65% conservatives 'proud to be American,' just 37% liberals agree

"not talking about Bengazi -we're talking the 2011 Libyan war.

If you want more proof Clinton was instrumental in making Qadaffi a military target -try the NYTime
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/u...ibya.html?_r=0

Hillary Clinton,
‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall

The president was wary. The secretary of state was persuasive. But the ouster of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven." N #154
Click to expand...
Reagan targeted Quadaffy as well.
The B-1's shook him up pretty good. After that, Quadaffy gave up his nuclear weapons deal.

Quadaffy was a known enemy of our State. There's no statute of limitations on mass murder; Lockerbie etc.
So by that standard, Obama was justified, while Bush > Iraq was not.

The difference is, Bush lied, killed thousands of Americans for his deceit, and ended up handing over a reported ~1/3 of Iraq to ISIL, commanded by the former Saddam military commanders Bush himself dis-employed.
In vivid contrast the grand total of U.S. military troops lost in the Libyan "regime change" was zero.

NEITHER has worked out well for the U.S.
That's the reason I continue to pound the gong for anyone that will pay attention!
"American people are friends of Liberty everywhere, but custodians only of their own." John Adams
Click to expand...
 
christiefan915 said:
It's a no-brainer. Fiorina, Bachmann and Palin didn't support the issues I support so I couldn't vote for them. Same with Carson or Keyes.

I'm not going to vote for a woman just because I want a woman president and the same goes for a candidate of another race.
Click to expand...
People like you (and I) scare the crap out of politicians.
 
sear said:
It is the U.S. president, not the secretary of State that bears ultimate responsibility for that.

And Secretary Clinton was not an absolute authoritarian.

The reports I've read of it indicate the State department offered Ambassador Stevens improved security. And Stevens accepted some, and rejected others.

In any case, it's all an exercise in the naïve;
which Obama / Clinton basher can act the most macho about it.

Silly.

Ambassador Stevens deliberately kept his consulate a soft target. He said he thought it would present less of an impression of "fortress America" in foreign lands.

The attackers skillfully exploited this. And the Hillary bashers opportunistically pretend it's a Clinton failing.

Surely it's hardly her most shining hour. But the pile-on approach of what is obviously Republican partisan quibbling just makes the quibblers look petty.
The fact is, Hillary was a driven wonk, a hard worker. She might even have been nearly as good a president as her husband.
Click to expand...
Then there's that whole issue of Stevens being stationed in Tripoli, and choosing to go to Benghazi against all suggestions that he doesn't
 
iolo said:
Any clown who can be 'proud' of choosing a senile buffoon as President gives huge reason for all his compatriots to be deeply ashamed, while all the enemies of his country laugh their heads off, let's face it!
Click to expand...

Indeed....laughing simply attempts to hide THE ANGER. Psych 101. Yet lefties think they are SMART and PROGRESSIVE....while everyone that disagrees with them is STOOOOOOOOOOOPID.....dude. That is when they have time to be torn away from their toys and self indulging lifestyles. Socialism is evil...its a simple rule of life just read a little history actual and behind every bad idea in human history you will find someone calling themselves enlightened and progressive a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR. Priceless. ;)
 
sear said:
Reagan targeted Quadaffy as well.
The B-1's shook him up pretty good. After that, Quadaffy gave up his nuclear weapons deal.

Quadaffy was a known enemy of our State. There's no statute of limitations on mass murder; Lockerbie etc.
So by that standard, Obama was justified, while Bush > Iraq was not.

The difference is, Bush lied, killed thousands of Americans for his deceit, and ended up handing over a reported ~1/3 of Iraq to ISIL, commanded by the former Saddam military commanders Bush himself dis-employed.
In vivid contrast the grand total of U.S. military troops lost in the Libyan "regime change" was zero.

NEITHER has worked out well for the U.S.
That's the reason I continue to pound the gong for anyone that will pay attention!
Click to expand...
utter revisionist horsecrap.

Yes Qadaffi gave up his nukes in return for recognition by the world community he was legit ruler.
Condi090508b.jpg

Condi Rice meets w/Qadaffi

++

So why did we decide to bomb Libya? It had nothing to do w/ nukes.

It was this idea of "responsibility to protect" - meaning we bought into the idea Qadaffi was going to bomb the Bengazi protestors..There is no evidence of that.
in fact the INTEl on that was gotten by cell phone coverage off CNN.

Blumenthal hyped up Hillary with dream of it would look good on her presidential run, but it was all bogus.

After the counter-offensive by the NTC Qadaffi offered to let the protestors safe passage thru Egypt -
so long as the laid down their weapons.

Read the NYTimes link..it goes into this and Hillary "persuasive role"
( Gates called her the deciding factor -as well as the State dept Emails confirm this)

so drop this stuff about Lockerbie/nukes etc..they were non-factors

in vivid contrast the grand total of U.S. military troops lost in the Libyan "regime change" was zero.

NEITHER has worked out well for the U.S.
That's the reason I continue to pound the gong for anyone that will pay attention!
Click to expand...
Terrorism in Africa is the new front.
You got the Sinai,and you got AQIM in the west,and Boko in Nigeria/Chad.

Libyan weapons flow from Qadaffi "stashes" in the desert all over Africa -as well as smuggled into Syria.
Today Libya is a failed terrorist state,and Hillary Clinton gets the blame
own it.
 
Hillary Defends Her Failed War in Libya
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/
Using contested intelligence, a powerful adviser urges a president to wage a war of choice against a dictator; makes a bellicose joke when he is killed; declares the operation a success; fails to plan for a power vacuum; and watches Islamists gain power.

That describes Dick Cheney and the Iraq War—and Hillary Clinton and the war in Libya.
 
She characterized the Obama Administration’s response as “smart power at its best,” saying that while America refused to take the lead in the war, “we will provide essential, unique capabilities that we have, but the Europeans and the Arabs had to be first over the line. We did not put one single American soldier on the ground.”

She then put a positive gloss on the war’s outcome. “I'll say this for the Libyan people…” she said. “I think President Obama made the right decision at the time. And the Libyan people had a free election the first time since 1951. And you know what, they voted for moderates, they voted with the hope of democracy. Because of the Arab Spring, because of a lot of other things, there was turmoil to be followed.”

​That is about as misleading as summarizing the Iraq War by saying that the Iraqis had a terrible leader; they had a free election after the war; and they voted for moderates. It elides massive suffering and security threats that have occurred in postwar Libya.

Yet the answer didn’t hurt the Democratic frontrunner.
That’s because neither CNN moderators nor prospective Clinton supporters understand the magnitude of the catastrophe that occurred amid the predictable power vacuum that followed Ghadafi’s ouster.
“Libya today—in spite of the expectations we had at the time of the revolution—it’s much, much worse,” Karim Mezran, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East, told Frontline. “Criminality is skyrocketing. Insecurity is pervasive. There are no jobs. It’s hard to get food and electricity. There’s fighting, there’s fear … I see very few bright spots.”
Click to expand...
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/hillary-clinton-debate-libya/410437/
 
noise said:
you don't bring people to trall because they run a bad policy..
You are mixing up her supreme role in Libya with the FBI investigation
Click to expand...

Well, President Obama had excellent policies, despite the Nazi saboteurs, so what are we talking about?
 
Ralph said:
Indeed....laughing simply attempts to hide THE ANGER. Psych 101. Yet lefties think they are SMART and PROGRESSIVE....while everyone that disagrees with them is STOOOOOOOOOOOPID.....dude. That is when they have time to be torn away from their toys and self indulging lifestyles. Socialism is evil...its a simple rule of life just read a little history actual and behind every bad idea in human history you will find someone calling themselves enlightened and progressive a SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR. Priceless. ;)
Click to expand...
I'm just a reasonably educated man in a reasonably civilized country, and I read you weirdoes mainly for laughs. And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but to all appearances you are quite amazingly stupid.
 
iolo said:
Well, President Obama had excellent policies, despite the Nazi saboteurs, so what are we talking about?
Click to expand...

Are you saying the concept of forcing one group of people, the contributors and hard working people in society, to support the other group, the leeches, freeloaders, and otherwise worthless in society, is excellent policy?

Obamacare was nothing more than yet ANOTHER way for those unwilling to do for themselves to get something they didn't earn where the cost was placed upon those that are willing and actually do so.

Just how much of what one person earns do you think someone unwilling to do for themselves deserves? I say nothing unless the one earning it voluntarily gives it to the one unwilling to do for him/herself.
 
iolo said:
I'm just a reasonably educated man in a reasonably civilized country, and I read you weirdoes mainly for laughs. And I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but to all appearances you are quite amazingly stupid.
Click to expand...

Civilized people don't constantly demand that someone else do for them what they've proven they're unwilling to do for themselves. If you're unwilling to do for yourself, you should go without until you either figure out to start or you simply wither away. Either way, the problem is solved.

Civilized individuals don't expect someone else to feed, house, clothe, etc. THEM or THEIR kids. Civilized individuals don't expect someone else to provide THEM or THEIR kids insurance coverage. Civilized individuals don't expect to be able to have what someone else has if they're not willing to do what it takes to get it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top