- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
See Zyphlins post. :2wave:
Times =\= Post. You linked to the Washington TIMES. That is a tabloid magazine. Washington Post is acceptable under BN. Again you are confused.
• *BN* - Mainstream Media: A news service whose primary means of distribution is print, broadcast, or wire services. Local newspapers forced to switch to a digital format may aslo be placed here as well as AP stories reposted to the web free of additional commentary.
Examples Include: CNN, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press
What you posted:
Do you now understand that these are different sites??? One extremely reputable and one crazy source?
No. You claimed "Hilary destabilized a nation". The country was already destabilized and widely divided before the US began strikes.Uhhh Libya was already in a civil war so it was ok to lie to get the US involved? :lol:
Not entirely. All the GOP has to do is back away publicly from the issue like they did. In the last Benghazi hearing they quietly came out and pretty much said, "eh nothing here". But its not important to the politics from the issue.If its a hack show, surely it will come back to bite the republicans, no?
Republicans and Benghazi: Why some conservatives won’t give up on the scandal.It isn’t. Though it’s been a comparatively lean year for Benghazi news, a core group of right-leaning activists––who seem to represent a sizable chunk of the Republican base––is pushing for a maximally aggressive House investigation into the attacks, and they have an enormous slough of unanswered questions.
Either way, the Benghazi lull won’t last long. In his opening statement at the Dec. 10 House Benghazi committee hearing, Rep. Trey Gowdy, who chairs it, said the committee will have more hearings in January, February, and March.
This may seem odd. It’s been more than two years since the attacks on the Benghazi consulate that left four Americans dead, and in that time, five congressional committees and the State Department’s Accountability Review Board have all released reports on the attack and its causes. But for the most dogged Benghazi theorizers, there are always more questions.
Conservatives’ interest in the Benghazi story varies widely. Heritage Foundation scholar James Carafano (who testified before Congress two months after the attacks) speaks to the concerns of many Republicans—and even a few Democrats. During that testimony, in 2012, Carafano focused on what the attacks can teach us about potential security vulnerabilities at other U.S. outposts.
The Benghazi Accountability Coalition is a group focused on pushing for continued investigations of the attacks. Its members include Allen West, former congressional candidate Dan Bongino, Frank Gaffney––famous for charging that Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood––and Ginni Thomas, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, as well as Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. According to a statement released on the eve of the Dec. 10 Benghazi hearing, they are unimpressed with the select committee’s progress thus far.
After half a dozen investigations, they still have lots of questions. Where was President Obama on the night of the attacks? (Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post wants to know this, too.) They’re also unsatisfied with the explanation of the genesis of the YouTube talking points––on the Sunday shows after the attack, then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice said the attack was the result of a video that had been posted online, which was false––and they’re totally unsatisfied with the House Intelligence Committee’s report, for a panoply of reasons that have found minimal credence in the mainstream press. And there’s the theory—promoted by WorldNetDaily, TownHall, and others—that the CIA was using the Benghazi consulate as an outpost in a gun-running operation for getting weapons to Syrian rebels.
Why would I be "worried"?Yup-you are worried.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064284889 said:"Hack" is the unconditional support of Hillary.
Were you unable to answer my reasonable question?
No. You claimed "Hilary destabilized a nation". The country was already destabilized and widely divided before the US began strikes.
Not entirely. All the GOP has to do is back away publicly from the issue like they did. In the last Benghazi hearing they quietly came out and pretty much said, "eh nothing here". But its not important to the politics from the issue.
Republicans and Benghazi: Why some conservatives won’t give up on the scandal.
Why would I be "worried"?
Sorry, I disagree. That will not kill them.
What part about "already destabilized" makes it ok to lie about going to war?
Why? Because they are war hawks. Look at the position of members of congress who are Republicans. Arm Syrian rebels, bomb Syria, arm Ukraine, more drones!, now its bomb Iraq and Syria more, boots on the ground... Remember "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran."?
Nothing, peculiar that such clarity of thought escaped you when BushCo was about the same, we might have avoided that calamity as well.
What part about "already destabilized" makes it ok to lie about going to war?
:roll: So the USA magically controls every protest movement throughout the world?Last I checked the Arab spring happened on Obama and Hillary's watch.
Is it quite possible that she lied to justify a NATO bombing campaign in Libya? Absolutely. Am I and was do I still hold the opinion of being against the US involvement in the Libyan civil war? Yes.Hillary apparently lied to get us into that conflict-whos the war hawk?
I see no evidence that Bush lied, but thats not the point-Hillary cried about that and then lied to get us into syria. Now Americans are dead. Kind of makes her a hypocrite, doesn't it?
So now you are moving your position? You claimed that Hilary destabilized Libya, it was already destabilized. But I am not saying its alright to lie to go to war....
Of course you don't. Take off your partisan glasses. There's mountains of evidence.
Of course you don't. Take off your partisan glasses. There's mountains of evidence.
Calling them Islamic terrorist is exactly what they want you to call them. They get more recruits that way.Ah yes, but appeasing them and even refusing to call them what they are will?
I'm not dancing. I havent "danced" at all.I haven't moved a thing, stop dancing.
1.)Its based off one article (and the article is quoting Gaddafi's son and an unnamed official)Hillary apparently pushed a false narrative (genocide) to take the US to war. Read that again. If thats true, isn't it time to get to the bottom of what happened?
Calling them Islamic terrorist is exactly what they want you to call them. They get more recruits that way.
I'm not dancing. I havent "danced" at all.
1.)Its based off one article (and the article is quoting Gaddafi's son and an unnamed official)
2.)Its being "investigated" by a clear partisan "investigation committee", thats chairman is being pressured to push forward this "investigation" by clear political interests. Since all the sudden you are all about finding the truth into the US involvement in a civil war, dont you think we should have a proper investigation, instead of a partisan committee who has shown in the past to act only on political partisan reasons?
-First it was, "this has nothing to do with the Benghazi hearing", then it was no it actually does. Then it was "Hilary destabilized a region", but it turned out it was actually destabilized. Now its just you are really worried about why the intelligence. It seems like to me you dont care much for the truth at all and actually have another agenda at hand, and care less about how we got into Libya. I mean its clearly shown by the hypocrisy of the right, your backing up of their "investigation" and your untruthful claims that you made already...
So you think Kucinich is making things up, to be a right wing partisan? I guess thats one way to go.
Top Pentagon officials and a senior Democrat in Congress so distrusted Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 2011 march to war in Libya that they opened their own diplomatic channels with the Gadhafi regime in an effort to halt the escalating crisis, according to secret audio recordings recovered from Tripoli.
The tapes, reviewed by The Washington Times and authenticated by the participants, chronicle U.S. officials’ unfiltered conversations with Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s son and a top Libyan leader, including criticisms that Mrs. Clinton had developed tunnel vision and led the U.S. into an unnecessary war without adequately weighing the intelligence community’s concerns.
Read more: Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
More here... http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/621724
A few interesting points here... It suggests that Hillary was relying on false intelligence to go into Libya. Hillary was apparently pushing the genocide angle, is Kucinich lying?
In any case, its interesting what parallels between the lefts arguments on Iraq and going into Libya are...
Now where did I state that? You need to stop making accusations when I stated no such thing... You keep on wanting to make a "pro-Obama", "anti-Obama" argument. Everything isnt so partisan and hackish as you want it to be.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?