DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on January 24, 2016, 04:30:57 AM
-
Just saw it today........WOW
-
a friend tried to go last weekend and it was sold out
he caught it later in the week and said the same thing...."WOW"!
-
I checked out the web sights that go that extra mile to compare a movie based on true events, to actual facts....and on nearly every point, the movie was accurate. Some names were changed, to protect identities, in particular "Bob", who ran the secret CIA annex, and "Jack", who was an extremely close friend to one of the SEAL's, who was killed, Tyrone 'Rone' Woods
Did you know the other SEAL who was killed took part in the rescue of Captain Phillips? Glen 'Bub' Doherty, was one of the SEALs on the stern of the Destroyer, who was tasked to target one of the Somali pirates, with his sniper rifle, and three pirates were shot nearly simultaneously
Folks like xo, can poo poo this all they want, claim it was "so long ago", and that "Clinton didn't cause the attack", which no one has ever claimed she did, so why he keeps pulling that, is beyond me. What was painfully clear, AND ACCURATE, AS IN THE TRUTH, is that:
- the State dept, headed by Clinton, continuously ignored REPEATED requests for security, in a region, that they all new was becoming increasingly unstable.
- neither the State dept, nor the WH ordered any measures, what-so-ever, to bolster security, with the imminent anniversary or 911 approaching
- the attack, when it started, was determined immediately to be a terrorist attack, and not some "out of control protest"
- the SEALs at the annex were repeatedly told to stand down, but chose to disobey orders, and as a result, 30+lives were saved, that wouldn't have been, otherwise
- despite that we had multiple air options that could have been sent in, in particular, F-16's, that could have even simply made some low passes to scare the living snot out of the terrorists, nothing was allowed to take off
- and the icing to this absolute debacle, all of whic you can place directly at the foot of Clinton & Obama, is that the last plane to take our folks out of Libya, wasn't even American. It was a Libyan cargo plane
Those are all irrefutable facts
-
Give it a rest, sirs, no one gives a shit except fools like you and those whose swill you are addicted to reading.
You want to talk about really serious errors in foreign policy, there were more mistakes on any given week during the misguided and unnecessary invasion of Iraq than in Benghazi.
-
As I accuarately concluded, xo may try to infer how this was so long ago, but this goes to the heart of her character and compotence.....as in she has none. And yet she wants to run for an office that is all about both.
And news flash, neither Bush nor Cheney are running, so its irrelevent your opinion on how they handled Iraq
-
Give it a rest, sirs, no one gives a shit except fools like you and those whose swill you are addicted to reading.
You want to talk about really serious errors in foreign policy, there were more mistakes on any given week during the misguided and unnecessary invasion of Iraq than in Benghazi.
All right , if you want to call equivalence.
Tell me about the Scapegoats and lies that were used in an equivalent coverup?
-
The incompetence of Cheney and Rumsfeld in Iraq does not need to be covered up. It was blatant and obvious.
-
So....no actual examples of cover-up or lying, like Clinton pulled? Glad we got that cleared up
-
No, just stupid management that resulted in the loss of lives of hundreds, possibly thousands of lives of US troops and even more Iraqis.
But of course to you lying is far more important than anyone's life.
Because you are mentally ill.
-
Your opinion of the war, not withstanding, doesn't even begin to touch the documented lies and cover-up by Clinton, regarding Benghazi & now her entire email house of cards
-
...and notice also the almost painful effort to avoid any of the unrefutable facts provided above, that reinforces precisely the level of incompotence and attempts to cover it up, Clinton pulled, while she now tries to run for President
When unable to defend the indefensible, try desperately to change the subject -- Liberal Debate 101
-
All right , if you want to call equivalence.
Tell me about the Scapegoats and lies that were used in an equivalent coverup?
Well, not a coverup so much as misleading the American people into an unnecessary war in Iraq that drew attention and resources from the war against the Taliban and Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and did indeed cost thousands of American lives, many thousands more Iraqi lives, and countless inujured all around. Oh, yeah, how is that search for Iraqi WMDs coming along?
-
While I appreciate hnumpah's consistency on this issue, its far from concluded that Bush "lied" or "covered anything up". It's kind of like Global warming, as there is no concensus. What he did, which has been brought up so many times previously, is following the events of 911, the predominant conclusions by intel was the threat that Saddam posed with his WMD. Yes, we do know there were "some" sources that concluded otherwise. It would be interesting if it could be objectively stated as a %, like....85% of the intel said he had them, 10% said he did not, and another 15% was "inclusive".
The point being, there has never been any evidence provided that validated the ongoing inferrence that Bush lied us into war, or even misled us into war. He went with the predominance of the intel given him, that wasn't just limited to our CIA
But just to placate the matter.......let's pretent is all true, that Bush knew Saddam had no WMD, and purposely misled us to believe he did, so that we could enter war. How does that in any way absolve the current Democrat front runner, from not just the lies she provided in trying to cover-up her incomptence with Benghazi, but the ever-growing mountain of reckless irresponsibility to this country's safety/security, by maintaining a private unsecured server to all manner of classified e-mail information......an act that would courtmartial any standing military member, and putting anyone else in prison??
Convenience isn't an acceptable excuse in breaking federal law, I'm afraid
-
But just to placate the matter.......let's pretent is all true, that Bush knew Saddam had no WMD, and purposely misled us to believe he did, so that we could enter war. How does that in any way absolve the current Democrat front runner, from not just the lies she provided in trying to cover-up her incomptence with Benghazi, but the ever-growing mountain of reckless irresponsibility to this country's safety/security, by maintaining a private unsecured server to all manner of classified e-mail information......an act that would courtmartial any standing military member, and putting in prison anyone else??
Convenience isn't an acceptable excuse, I'm afraid
While I am not saying one excuses the other, given those circumstances - that Bush knew and lied - I would seriously consider the body count. Iraq versus Benghazi - which do you think would be higher?
-
sirs believes in WMD's.
sirs wants all Democrats to be perfect, and alas, they all fall short of his definition of this.
Dick Cheney apparently does not need to be perfect.
-
But just to placate the matter.......let's pretend it's all true, that Bush knew Saddam had no WMD, and purposely misled us to believe he did, so that we could enter war. How does that in any way absolve the current Democrat front runner, from not just the lies she provided in trying to cover-up her incomptence with Benghazi, but the ever-growing mountain of reckless irresponsibility to this country's safety/security, by maintaining a private unsecured server to all manner of classified e-mail information......an act that would courtmartial any standing military member, and putting in prison anyone else??
Convenience isn't an acceptable excuse, I'm afraid
While I am not saying one excuses the other, given those circumstances - that Bush knew and lied - I would seriously consider the body count. Iraq versus Benghazi - which do you think would be higher?
If all things were equal, as in if Bush knew Saddam had no WMD, but took us into war anyways, then you'd have a point. Since that isn't the case, as in there is no demonstrable proof of that quailifier, what you have is war, and in war people do die. Thankfully, compared to so many other wars, the lives lost in Iraq, are a mere fraction, compared to nearly every other war.
Now back to the point of Clinton, and her demonstrably proven lies.....
-
That is what you like to wank off about. It is all yours. Enjoy.
I have had enough, I don't even want to watch.
-
sirs believes in WMD's.
More accurately, Sirs believes in the vast majority of global intel, that most everyone else did as well, that claimed Saddam had WMD's. The simple fact he had even used them on the Kurds helps support that initial conclusion
sirs wants all Democrats to be perfect, and alas, they all fall short of his definition of this.
More accurately, Sirs wants ALL politicians to be held accountable to their actions. Actions taken with the judgement of doing what's right for this country, gets a long leash. Actions taken to cover one's ass, and put America at risk at the same time, gets pretty much no leash
Dick Cheney apparently does not need to be perfect.
Nor is he expected to be. ::) Notice now the changing goal posts....the effort to paint what Clinton did, with simply inferring "nobody's perfect". What she did with her e-mail, was criminal, period. She put this country at risk (and more likely than not, that unsecured server has been hacked by the Russians and Chinese, perhaps even the Iranians and North Koreans. They're not going to tell us of course, they're just going to use all that classified top secret information they pulled from her to go after our most secured intelligence assets, and put at greater risk our country in general.
And it wasn't as irresponsible as to convenience either. She's far too smart to pull a Lindsey Lohan. The "convenience" excuse is just another lie. She did it to have complete control of everything that went thru her and the Clinton foundation, while she was SoS. Oversight didn't exist with her, since she didn't adhere to what EVERY OTHER government employee must. The safety and security of this country, came at the expense of her being able to not allow any Government committee or agency to see what she was doing, or how it may have connected with the Clinton Foundation. That's validated by how she tried to wipe the server clean before turning it over
-
Hillary has a lot of problems any one of which by itself would cost her my vote.
But when she was a Senator and voted to invade Iraq ,for that one I can give her a pass.
I thought the same thing at the time , that Saddam was a festering boil that could only get worse as it was neglected.
-
And you were wrong. Invading Iraq was a disastrous idea.
Eisenhower said we should fight NO LAND WARS IN ASIA, and he was right.
And it is hard to imagine anything as poorly done as that invasion.
Hillary did not vote to invade Iraq. The issue was giving the power to Juniorbush to do it at his own discretion. It enabled him to make a credible threat to Saddam. It was a bad vote, and one Bernie refused to make. I opposed it because the evidence presented was clearly bogus.
-
This must mean that YOU are smarter than Hillary R Clinton.
-
Well yes, I am. I am also smarter than each and every one of those fools that is running as a Republican.
-
I have had enough, I don't even want to watch.
lol....and yet you continue to "watch"
And you were wrong. Invading Iraq was a disastrous idea.
That was a judgement call, and in no way some attempt to CYA.
Eisenhower said we should fight NO LAND WARS IN ASIA, and he was right.
An opinion. One that can only be based on the situation at hand
And it is hard to imagine anything as poorly done as that invasion.
Hardly, given its speed and success at taking out the enemy with a mere fraction of causalities compared to other wars
Hillary did not vote to invade Iraq. The issue was giving the power to Juniorbush to do it at his own discretion.
What the hell is the difference??.....see, that's precisely the games politicians play. She'll vote to support any war effort, unless it goes bad, then she can claim she never supported it?? Seriously??
It enabled him to make a credible threat to Saddam.
Actions speak louder than words. If a leader doesn't back up what they say, when the other side violates or ignores, they have no credibility for anything that follows. See current Iranian & Syrian debacles for a some prime examples of that scenario playing out
I opposed it because the evidence presented was clearly bogus.
Based on what exactly?? Your gut??
-
I based my opinion on the way that Juniorbush answered reporters, as he wavered on the answers and acted as though he had been prompted on what to say. He did not say that Saddam has received yellowcake Uranium from Niger. He sai=d that he has TRIED to obtain bomb materials from (oause, tremble in voice) AFRICA.
I lived in Mexico in a period in which the officials of the Gustavo Diaz Ordaz government had beaten and killed protesters, even invading hospitals to kidnap than then disappear wounded student protesters. They denied everything. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld Feith, Chalabi and the rest of them answered in the same nervous way. It was totally clear to me that they did not believe their own bullshit.
-
In other words, nothing more than your gut. I'm going with the vast predominant majority of intel that had concluded otherwise. Suffice to say, I didn't go with my "gut? I went with the available objective data at the time. That included Clinton's vote to SUPPORT military intervention, as well