Russia in response to Moscow’s role in undermining the American elections. On Dec. 29, Flynn allegedly had multiple conversations with the Russian ambassador, including a chat about the sanctions. On Dec. 30, Vladimir Putin announced he wouldn’t retaliate in kind, prompting Trump to hail the Russian president’s “great move,” adding, “I always knew he was very smart!” (Trump pinned the tweet so it would be the first thing readers saw on his Twitter profile.) What are the chances Trump didn’t speak to Flynn about any of this as the developments unfolded?

    The question, “What did the president know and when did he know it” may be a Watergate-era cliché, but in this case, it’s also an important line of inquiry.


    What are congressional Democrats saying and doing about all of this?

    Quite a bit. Leading Dems in both chambers have pushed for Flynn to be fired, investigated, or both. Several others have demanded that the administration pull Flynn’s security clearance, at least until the matter is resolved.

    What about congressional Republicans?

    GOP leaders have said effectively nothing about the scandal.

    If the allegations against Flynn are correct, why did he lie?

    For now, it’s very hard to say. Maybe he thought no one would find out. Perhaps didn’t fully appreciate the implications of his communications. But if there’s any evidence that Trump encouraged him to lie, buckle up.

    If the reports are accurate and Flynn keeps his job, what kind of signal would that send?

    It would make it quite clear that Trump is, at a minimum, comfortable with Flynn’s alleged misdeeds, and possibly that Flynn acted with Trump’s backing.

    Did we learn anything new on the Sunday shows?

    NBC’s Chuck Todd asked Stephen Miller, a top Trump aide, on “Meet the Press” whether Flynn still enjoys the president’s confidence. Miller wouldn’t answer the question directly.

    What’s next?

    The Washington Post reports this morning that Flynn “is under increasing political pressure and risks losing the confidence of some colleagues…. Privately, some administration officials said that Flynn’s position has weakened and support for him has eroded largely because of a belief that he was disingenuous about Russia and therefore could not be fully trusted going forward.”

    The piece quoted an unnamed administration official who said, “The knives are out for Flynn.”"
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Republican Fratracide?
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2008, 10:54 AM
  2. What is a democrat? A Republican?
    By Jamie678 in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 03:12 PM
  3. What it means to be a Republican
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2006, 03:27 AM
  4. Republican Floundering
    By Fyshhed in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 5th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •