Haha. I'M MADDER THAN YOU! YOU ARE FAKE MAD! I AM REAL MAD!
I like how he doesn't even pretend that this isn't political.
YOU GOT MAD AT US FOR KILLING 4500 AMERICANS IN IRAQ FOR NO REASON. NOW WE GET TO BE MAD AT YOU!
Benghazi scandal tied to White House
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
Haha. I'M MADDER THAN YOU! YOU ARE FAKE MAD! I AM REAL MAD!
I like how he doesn't even pretend that this isn't political.
YOU GOT MAD AT US FOR KILLING 4500 AMERICANS IN IRAQ FOR NO REASON. NOW WE GET TO BE MAD AT YOU!
The lack of weapons available to the Europeans proves their utter dependence on the US Military/Industrial Complex. When did you become a fan of the US Military/Industrial Complex?
Don't insult me again, or I will stop being courteous to you.
The US is capable of taking down any advanced integrated air defense system which lacks either the Russian S-400 or S-500 air defense missiles. The USAF can't defeat those systems.
I accept your concession.
If they went in alone they would have been unable to impose a no fly zone or attack Libyan Govt. forces with aircraft.
Training and experience are part of the same thing...capability.
Israel.
The NY Times is part of American leftism. It's admission is an admission against interest. Besides, even in a court of law there are exceptions to the best evidence rule. Here are some more sources for you to read and bring yourself up to speed:
Weapons Sent to Libyan Rebels With US Approval Went to Islamic Extremists -- News from Antiwar.com
Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels | Reuters
US paves way to arm Libyan rebels | World news | theguardian.com
Washington may arm Al-Qaeda-linked Libyan rebels ? RT News
The US has a long history of arming rebels in civil wars. The US does not deny arming the Libyan rebels.
Moreover, isn't it a fact that Hillary Clinton stated the following when she was Secty of State?
"...But Clinton made clear that UN security council resolution 1973, which allowed military strikes against Muammar Gaddafi's regime, relaxed the embargo. Speaking after the conference on Libya in London, Clinton said: "It is our interpretation that [resolution] 1973 amended or overrode the absolute prohibition of arms to anyone in Libya so that there could be legitimate transfer of arms if a country were to choose to do that. We have not made that decision at this time."
Clinton's remarks came after the Libyan Transitional National Council used the London conference to issue a plea to be armed.
Mahmoud Shammam, the council's head of media, told a press conference at the Foreign Office: "We asked everybody to help us in many ways. One of them is giving our youth some real weapons.
"If you look to the reports that you have from the streets of Libya or from the cities of Libya you will see that our people have very light arms. You can see that just regular cars are fighting with machine guns. We don't have arms at all, otherwise we finish Gaddafi in a few days. But we don't have arms. We ask for the political support more than we are asking for the arms. But if we get both that would be great."
Signs of a growing international support for arming the rebels was highlighted by Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabor al-Thani, the prime minister of Qatar, who was the most senior Arab politician to attend the summit. Al-Thani, whose country is providing military aircraft to help patrol the no-fly zone over Libya, said: "We did not discuss [arming the rebels] – definitely [at the conference]. But our opinion is that we have to evaluate the air strikes after a while to see if it is effective to protect the people of Libya or not.
"At that time we – the international community – have to see what sort of measures [should be taken]. We are not talking about invading Libya. But we have to evaluate the situation because we cannot allow the people to suffer for so long. We have to find a way to stop this bloodshed."
The foreign secretary, William Hague, who chaired the conference, indicated that Britain may be prepared to interpret UN security resolution 1973 in the same way as Clinton. Until now, Britain has said it believes it would be illegal to arm any side in Libya. He said: "We did not discuss at the conference today arming the opposition … but this subject has been raised by the national council. But it is not part of any agreement today. The UK takes into account the UN security council resolutions on this. Those resolutions in our view apply to the whole of Libya, although it is consistent with UN security council resolution 1973 to give people aid in order to defend themselves in particular circumstances..."
US paves way to arm Libyan rebels | World news | theguardian.com
You elevate form over substance in an attempt to filibuster this issue. America is a weapons supplier directly or indirectly to third party rebels, terrorists and insurgents the world over. The burden of proof is on you not me.
CC is not a court of law. It is a court of public opinion.
Media Matters is biased. That in and of itself disqualifies it as a legitimate source of information. This is the same thing as citing Fox News as a legitimate source. I wouldn't do it to you. Apparently I have more respect for you than you have for me. That's a shame and makes it difficult for us to be interlocutors.
The Cavalry That Never Came
A week before the 2012 election, I wrote:
Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt devoted most of his three hours on air to Benghazi. I put the night in context:
The Cavalry That Never Came :: SteynOnline
A week before the 2012 election, I wrote:
Someone at the highest level of the United States government made the decision to abandon American consular staff to their fate and cede U.S. sovereign territory to an al-Qaeda assault team — and four out of five Sunday news shows don't think it's worth talking about.
In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They're still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job.
Democrats and their media enablers openly giggle at the word "Benghazi" now. So funny, isn't it? Those provincial simpletons at Fox News are still droning on about dead Americans in Benghazi as if anybody but their drooling rubes care about it, ha-ha... If the Democrats are right about that, it doesn't speak well for the American people. Those four Americans died serving the United States - not Obama, not Clinton, but their fellow Americans. And they're owed not the mawkish, hollow, self-serving eulogies written by hack staffers for the President and the Secretary of State to read over the coffins, but the truth about how and why they died. It's odd, even for the insular Obama cultists, that so many people find that a laughing matter.In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They're still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job.
Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt devoted most of his three hours on air to Benghazi. I put the night in context:
MARK STEYN: Not a lot of U.S. ambassadors get killed in the line of duty.
HUGH HEWITT: Right.
MS: If you discount the poor fellow who was on the plane with General Zia in Pakistan when that mysteriously blew up in mid-flight, you have to go back to Kabul over 30 years ago for the killing of a U.S. ambassador. So it happens extremely rarely.
Within half-an-hour, the President knew what was happening and why it was happening. Yet he did not act. Why? For me, that question remains as important as it was a year and a half ago:HUGH HEWITT: Right.
MS: If you discount the poor fellow who was on the plane with General Zia in Pakistan when that mysteriously blew up in mid-flight, you have to go back to Kabul over 30 years ago for the killing of a U.S. ambassador. So it happens extremely rarely.
MS: Brave men fought valiantly all through that horrible, long night, and saved dozens of people. But they were waiting for the help that never came, the help that was two hours away but was never ordered. And the official explanation is that 'Oh, well, we could have sent somebody, but they wouldn't have got there in time." Well, you know, just to go back to your sporting analogies, a terrorist attack on a U.S. facility is not a cricket match or a soccer match... You don't know how long it's going to last till the attack ends... Even if they had sent forces and they hadn't gotten there in time to save the ambassador or to save the other three people who died, they could have got there in time when the people who committed this act were still sifting through the rubble of the U.S. facility. And so they would have caught them, instead of these guys being free to wander around, swank around the Maghreb boasting about what they were able to pull off.
So who took the decision not to act, and why?
MS: Was it just about electoral advantage? Was it just to protect Joe Biden's soundbite ...al Qaeda is dead and General Motors is alive? Or is it actually worse than that? In other words, in those first few moments, when the President is informed what's going on, does somebody, does somebody take the decision that because this whole thing is unhelpful to their view of the world, they are not going to send force? Because that, to me, does render whoever made that decision ...unfit for office.
As I go on to say, Chris Stevens was one of them, a Team Obama loyalist. But they abandoned him and dishonored him in death because the President's political needs outweighed his life. The heartlessness of all these caring, compassionate Democrats would impress Putin - if it was ever applied to America's enemies. You can read the entire transcript here.
The Cavalry That Never Came :: SteynOnline
Obama is going to experience a series of foreign policy failures in the next two and a half years. The Benghazi investigation will be the bass drum beating the sound of retreat and failure that will be used to discredit and hammer the American left.
Why would my opinion of it matter? The fact is that they have no problem selling that kind of stuff to their allies. They do it all the time. They have done it for decades.
Do you really think that would change now?
Blow me.
Good for them? The fact is that they blew through their defenses pretty damn quickly.
The entire reason that the international community was willing to go into Libya and not places like Syria is because Libya had a very manageable air defense system and air force.
Says you. Why would they want to do something they didn't feel confident that they could do?
Lol, now you change the point a 3rd time.
Just admit you are wrong for once. The UK air force has essentially the same amount of experience as the USAF. The Brits have been involved in all of the major conflicts that the US has in recent history.
Lol, if that is the only name you can think of, then you are helping me make my point.
If there was any instability in the Israel, how long would it be before al Qaeda moved in there too?
The fact that al Qaeda is involved in a conflict zone in the middle east is not exactly a unique situation.
Why would claiming that they lefty remove them from having to substantiate their claims?
If a newspaper article with no sources isn't legitimate, why would another article that just uses that article as a source by more legitimate?
Lol, you mean like you just did above? You make one claim, provide no substance to back it up, and then copy and paste a whole pile of stuff that sounds somewhat similar, but in no way proves your original point.
What burden of proof are you talking about? To prove the claims that you made? Who else would the burden of proof fall on?
That doesn't mean that you can't post real sources. For example, the media matters article, while the commentary is biased, provides tons of primary sources for you to look at yourself and make up your own mind.
Stop crying about it and just look at the primary sources in the article. They are easily available for you to see. You wont catch anything by accessing them through that site.
It is nice to see that you admit that this is just partisan BS too.
Quote: Originally Posted by BaalsTears
Don't insult me again, or I will stop being courteous to you.Blow me.
There you go again, getting all mad. A tad flamboyant but mad all the same. :lol:
Yes.
Don't be a homophobe. It makes you look bad.
You sound like a militarist.
The international community didnt go into Libya. Germany didn't. China didn't. Russia didn't. India didn't. Iran didn't. Most nations didn't go into Libya contrary to your assertion. The way to deter the Western Imperialists like your president Obama is to arm up. You are arguing in favor of weapons proliferation. The ultimate way to deter the Western Imperialists is to become a nuclear weapons state.
As Western military spending shrinks the West will become increasingly incapable of acting to advance the cause of the leftist international system you love.
Not true.
The Royal Air Force lacks aircraft, payload, reach, capability, CCandR, airborne radar, and funding to take down advanced integrated air defenses, take out airfields, and seize air superiority by itself. Increasing American isolationism will make US support increasingly unlikely.
You had no point. You're simply filibustering.
Prove it.
Your president Obama said that al Qaeda was on the run. He was wrong wasn't he?
If the sale of weapons in violation of a UN resolution is made by the US it requires a SECRET finding on which to issue an executive order. SECRET findings are not published or publicly admitted in order to avoid the consequences of violating a UN resolution.
Hillary Clinton paved the way for Obama's consenting to the Qatari transfer of American weapons to Libyan al Qaeda affiliates by noting that she interpreted the two UN resolutions together as lifting the arms embargo on Libyan rebels.
You bear the burden of going forward with the evidence. Check out an evidence code for a definition.
That's just not true.
I did check them out and picked up a virus.
I didn't admit that at all. I want to see your president destroyed. I want to see all American leftists completely discredited, silenced and humiliated. I believe in the use of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to accomplish this objective. Finally, I want to see the liberal world order in which you fervently believe overwhelmed by the forces and processes of history.
Everything has multiple dimensions including, but not limited to, political, moral and economic aspects.
Your interest is in advancing an ideological form of secular morality through control of the international system. I'm simply letting you know that your hope will be unfulfilled because it is being attacked at all levels. You just don't like the push back.
He just proved that as well as being obtuse he has no class .
But then we already knew that .
You initially thought that "blow me" was a genuine statement?
Lol, no, my point in this thread is not to support invading Libya. It is to try to keep your ideas grounded in reality.
You have so many grand ideas about the US's role in Libya that simply are not supported by facts.
You are trying to make this about what I believe because it is easier to assign beliefs to me and attack those beliefs instead of actually making your case about the subject at hand.
If I told you that the US was planning to use Switzerland as a target for testing their ICBM's, that would probably also secret, no? That person would probably get in trouble for telling me that, so obviously I can't tell you who said it.
Prove me wrong bitch.
Good try. You will figure out how to post photos one day.
James WoodsVerified account @RealJamesWoods More accurately the Benghazi tragedy aftermath centered on a crooked admin bent on covering up its ineptitude to win an election
But when an e-mail surfaced last week suggesting that Obama aides might have been crafting a cover story to protect the president, no Democrat has been willing to step up and publicly ask the tough questions that need to be asked of the White House:
- Did White House officials, including Susan Rice, then ambassador to the United Nations, fabricate and disseminate a story that traced the attack to an angry mob protesting an anti-Muslim video to protect the president, then in the midst of a hard-fought re-election campaign?
- Did people in the White House cover up or alter information from the CIA and the Defense Department that indicated the attack was made by terrorists?
- Did the president know the full facts and still continue to publicly attribute the attack to the video?
more
Richard Benedetto: Who will be Benghazi truth-seeker?
Someone at the highest level of the United States government made the decision to abandon American consular staff to their fate and cede U.S. sovereign territory to an al-Qaeda assault team — and four out of five Sunday news shows don't think it's worth talking about.
In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They're still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job.
Democrats and their media enablers openly giggle at the word "Benghazi" now. So funny, isn't it? Those provincial simpletons at Fox News are still droning on about dead Americans in Benghazi as if anybody but their drooling rubes care about it, ha-ha... If the Democrats are right about that, it doesn't speak well for the American people. Those four Americans died serving the United States - not Obama, not Clinton, but their fellow Americans. And they're owed not the mawkish, hollow, self-serving eulogies written by hack staffers for the President and the Secretary of State to read over the coffins, but the truth about how and why they died. It's odd, even for the insular Obama cultists, that so many people find that a laughing matter.In the smoking ruins of that consulate in Benghazi, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods fought for hours and killed 60 of the enemy before they were overwhelmed, waiting for the cavalry that never came. They're still waiting – for Candy Crowley, David Gregory, Bob Schieffer, and George Stephanopoulos to do their job.
.................................
Within half-an-hour, the President knew what was happening and why it was happening. Yet he did not act. Why? For me, that question remains as important as it was a year and a half ago:
MS: Brave men fought valiantly all through that horrible, long night, and saved dozens of people. But they were waiting for the help that never came, the help that was two hours away but was never ordered. And the official explanation is that 'Oh, well, we could have sent somebody, but they wouldn't have got there in time." Well, you know, just to go back to your sporting analogies, a terrorist attack on a U.S. facility is not a cricket match or a soccer match... You don't know how long it's going to last till the attack ends... Even if they had sent forces and they hadn't gotten there in time to save the ambassador or to save the other three people who died, they could have got there in time when the people who committed this act were still sifting through the rubble of the U.S. facility. And so they would have caught them, instead of these guys being free to wander around, swank around the Maghreb boasting about what they were able to pull off.
So who took the decision not to act, and why?
MS: Was it just about electoral advantage? Was it just to protect Joe Biden's soundbite ...al Qaeda is dead and General Motors is alive? Or is it actually worse than that? In other words, in those first few moments, when the President is informed what's going on, does somebody, does somebody take the decision that because this whole thing is unhelpful to their view of the world, they are not going to send force? Because that, to me, does render whoever made that decision ...unfit for office.
As I go on to say, Chris Stevens was one of them, a Team Obama loyalist. But they abandoned him and dishonored him in death because the President's political needs outweighed his life. The heartlessness of all these caring, compassionate Democrats would impress Putin - if it was ever applied to America's enemies.
The Cavalry That Never Came :: SteynOnline
more tasteless douchebag behaviour...not sure who this moanin farrell is but he should choke and die too.
Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom
Maybe puns regarding the death of four Americans shouldn't be made, but MSNBC's @RonanFarrow doesn't care #tcot pic.twitter.com/mFuWd5TAW2
Joe Walsh @WalshFreedom Maybe puns regarding the death of four Americans shouldn't be made, but MSNBC's @RonanFarrow doesn't care #tcot pic.twitter.com/mFuWd5TAW2
The Republicans may or may not be political. But I'm not a Republican. I want much more from American leftists.
I enjoy seeing my opponents display emotion. It tells me that they feel me real deep. It's like I'm touching your vulva. I love you long time man.