Bush is a hero

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 7,740)

Showing posts 154,781 - 154,800 of168,946
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161939
May 11, 2013
 
Hi, folks.

The bloom is officially off the Obama rose.

How delightful :)

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161940
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me smart guy. How long would it take for fighter jets from Italy to scramble and fly across the Med to Benghazi? 2-3 hours? How long did the attack in Benghazi last, 7+ hours?
Unarmed drones were circling overhead during the attack, you think if they HAD been armed and unleashed a few HELLFIRE missiles, that may have saved some lives? Or how about the real-time video feed that was being monitored here in DC for several hours. You'd think SOMEone would pick up the phone and call for help for those folks in Benghazi.
Who gave the freakin' order to have our military "stand down" rather than try to save the Ambassador and the other 3 men, vastly outnumbered. I don't claim to know exactly what happened that night, and who stopped the rescue attempt. That's what the hearings are for.
But we DO know that the CIA Talking Points were changed 12 times, not 1 minor stylistic change as the President's spoke person (Carney) just stated yesterday. If you don't think that was a blatant effort to alter the facts from "radical Muslim terrorists" to something less sinister, that's not MY problem.
As for showing YOU unbiased proof of ANYthing, you are SADLY misguided. With your resources and multiple feeds, I'm sure you can do your OWN d@mn research. And I don't really care HOW stupid you think I am. At one time I did, but not any more.
It's no secret that I can't stand Obama or any of his minions. He should NEVER have been put in the WH in the 1st place. I hope the b@stard is impeached, the sooner the better. But the best part of that is that the millions of his drooling, adoring fans finally get to see him for who he really is. Just another cheap Chicago thug.
Oh one more thing, Grasshoppah. Instead of bitchin' about the circle jerk trending of this thread, how about tossing some of YOUR favorite topics out for discussion. I may be stupid, but there are several in here who aren't, such as HipG, and a few others. Maybe they'll be able to stimulate your need for intelligent exchanges.
I do not think you are stupid, bob, and don't believe you when you try to play dumb.

The question ... the question comes back to your insistence that I'm upset because Obama and/or Hillary is being questioned, that everything I say is an attempt to blindly defend Obama or Clinton or (insert target here).

The questions being asked of Obama and Clinton by most of their opponents are of the 'when did you quit beating your wife' variety, not a Howard Baker-esque "What did the President/Secretary know and when did he/she know it?"

That don't cut it with me, whether the President or Cabinet official is from my party or not.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161941
May 11, 2013
 
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Or it could be that Bob is kind of tired of the never ending lies. Over the last year all I heard was "Romeny lies, Romeny lies. Strange that when the Pres, the one we have now is caught its the same crap I've been hearing since 2008. You hate him, don't like him because he is black, don't like him because he is a Muslim (yet to hear anyone I know say it but the left says it often) Do you have anything other than the same crap thats now close to 6 years running?
You don't read my posts anyway, Chris - you've told me that.

So ... how the hell do you know what I've said?

I'll ask you the same question I asked you before - show me any posts where I've shared any of the views you attribute to me.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161942
May 11, 2013
 
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Actions speak louder than words, Willie. Actions and inaction both.
I have no idea what this means, SKL.

What actions do you think Hillary Clinton could possibly take in these circumstances that would speak to anyone, let alone a bereaved mother, in this poisonous environment?

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161943
May 11, 2013
 
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
I will say one thing here for Michelle Obama. She seems to care about the military and the familes that gave so much. Don't know if thats real or p/r but I would like to think so. It too bad Michelle Obama isn't the potus. Don't really get that vibe from Pres Obama or Hillary. Disdain is all they have.
I've not seen the evidence that Michelle Obama has or has not helped military families so I can't say. I am beginning to believe that those in very high positions should have military experience just because you have to "feel" the no man left behind imo to lead in foreign policy. I'm not after liberals. I'm sorely disappointed because I really was giving Hillary the benefit of what seemed to me to be her extremely hard work. But I think she caved to ambition. She could not defy Obama on Benghazi if she wanted any hope of election in 2016 so she took the low road. And people died.

“Rainbow: God's covenant ”

Since: May 07

Clearwater and Honolulu

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161944
May 11, 2013
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>You don't read my posts anyway, Chris - you've told me that.
So ... how the hell do you know what I've said?
I'll ask you the same question I asked you before - show me any posts where I've shared any of the views you attribute to me.
Dude, you just posted to Bob in Tx. and let me quote if for you....
Your obsessive hatred of Obama isn't actually evidence, bobin. I'm not stupid - I'm perfectly aware that the decision COULD HAVE BEEN political.

Those are your words Willie. How do you know Bob hates Obama? I ask because I've heard that a few thousand times since 2008. I will say this much, the bs I hate. Not the man but the bs. My car being keyed up wasn't much fun either. Just another lib with love and tolerance you know.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161945
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I've not seen the evidence that Michelle Obama has or has not helped military families so I can't say. I am beginning to believe that those in very high positions should have military experience just because you have to "feel" the no man left behind imo to lead in foreign policy. I'm not after liberals. I'm sorely disappointed because I really was giving Hillary the benefit of what seemed to me to be her extremely hard work. But I think she caved to ambition. She could not defy Obama on Benghazi if she wanted any hope of election in 2016 so she took the low road. And people died.
I'll ask you the same basic questions I asked bobin.

What information do you have that proves the decision not to attempt a rescue was political?

What tactical information regarding the situation on the ground do you have in your possession to support the idea that a rescue mission had a reasonable chance of success?

For that matter, do you know for a fact that the terrorist attack on the embassy wasn't mounted with the intent of drawing in a response that they could counter with other irregulars/militia in the area? That's the kind of thing Iraqi insurgents did; unless I'm mistaken, that's also what the Taliban does or has done in Afghanistan.

So ... you're behind the desk now, lisw. What do you do? Do you launch a rescue mission without knowing if you have sufficient force to effect a rescue and retrieval? It's the ultimate rock (four dead) and a hard place (maybe a rescue, maybe many more dead), although the ones getting squeezed to death aren't the person making the decision.

Let's be clear here - I don't know if that's what was happening on the ground in Benghazi on 9/11/12 or not, and this is eight months after the attack. It's not some wild, crazy theory, however; it's the sort of consideration that the person making the decision was faced with.

If you see an easy answer there, show it to me - because I sure as hell don't.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161946
May 11, 2013
 
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you just posted to Bob in Tx. and let me quote if for you....
Your obsessive hatred of Obama isn't actually evidence, bobin. I'm not stupid - I'm perfectly aware that the decision COULD HAVE BEEN political.
Those are your words Willie. How do you know Bob hates Obama? I ask because I've heard that a few thousand times since 2008. I will say this much, the bs I hate. Not the man but the bs. My car being keyed up wasn't much fun either. Just another lib with love and tolerance you know.
I know it because I read his posts, Chris, and I'm not using hate in the spiritual sense.

I'm sorry your car was keyed, but I didn't do that. If you think that kind of ignorance is a trait specific to or more commonly found on one side or the other, you're a blind fool.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161947
May 11, 2013
 
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, you just posted to Bob in Tx. and let me quote if for you....
Your obsessive hatred of Obama isn't actually evidence, bobin. I'm not stupid - I'm perfectly aware that the decision COULD HAVE BEEN political.
Those are your words Willie. How do you know Bob hates Obama? I ask because I've heard that a few thousand times since 2008. I will say this much, the bs I hate. Not the man but the bs. My car being keyed up wasn't much fun either. Just another lib with love and tolerance you know.
To put this another way, Chris, I use the term hatred of Obama the same way bad bob used "Bush haters" to refer to certain opponents of President Bush.

(Not to be confused with the way some shallow minded people used it to refer to anyone who criticized President Bush.)

I think it's the same damn thing, actually. Always have, and have always said so. I've always known there were Bush haters; we had more than a couple pass through this thread. I've never been particularly nice to them, because mind numbing rot is mind numbing rot no matter what 'side' you're on.

Now, if I wasn't particularly kind and tolerant of mindless bots who could do nothing but barf up bilge on cue about a President I didn't like at all, am I supposed to act any different to those who barf up bilge on cue on one I voted for, even if I haven't been particularly impressed with his accomplishments?

(Certainly nowhere near as impressed as my assigned position, but hey - you gotta make the arguments you're equipped to make.)

I don't think so; Homey don't play dat, as they say.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161948
May 11, 2013
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I'll ask you the same basic questions I asked bobin.
What information do you have that proves the decision not to attempt a rescue was political?
What tactical information regarding the situation on the ground do you have in your possession to support the idea that a rescue mission had a reasonable chance of success?
For that matter, do you know for a fact that the terrorist attack on the embassy wasn't mounted with the intent of drawing in a response that they could counter with other irregulars/militia in the area? That's the kind of thing Iraqi insurgents did; unless I'm mistaken, that's also what the Taliban does or has done in Afghanistan.
So ... you're behind the desk now, lisw. What do you do? Do you launch a rescue mission without knowing if you have sufficient force to effect a rescue and retrieval? It's the ultimate rock (four dead) and a hard place (maybe a rescue, maybe many more dead), although the ones getting squeezed to death aren't the person making the decision.
Let's be clear here - I don't know if that's what was happening on the ground in Benghazi on 9/11/12 or not, and this is eight months after the attack. It's not some wild, crazy theory, however; it's the sort of consideration that the person making the decision was faced with.
If you see an easy answer there, show it to me - because I sure as hell don't.
I think I have an easy answer. Even if there was zero chance of success, they would have should have gone in. If only to recover bodies. There is not a military person in the US who would not say the same. It was not money, it was not lack of ability to go in, it was the belief that these men were expendable to save face. that's it. Period. Unfortunately Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not understand that you don't stand down and you always go in. It's what makes americans willing to fight and to serve abroad in dangerous situations. That has been badly damaged.

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161949
May 11, 2013
 
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I think I have an easy answer. Even if there was zero chance of success, they would have should have gone in. If only to recover bodies. There is not a military person in the US who would not say the same. It was not money, it was not lack of ability to go in, it was the belief that these men were expendable to save face. that's it. Period. Unfortunately Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not understand that you don't stand down and you always go in. It's what makes americans willing to fight and to serve abroad in dangerous situations. That has been badly damaged.
Well said, Lis. And it might interest you to know that my dad said exactly what you did: the military units available should have gone in, no matter what. Mr. Hicks said that when they were told to stand down, they were furious. Anyone surprised by that?

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161950
May 11, 2013
 
lisw wrote:
<quoted text>I think I have an easy answer. Even if there was zero chance of success, they would have should have gone in. If only to recover bodies. There is not a military person in the US who would not say the same. It was not money, it was not lack of ability to go in, it was the belief that these men were expendable to save face. that's it. Period. Unfortunately Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama do not understand that you don't stand down and you always go in. It's what makes americans willing to fight and to serve abroad in dangerous situations. That has been badly damaged.
Still waiting for some evidence to suggest that the decision was made to save face rather than on the tactical situation on the ground, lisw, and your suspicions of liberals, Obama, Clinton, Panetta, et al is not evidence.

Think about what you're saying here. You'd have sent them in no matter what, even with zero chance of success. What you're guaranteeing is at least the possibility that the four dead Americans becomes more - potentially many more.

That would certainly have delighted the Islamic fundamentalists, and maybe some opponents of Obama.

I don't believe for a minute it would have delighted you, but I feel pretty damned confident that you would be even more incensed if a failed rescue operation resulted in the deaths of even more Americans.

Easy answers in hindsight aren't real, lisw.

“Take It To The Limit”

Since: Mar 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161951
May 11, 2013
 
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me smart guy. How long would it take for fighter jets from Italy to scramble and fly across the Med to Benghazi? 2-3 hours? How long did the attack in Benghazi last, 7+ hours?
Unarmed drones were circling overhead during the attack, you think if they HAD been armed and unleashed a few HELLFIRE missiles, that may have saved some lives? Or how about the real-time video feed that was being monitored here in DC for several hours. You'd think SOMEone would pick up the phone and call for help for those folks in Benghazi.
Who gave the freakin' order to have our military "stand down" rather than try to save the Ambassador and the other 3 men, vastly outnumbered. I don't claim to know exactly what happened that night, and who stopped the rescue attempt. That's what the hearings are for.
But we DO know that the CIA Talking Points were changed 12 times, not 1 minor stylistic change as the President's spoke person (Carney) just stated yesterday. If you don't think that was a blatant effort to alter the facts from "radical Muslim terrorists" to something less sinister, that's not MY problem.
As for showing YOU unbiased proof of ANYthing, you are SADLY misguided. With your resources and multiple feeds, I'm sure you can do your OWN d@mn research. And I don't really care HOW stupid you think I am. At one time I did, but not any more.
It's no secret that I can't stand Obama or any of his minions. He should NEVER have been put in the WH in the 1st place. I hope the b@stard is impeached, the sooner the better. But the best part of that is that the millions of his drooling, adoring fans finally get to see him for who he really is. Just another cheap Chicago thug.
Oh one more thing, Grasshoppah. Instead of bitchin' about the circle jerk trending of this thread, how about tossing some of YOUR favorite topics out for discussion. I may be stupid, but there are several in here who aren't, such as HipG, and a few others. Maybe they'll be able to stimulate your need for intelligent exchanges.
What are you, Nuts? Sending fighter planes All the way from Italy, just to save a few lives? That would be a Terrible waste of jet fuel. Before you start griping about the two hundred plane, one hundred and fifty million dollar convoy to India a few years ago, That Trip Was Necessary! After all, whats the use of being president, if you can't be a little extravagant once in awhile?
Heck, michelle's aluminum foil dress for the oscars cost more than the jet fuel to and from Bengazi. She Did too recycle it! OK, OK. She got two dollars and eight cents for it, and not the buck sixty two I reported earlier. Never mind that it cost seventy thousand dollars, even with the presidential discount. Funny, though. the prez discount is kind like the military discount. They jack up the price by eight hundred percent, then shave of six percent. Could be worse, I guess. They could just give a five percent discount.
fashion note. michelle would have looked better if she had covered the 'Reynolds Wrap' logo.

Since: Sep 10

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161952
May 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Rudyard Kiplingesque wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you, Nuts? Sending fighter planes All the way from Italy, just to save a few lives? That would be a Terrible waste of jet fuel. Before you start griping about the two hundred plane, one hundred and fifty million dollar convoy to India a few years ago, That Trip Was Necessary! After all, whats the use of being president, if you can't be a little extravagant once in awhile?
Heck, michelle's aluminum foil dress for the oscars cost more than the jet fuel to and from Bengazi. She Did too recycle it! OK, OK. She got two dollars and eight cents for it, and not the buck sixty two I reported earlier. Never mind that it cost seventy thousand dollars, even with the presidential discount. Funny, though. the prez discount is kind like the military discount. They jack up the price by eight hundred percent, then shave of six percent. Could be worse, I guess. They could just give a five percent discount.
fashion note. michelle would have looked better if she had covered the 'Reynolds Wrap' logo.
Of course Bad Bob is nuts. The Clearwater guy is also bonkers. More so than the guy with idiotsomethingorother in his name.

I'd say you're non compos mentis too.

You say opinions, Catcher says diagnoses.

“Custer @ LBH - Ooops”

Since: Nov 07

Bakersfield, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161956
May 11, 2013
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>I do not think you are stupid, bob, and don't believe you when you try to play dumb.
The question ... the question comes back to your insistence that I'm upset because Obama and/or Hillary is being questioned, that everything I say is an attempt to blindly defend Obama or Clinton or (insert target here).
The questions being asked of Obama and Clinton by most of their opponents are of the 'when did you quit beating your wife' variety, not a Howard Baker-esque "What did the President/Secretary know and when did he/she know it?"
That don't cut it with me, whether the President or Cabinet official is from my party or not.
Oh really! Here's your 1st sentence from #161916 5 hrs ago:

WWW wrote: "Are you really this stupid, bob?" (Rhetorical)

As to your tactical theory of a rescue/possible ambush, the US military typically goes in with OVERWHELMING force, as evidenced in Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, Iraq, and even the SEaL team mission to capture or kill OBL. There's NOTHING to suggest a rescue mission from Europe would've been any different.

And from SWAT to LEOs here at home, the same strategy applies, so any mumbling about being drawn into a trap by other insurgents is
fairly weak (IMO).

Now, yes I DID say you were miffed over the Benghazi hearings, but I have STOPPED saying you are "blindly defending Obama", mainly because you complained that it "impeded meaningful discussions",(paraphrased ). I have NO control over what other posters believe.

Circling around, I can tell ya that barely graduating from HS is hardly "trying to act dumb". As I've said b4, there's political junkies like you, Hip & a few others, and there's smoke & mirrors.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161958
May 11, 2013
 
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>Are you really this stupid?
Rhetorical question - I know you are. You are one of the people I believe to be more interested in beating Obama with dead Americans than you are the casualties themselves.
I'm wondering how you KNOW the U.S. had assets in range sufficient to effect a rescue. I'm wondering how you KNOW that the decision not to deploy was political rather than tactical.
Your obsessive hatred of Obama isn't actually evidence, bobin. I'm not stupid - I'm perfectly aware that the decision COULD HAVE BEEN political.
What I'm wondering is if you've got something to prove that it happened.
And you question others stupidity, how could anyone in Washington know how long the attacks would go on... util after the fact? Who is the only person that can commit U.S. troops to fight in a foreign nation WITHOUT a declaration of war? barry had no way of knowing if the al-quaeda attack would last for 7 hours, and not 24, and as such, obama didn't know if any assests he could have sent would not have gotten there in time. Face it chump, your hero let those Americans hang out to dry... because his administration didn't want to admit al-quaeda was strong enough to take out our ambassador, and run both the USA and the UK out of western Libya. Only barry could have ordered in the troops needed to save those Americans... he chose not to do so, and went to bed so he could be fresh for his Las Vegas fund raiser the next day.

And yes, obama deserves to be beat on... any pResident that could allow that to happen to Americans that his administration had assigned to that area, doesn't deserve anyone's respect, let alone mine. Even the WH stenographers in the lame-stream media are beginning to see that something's foul about the adminisration's handling of the Benghazi affair. Why don't you pull your head out of your butt, and start using your common sense? Something stinks in every phase of the Benghazi attacks... from it's pre-attack security measures, or the lack thereof, the support given during the attacks, or the lack thereof, and the false statements that the obama administration told the public.

The funny thing, some stupid people still believe obama's administration didn't blow it... now that's stupid!

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161959
May 12, 2013
 
bad bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh really! Here's your 1st sentence from #161916 5 hrs ago:
WWW wrote: "Are you really this stupid, bob?" (Rhetorical)
As to your tactical theory of a rescue/possible ambush, the US military typically goes in with OVERWHELMING force, as evidenced in Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, Iraq, and even the SEaL team mission to capture or kill OBL. There's NOTHING to suggest a rescue mission from Europe would've been any different.
And from SWAT to LEOs here at home, the same strategy applies, so any mumbling about being drawn into a trap by other insurgents is
fairly weak (IMO).
Now, yes I DID say you were miffed over the Benghazi hearings, but I have STOPPED saying you are "blindly defending Obama", mainly because you complained that it "impeded meaningful discussions",(paraphrased ). I have NO control over what other posters believe.
Circling around, I can tell ya that barely graduating from HS is hardly "trying to act dumb". As I've said b4, there's political junkies like you, Hip & a few others, and there's smoke & mirrors.
Come on, bob. There's nothing weak about anything I've said, because it's the sort of stuff that commanders HAVE to consider unless they are fools willing to needlessly sacrifice.

You can't compare the mission to kill bin Laden (let alone going to war), with the sort of off the cuff, by the seat of your pants rescue mission that would have been required at Benghazi. The planning for everything you've described above took months, although the bin Laden raid it was weeks.

We had no months. We had no weeks. We didn't even have hours to mount that sort of operation.

BTW, unless you know something I don't, jets can't effect the rescue of four hostages. In fact, absent the ability to communicate between the hostages ... you might have been using a sledge hammer to drive thumbtacks.

The United States has a lot of power, bob, but simply having it isn't enough. It has to be where you need it, in the form you need it, when you need it. You show me that we had what we needed when and where we needed it, and we can talk.

So far, you haven't done that.

Now, you want to ask why the hell we had an ambassador in a country as chaotic as Libya, well - me too. You want to ask why we depend on local security - me too, but that's where you get into the unsexy not suitable for sound byte on national or even local tv back in the district stuff.

Getting Obama, getting Clinton - that makes for GREAT sound bytes. It's much sexier than policy wonk stuff, and has a ready audience.

I am NOT saying that political considerations weren't the reason, or part of the reason, the decision not to attempt a rescue was made.

I don't know - but I'm going to need more than a deep seated distrust of Obama (or government in general) to assume it was.

“Mean People Suck”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161960
May 12, 2013
 
BobinTX wrote:
<quoted text>
And you question others stupidity, how could anyone in Washington know how long the attacks would go on... util after the fact? Who is the only person that can commit U.S. troops to fight in a foreign nation WITHOUT a declaration of war? barry had no way of knowing if the al-quaeda attack would last for 7 hours, and not 24, and as such, obama didn't know if any assests he could have sent would not have gotten there in time. Face it chump, your hero let those Americans hang out to dry... because his administration didn't want to admit al-quaeda was strong enough to take out our ambassador, and run both the USA and the UK out of western Libya. Only barry could have ordered in the troops needed to save those Americans... he chose not to do so, and went to bed so he could be fresh for his Las Vegas fund raiser the next day.
And yes, obama deserves to be beat on... any pResident that could allow that to happen to Americans that his administration had assigned to that area, doesn't deserve anyone's respect, let alone mine. Even the WH stenographers in the lame-stream media are beginning to see that something's foul about the adminisration's handling of the Benghazi affair. Why don't you pull your head out of your butt, and start using your common sense? Something stinks in every phase of the Benghazi attacks... from it's pre-attack security measures, or the lack thereof, the support given during the attacks, or the lack thereof, and the false statements that the obama administration told the public.
The funny thing, some stupid people still believe obama's administration didn't blow it... now that's stupid!
There's no question as to your stupidity, bobin. As far as I'm concerned, that's an established fact.

As to the rest - stroke on, little man. Stroke on.

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161961
May 12, 2013
 
Sister Kathryn Lust wrote:
<quoted text>Right. What you want is an unbiased investigation....which hasn't yet been performed on any major, or minor, terrorist attack in this country, for 4 decades. Hell, we couldn't even get an unbiased investigation into the assassination of JFK.
What makes ANY of you think it's going to be any different this time?
I never saw a more biased investigation than Watergate, and President Nixon. Democrats were relentless in their efforts to tie Nixon into the coverup, with Republicans claiming the coverup investigation was just politically motivated... until the WH tapes were released.

Just because there's only one party pushing for facts, doesn't mean that there hasn't been any wrong doing, as we found out with President Nixon. We don't have much taping going on anymore, but we do have emails. I wonder what the investigators will find out if the obama WH is ever forced to release the emails... like when Nixon had to release his tapes.

I wonder how long it will take before barry starts squealing "national security".

“Unemployed Bush 5.3 obama 8.7”

Since: Jul 10

Labor Participation Rate 63.0%

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#161964
May 12, 2013
 
Chris Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>
Btw I'm guessing all the regs here really do care about the 4 dead Americans, despite your post saying otherwise.
I care that we have an administration that will toss American lives under the bus so easily, so as not to harm themselves politically. We have a lot more than four Americans serving in hazardous lands, and I'd like to know we will protect them if needed, and not abandon them if it seems to be politically embarrassing.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 154,781 - 154,800 of168,946
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

627 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min RiversideRedneck 679,314
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Oxbow 511,671
Read " SONS OF THUNDER" by Robert Epperly 4 min Tom 1
Bush Vetoes Stem Cell Bill (Jul '06) 7 min swedenforever 163
Dubai Massage Body to Body Service in Dubai 05... 8 min Dubai Massage 0553405368 4
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 11 min wilderide 89,387
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 19 min Annaleigh 596,447
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 21 min wilderide 216,330
teen snapchat nudes 1 hr TheFrozenJogurt 103
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 5 hr JACK 216
•••
•••
•••