State department and hillary verify WMDS in syria..

'Wag the Dog.'
Prescisely. Just like Clinton lobbing multi-million dollar cruise missles at Iraq to divert attention off of sex scandals.

Hey, did you see we busted your little buddy Eddie Spacer for being a fake Ranger?

He lied about his military record.

The company you keep.

A guy on my other board claimed to be an intellectual property attorney. I asked him if he did prosecution or filed patents. He said No, no prosecution, he filed patents. In IP Law, prosecution means to file patents, trademarks etc... :eusa_whistle:
 
Prescisely. Just like Clinton lobbing multi-million dollar cruise missles at Iraq to divert attention off of sex scandals.

Hey, did you see we busted your little buddy Eddie Spacer for being a fake Ranger?

He lied about his military record.

The company you keep.
Who the Hell are YOU talking about?

And WTF are YOU talking about?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/210126-how-to-get-busted-in-a-lie.html
 
So ignore Clinton claiming Syria has WMD? Cool. Gotcha.

Why would I ignore that? My position is simply that we shouldn't go invading yet another country in the ME. Why is yours different?

You have an error in your Obama-Bot programming. Hillary Clinton is claiming Syria has WMD. She is 'Warning' about their WMD. So how do you take her 'Warning' to mean she's stating we shouldn't get more involved? Looks like you got lost in the translation somewhere. What do you think her 'Warning' will lead to? Think about it.

So again I do not insult but you do. Not surprising here.

Clinton is not claiming anything. We have known about Syria's WMD programs since the 90's.
The only people suggesting we should get involved are Republicans. From the article cited by the OP:
"Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who issued a statement today urging the administration to start directly aiding the Syrian rebels and protecting Syrian civilians."

The article cited also stated:
"Hillary Clinton said she supported more sanctions on the Assad regime but she declined to endorse any direct help"
So the official stated position of the president and Clinton is that we should not get involved. There are many good reasons for this.

So while you sling little jibes about "others" getting lost in translation, it seems you are projecting.
But I could be wrong. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Obama or Clinton have said we should get more directly involved?
 

Forum List

Back
Top