No, I'm not partisan, what is with you people. I was bitching about the O administrations false claims on Libya and Gaddafi while this was unfolding. While most partisan righties were in full support of the Libyan operation. Not only was there nothing close to genocide taking place in Libya, the UN resolution for the authorisation of force was tethered to civilian protection NOT regime change. Remember, this is where Russia and China parted company with the US in a big way, and the very much stated reason that they denied the US authorisation at the UN for use of force in Syria. Libya was the sham that Iraq was. The only problem is that your partisan blinders only allow you to see these things when they are done by democrats. What a waste of ****ing time you are!!!!
Kucinich is not making anything up. And while your about believing Kucinich suddenly, start listening to what he's said about Iraq, and stop being such a partisan hack. Libya isn't the first time Americas been taken to war on FALSE PRETENSE!!!!!!!!!!!
Neither party seems to care much about lies and falsehoods so long as their ideology is advanced by that deception. Democrats, for example, are about to coronate Hillary 'sniper fire' Clinton as their candidate for liar in chief to replace Barak 'you can keep you plan' Obama. When honesty isn't a virtue in politicians, how can anyone be surprised we have so many dishonest political leaders.
With any luck, this destroys her potential bid for the WH.
In addition, it is clear that US strikes in Pakistan foster anti-American sentiment and undermine US credibility not only in Pakistan but throughout the region. There is strong evidence to suggest that US drone strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivate attacks against both US military and civilian targets. Further, current US targeted killing and drone strike practices may set dangerous global legal precedents, erode the rule of law, and facilitate recourse to lethal force.
Strategic Considerations | Living Under Drones
Why drone strikes are real enemy in 'war on terror'
Why drone strikes are real enemy in 'war on terror' - CNN.com
Pero, have you noticed that the captives being publicly killed by the Islamic State are hauled out in orange jumpsuits? You cannot deny the tool that Gitmo is!!!!!
And Iraq wasn't the first time either.
What real threat was Vietnam to the USA? :roll:
I will not deny to a few you are absolutely right. But I would suggest to most of the new recruits what we do in Pakistan, GITMO has little to nothing to do with them joining ISIS. We could stop everything today and the recruitment would continue. This in my opinion is more of an ideological battle in which we are fighting with the military.
This war to be successful has to be fought on both fronts, the military and ideological sides. Regardless of what we do in Pakistan or with GITMO, the hard core Islamic extremist are not going to become nice to us. They have one goal, an Islamic Califat and then spreading their brand of Islam throughout the world.
We can defeat them militarily, drive ISIS out of Iraq and even destroy most of them in Syria. We have the power to do that. But ideological wise, only the moderate Islamist can defeat the extremist. Not some western power who understands little about Islam. One also has to remember factions in Islam have been at war with each other for what seems like forever. Shia vs. Sunni and then the different sects in each group.
There really is no easy answer in my opinion.
The US left....
All that is true of what I see in the Democrats and their supporters. As much as the left here is irresponsible, we do not hear a constant refrain aimed at leaders and failed leaders going back 30 to 50 years.
Frankly, I have never seen this from a leading politician in my life. We have had some pretty stupid and inept leaders, Stephan Dion wanted to be Prime Minister because he had a dog named Kyoto, his only party trick was signing the Kyoto accord. The current NDP leader, a socialist, hasn't a clue about this country, thinks a higher minimum wage is the answer to terrorism and bad weather.
However, I have never heard any of them or their followers ever say their current troubles were because of history, Luis St Laurent, Pierre Trudeau or even another country.
This is a unique thing we have here, specific to a section of the national culture of America...more likely specific to Obama.
It is a disease. This morning I was reminded of my kids, when very little and were caught, the answer was often "somebody did it." This is just a culture of that virus infecting the lame, lazy and stupid. They have run out of defenses, notice they cannot defend "you can keep your plan" with this garbage as no other president in history has ever lied so blatantly.
and there I think is the nature of the problem. This loser from Poverty Pimp Inc. looked so good, he was glib and slick and promised EVERYTHING, he raised hopes so high they were dreams, but this soft-voiced negro sold them utopia, "fee everything" and punish the "rich too" but they never looked behind the facade to see that he was the rich....good leaders seek to represent everyone, Obama waged war on "enemies"
So now, with the highest hopes turned to coals of resentment, the realization that this guy is a sack of ****, incompetent, dishonest and less than ready to defend America, his successor in the dynasty as bad or worse, incompetent, a liar, a coward as well....as well as old and fat they cannot bring themselves to admit that they have been hoodwinked, that the last seven years have been more than a waste of time and there has been no change, "hope" is a girl's name and they are, in the vernacular, ****ed.
The personal character of Obama, his attitude toward "them" as in "guns and Bibles", "others" has divided the United States more than at any other time in my 65 years, and that includes the Vietnam era. He entered office on an excuse "I inherited this mess" as if every other president did not inherit a mess....Reagan was I would say right up there.
Obama is a baby. His followers sense that and protect him with a blanket of vile, lies about history, now dead leaders [who the **** rakes the dead?] accusations of misdeeds and assaults on character...low life, scum sucking tactics thrown out like cowardly hockey players trying to look tough. They are not. They float on a wave of deceit, attack the messenger and assail character, sometimes the color of skin of an adopted baby, often the character of the dead, and save the most vile name calling "****" "whore" "slut' for Sarah Palin a woman who has never held national office.
No sir, this is not a "leftist" issue, I actually can maintain respect for leftists here, this is a disease of character where those who have none have to rip aopart those who do and even better when their dead, because they can't defend themselves.
It won't be 40 years. I am certain that I will see a collapse in my lifetime unless you people quit arguing about history and elect another Reagan...next time.
Without that, you will go down with the motto"
"It's the crusades fault!"
Yep, but not this.
We did not know she lied to Obama, the contents of this new file etc.
And yes, I want an investigation for the fact too much is still now known. her roll in letting the terrorists escape and a good raking over the coals simply to get even for her being an absolute bitch along with Pelosi, Reid, "enemies" Obama, and the rest of the sloth that turned the US congress into a ****ing side show.
So side show it is, get used to it. Your president set the lowest common denominator for using congress to heap slime at your opponent, and now its gutter time, as in payback and what was that "What difference, AT THIS POINT does it make?"....as at this point she looks at least as slimy as Obama, and she's not black, not good looking and not very bright.
The Democrats set the priority as intra warfare, and now, for two years the lying left is going to get pay back. As dirty as Reid and the nuclear option can make ikt and you, the blathering masses of Gruberville and Obama himself are powerless to stop it."
Welcome to the train wreck
Yup. That conversation went exactly like that. I think her exact words were, "**** Americans, they can die in the embassy in Libya, just cuz!"
The weakness of this president's response also has a lot to do with making them look like winners. An average of seven airstrikes a day is not going to accomplish much--and this lack of seriousness by President Limpwrist makes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar even less willing to stick their necks out. They were only making a few pinprick air attacks here and there to begin with, and even then only against ISIS, and not the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria that they side with.
Jordan is only doing as much as it is the past few days because of the disclosure of the gruesome murder of its pilot. But its situation is too precarious to allow it to lead the charge for very long. A good part of Jordan's population sympathizes with the jihadists, and the influx of refugees has made it harder for King Abdullah to govern. Worse, thousands of Jordanians have gone into Syria to fight with the jihadists, and some of them are sure to return to operate inside Jordan.
The U.S. cannot lead this fight from behind, and this sorry excuse for a president is endangering our national security by trying. A half-hearted effort that lets these people continue to have a safe haven is asking for another attack on U.S. soil, possibly even worse than 9/11.
Her actions essentially said this.
Saudi Arabia, the country with the worlds fourth largest military, the country that has sponsored terrorism for decades, the country who supplied 15 of the 9/11 attackers and financed the operation. Thankfully, Obama hasn't committed us more than he has already.
Ok match, other than the US, China and Russia, who's spending more on their military in the world than SA. And tell me exactly why, if they wanted to, they couldn't extinguish the Islamic State straightaway?? Huh?
The Main Stream Media won't touch it, and with a Nation full of Grubercrats, this will be a non-issue. The Media has having Hillary's Crown sized.
Despite my hatred of Hillary, I see little hear other than a poor policy decision to try and get involved in the Middle East.
Remember, thats how Benghazi started as well. I suspect by the elections this will become a bigger issue.
Let me help you out a little: GOP panel on Benghazi finds no Obama administration wrongdoing - LA Times
No she admitted to feeling responsible. However the committee found she followed state dept. policy. So no, still wrong doing.Another attempt to conceal reality. She's admitted in her own testimony she made mistakes leading up to Benghazi. The committee findings you are linking to are pertaining to the response AFTER the attack occurred. She's not blameless, and nothing is over here. :2wave:
No she admitted to feeling responsible. However the committee found she followed state dept. policy. So no, still wrong doing.
Just poor policy? This makes her out to be a stunning hypocrite. Its a flip flop on an issue that the left appears to find very important.
How do you think that will pan out in a close election?
Its rare for any political party to win 3 consecutive presidential elections-do you think they need another challenge what will be a tight election?
While I am in no means a Democratic strategist, I see no reason to assume that this is going to be a close election. While Hillary is running around as the Dem nominee, the GOP hopefuls will still be slugging it out to break the top 10 (exaggeration). At that point the nominee is going to be so Conservative and beat up that it will take a lot to make it a "tight" election.
Once again...TO THE RESPONSE AFTER THE ATTACKS. THATS ALL THE COMMITTEE FINDINGS REFER TO.
Read that several more times.
/QUOTE]You'd have to ask the democrats that got the US into that war...[
Was Eisenhower a Democrat? It was President Eisenhower's 'domino theory' which first led to U.S. entanglement in Vietnam.
Lets give credit where it's due. :roll:
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?