Prayer is needed for Hillary Clinton TODAY!!!

[NYcarbineer]

As you can by the board today, and as I brilliantly predicted,

the rightwing herd doesn't care about this issue anymore. Their short attention span meter expired,

such are the limitations of small minds.

The Left wing never cared about this issue. The lost American lives were expendable, in their minds.

Are you talking to me?

Why don't you tell me what my position on Libya has been, and how you know what it's been, if you're so smart.

I'll take your stunned silence at face value. Thanks for reminding us what an asshole you are.

 

[FJO]

The Left wing never cared about this issue. The lost American lives were expendable, in their minds.

Are you talking to me?

Why don't you tell me what my position on Libya has been, and how you know what it's been, if you're so smart.

I'll take your stunned silence at face value. Thanks for reminding us what an asshole you are.

Do you realize that you are answering yourself and calling yourself such an uncomplimentary name?

 

[Freewill]

As you can by the board today, and as I brilliantly predicted,

the rightwing herd doesn't care about this issue anymore. Their short attention span meter expired,

such are the limitations of small minds.

And you jumped to that unfounded conclusion...why?

Sure we still care, unlike the left, this thread is mocking the administration and their lack of transparency.

 

[Freewill]

As you can by the board today, and as I brilliantly predicted,

the rightwing herd doesn't care about this issue anymore. Their short attention span meter expired,

such are the limitations of small minds.

The Left wing never cared about this issue. The lost American lives were expendable, in their minds.

Are you talking to me?

Why don't you tell me what my position on Libya has been, and how you know what it's been, if you're so smart.

I think his response was predicated by YOU telling US what we think. Turn about seem fair play.

 

[DaGoose]

It gives her a new platform for, " I DON'T RECALL."

You must have her confused with Ronald Wilson Reagan.

 

[DaGoose]

For The Left, Benghazi was a stark reminder that while bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is alive and well. This is what Bush meant when he said that shutting down Al Qaeda was more important than getting bin Laden (read: the sum of the parts is greater than the head)....but the left keeps parading their bin Laden trophy. The same people celebrating bin Laden's head are still upset that Saddam Hussein was photographed in his underwear and suffered humiliation.

Bush wasn't shutting down Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq.

He actually did the opposite.

Check your history....Al Qaeda flooded Iraq when the US took out Saddam. It was through this action we were able to capture many Al Qaeda and build the intel infrastructure that staved off future attacks on US soil. What volume or significant Al Qaeda did we capture or kill in Afghanastan? You were not going to draw Al Qaeda into the battlefield in Afghanastan. Iraq was more significant to Al Qaeda to come out and fight. Not to discount Afghanastan, but Iraq was necessary first and foremost because Saddam was a threat to the US and it enabled us to take the fight to Al Qaeda rather than curl up in the fetal position and wait for another US attack.

Iraq posed no threat to us or any other nation. Bush ordered the invasion for the supposed WMD, not Al-Qaeda. And what happened? Thousands of our brave kids were killed for NO GOOD REASON.

 

[Claudette]

I hope that they start asking her substantive questions because this looks like it was written by a screenwriter.

No one will ask tough questions. It will be softball city all the way. NO one will call her and her sucky State Department to task. Hey. It was only four dead guys. No sweat.

None of the askers lost anyone in Benghazi.

I wonder what the victims families would ask??

I sure as shit know what I would be asking.

 

[DaGoose]

As you can by the board today, and as I brilliantly predicted,

the rightwing herd doesn't care about this issue anymore. Their short attention span meter expired,

such are the limitations of small minds.

The Left wing never cared about this issue. The lost American lives were expendable, in their minds.

Let's talk about the THOUSANDS of our soldiers lives Bush wasted in Iraq for NO GOOD REASON and the Right's unwillingness to admit it.

 

[Si modo]

For The Left, Benghazi was a stark reminder that while bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is alive and well. This is what Bush meant when he said that shutting down Al Qaeda was more important than getting bin Laden (read: the sum of the parts is greater than the head)....but the left keeps parading their bin Laden trophy. The same people celebrating bin Laden's head are still upset that Saddam Hussein was photographed in his underwear and suffered humiliation.

Bush wasn't shutting down Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq.

He actually did the opposite.

That simply isn't true. Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection: What Do We Really Know? - W. Thomas Smith Jr. - The Tank on National Review Online

Al qaeda is still not "shut down" either.

 

[Si modo]

Sorry I didn't see this life threatening news sooner. Prayer is needed before her 0900 appointment. I am guessing a brain aneurysm or maybe hooping cough may cause her not to testify. I pray for her good health.


Congress Set to Question Hillary Clinton on Security Failures in Benghazi

Congress Set to Question Hillary Clinton on Security Failures in Benghazi - ABC News

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to be on Capitol Hill Wednesday, to give long-awaited testimony about State Department security and the attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya.

Clinton, who had to postpone testimony because of health issues, is scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 9 a.m. and the House Foreign Affairs Committee at 2 p.m. Wednesday. She will be the only person giving testimony in the hearing called, “Terrorist Attack in Benghazi: The Secretary of State’s View.”

More than four months have passed since an act of terrorism killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya. Clinton was expected to testify about a report on security failures in Benghazi in December, but first a concussion and then a blood clot near her brain kept the out-going secretary of state away from Capitol Hill.

Be respectful.

She's going to be your President in four years.

The poor thing is so frail now. Just imagine how frail she'll be at 70.

Poor frail thing.

 

[Glensather]

As you can by the board today, and as I brilliantly predicted,

the rightwing herd doesn't care about this issue anymore. Their short attention span meter expired,

such are the limitations of small minds.

The Left wing never cared about this issue. The lost American lives were expendable, in their minds.

Let's talk about the THOUSANDS of our soldiers lives Bush wasted in Iraq for NO GOOD REASON and the Right's unwillingness to admit it.

Democrats also voted for Dubya to finish Daddy's War, so that point is invalid.

 

[Sallow]

For The Left, Benghazi was a stark reminder that while bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is alive and well. This is what Bush meant when he said that shutting down Al Qaeda was more important than getting bin Laden (read: the sum of the parts is greater than the head)....but the left keeps parading their bin Laden trophy. The same people celebrating bin Laden's head are still upset that Saddam Hussein was photographed in his underwear and suffered humiliation.

Bush wasn't shutting down Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq.

He actually did the opposite.

Check your history....Al Qaeda flooded Iraq when the US took out Saddam. It was through this action we were able to capture many Al Qaeda and build the intel infrastructure that staved off future attacks on US soil. What volume or significant Al Qaeda did we capture or kill in Afghanastan? You were not going to draw Al Qaeda into the battlefield in Afghanastan. Iraq was more significant to Al Qaeda to come out and fight. Not to discount Afghanastan, but Iraq was necessary first and foremost because Saddam was a threat to the US and it enabled us to take the fight to Al Qaeda rather than curl up in the fetal position and wait for another US attack.

Yep.

They found new recruits.

That's EXACTLY why I posted he did the opposite.

 

[Si modo]

Bush wasn't shutting down Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq.

He actually did the opposite.

Check your history....Al Qaeda flooded Iraq when the US took out Saddam. It was through this action we were able to capture many Al Qaeda and build the intel infrastructure that staved off future attacks on US soil. What volume or significant Al Qaeda did we capture or kill in Afghanastan? You were not going to draw Al Qaeda into the battlefield in Afghanastan. Iraq was more significant to Al Qaeda to come out and fight. Not to discount Afghanastan, but Iraq was necessary first and foremost because Saddam was a threat to the US and it enabled us to take the fight to Al Qaeda rather than curl up in the fetal position and wait for another US attack.

Yep.

They found new recruits.

That's EXACTLY why I posted he did the opposite.

And, you were wrong then, and still wrong now.

For The Left, Benghazi was a stark reminder that while bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is alive and well. This is what Bush meant when he said that shutting down Al Qaeda was more important than getting bin Laden (read: the sum of the parts is greater than the head)....but the left keeps parading their bin Laden trophy. The same people celebrating bin Laden's head are still upset that Saddam Hussein was photographed in his underwear and suffered humiliation.

Bush wasn't shutting down Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq.

He actually did the opposite.

That simply isn't true. Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection: What Do We Really Know? - W. Thomas Smith Jr. - The Tank on National Review Online

Al qaeda is still not "shut down" either.

 

[Sallow]

The Left wing never cared about this issue. The lost American lives were expendable, in their minds.

Let's talk about the THOUSANDS of our soldiers lives Bush wasted in Iraq for NO GOOD REASON and the Right's unwillingness to admit it.

Democrats also voted for Dubya to finish Daddy's War, so that point is invalid.

Well no it's not.

First off, Bush was President. Presidents have never been denied a war they wanted.

Second, Bush passed off bad intelligence as gold.

Third, he questioned the patriotism of those that were voting against the war.

War is pretty serious business. We should not be lying and ostracizing to get into them.

They should be for one thing, and one thing only. The defense of the nation.

 

[Sallow]

Check your history....Al Qaeda flooded Iraq when the US took out Saddam. It was through this action we were able to capture many Al Qaeda and build the intel infrastructure that staved off future attacks on US soil. What volume or significant Al Qaeda did we capture or kill in Afghanastan? You were not going to draw Al Qaeda into the battlefield in Afghanastan. Iraq was more significant to Al Qaeda to come out and fight. Not to discount Afghanastan, but Iraq was necessary first and foremost because Saddam was a threat to the US and it enabled us to take the fight to Al Qaeda rather than curl up in the fetal position and wait for another US attack.

Yep.

They found new recruits.

That's EXACTLY why I posted he did the opposite.

And, you were wrong then, and still wrong now.

Bush wasn't shutting down Al Qaeda by attacking Iraq.

He actually did the opposite.

That simply isn't true. Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection: What Do We Really Know? - W. Thomas Smith Jr. - The Tank on National Review Online

Al qaeda is still not "shut down" either.

What a load of crap.

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien were mortal enemies.

 

[DaGoose]

The Left wing never cared about this issue. The lost American lives were expendable, in their minds.

Let's talk about the THOUSANDS of our soldiers lives Bush wasted in Iraq for NO GOOD REASON and the Right's unwillingness to admit it.

Democrats also voted for Dubya to finish Daddy's War, so that point is invalid.

First of all there was no "war" to finish.

Second of all there is only one person in the entire world can order US troops into battle. The President of the United States.

So your your point is invalid.

 

[DaGoose]

Yep.

They found new recruits.

That's EXACTLY why I posted he did the opposite.

And, you were wrong then, and still wrong now.

That simply isn't true. Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection: What Do We Really Know? - W. Thomas Smith Jr. - The Tank on National Review Online

Al qaeda is still not "shut down" either.

What a load of crap.

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien were mortal enemies.

Listening to these guys one would think Saddam and Bin Laden were bosom buddies.

 

[Glensather]

Let's talk about the THOUSANDS of our soldiers lives Bush wasted in Iraq for NO GOOD REASON and the Right's unwillingness to admit it.

Democrats also voted for Dubya to finish Daddy's War, so that point is invalid.

First of all there was no "war" to finish.

Second of all there is only one person in the entire world can order US troops into battle. The President of the United States.

So your your point is invalid.

The point I'm making is that it wasn't just Republicans behind Bush.
BOTH points are invalid!

 

[Si modo]

Yep.

They found new recruits.

That's EXACTLY why I posted he did the opposite.

And, you were wrong then, and still wrong now.

That simply isn't true. Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection: What Do We Really Know? - W. Thomas Smith Jr. - The Tank on National Review Online

Al qaeda is still not "shut down" either.

What a load of crap.

Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien were mortal enemies.

I never claimed they weren't.

But, there were plenty of al Qaeda training camps in Iraq pre-invasion, contrary to what the ignorant say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Left wing never cared about this issue. The lost American lives were expendable, in their minds.

Are you talking to me?

Why don't you tell me what my position on Libya has been, and how you know what it's been, if you're so smart.

I think his response was predicated by YOU telling US what we think. Turn about seem fair play.

No. I have the actual evidence that a few weeks or months ago there were a couple hundred threads and thousands of posts from 'nuts like you ranting about Benghazi, including a mulitude of rants about Secy Clinton not testifying and faking her illness and all sorts of other stupidity,

as opposed to NOW, when she is in fact testifying, and all we now hear from you 'nuts is one weak thread with a handful of posts.

Which is what I predicted.