IDBillzFan Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 She absolutely did. I had no idea Hillary had it in for Saddam that she pushed for war as an act of vengeance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 At least your affection for such ignorance explains why you keep bringing up Benghazi. One mystery solved. Every time I hear someone make Benghazi into a political talking point it makes my aszshole twitch. With all apologies to Tom, I've got to say it: You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 ...But sending 4,486 men and women to die in Iraq for a personal vendetta is a sound foreign policy, right? Revisionist much? Iraq was a bipartisan effort, which went forward with congressional approval. The fact that the evidence turned out to be poor is not indicative of malfeasance, but rather of an error. An error that two entire branches of the federal government committed together. Furthermore, there was no cover-up after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 So Benghazi is no big deal? You have no problem with anything that happened at Benghazi? I mean, forget the fact that four Americans were left for dead by the WH and State Dept. Aren't you a little curious why we haven't caught the murderers? I mean, we've done everything but friend them on Facebook...but no arrests. You're not curious about that? Well, then obviously we should invade Yemen. Never said it wasn't a big deal or that I had no questions about the events. What I did say was that people who use Benghazi as a rallying cry for political points (on either side of the spectrum) are nothing more than blowhards. I know PPP is the home of the blowhards, but when ill informed people continue to flaunt Benghazi as an example of political failure (and do so with a straight face) it reeks of bias rather than true outrage. Worse, it shows a complete lack of sophistication or understanding how the world works. People on the left who defend the administrations actions after the attack blindly are equally as disingenuous as those on the right who constantly use it as a scare tactic or political rallying call. Revisionist much? Iraq was a bipartisan effort, which went forward with congressional approval. The fact that the evidence turned out to be poor is not indicative of malfeasance, but rather of an error. An error that two entire branches of the federal government committed together. Furthermore, there was no cover-up after the fact. Thanks. Haven't had this good of a laugh all day. For the record, I never claimed that there was a cover up regarding the race to invade Iraq. What there was was an agenda. Denying the fact that certain players in the administration came into office with a unquenchable desire to oust Saddam and practice nation building in the sandbox is factually incorrect. Multiple sources, interviews and memoirs have come out in the 12 years since that clearly show there was a desire to go to war with Iraq even before September of 2001. You can't have confirmation bias without a bias to begin with... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Well, then obviously we should invade Yemen. Never said it wasn't a big deal or that I had no questions about the events. What I did say was that people who use Benghazi as a rallying cry for political points (on either side of the spectrum) are nothing more than blowhards. I know PPP is the home of the blowhards, but when ill informed people continue to flaunt Benghazi as an example of political failure (and do so with a straight face) it reeks of bias rather than true outrage. Worse, it shows a complete lack of sophistication or understanding how the world works. People on the left who defend the administrations actions after the attack blindly are equally as disingenuous as those on the right who constantly use it as a scare tactic or political rallying call. Thanks. Haven't had this good of a laugh all day. For the record, I never claimed that there was a cover up regarding the race to invade Iraq. What there was was an agenda. Denying the fact that certain players in the administration came into office with a unquenchable desire to oust Saddam and practice nation building in the sandbox is factually incorrect. Multiple sources, interviews and memoirs have come out in the 12 years since that clearly show there was a desire to go to war with Iraq even before September of 2001. You can't have confirmation bias without a bias to begin with... Oh will you just stop, you dimwit. You clearly have no comprehension of what I was referencing and are spouting off about what you think (and I'll use that term loosely) I said just to spout off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Of motes & beams: Bridgegate edition. by Roger Kimball FTA: What is it, exactly, that Christie is accused of? Creating a traffic jam. No, not quite. Ordering a traffic jam. No, that’s not quite right either. Being irritated with the Mayor of Fort Lee who declined to endorse his reelection bid and wishing to get back him somehow and then not minding when he was embarrassed with some really bad traffic over the George Washington Bridge. That last comes pretty close to what the Governor of New Jersey is accused of. Pretty heinous, eh? I mean, you never see bad traffic on the George Washington Bridge. And of course, no politicians ever indulge in political pay-back. . . . Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, the President of the United States publicly declares he is willing to contravene the Constitution in order to achieve his agenda. He’s been on that jog for quite a while now, and his State of the Union Address last week reinforced his out-of-touch imperial ambitions. Some are joking — some joke! — that he appears to think of himself as a sort of secular Trinity, embodying in his own person the three branches of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 It's not that four people died. That's tragic, as it appears that it was preventable; but all of the adults at the table know that we live in a dangerous world, that mistakes will happen, and that sometimes people will die as a result of these mistakes. The issue is that this administration turned the unfortunate events of Benghazi political out of the gate by staging a high level cover-up, and lied about the events for purely political reasons during the middle of a presidential election. To further the issue on political side, the hypocrisy of the left to somehow claim that the right is attempting to turn this into a political football, while ignoring that every American should be outraged by this sort of Nixonian behavior is absurd, and quite frankly, offensive to any intellectually honest, thinking person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 So Benghazi is no big deal? You have no problem with anything that happened at Benghazi? I mean, forget the fact that four Americans were left for dead by the WH and State Dept. Aren't you a little curious why we haven't caught the murderers? I mean, we've done everything but friend them on Facebook...but no arrests. You're not curious about that? He hasn't stopped laughing long enough to think about it. Multiple sources, interviews and memoirs have come out in the 12 years since that clearly show there was a desire to go to war with Iraq even before September of 2001. I don't see where that's much of a stretch, considering we were at war with Iraq for all of the 1990s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) A neo-con reference! I miss the good old days when this board was filled with liberals idiots who referred to anyone to the right of FDR a 'neo-con'. I'm still waiting for a single liberal on this board, since 2005, to properly define the term "neo-con". I have never seen them do it properly. It's yet another blind-spot for them. They don't realize that neo-cons are merely: liberals, who decided other liberals are too weak on national security/world security issues, then left the Ds, and joined the Rs as a result. While that is bad for Ds, and they can be mad at Ds who turn on them, it's not like the regular Rs had anything to do with it. Once again, properly defined: A "neo-con" is a moderate war hawk, yet liberal on everything else, Republican. Plain and simple. The irony is that the word conservative is being used at all. The proper term: interventionist liberal Republican, not conservative. In other words? Joe Lieberman...and yep: Hillary Clinton. With 'neo-cons' like Hillary on your side, who needs Bush? You know, they really don't see this coming now(or they try to laugh it off...like the dude that laughs at the joke he doesn't get, because everybody else is), and, it's doubtful they will understand it when it does...so...this post is tantamount to cruelty. Every time I hear someone make Benghazi into a political talking point it makes my aszshole twitch. If that's what it does now, just wait until the "What difference does it make?" Hillary Chia Pet comes out. Ch-ch-ch-coward! How about: "I blamed it on a video, and all I got was this stupid T-shirt!"?(Give that one a second or 2)...it will never end. Personally, I am not looking forward to any of it, but, I also recognize the need to bury you and Hillary under a sea of "What difference does it make?". That's why I want to see things like the Coward Chia Pet. IF we're going to have to endure this, at least we should try to make some of it funny. It's an apt use of the phrase considering the subject. Again, facts are hard things to run from. Unless you watch cable news. Buddy, you are new here, so I'm going to give you the opportunity to learn the easy way: running your mouth about facts being hard to run from, here, is the height of stupidity. Posters of all political persuasions are destroyed on this board daily...by the facts. If you have the guts to stick around here long enough, you will see this happen routinely. And, as we've already seen in this thread: I don't see where that's much of a stretch, considering we were at war with Iraq for all of the 1990s. The facts have already been used to run you down. Edited February 3, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 At least your affection for such ignorance explains why you keep bringing up Benghazi. One mystery solved. Every time I hear someone make Benghazi into a political talking point it makes my aszshole twitch. It's an apt use of the phrase considering the subject. Again, facts are hard things to run from. Unless you watch cable news. It changes the whole look of your mustache when it does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 No. I wasn't. You are becoming OCesque. Come on now, back to mocking out fat men and woman, I expect more from you! You usually have some good material. Hey dipshit: do you want my full attention? Thusfar I largely ignore you, due to your obvious limitations. You're not really worth my time, because there's a good chance you won't even understand it when I squish you, thus, no lulz. But, if you want my full attention, I'm glad to make you my new toy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Hey dipshit: do you want my full attention? Thusfar I largely ignore you, due to your obvious limitations. You're not really worth my time, because there's a good chance you won't even understand it when I squish you, thus, no lulz. But, if you want my full attention, I'm glad to make you my new toy. I couldn't read this without thinking of The Joker in The Dark Night. "I'm a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 (edited) I couldn't read this without thinking of The Joker in The Dark Night. "I'm a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it!" Bah, I should have gone with that. EDIT: But, remember who we are talking about tho...it's not like he's going to get it either way. I just figured: why not screw with him a little? Edited February 3, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I couldn't read this without thinking of The Joker in The Dark Night. "I'm a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it!" I thought of Kids In the Hall skit, I'm Squishing Your Head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Neo-con is a racist term used to describe Jewish war hawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Versus neo-libs, who vote for someone because he/it is cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 I thought of Kids In the Hall skit, I'm Squishing Your Head Crushing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 welp, so much for "welp, so much for Chris Christie eh" Christie's lawyer: Governor not involved in plot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 He's just another Boogeyman to the Left. He's in their head like Palin and Bush are and they'll NEVER be rid of them. It's a delicious proposition in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 27, 2014 Share Posted March 27, 2014 welp, so much for "welp, so much for Chris Christie eh" Christie's lawyer: Governor not involved in plot Oh, well that settles that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts