birdog1960 Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) It's not the evil that people question. It's the ridiculously incompetent response that came from Obama and Hillary, leaving four Americans for dead while trying to figure out how to dress their soliders, and trying to pass it off on a Youtube video when every thinking person knew differently. and did tre' gowdy found that the outcome could have been changed at that point in time by the actions of Clinton or Obama? how bout the outcomes in Beirut? did the dems of the time make a circus of that tragedy? it's unseemly and lacking any class. but expected from a party that supports a crude mechanical such as trump. Edited June 29, 2016 by birdog1960
GG Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 and did tre' gowdy found that the outcome could have been changed at that point in time by the actions of Clinton or Obama? how bout the outcomes in Beirut? did the dems of the time make a circus of that tragedy? it's unseemly and lacking any class. but expected from a party that supports a crude mechanical such as trump. Did Reagan deflect Beirut blame on the airing of Ishtar?
B-Man Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 House Republicans' Report Sheds New Light on Benghazi Attack by Andrea Mitchell http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/house-republicans-report-sheds-new-light-benghazi-attack-n600121 House Benghazi report slams administration response to attacks http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/28/house-benghazi-report-slams-administration-response-to-attacks.html?intcmp=hpbt1 House Benghazi Report Confirms ‘Spontaneous Video Protest’ Story Was Deliberate Political Disinformation http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/28/house-benghazi-report-confirms-video-protest-story-deliberate-political-disinformation/
Deranged Rhino Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 You blindly support a candidate who should be in prison. I would hardly say you're in a position of morally principled superiority. Actually, he supported Sanders until his principles (which he defines as only applying when there's something in it for himself -- you know, the opposite of the actual definition) led him to Hillary.
birdog1960 Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 Did Reagan deflect Beirut blame on the airing of Ishtar? if he had would you have expected George McGovern to head a multiyear committee costing millions of dollars to investigate it? and at the end, if there were no new findings, would you be happy with McGovern?
Doc Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 So birddog, you're fine with them lying to everybody about the video?
GG Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 if he had would you have expected George McGovern to head a multiyear committee costing millions of dollars to investigate it? and at the end, if there were no new findings, would you be happy with McGovern? Let's get back on topic. The whole reason that GOP launched the investigation is due to the lies & deflection by the most transparent administration in US history. I'm not going to get into your never ending circle jerk of hypotheticals. The fact is, US officials got killed and Clinton & Obama lied for political expediency.
birdog1960 Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 Let's get back on topic. The whole reason that GOP launched the investigation is due to the lies & deflection by the most transparent administration in US history. I'm not going to get into your never ending circle jerk of hypotheticals. The fact is, US officials got killed and Clinton & Obama lied for political expediency. it is on topic. it's called an analogy. those americans did not die because of the actions in question. therefore, saliva on their grave reference is a disgusting, classless, statement that no one here challenged but me. but again, what should one expect?
B-Man Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 (edited) if he had would you have expected George McGovern to head a multiyear committee costing millions of dollars to investigate it? and at the end, if there were no new findings, would you be happy with McGovern? Good Lord..............so much fail Tip O'Neill headed up the House investigation (McGovern was a Senator) They didn't need a multiyear committee.....(finished in two months) because the Reagan administration cooperated, no subpoenas necessary. They did find the administration negligent......as they did today......so I find your "there were no new findings" very illustrative Let's get back on topic. The whole reason that GOP launched the investigation is due to the lies & deflection by the most transparent administration in US history. I'm not going to get into your never ending circle jerk of hypotheticals. The fact is, US officials got killed and Clinton & Obama lied for political expediency. Absolutely correct................ Edited June 29, 2016 by B-Man
Deranged Rhino Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 it is on topic. it's called an analogy. those americans did not die because of the actions in question. therefore, saliva on their grave reference is a disgusting, classless, statement that no one here challenged but me. but again, what should one expect? False. Not that facts matter to you. Or intellectual honesty.
DC Tom Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 your point? My point is that you're having a ridiculous argument.
birdog1960 Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 Good Lord..............so much fail Tip O'Neill headed up the House investigation (McGovern was a Senator) They didn't need a multiyear committee.....(finished in two months) because the Reagan administration cooperated, no subpoenas necessary. They did find the administration negligent......as they did today......so I find your "there were no new findings" very illustrative Absolutely correct................ Good Lord..............so much fail Tip O'Neill headed up the House investigation (McGovern was a Senator) They didn't need a multiyear committee.....(finished in two months) because the Reagan administration cooperated, no subpoenas necessary. They did find the administration negligent......as they did today......so I find your "there were no new findings" very illustrative Absolutely correct................ and did that destroy your high opinion of Reagan?
FireChan Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 Actually, he supported Sanders until his principles (which he defines as only applying when there's something in it for himself -- you know, the opposite of the actual definition) led him to Hillary. Only birdbrain says morality is irrelevant after saying he supported Bernie for his values as a person. He's a walking contradiction.
Nanker Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 That administration might have been negligent in that they didn't foresee the danger to the Marines stationed there. Regan never figuratively spit on their graves though. Regan never lied to the American people about what happened, nor did he blame their deaths on some ridiculous, fictitious construct in order to keep him ahead in the polls going into an election.
4merper4mer Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 it is on topic. it's called an analogy. those americans did not die because of the actions in question. therefore, saliva on their grave reference is a disgusting, classless, statement that no one here challenged but me. but again, what should one expect? It is an absolute fact. If you choose not to see it that is your problem pal.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 Only birdbrain says morality is irrelevant after saying he supported Bernie for his values as a person. He's a walking contradiction.
IDBillzFan Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 The fact is, US officials got killed and Clinton & Obama lied for political expediency. And now one of them is trying to be our next president, which should be unacceptable to anyone.
boyst Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 and did that destroy your high opinion of Reagan? who was president for this? http://tinyurl.com/28b8ykn
keepthefaith Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 And now one of them is trying to be our next president, which should be unacceptable to anyone. Party trumps ideology ideology trumps integrity winning is simply more important than values What's perceived to be bad about the opposition is more important than what's good about your candidate
birdog1960 Posted June 29, 2016 Posted June 29, 2016 Only birdbrain says morality is irrelevant after saying he supported Bernie for his values as a person. He's a walking contradiction. I said morality is unimportant in a bar fight which is what gowdy started and got whipped in. False. Not that facts matter to you. Or intellectual honesty. you are truly shameless. the proof or lack thereof, is right here on this page. there you go calling black, white again. frickin shameless.
Recommended Posts