Conservative "Logic" 101 - Benghazi

[stevenleser]

[brewens]

1. Every time the Viet Cong hit us in Vietnam, did someone call it a terrorist

attack? I know the difference between the Viet Cong and NVA of course. It seemed to me that guerrilla insurgents like that aren't any different just because they are operating in the middle east.

When an attack like that happens, directed at our military or a CIA operation, it's not really a terrorist act. Of course the right is salivating for any opportunity to scream "terrorist" if they can convince people a terrorist attack happened on IBM's watch. That's reason enough for me to see the administration refusing to use that word. Trying to equate four people killed at Benghazi to 9/11 is ridiculous. Of course we can't say that. That's supposed to be disrespectful to the four who lost their lives.

[Berlum]

2. Stupefying, stanking hypocrisy is at the core of the Republican brainpan, such as it is.

By now most Americans -- at least those not snowed under by RepubliCorporate Propaganda -- recognize the rotten core of the Republican soul, and that deceit and hypocrisy are rampant. That is why no one respects Republicans any longer.

[asjr]

6. And the Republicans will drag this out for months and months insuring

nothing will be accomplished until 2016. After they are through with this they will find something else to beat up on us.

[Scurrilous]

3. Nice!

K & R

[treestar]

4. My favorite one lately:

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[DallasNE]

11. MSM Is Always Touting Balance In Reporting

Did Meet The Press offer this as balance? If not, why not because the average killed for these 10 attacks is 6 and that is 50% more than in Benghazi. Also, if you will notice, the frequency of attacks kept increasing under Bush's watch while they have been cut back sharply on Obama's watch so he is obviously doing some things right. While not perfect it is a huge improvement over what we saw under Bush so let's keep our eye on the ball.

McCain: "Willful removal of information". McCain offered no examples. Yes, conflicting language was reconciled. That hardly rises to the level of "willful removal".

Issa: "lied to for a period of about a month". Issa failed to identify what the lie was. Apparently he is referring to the description of the attack as an "act of terror" rather than a "terrorist attack". That is like arguing over whether something is "funny" or "comical". That hair can't be split.

Gates: "Cartoonish impression of military capabilities". Yes, one of those that this charge is directed at is John McCain. Smoke that in your pipe McCain. Still smarting? Indeed, the steps the Republican have outlined in hindsight mirror the actual response that became known as "Blackhawk Down". No wonder Gates described that as "cartoonish". I would have been less diplomatic.

[Cha]

5. K&RRRRRRRRRRR

[sakabatou]

7. +1

[sheshe2]

8. Kicked and Recommending!

[kentuck]

9. And considering the fact they withheld funds for security for the embassies...

in their political battle over sequestration. Who knows? Maybe it would have made a difference? When they are guilty, they always point their fingers somewhere else.

[WillyT]

10. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[napkinz]

12. add these ...

[Roland99]

13. Bloody perfect!

[hay rick]

14. It's kind of like watching a 2 year old having a temper tantrum.

The difference is that the 2 year old will grow out of it...

[MrSlayer]

15. Which ambassador was killed under Chimp?

I keep reading that Chris Stevens was the first ambassador killed since 1979.

It's important to be right on these things.

[riderinthestorm]

16. Agreed. I believe that's a false statement as well....

The seven US Ambassadors killed in the line of duty:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/the-7-us-ambassadors-killed-in-the-line-of-duty-photos.php

[MrSlayer]

20. I figured as much. Renders the graphic unusable.

Sure, they don't give a damn what's true and what's not but I do.

[stevenleser]

22. In your opinion. Many folks don't understand the difference. In terms of this issue

it is a distinction without a difference. A credentialed US Diplomat was killed. The fact that his rank wasn't "ambassador" doesnt change that.

[MrSlayer]

24. Is DOES matter. Absolutely it does.

All it takes is one person to call you out on it and you can't defend it because it isn't true. That ruins the entire point. They should either fix it or forget it.

[stevenleser]

18. Technically not an 'ambassador', but a diplomat, David Foy. nt

[MrSlayer]

21. That's enough of a technicality to make it unusable.

If we're going to do this sort of thing we have to be right.

[stevenleser]

23. I disagree. Mind you, I didn't create the graphic, but I still disagree. nt

[MrSlayer]

25. That's fine.

I cannot use it. The conservatives I deal with aren't the common mouth breather type. They'll pick this right out and run with it. I always make sure the things I use are unimpeachable truth.

[CL101]

28. try this

[link:https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=460392537368780&set=pb.134176153323755.-2207520000.1369643987.&type=3&theater|

[Arugula Latte]

17. Jeeesus! That photo of Dubya!

[Yavin4]

19. We're getting much better at pushing back on Republican bullshit

Much better

[Initech]

26. Conservative "logic" is an oxymoron.

[CL101]

27. Corrected Image

I've noticed some backlash over my error. Here is a link to the corrected version of this meme.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=460392537368780&set=pb.134176153323755.-2207520000.1369643987.&type=3&theater