More on BHO & Benghazi

[billvon 3,116]

>Not sure what you mean by "crying 'wolf'"

After you post "she's going to be prosecuted REAL SOON NOW" "This will BLOW THE LID off the case!" for two years consecutively, people stop taking you seriously. They assume it's just more hyperbole.

>Four Americans were unnecessarily sacrificed in Benghazi.

And 3000 were unnecessarily sacrificed in Manhattan in 2001. But you give that one a pass because you like Bush. Again, we've been hearing that for years from you.

[winsor 236]

kallend

******>Seriously incriminating evidence is beginning to be exposed.

You said that two years ago and have been saying it in every post since then.

At some point people stop believing you when you cry "wolf!"

Not sure what you mean by "crying 'wolf'". I intend to post current news articles whenever one strikes my awareness.

Four Americans were unnecessarily sacrificed in Benghazi.

BHO and HC et.al. lied to us in 2008.



Over 4,000 Americans were unnecessarily sacrificed in Iraq.

GWB and Cheney lied to us in 2002-2003.

How about some outrage over THAT!


Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.

[masterblaster72 0]

kallend

******>Seriously incriminating evidence is beginning to be exposed.

You said that two years ago and have been saying it in every post since then.

At some point people stop believing you when you cry "wolf!"

Not sure what you mean by "crying 'wolf'". I intend to post current news articles whenever one strikes my awareness.

Four Americans were unnecessarily sacrificed in Benghazi.

BHO and HC et.al. lied to us in 2008.



Over 4,000 Americans were unnecessarily sacrificed in Iraq.

GWB and Cheney lied to us in 2002-2003.

How about some outrage over THAT!

After 36 pages, I don't think you can expect to see any from him.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[RonD1120 62]

billvon

>Four Americans were unnecessarily sacrificed in Benghazi.

And 3000 were unnecessarily sacrificed in Manhattan in 2001. But you give that one a pass because you like Bush. Again, we've been hearing that for years from you.

I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate. Your rebuttals are difficult for me to understand.

Of course anything to take the focus off BHO/HC.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

normiss

You only have a few more weeks to care anyway, right?

I have an undetermined amount of time. You didn't read the books I recommended did you?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 895]

Like every other human, I have until the day I die.
No, I didn't, nor do I have any interest in reading them.

[RonD1120 62]

normiss

Like every other human, I have until the day I die.
No, I didn't, nor do I have any interest in reading them.

It's is difficult to attack with only blank ammunition.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[normiss 895]

It's what is what?
I didn't realize we were at war.
Attack what?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

RonD1120

***

>Four Americans were unnecessarily sacrificed in Benghazi.

And 3000 were unnecessarily sacrificed in Manhattan in 2001. But you give that one a pass because you like Bush. Again, we've been hearing that for years from you.

I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate. Your rebuttals are difficult for me to understand.

Of course anything to take the focus off BHO/HC.

And with his retaliation against Iraq he sacrificed thousands of life....considering he was completely wrong.

But in your world he wasn't wrong and did the right thing and it is all good.

I have said it before, your disparity in outrage based purely on political ideology over the backs of thousands of dead Americans tells me enough about you. It is an absolute disgrace.

[billvon 3,116]

>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

[airdvr 210]

billvon

>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Amazon 7]

airdvr

***>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

No it was more of a OH FUCK.. now what the hell am I going to do.

[Anvilbrother 0]

He was doing what 70+% of Americans and majority of congress wanted at the time.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[headoverheels 334]

Anvilbrother

He was doing what 70+% of Americans and majority of congress wanted at the time.

I'd say that quite a bit more than 70% of Americans have no interest in the ongoing Benghazi "investigations." 98% of Congress would not, if political parties didn't exist.

[airdvr 210]

A pretty universal feeling that day.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[headoverheels 334]

airdvr

A pretty universal feeling that day.

I disagree with much (most?) of what GWB did in office, but I will certainly give him a pass on that initial reaction to the event.

[kallend 2,148]

airdvr

***>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

W's 2003 SOTU address was deliberately misleading. As was his "Rose Garden" speech in September 2002. Over 4,000 Americans died as a result of those lies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

billvon

>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

No, I do not accept that premise.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

kallend

******>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

W's 2003 SOTU address was deliberately misleading. As was his "Rose Garden" speech in September 2002. Over 4,000 Americans died as a result of those lies.

What was the body count ratio to enemy deaths?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

airdvr

***>I liked President Bush in 2001. He had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks except to retaliate.

Bush was warned that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US, using airplanes and targeting buildings. In response, Bush went on vacation. A month later, the 9/11 attacks occured and 3000 Americans died. Yet you claim that his failure to act had nothing to do with the resulting attack.

Obama had some warning of an upcoming attack in Benghazi. He failed to act as well. 4 Americans died. Your condemnation of him for that*, and exoneration of Bush for a much more egregious failure, is a perfect example of your unthinking down-the-line partisan approach to everything here.

If it has to do with Obama, you condemn it; doesn't matter what it is. If it has to do with Bush you excuse it; the facts don't matter.

(* - "BHO disregarded the request for assistance from Chris Stevens and the others. He went to bed and then flew to Las Vegas the next day. It is that lack of concern . . .")

If only it was that simple. The difference in those 2 situations is the intent. I believe the intent of telling the american people about some stupid video reaction was to minimize the political effects of a terror attack 2 months prior to the election. W's failure to act was not a political attempt to mislead.

This got me to thinking. Bottom line, I can forgive a mistake. I cannot forgive evil intent. BHO is not making mistakes. He is doing exactly what he intended to do. He is following his agenda perfectly. That's how I see it.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 62]

SkyDekker

And with his retaliation against Iraq he sacrificed thousands of life....considering he was completely wrong.

But in your world he wasn't wrong and did the right thing and it is all good.

I have said it before, your disparity in outrage based purely on political ideology over the backs of thousands of dead Americans tells me enough about you. It is an absolute disgrace.

You talk like you think the game is supposed to be fair. The game is based on the evil intentions of sinful man. I'm using man in a non-specific general way here. The object is to pick a side and win.

Keep in mind, the U.S. military is made up of volunteers. They join expecting to fight and possibly die. They hope they are not maimed or abandoned.

Given a few join expecting to get a free college education while serving at a desk job in a resort area. Were you one of those troops?

I have yet to meet an Iraq war vet who was angry because he was sent there. I suppose there are some, just not in my circles. Then again, I tend to associate with warriors not wusses.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

You talk like you think the game is supposed to be fair. The game is based on the evil intentions of sinful man. I'm using man in a non-specific general way here. The object is to pick a side and win.

So Obama won twice. Get over it already.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Given a few join expecting to get a free college education while serving at a desk job in a resort area. Were you one of those troops?

Questioning another's service is way out of line. Fuck you.

- Dan G

[masterblaster72 0]

DanG

Quote

Given a few join expecting to get a free college education while serving at a desk job in a resort area. Were you one of those troops?

Questioning another's service is way out of line. Fuck you.

Seriously. Why is it the domain of the "patriotic" republicans to mock the military service of other Americans? Talk about pussies.

What a disgrace.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[normiss 895]

Yup.