Hillary Clinton Is Just To Damn Old

[jon_berzerk]

People age at different rates and that's just fact. Some stay youthful for a long time. Cher and Lena Horne come to mind. But Hillary is aging quickly, VERY quickly. See photo below....

This picture was taken yesterday. Looks like Mitch McConnel with long hair. Shes aging hard NOT just on the outside but ALSO on the inside. Now they SAY she fell and hit her head and had a blood clot. Strokes are CAUSED by blood clots and odds are she had a mini stroke and fell and hit her head. I worked end stage rehab for 27 years and THAT is what is telling me they are LYING about what went down.

Their STORY about dehydration does NOT play either. When your body is UNABLE to tell your mind you need a glass of water YOUR wiring harness IS screwed up. There SO off the mark calling this as that they MIGHT want to think again democrats. She had a half DOZEN people standing around here at ALL times and STILL dehydrated?

She is aging on the inside RAPIDLY. THIS woman does not have four years of HIGH stress job abilities in her. the campaign MIGHT kill her. So you democrats may want to open your field and get some more folks. Just being honest with you here democrats that's all.

NO person who ever DIED on the trail ever served ONE DAY in office. And as much as you want to be there I have a VERY strong feeling she will not. I think you democrats should stop your support for her on sheer morals and ethics. NOT hers but YOURS.

Your pushing her and her alone COULD very well lead to her death. I TRULY suggest YOU think about it.

FYI
Cher alone has spent more on Plastic Surgery than you and I and everyone on this thread has probably earned in our lifetime....

thanks

--LOL

 

[mudwhistle]

People age at different rates and that's just fact. Some stay youthful for a long time. Cher and Lena Horne come to mind. But Hillary is aging quickly, VERY quickly. See photo below....

This picture was taken yesterday. Looks like Mitch McConnel with long hair. Shes aging hard NOT just on the outside but ALSO on the inside. Now they SAY she fell and hit her head and had a blood clot. Strokes are CAUSED by blood clots and odds are she had a mini stroke and fell and hit her head. I worked end stage rehab for 27 years and THAT is what is telling me they are LYING about what went down.

Their STORY about dehydration does NOT play either. When your body is UNABLE to tell your mind you need a glass of water YOUR wiring harness IS screwed up. There SO off the mark calling this as that they MIGHT want to think again democrats. She had a half DOZEN people standing around here at ALL times and STILL dehydrated?

She is aging on the inside RAPIDLY. THIS woman does not have four years of HIGH stress job abilities in her. the campaign MIGHT kill her. So you democrats may want to open your field and get some more folks. Just being honest with you here democrats that's all.

NO person who ever DIED on the trail ever served ONE DAY in office. And as much as you want to be there I have a VERY strong feeling she will not. I think you democrats should stop your support for her on sheer morals and ethics. NOT hers but YOURS.

Your pushing her and her alone COULD very well lead to her death. I TRULY suggest YOU think about it.

Liberals only get critical of age when it's a Republican, like McCain.

I think she's just too damn liberal. And a liar. Her accomplishments consist of holding positions, but not doing anything significant on the job. Well, except lying. She spent her time as Sec of State covering Obama's ass. The left might see that as an accomplishment, but it's just more corruption that we should be getting rid of, not electing.

Hillary spent her time as Sec. of State taking bribes from foreigners.........

 

[Statistikhengst]

People age at different rates and that's just fact. Some stay youthful for a long time. Cher and Lena Horne come to mind. But Hillary is aging quickly, VERY quickly. See photo below....

This picture was taken yesterday. Looks like Mitch McConnel with long hair. Shes aging hard NOT just on the outside but ALSO on the inside. Now they SAY she fell and hit her head and had a blood clot. Strokes are CAUSED by blood clots and odds are she had a mini stroke and fell and hit her head. I worked end stage rehab for 27 years and THAT is what is telling me they are LYING about what went down.

Their STORY about dehydration does NOT play either. When your body is UNABLE to tell your mind you need a glass of water YOUR wiring harness IS screwed up. There SO off the mark calling this as that they MIGHT want to think again democrats. She had a half DOZEN people standing around here at ALL times and STILL dehydrated?

She is aging on the inside RAPIDLY. THIS woman does not have four years of HIGH stress job abilities in her. the campaign MIGHT kill her. So you democrats may want to open your field and get some more folks. Just being honest with you here democrats that's all.

NO person who ever DIED on the trail ever served ONE DAY in office. And as much as you want to be there I have a VERY strong feeling she will not. I think you democrats should stop your support for her on sheer morals and ethics. NOT hers but YOURS.

Your pushing her and her alone COULD very well lead to her death. I TRULY suggest YOU think about it.

Liberals only get critical of age when it's a Republican, like McCain.

I think she's just too damn liberal. And a liar. Her accomplishments consist of holding positions, but not doing anything significant on the job. Well, except lying. She spent her time as Sec of State covering Obama's ass. The left might see that as an accomplishment, but it's just more corruption that we should be getting rid of, not electing.

Hillary spent her time as Sec. of State taking bribes from foreigners.........

Where are your facts to back this outlandish claim?

Please, if it is so, you should have no problem providing real evidence.

Thank you.

 

[mudwhistle]

People age at different rates and that's just fact. Some stay youthful for a long time. Cher and Lena Horne come to mind. But Hillary is aging quickly, VERY quickly. See photo below....

This picture was taken yesterday. Looks like Mitch McConnel with long hair. Shes aging hard NOT just on the outside but ALSO on the inside. Now they SAY she fell and hit her head and had a blood clot. Strokes are CAUSED by blood clots and odds are she had a mini stroke and fell and hit her head. I worked end stage rehab for 27 years and THAT is what is telling me they are LYING about what went down.

Their STORY about dehydration does NOT play either. When your body is UNABLE to tell your mind you need a glass of water YOUR wiring harness IS screwed up. There SO off the mark calling this as that they MIGHT want to think again democrats. She had a half DOZEN people standing around here at ALL times and STILL dehydrated?

She is aging on the inside RAPIDLY. THIS woman does not have four years of HIGH stress job abilities in her. the campaign MIGHT kill her. So you democrats may want to open your field and get some more folks. Just being honest with you here democrats that's all.

NO person who ever DIED on the trail ever served ONE DAY in office. And as much as you want to be there I have a VERY strong feeling she will not. I think you democrats should stop your support for her on sheer morals and ethics. NOT hers but YOURS.

Your pushing her and her alone COULD very well lead to her death. I TRULY suggest YOU think about it.

Liberals only get critical of age when it's a Republican, like McCain.

I think she's just too damn liberal. And a liar. Her accomplishments consist of holding positions, but not doing anything significant on the job. Well, except lying. She spent her time as Sec of State covering Obama's ass. The left might see that as an accomplishment, but it's just more corruption that we should be getting rid of, not electing.

Hillary spent her time as Sec. of State taking bribes from foreigners.........

Where are your facts to back this outlandish claim?

Please, if it is so, you should have no problem providing real evidence.

Thank you.

They're posted, as usual, in the OP.

 

[Kondor3]

<sigh>

Yeah, Bush must have pulled security and then lied....saying the 19 terrorists were protesting a disgusting video. That's why they flew those planes into those buildings.......a disgusting video.

Nah, he (and his administration) just denied a budget increase for counter-terrorism and ignored the threat of an attack. Then lied saying there was no warning.

How many times are you Dummycraps going to use the "They Cut The Funding" excuse??????

Answer: As long as it still works

No, the answer is because the administration really did deny the FBI's request for additional funding for counter terrorism.

Don't confuse that with me claiming increasing the budget would have had an impact on 9.11 since the budget increase request was for FY2002 -- but it reveals how the Bush administration wasn't overly concerned with terrorism even as the threat continued to grow. Clinton warned terrorists were seeking to attack us within our borders. Bush decided that wasn't important enough to do anything about.

Clinton wrote a couple of pages about terrorism and left it for Bush to deal with.....forgetting the fact that Clinton did zip to fight it himself.

Bush already had his hands full fending off attack after attack from Democrats.....terrorism really wasn't all that much of a problem....till they struck. Now how do you suppose adding a few million to the budget was going to help them read the minds of those terrorists. I know one thing, the Democrats would have fought him tooth and nail, just like they did over the banking crisis, ignoring the warnings until it was too late.

Nope.....

Doesn't matter if a few people in the FBI made a few requests. That always happens......and the requests are usually denied.....until a good enough reason presents itself.

And it did......

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more.

A very compelling counter-argument, at first glance. Decisive, if it holds up under a closer scrutiny. Nicely stated.

 

[Statistikhengst]

People age at different rates and that's just fact. Some stay youthful for a long time. Cher and Lena Horne come to mind. But Hillary is aging quickly, VERY quickly. See photo below....

This picture was taken yesterday. Looks like Mitch McConnel with long hair. Shes aging hard NOT just on the outside but ALSO on the inside. Now they SAY she fell and hit her head and had a blood clot. Strokes are CAUSED by blood clots and odds are she had a mini stroke and fell and hit her head. I worked end stage rehab for 27 years and THAT is what is telling me they are LYING about what went down.

Their STORY about dehydration does NOT play either. When your body is UNABLE to tell your mind you need a glass of water YOUR wiring harness IS screwed up. There SO off the mark calling this as that they MIGHT want to think again democrats. She had a half DOZEN people standing around here at ALL times and STILL dehydrated?

She is aging on the inside RAPIDLY. THIS woman does not have four years of HIGH stress job abilities in her. the campaign MIGHT kill her. So you democrats may want to open your field and get some more folks. Just being honest with you here democrats that's all.

NO person who ever DIED on the trail ever served ONE DAY in office. And as much as you want to be there I have a VERY strong feeling she will not. I think you democrats should stop your support for her on sheer morals and ethics. NOT hers but YOURS.

Your pushing her and her alone COULD very well lead to her death. I TRULY suggest YOU think about it.

Liberals only get critical of age when it's a Republican, like McCain.

I think she's just too damn liberal. And a liar. Her accomplishments consist of holding positions, but not doing anything significant on the job. Well, except lying. She spent her time as Sec of State covering Obama's ass. The left might see that as an accomplishment, but it's just more corruption that we should be getting rid of, not electing.

Hillary spent her time as Sec. of State taking bribes from foreigners.........

Where are your facts to back this outlandish claim?

Please, if it is so, you should have no problem providing real evidence.

Thank you.

They're posted, as usual, in the OP.

No,, they are not. Where are you facts? Criminal complaint? Court docket number? Press coverage? Judge's verdict?

Please, have at it.

 

[mudwhistle]

People age at different rates and that's just fact. Some stay youthful for a long time. Cher and Lena Horne come to mind. But Hillary is aging quickly, VERY quickly. See photo below....

This picture was taken yesterday. Looks like Mitch McConnel with long hair. Shes aging hard NOT just on the outside but ALSO on the inside. Now they SAY she fell and hit her head and had a blood clot. Strokes are CAUSED by blood clots and odds are she had a mini stroke and fell and hit her head. I worked end stage rehab for 27 years and THAT is what is telling me they are LYING about what went down.

Their STORY about dehydration does NOT play either. When your body is UNABLE to tell your mind you need a glass of water YOUR wiring harness IS screwed up. There SO off the mark calling this as that they MIGHT want to think again democrats. She had a half DOZEN people standing around here at ALL times and STILL dehydrated?

She is aging on the inside RAPIDLY. THIS woman does not have four years of HIGH stress job abilities in her. the campaign MIGHT kill her. So you democrats may want to open your field and get some more folks. Just being honest with you here democrats that's all.

NO person who ever DIED on the trail ever served ONE DAY in office. And as much as you want to be there I have a VERY strong feeling she will not. I think you democrats should stop your support for her on sheer morals and ethics. NOT hers but YOURS.

Your pushing her and her alone COULD very well lead to her death. I TRULY suggest YOU think about it.

Liberals only get critical of age when it's a Republican, like McCain.

I think she's just too damn liberal. And a liar. Her accomplishments consist of holding positions, but not doing anything significant on the job. Well, except lying. She spent her time as Sec of State covering Obama's ass. The left might see that as an accomplishment, but it's just more corruption that we should be getting rid of, not electing.

Hillary spent her time as Sec. of State taking bribes from foreigners.........

Where are your facts to back this outlandish claim?

Please, if it is so, you should have no problem providing real evidence.

Thank you.

They're posted, as usual, in the OP.

No,, they are not. Where are you facts? Criminal complaint? Court docket number? Press coverage? Judge's verdict?

Please, have at it.

Too early for a judge to be involved. The truth is....very little is in writing, and none of it will be submitted to Congress because this is a non-binding agreement Obama plans on submitting to the UN. Doesn't seem to matter to him that Iran is telling everyone immediately that they didn't agree with whatever the Hell Obama claims is in the agreement, nor the fact that all it appears to be is an outline or framework for a possible future deal. All Iran will acknowledge is that Obama promised to lift sanctions without any conditions. Thems the facts.

This isn't the first time Obama lied about having an agreement with Iran. He claimed awhile back that he had an agreement, and back then Iran said it was simply an agreement to meet, nothing more. This is a common theme with this president. It's clear he cannot be trusted. We just have to take his word in everything, and it is clear that his word means absolutely zip.

 

[rightwinger]

<sigh>

Yeah, Bush must have pulled security and then lied....saying the 19 terrorists were protesting a disgusting video. That's why they flew those planes into those buildings.......a disgusting video.

Nah, he (and his administration) just denied a budget increase for counter-terrorism and ignored the threat of an attack. Then lied saying there was no warning.

How many times are you Dummycraps going to use the "They Cut The Funding" excuse??????

Answer: As long as it still works

No, the answer is because the administration really did deny the FBI's request for additional funding for counter terrorism.

Don't confuse that with me claiming increasing the budget would have had an impact on 9.11 since the budget increase request was for FY2002 -- but it reveals how the Bush administration wasn't overly concerned with terrorism even as the threat continued to grow. Clinton warned terrorists were seeking to attack us within our borders. Bush decided that wasn't important enough to do anything about.

Clinton wrote a couple of pages about terrorism and left it for Bush to deal with.....forgetting the fact that Clinton did zip to fight it himself.

Bush already had his hands full fending off attack after attack from Democrats.....terrorism really wasn't all that much of a problem....till they struck. Now how do you suppose adding a few million to the budget was going to help them read the minds of those terrorists. I know one thing, the Democrats would have fought him tooth and nail, just like they did over the banking crisis, ignoring the warnings until it was too late.

Nope.....

Doesn't matter if a few people in the FBI made a few requests. That always happens......and the requests are usually denied.....until a good enough reason presents itself.

And it did......

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more.

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more

The World Trade Center had been attacked before....in 1993

Bush did nothing about terrorism. He wanted a big ticket item that would define his Presidency.....something like an Iraq invasion

Terrorism was an annoyance to Bush

 

[Redfish]

Yeah, Bush must have pulled security and then lied....saying the 19 terrorists were protesting a disgusting video. That's why they flew those planes into those buildings.......a disgusting video.

Nah, he (and his administration) just denied a budget increase for counter-terrorism and ignored the threat of an attack. Then lied saying there was no warning.

How many times are you Dummycraps going to use the "They Cut The Funding" excuse??????

Answer: As long as it still works

No, the answer is because the administration really did deny the FBI's request for additional funding for counter terrorism.

Don't confuse that with me claiming increasing the budget would have had an impact on 9.11 since the budget increase request was for FY2002 -- but it reveals how the Bush administration wasn't overly concerned with terrorism even as the threat continued to grow. Clinton warned terrorists were seeking to attack us within our borders. Bush decided that wasn't important enough to do anything about.

Clinton wrote a couple of pages about terrorism and left it for Bush to deal with.....forgetting the fact that Clinton did zip to fight it himself.

Bush already had his hands full fending off attack after attack from Democrats.....terrorism really wasn't all that much of a problem....till they struck. Now how do you suppose adding a few million to the budget was going to help them read the minds of those terrorists. I know one thing, the Democrats would have fought him tooth and nail, just like they did over the banking crisis, ignoring the warnings until it was too late.

Nope.....

Doesn't matter if a few people in the FBI made a few requests. That always happens......and the requests are usually denied.....until a good enough reason presents itself.

And it did......

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more.

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more

The World Trade Center had been attacked before....in 1993

Bush did nothing about terrorism. He wanted a big ticket item that would define his Presidency.....something like an Iraq invasion

Terrorism was an annoyance to Bush

horseshit ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[DarkFury]

I think we will see a Republican President. they people spoke out loud and clear with the last two MIDTERM elections.

Good idea skipping past the last two presidential elections when predicting the next one.

Unless one factors-in the last two mid-terms, when Obumble and the Dems lost both the House AND the Senate...

WTF does that have to do with the next presidential race? How does one make a prediction based on selectively picked past elections while specifically ignoring presidential elections??

How did the presidential election in 2012 go for Republicans following the 2010 midterms which the GOP won big?

Only a complete fucking idiot would expect the next president to be a Republican because Republicans won big in 2014.

Who was the last party to hold the oval office THREE terms?
Republicans.

What does going back in time 22 years reveal to you about next year's election??

The difficulty ANY party has holding three terms AFTER failed policy.

 

[Clementine]

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more

The World Trade Center had been attacked before....in 1993

Bush did nothing about terrorism. He wanted a big ticket item that would define his Presidency.....something like an Iraq invasion

Terrorism was an annoyance to Bush

Attacks on the WTC were years apart. We didn't do much after the first hit.

The embassy in Benghazi was one of many places that had been attacked in that area just before the attacks. We also had direct threats to Ambassador Stevens that were made publicly. The writing was one the wall and we knew who and where the target was. It wasn't clear before 9/11 where or when an attack might occur. Clinton, like Obama, didn't take threats seriously. We do get a lot of threats and usually heighten security.

Clinton was in the best position to take preventative action. Wasn't bin laden offered up to him at one point and he did nothing? Guess he had better things to do and never sounded the alarms. After the fact, the left pretended that Clinton was really worried about it but his actions said otherwise.

 

[Faun]

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more

The World Trade Center had been attacked before....in 1993

Bush did nothing about terrorism. He wanted a big ticket item that would define his Presidency.....something like an Iraq invasion

Terrorism was an annoyance to Bush

Attacks on the WTC were years apart. We didn't do much after the first hit.

The embassy in Benghazi was one of many places that had been attacked in that area just before the attacks. We also had direct threats to Ambassador Stevens that were made publicly. The writing was one the wall and we knew who and where the target was. It wasn't clear before 9/11 where or when an attack might occur. Clinton, like Obama, didn't take threats seriously. We do get a lot of threats and usually heighten security.

Clinton was in the best position to take preventative action. Wasn't bin laden offered up to him at one point and he did nothing? Guess he had better things to do and never sounded the alarms. After the fact, the left pretended that Clinton was really worried about it but his actions said otherwise.

Even if OBL had been "offered up," which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission report dispels, taking him out would have served as nothing but a distraction for Al-Qaeda's sinister plans. He was neither the mastermind behind the attack nor a participating member of it. He was a financial backer and spiritual leader; both easily replaced.

The path to preventing 9.11 would have been to take action during the summer of 2001 when the threats were growing stronger like Clinton had done just a few years earlier.

Instead, Bush did absolutely nothing. A sure fire recipe for disaster.

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[DarkFury]

Hillary spent her time as Sec. of State taking bribes from foreigners.........

Where are your facts to back this outlandish claim?

Please, if it is so, you should have no problem providing real evidence.

Thank you.

They're posted, as usual, in the OP.

No,, they are not. Where are you facts? Criminal complaint? Court docket number? Press coverage? Judge's verdict?

Please, have at it.

Too early for a judge to be involved. The truth is....very little is in writing, and none of it will be submitted to Congress because this is a non-binding agreement Obama plans on submitting to the UN. Doesn't seem to matter to him that Iran is telling everyone immediately that they didn't agree with whatever the Hell Obama claims is in the agreement, nor the fact that all it appears to be is an outline or framework for a possible future deal. All Iran will acknowledge is that Obama promised to lift sanctions without any conditions. Thems the facts.

This isn't the first time Obama lied about having an agreement with Iran. He claimed awhile back that he had an agreement, and back then Iran said it was simply an agreement to meet, nothing more. This is a common theme with this president. It's clear he cannot be trusted. We just have to take his word in everything, and it is clear that his word means absolutely zip.

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more

The World Trade Center had been attacked before....in 1993

Bush did nothing about terrorism. He wanted a big ticket item that would define his Presidency.....something like an Iraq invasion

Terrorism was an annoyance to Bush

Attacks on the WTC were years apart. We didn't do much after the first hit.

The embassy in Benghazi was one of many places that had been attacked in that area just before the attacks. We also had direct threats to Ambassador Stevens that were made publicly. The writing was one the wall and we knew who and where the target was. It wasn't clear before 9/11 where or when an attack might occur. Clinton, like Obama, didn't take threats seriously. We do get a lot of threats and usually heighten security.

Clinton was in the best position to take preventative action. Wasn't bin laden offered up to him at one point and he did nothing? Guess he had better things to do and never sounded the alarms. After the fact, the left pretended that Clinton was really worried about it but his actions said otherwise.

Even if OBL had been "offered up," which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission report dispels, taking him out would have served as nothing but a distraction for Al-Qaeda's sinister plans. He was neither the mastermind behind the attack nor a participating member of it. He was a financial backer and spiritual leader; both easily replaced.

The path to preventing 9.11 would have been to take action during the summer of 2001 when the threats were growing stronger like Clinton had done just a few years earlier.

Instead, Bush did absolutely nothing. A sure fire recipe for disaster.

Your argument fails on your two points.
1, If you remove the money NEEDED to commit the crime will it still happen?
2, If you remove the leader of ANY type would the crime still happen?
If BOTH are removed you MAY well PREVENT the crime.

 

[Faun]

And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...

January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed

How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.

What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.

 

[DarkFury]

And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...

January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed

How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.

What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.

You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?

 

[Manonthestreet]

 

[Faun]

Where are your facts to back this outlandish claim?

Please, if it is so, you should have no problem providing real evidence.

Thank you.

They're posted, as usual, in the OP.

No,, they are not. Where are you facts? Criminal complaint? Court docket number? Press coverage? Judge's verdict?

Please, have at it.

Too early for a judge to be involved. The truth is....very little is in writing, and none of it will be submitted to Congress because this is a non-binding agreement Obama plans on submitting to the UN. Doesn't seem to matter to him that Iran is telling everyone immediately that they didn't agree with whatever the Hell Obama claims is in the agreement, nor the fact that all it appears to be is an outline or framework for a possible future deal. All Iran will acknowledge is that Obama promised to lift sanctions without any conditions. Thems the facts.

This isn't the first time Obama lied about having an agreement with Iran. He claimed awhile back that he had an agreement, and back then Iran said it was simply an agreement to meet, nothing more. This is a common theme with this president. It's clear he cannot be trusted. We just have to take his word in everything, and it is clear that his word means absolutely zip.

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more

The World Trade Center had been attacked before....in 1993

Bush did nothing about terrorism. He wanted a big ticket item that would define his Presidency.....something like an Iraq invasion

Terrorism was an annoyance to Bush

Attacks on the WTC were years apart. We didn't do much after the first hit.

The embassy in Benghazi was one of many places that had been attacked in that area just before the attacks. We also had direct threats to Ambassador Stevens that were made publicly. The writing was one the wall and we knew who and where the target was. It wasn't clear before 9/11 where or when an attack might occur. Clinton, like Obama, didn't take threats seriously. We do get a lot of threats and usually heighten security.

Clinton was in the best position to take preventative action. Wasn't bin laden offered up to him at one point and he did nothing? Guess he had better things to do and never sounded the alarms. After the fact, the left pretended that Clinton was really worried about it but his actions said otherwise.

Even if OBL had been "offered up," which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission report dispels, taking him out would have served as nothing but a distraction for Al-Qaeda's sinister plans. He was neither the mastermind behind the attack nor a participating member of it. He was a financial backer and spiritual leader; both easily replaced.

The path to preventing 9.11 would have been to take action during the summer of 2001 when the threats were growing stronger like Clinton had done just a few years earlier.

Instead, Bush did absolutely nothing. A sure fire recipe for disaster.

Your argument fails on your two points.
1, If you remove the money NEEDED to commit the crime will it still happen?
2, If you remove the leader of ANY type would the crime still happen?
If BOTH are removed you MAY well PREVENT the crime.

Again, both money and leadership in that organization are easily replaced. There is no indication that taking out bin Laden would have prevented 9.11. At best, it may have delayed it. Defending against 9.11 required action on our part.

Until 9.11, there was no action taken at all by the Bush administration.

None.

 

[DarkFury]

They're posted, as usual, in the OP.

No,, they are not. Where are you facts? Criminal complaint? Court docket number? Press coverage? Judge's verdict?

Please, have at it.

Too early for a judge to be involved. The truth is....very little is in writing, and none of it will be submitted to Congress because this is a non-binding agreement Obama plans on submitting to the UN. Doesn't seem to matter to him that Iran is telling everyone immediately that they didn't agree with whatever the Hell Obama claims is in the agreement, nor the fact that all it appears to be is an outline or framework for a possible future deal. All Iran will acknowledge is that Obama promised to lift sanctions without any conditions. Thems the facts.

This isn't the first time Obama lied about having an agreement with Iran. He claimed awhile back that he had an agreement, and back then Iran said it was simply an agreement to meet, nothing more. This is a common theme with this president. It's clear he cannot be trusted. We just have to take his word in everything, and it is clear that his word means absolutely zip.

Totally different from Benghazi.....because the consulate had already been attacked before.......and even then Hillary denied requests for an increase in security......as a matter of fact.....she cut it back even more

The World Trade Center had been attacked before....in 1993

Bush did nothing about terrorism. He wanted a big ticket item that would define his Presidency.....something like an Iraq invasion

Terrorism was an annoyance to Bush

Attacks on the WTC were years apart. We didn't do much after the first hit.

The embassy in Benghazi was one of many places that had been attacked in that area just before the attacks. We also had direct threats to Ambassador Stevens that were made publicly. The writing was one the wall and we knew who and where the target was. It wasn't clear before 9/11 where or when an attack might occur. Clinton, like Obama, didn't take threats seriously. We do get a lot of threats and usually heighten security.

Clinton was in the best position to take preventative action. Wasn't bin laden offered up to him at one point and he did nothing? Guess he had better things to do and never sounded the alarms. After the fact, the left pretended that Clinton was really worried about it but his actions said otherwise.

Even if OBL had been "offered up," which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission report dispels, taking him out would have served as nothing but a distraction for Al-Qaeda's sinister plans. He was neither the mastermind behind the attack nor a participating member of it. He was a financial backer and spiritual leader; both easily replaced.

The path to preventing 9.11 would have been to take action during the summer of 2001 when the threats were growing stronger like Clinton had done just a few years earlier.

Instead, Bush did absolutely nothing. A sure fire recipe for disaster.

Your argument fails on your two points.
1, If you remove the money NEEDED to commit the crime will it still happen?
2, If you remove the leader of ANY type would the crime still happen?
If BOTH are removed you MAY well PREVENT the crime.

Again, both money and leadership in that organization are easily replaced. There is no indication that taking out bin Laden would have prevented 9.11. At best, it may have delayed it. Defending against 9.11 required action on our part.

Until 9.11, there was no action taken at all by the Bush administration.

None.

In truth bringing you OSB argument to this thread has NOTHING to do with the OP now does it? They have a name for that. YOU remember what that's called?

 

[Faun]

And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...

January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed

How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.

What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.

You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?

Who is OSB?

Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?

Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?

How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?

Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.