Nope they weren't but nice try in misrepresenting their positions. Another example of non-existent honest discussions here.
|
Nope they weren't but nice try in misrepresenting their positions. Another example of non-existent honest discussions here.
Hello again, Steve:
If four dead is a scandal, what do you call 4,000 dead in a phony war? By the way, it's the war we LOST!!
excon
Republican scandals don't count. And liberals are all scandalous. It's the TParty vs RINO"s. Enjoy the show.
LOL, do you really think I'm that stupid? Generally if I say it I can back it up, unlike you who just spews bullsh!t.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
"All the right wing scandals are phony ones" -Talaniman
Hillary on Libya: 'What Difference Does It Make?'
White House outrages Benghazi attack victim's mother as Obama continues to call the deadly assault a 'phony scandal'
Like I said, that would be the Tal, the administration and Hillary "what difference does it make" Clinton who calling the deaths of Americans a "phony" scandal.
Well, yes. Since I was referring to you misrepresenting the posters that you mentioned in the post I quoted.Quote:
LOL, do you really think I'm that stupid?
Um, Obama is the one that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and my comment was about the very selective liberal outrage, not the deaths of Americans.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I backed it up with the quotes, so bite me.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
You dismiss 4000 dead Americans and holler about 4, and say liberals are the ones with selective outrage??
Those 4000 dead Americans had mama's too you know!!
More of them died on Obamas watch than on Bushes. And Obama still has almost 3.5 years to go on his second term.
Year US
2001 12
2002 49
2003 48
2004 52
2005 99
2006 98
2007 117
2008 155
2009 317
2010 499
2011 418
2012 310
2013 85
Total 2259
Yeah.. every year under Obama the numbers were WAY higher than under bush... and this year its well on its way with 5 months to go as well
And we were on our way out of Iraq while Bush was still in Office.
I like how you completely overlook the Iraq war stats. Pretty typical of the righty mentality."If it doesn't fit the narrative..."
I know you are a bit slow... But that would be comparing apples to Oranges since we were on our way out before Bush left office... Unlike Afghanistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
And that makes a difference to the statistics how?Quote:
we were on our way out before Bush left office
Think about it a little... it should come to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
So now there are revelations of large scale CIA activity in the middle east and this is a surprise to someone? What were a large number of CIA operatives doing in Benghazi? Why didn't they rescue the ambassador? This sounds like boots on the ground to me
They HAD boots on the ground in the way of Rapid Reaction force at the Airport in Libya. (those were NOT CIA)... they were ordered to stand down.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Yeah we all want to hear the real explanation for this... and they are stonewalling and obstructing to keep from doing it...
Well if we don't know the answers after a year... interesting that as soon as this fresh information is revealed we have a smoke screen.. sorry what was I thinking.. alert, an attack somewhere, sometime, no one is safe, is this Al Qaeda talking or their new PR agency
It won't be a year for another 5 weeks... but such is the power of an executive dept cover up.
Hello again,
Look.. I want to know if my president is a coward and a liar... I want to know if he left his men on the battlefield. If he did, I want his a$$.
But, what we've got here is a terrorist attack and four of our men died including the ambassador. Nobody could have saved them. Nobody is saying they could. Obama was slow to call it a terrorist attack. Big Deal. You have some problem with the talking points given to Susan Rice. Big Deal. If the station was a CIA black ops office, big deal.
I'm waiting to hear what was covered up, and who should be hung for it. Yawwwwwwn...
excon
Ex... that attack lasted for hours... we could have and it turns out we did have troops on the group in Libya long before it was over... they were ordered to stand down and several high ranking officers were relieved of their commands as a result of going that far...
Now when there is smoke there is fire... so if there was noting to hide... why the massive efforts to threaten and intimidate people that were in the know.
If there really was nothing it could have easily been put to rest VERY early on.
You've seen kids that did something got in trouble and tried their best to hide it from their parents... and of course once the lies start piling up... the charade soon collapses... sometimes it takes longer... but the truth always comes out in the end.
Ex wants to know, hell we all want to know so we can move on. We know it was an Evita stuffup but she is no longer around to answer. Thing is; if they lied about Libya then they are lying about Syria
Indeed... Whether one agrees about Iraq or not, one of the big differences is that Iraq was debated for months... and a bipartisan war resolution was passed by Congress authorizing it. There was also bipartisan support for Afghanistan and authorization to use force to wage war against AQ ;and to take the steps to secure the country against their terror war against us.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
There is very little about the changes in American foreign policy that has been debated or put to a congressional vote since the emperor began his reign . Where was the debate to materially support the ouster of Mubarack ,the support of the Arab spring in the Maghreb ;the enforcement of a 'no fly zone ' in Libya which led to our active military assistance in the ouster of QDaffy ? Where is there now any authorization for the material support of jihadists in Syria ? Seems like everything he does is surreptitious and done through executive action of dubious and questionable constitutional authority. Then when his policies are questioned ,he calls them out as "phony" scandals ,and actively covers up and obstructs any attempt at discovery .
What part of Commander in Chief do you not understand? Problem is; this power has been given to the wrong person
Only congress has the authority to declare war. Bush went through the proper channels with bipartisan consent as tom noted and was vilified relentlessly by these same liberals / progressives that have no problem with all of Zero's unilateral escapades. Nothing to see here, move along... Oh look something shiny!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
What is shiny the seat of his pants?
Proper channels? He lied, 4000 died, and there was nothing proper about it. Obama brings the troops home and he is vilified by the right. Trying to revise history won't help you guys.
Even your lefty champions were out banging the war drums, like John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry. That's the revisionist history, you pretend your side has clean hands. I guess your oh so intelligent pols were outsmarted by the man you refer to as "the dufus", eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Hello again, Steve:
It's true.. He was able to DUPE a lot of Democrats too. So? He didn't dupe ME.Quote:
Even your lefty champions were out banging the war drums, like John "I was for it before I was against it" Kerry.
By the way, I'm not going to call him dufus anymore.. He's looking much less dufuslike compared to present day right wingers.
Excon
At least you admit Democrats aren't too sharp.
Really... he lied, care to prove that? Considering there was ample proof in the Security briefings... that the president doesn't write... for it to be a lie... YOU have to prove the security briefings said otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Not to mention the 200+ metric tons of stuff that you claim didn't exist that went to Canada for reprocessing...
But then... why let the fact get in the way of the propaganda.
Links please since you have the facts. Don't forget Cheney and his lies with your facts.
500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says - CNN.comQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
As for the Bush lied bs.. that has been debunked so many times I won't bother providing all the links . It is so woven into your fictional narrative that you won't believe it anyway. Besides that's Iraq ;it's over because your side quit... move on .
It's naturally occurring yellowcake ("yellowcake uranium is a commonly traded commodity used for nuclear power generation. It is not enriched and cannot be used without first going through a complicated enrichment process"). It isn't weapons of mass destruction.
Didn't say it was.. just providing a link to Smoothy's claim. It does show that Saddam retained the core of his WMD program... another indisputable fact that was verified by much more than just this yellow cake . The claim against Saddam was not that he had stock piles of new weapons. The claim was that he was violating UN resolutions related to the full cooperation with the IAEA in accounting for his stock piles . The ball was always in his court . Had he cooperated with the UN terms then the war would not have happened.
Another indisputable fact the left refuses to acknowledge. But hey at least they proved the point, they're still all too eager to cling to the phony "Bush lied" narrative while excusing the proven lies on Benghazi and stonewalling over IRS abuses that were revealed by admission of the abuse. Talk about living in denial.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hey let's get beyond this. Bush lied. There were no WMD in Iraq. We know there were undisirables in Iraq but no WMD. Why. Because of fear, nothing more. Bengahazi, well here we have something different, CIA maybe, who knows the spooks have been busy again.I can't deny that, it is obvious
According to the attorney for a Benghazi whistleblower, 400 U.S. missiles were stolen that night. What could go wrong?
I can't imagine what "very ugly people" might want some SAMS, perhaps those same "very ugly people" filling the void in Syria?Quote:
On August 12, Joe DiGenova, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, told Washington D.C.'s WMAL that one of the reasons people have remained tight-lipped about Benghazi is because 400 U.S. missiles were "diverted to Libya" and ended up being stolen and falling into "the hands of some very ugly people."
DiGenova represents Benghazi whistleblower Mark Thompson. He told WMAL that he "does not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the distribution of those missiles."
He claimed his information "comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community." He said the biggest concern right now is finding those missiles before they can be put to use. "They are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner," he claimed.
Anyone else longing for the day when al Qaeda was "decimated" and "on the run?"Quote:
Senior U.S. intelligence officials are concerned about the growing presence of al Qaeda terrorists in civil war-torn Syria. In a statement released over the weekend, the State Department said the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has moved himself and the group's operations to Syria. A State Department spokesperson also noted that the deadly suicide attacks and car bombings carried out in Iraq in recent days can be attributed to AQI.
CIA Deputy Director Michael Morrell warned of the risk of the collapse of the Syrian government -- which possesses a considerable stockpile of chemical and advanced weapons -- namely, a power vacuum which would leave room for al Qaeda to take hold and take advantage of their weapons cache and technical capabilities.
The al Qaeda movement is very much "based on ideology and has very little to do with the kind of organization" that the U.S. is accustomed to, according to CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan, who cited Syria's "massive stockpile of chemical weapons" and depth of knowledge about employing those weapons as a unique threat compared to other, previous al Qaeda training havens.
"The people who know the most about chemical weapons in the United States say that what is scary about Syria is not just the presence of chemical stockpiles ...it's the the technical knowledge and training and know-how and the delivery system required to deliver those weapons," Logan said Tuesday on "CBS This Morning."
"Nobody knows yet who's going to win the peace in Syria," she added, "It might very well be al Qaeda."
Mission accomplished!
So this is a GOOD whistleblower then?
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:48 PM. |