"Republicans finally admit there is no Benghazi scandal"

[Oldstyle]

Peter Gruber admitted that the people who wrote the ACA DELIBERATELY made it so complex and confusing that nobody would understand what was in it. They made it so long (2.500 pages) that few tried. The architects of the ACA did so because they didn't want people to understand the ACA because if they did they would have wanted it even less than they did!

Not really, but you live in your own reality, Dog Style.

the ACA was a mess because instead of going to universal medicare, they tried to preserve the current system as much as possible.

The ACA IS a mess because it was deliberately written to BE a mess!

 

[JoeB131]

All I have to do is compare Bush to Obama to make the case that he was a far superior Commander in Chief, Faun. Bush successfully conducted two wars...the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban...and the invasion of Iraq and the defeat of Saddam Hussein.

Okay, the question needs to be asked. Are you on drugs?

We invaded Afghanistan, and then forgot about it, allowing the Taliban to retrench to the point where they controlled 80% of the countryside by 2008.

As for Iraq, we quickly lost control of that country, eventually having to bribe the Sunnis into letting us retreat in good order.

A GOOD commander in chief is one that doesn't get us into wars we shouldn't be in. Bush failed miserably on that score.

 

[Dot Com]

All I have to do is compare Bush to Obama to make the case that he was a far superior Commander in Chief, Faun. Bush successfully conducted two wars...the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban...and the invasion of Iraq and the defeat of Saddam Hussein.

Okay, the question needs to be asked. Are you on drugs?

We invaded Afghanistan, and then forgot about it, allowing the Taliban to retrench to the point where they controlled 80% of the countryside by 2008.

As for Iraq, we quickly lost control of that country, eventually having to bribe the Sunnis into letting us retreat in good order.

A GOOD commander in chief is one that doesn't get us into wars we shouldn't be in. Bush failed miserably on that score.

^ that.

They had no plan after the initial 48-72 hr assault which turned-out to be the biggest foreign policy disaster of the 21st century,.

Know who profited from this great nations resources (both human & financial) being mired in that multi-TRILLION $$$ fiasco? Russia & China are the first two that come to mind.

Thanks Repubs!!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

WrmK 10381874

Beyond that however, Iraq's socialist government was a long time proponent of International islamic Terrorism, who was also in violation of their treaty obligations... so the WMD thing was only one of the reasons that Iraq's socialist government HAD TO GO... and go, it went.

The US Congress authorized use of military force (if necessary) in Iraq for two reasons and both were required to be applicable for any decision to invade.

To protect the national security of the USA. "And". " enforce "relevant" UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq. UNSC Resolution 1441 became a relevant UNSC Resolution in November 2002 and it dealt with WMD and no other reason was relevant to the UN inspection regime that was set up to determine whether use of military force would become necessary under Resolution 1441.

There were no other reasons than WMD and Bush signed on to 1441 after sending Colin Powell to the UN to get it.

You are seriously wrong LostKeys.

Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

You're conflating what was legally essential to rising above the threshold of respective treaties, with inherent justifications... .

In the post 9-11 paradigm, Saddam was an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States.
And while it was nice that the UN found enough members who recognized that... but in reality, had they failed to do so, it would not have changed anything.

The UN needed to appear relevant, so it complied... .

But, the Ideological Left is never relevant where US Security is concerned.

Sadly, we're a Republic, so from time to time ya find power and you screw us over... then you're kicked to the curb. At which time, we bury the dead and rebuild... and the deadly cycle begins anew.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

You're conflating what was legally essential to rising above the threshold of respective treaties, with inherent justifications... .

In the post 9-11 paradigm, Saddam was an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States.
And while it was nice that the UN found enough members who recognized that... but if they had failed to do so, it would not have changed anything.

The UN needed to appear relevant, so it complied... .

But, the Ideological Left is never relevant where US Security is concerned.

Sadly, we're a Republic, so from time to time ya find power and you screw us over... then you're kicked to the curb. At which time, we bury the dead and rebuild... and the deadly cycle begins anew.

Then why didn't Bush attack North Korea and Iran?

By your own measures aren't they bigger threats to US security?

 

[Dot Com]

WrmK 10381874

Beyond that however, Iraq's socialist government was a long time proponent of International islamic Terrorism, who was also in violation of their treaty obligations... so the WMD thing was only one of the reasons that Iraq's socialist government HAD TO GO... and go, it went.

The US Congress authorized use of military force (if necessary) in Iraq for two reasons and both were required to be applicable for any decision to invade.

To protect the national security of the USA. "And". " enforce "relevant" UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq. UNSC Resolution 1441 became a relevant UNSC Resolution in November 2002 and it dealt with WMD and no other reason was relevant to the UN inspection regime that was set up to determine whether use of military force would become necessary under Resolution 1441.

There were no other reasons than WMD and Bush signed on to 1441 after sending Colin Powell to the UN to get it.

You are seriously wrong LostKeys.

Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

You're conflating what was legally essential to rising above the threshold of respective treaties, with inherent justifications... .

In the post 9-11 paradigm, Saddam was an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States.
And while it was nice that the UN found enough members who recognized that... but if they had failed to do so, it would not have changed anything.

The UN needed to appear relevant, so it complied... .

But, the Ideological Left is never relevant where US Security is concerned.

Sadly, we're a Republic, so from time to time ya find power and you screw us over... then you're kicked to the curb. At which time, we bury the dead and rebuild... and the deadly cycle begins anew.

link kiddo?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

All I have to do is compare Bush to Obama to make the case that he was a far superior Commander in Chief, Faun. Bush successfully conducted two wars...the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban...and the invasion of Iraq and the defeat of Saddam Hussein.

Okay, the question needs to be asked. Are you on drugs?

We invaded Afghanistan, and then forgot about it

False... We didn't forget about anything.

Afghanistan was a Special Operations campaign, wherein the Afghans were the lead by US Special Operators, who were heavily supported by US Air Operations... which eradicated the means of the Taliban to 'govern' the country. A new Afghan government was formed and they made it clear that they wanted to govern without large scale US forces.

The Taliban, which was spread across that region, slowly began to organize to push back against the new Government, which required further increases in US Forces, which came as operations in Iraq were drawn down.

That you need to claim that 'we forgot about Afghanistan' is purely a delusion on the part of your anti-American cult and has no bearing on reality.

 

[Dot Com]

[

Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

You're conflating what was legally essential to rising above the threshold of respective treaties, with inherent justifications... .

In the post 9-11 paradigm, Saddam was an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States.
And while it was nice that the UN found enough members who recognized that... but if they had failed to do so, it would not have changed anything.

The UN needed to appear relevant, so it complied... .

But, the Ideological Left is never relevant where US Security is concerned.

Sadly, we're a Republic, so from time to time ya find power and you screw us over... then you're kicked to the curb. At which time, we bury the dead and rebuild... and the deadly cycle begins anew.

Then why didn't Bush attack North Korea and Iran?

By your own measures aren't they bigger threats to US security?

like most Righties, he knows nothing about international law (he just makes stuff up)

 

[Dot Com]

wish they would admit that Firebug & Trey burned-through: Fox glosses-over final Report on 13 MILLION Beghazi investigation US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

[

Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

You're conflating what was legally essential to rising above the threshold of respective treaties, with inherent justifications... .

In the post 9-11 paradigm, Saddam was an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States.

And while it was nice that the UN found enough members who recognized that... but if they had failed to do so, it would not have changed anything.

The UN needed to appear relevant, so it complied... .

But, the Ideological Left is never relevant where US Security is concerned.

Sadly, we're a Republic, so from time to time ya find power and you screw us over... then you're kicked to the curb. At which time, we bury the dead and rebuild... and the deadly cycle begins anew.

Then why didn't Bush attack North Korea and Iran?

By your own measures aren't they bigger threats to US security?

ROFL! Ok, lets push that reduction to the absurd farther down the rabbit hole...

Why didn't Bush attack Berkley, Columbia and Chicago along with other anti-American, pro-terrorist enclaves right here in the US?

Knowing what we know now, Chicago would have been the most effective deterrent against the greatest threat the US faced at that time. Sure, the US may have been hit with another 9-11, but we would still have a stable medical insurance industry... .

 

[JoeB131]

False... We didn't forget about anything.

Afghanistan was a Special Operations campaign, wherein the Afghans were the lead by US Special Operators, who were heavily supported by US Air Operations... which eradicated the means of the Taliban to 'govern' the country. A new Afghan government was formed and they made it clear that they wanted to govern without large scale US forces.

The Taliban, which was spread across that region, slowly began to organize to push back against the new Government, which required further increases in US Forces, which came as operations in Iraq were drawn down.

That you need to claim that 'we forgot about Afghanistan' is purely a delusion on the part of your anti-American cult and has no bearing on reality.

Resources that were available to Afghanistan were shifted to Iraq. You really can't blame anyone but Bush and his team for taking the eye off the ball.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

As for Iraq, we quickly lost control of that country, eventually having to bribe the Sunnis into letting us retreat in good order.

ROFLMNAO! Delusion personified.

A GOOD commander in chief is one that doesn't get us into wars we shouldn't be in. Bush failed miserably on that score.

A good commander in Chief, recognizes where the greatest threat is and eradicates it.

For that to happen, the Commander in Chief would have attacked the Ideological Left in the United States, who were the REASON the US became vulnerable TO an 9-11 attack.

From there, he would have eviscerated Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving pamphlets for those who survived, letting them know that they should take great care in how they choose to rebuild from the rubble we left behind, because if we have to return to do it again, we will not be so merciful.

No US personnel or US Money to rebuild... No 24 hour a day, 7 day a week US Air and Naval Fleets bringing in pallets of cash, food, water, medicine, building materials.

Just a few months of unbridled mayhem, under Rules of Engagement which declare everything living organism within the border of that enemy state: The Enemy. If it breaths, it's a threat: kill it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

False... We didn't forget about anything.

Afghanistan was a Special Operations campaign, wherein the Afghans were the lead by US Special Operators, who were heavily supported by US Air Operations... which eradicated the means of the Taliban to 'govern' the country. A new Afghan government was formed and they made it clear that they wanted to govern without large scale US forces.

The Taliban, which was spread across that region, slowly began to organize to push back against the new Government, which required further increases in US Forces, which came as operations in Iraq were drawn down.

That you need to claim that 'we forgot about Afghanistan' is purely a delusion on the part of your anti-American cult and has no bearing on reality.

Resources that were available to Afghanistan were shifted to Iraq. You really can't blame anyone but Bush and his team for taking the eye off the ball.

Young lady, you can repeat your idiotic claim as many times as you like. But the Afghan campaign within the US Global War on Terror, was designed specifically to AVOID shoving hundreds of thousands of troops into Afghanistan.

GW should have taken the resources that were in Afghanistan and moved them into Pakistan, then back to Afghanistan, then back to Pakistan ... and so on, until the herd of sub-human Taliban simply shrank into insignificance.

But GW was sensitive to the howls of the Left and he knew how you idiots would shriek if he did so, so he allowed that poor judgment to cut off the best means of destroying the Left in Afghanistan (Taliban).

At the end of the day, the US will never again be viable, until people like YOU are no longer capable of influencing US policy. That day is coming... so don't you worry, nature always works these little problems out.

 

[Carla_Danger]

WrmK 10381874

Beyond that however, Iraq's socialist government was a long time proponent of International islamic Terrorism, who was also in violation of their treaty obligations... so the WMD thing was only one of the reasons that Iraq's socialist government HAD TO GO... and go, it went.

The US Congress authorized use of military force (if necessary) in Iraq for two reasons and both were required to be applicable for any decision to invade.

To protect the national security of the USA. "And". " enforce "relevant" UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq. UNSC Resolution 1441 became a relevant UNSC Resolution in November 2002 and it dealt with WMD and no other reason was relevant to the UN inspection regime that was set up to determine whether use of military force would become necessary under Resolution 1441.

There were no other reasons than WMD and Bush signed on to 1441 after sending Colin Powell to the UN to get it.

You are seriously wrong LostKeys.

Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

You're conflating what was legally essential to rising above the threshold of respective treaties, with inherent justifications... .

In the post 9-11 paradigm, Saddam was an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States.
And while it was nice that the UN found enough members who recognized that... but in reality, had they failed to do so, it would not have changed anything.

The UN needed to appear relevant, so it complied... .

But, the Ideological Left is never relevant where US Security is concerned.

Sadly, we're a Republic, so from time to time ya find power and you screw us over... then you're kicked to the curb. At which time, we bury the dead and rebuild... and the deadly cycle begins anew.

You are completely off your rocker.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Are you two dimwits, Claud and Old School, still carrying on about Benghazi? Don't you two have anything better to do?

What would you like talk about, Carla? Fast & Furious? The IRS scandal? Peter Gruber and the lies that were told to the American people to pass the Affordable Care Act? Trillion dollar a year deficits? Russia invading the Ukraine? North Korea cyber-attacking Sony pictures? Millions more Americans on food stamps? Millions more Americans forced to work part time jobs? The Iranians merrily working away on their nuke? ISIS slaughtering thousands while Barry called them the "JV"? Pick a topic, hon...it's a regular smorgasbord of incompetence with this Administration!

You could start a thread about the IRS scandal that went nowhere, and bitch about it for 118 pages if you want. I'll stop in from time to time to see how you are doing.

The deficit is shrinking. People are on food stamps because wages are stagnant, and the minimum wage needs to be raised....something Obama has little to do with.

Gruber told the truth. American's are stupid.

Russia-Ukraine.....and?

Iran-nukes....we'll be negotiating with Iran until next summer.

ISIS-

U.S. General: Turning Point Against ISIS Will Take At Least 3 Years

The top U.S. general in charge of forces fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has said it will take a minimum of three years to reach a turning point against the group. Speaking to reporters Thursday, Lt. Gen. James Terry refused to give a more specific timeline.
Lt. Gen. James Terry: "The first strikes were, what, 8 August? And so, this is December. What’s that? Four months. I think we’ve made significant progress in halting that offensive that I talked about, the ability for them to continue to expand, you know, in terms of terrain and geography out there. I think what we must do, especially inside of Iraq, is continue to build those capabilities. I think you’re at least talking a minimum of three years."
This week the Obama administration approved orders for hundreds of U.S. troops to deploy to Iraq as part of a mission to train and advise Iraqi troops.

Headlines for December 19 2014 Democracy Now

If Bush were in charge, he would have attacked Turkey.

If Bush were in charge he wouldn't have let ISIS take control of all of those cities while he diddled himself and called them the JV.

Seriously? Bush fought that Iraq war for 6 years until he left office for his predecessor to finish. And that was supposed to be a six month war. Where do you get off pretending like Bush was some great commander-in-chief, suddenly capable of winning a war??

All I have to do is compare Bush to Obama to make the case that he was a far superior Commander in Chief, Faun. Bush successfully conducted two wars...the invasion of Afghanistan and the defeat of the Taliban...and the invasion of Iraq and the defeat of Saddam Hussein. Both were rather remarkable in how quickly they took place and how few American lives were lost. Did the US struggle to nation build after those two wars went from an initial combat phase to one of trying to protect against insurgencies? Yes and we continue to struggle against those same insurgents as does most of the rest of the world.

So what military success has Barack Obama had? He's lost more Americans in his Presidency than George W. Bush did in his. He's lost huge portions of the Middle East to ISIS while he told us that we had nothing to fear from them because they were just the "JV" team and he had Al Queda "on the run". He's about to pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban take control there once again. Take away the Seal kill of Osama bin Laden and he's pretty much got nothing. When Bush made the point that killing ObL wasn't the main goal because it wouldn't end the fight against the extremists he was 100% correct. When Barry did his victory dance and declared Al Queda on the run he was 100% incorrect.

Well, I've heard it all now. Bush successfully conducted two wars. It's hard to type that with a straight face.

I think what you meant to say was Bush failed to protect us from the largest attack on American soil, attacked the wrong country, and got us bogged down in a quagmire.

Hell, we didn't even get the good oil contracts....China did! Bush couldn't find oil in Texas or Iraq.

 

[Carla_Danger]

So you aren't even disputing that the Obama Administration misled the American people about the Affordable Care Act? That they felt obliged to tell them lies and write the bill in such a confusing manner that the American public WOULDN'T understand what it was that was being done to them?

The ACA has been available for the American public to read. Why didn't you read it?

Read the Affordable Care Act Health Care Law HealthCare.gov

Peter Gruber admitted that the people who wrote the ACA DELIBERATELY made it so complex and confusing that nobody would understand what was in it. They made it so long (2.500 pages) that few tried. The architects of the ACA did so because they didn't want people to understand the ACA because if they did they would have wanted it even less than they did!

No, Gurber accurately described American's who are too lazy/stupid to read and learn.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

WrmK 10381874

Beyond that however, Iraq's socialist government was a long time proponent of International islamic Terrorism, who was also in violation of their treaty obligations... so the WMD thing was only one of the reasons that Iraq's socialist government HAD TO GO... and go, it went.

The US Congress authorized use of military force (if necessary) in Iraq for two reasons and both were required to be applicable for any decision to invade.

To protect the national security of the USA. "And". " enforce "relevant" UN Security Council Resolutions against Iraq. UNSC Resolution 1441 became a relevant UNSC Resolution in November 2002 and it dealt with WMD and no other reason was relevant to the UN inspection regime that was set up to determine whether use of military force would become necessary under Resolution 1441.

There were no other reasons than WMD and Bush signed on to 1441 after sending Colin Powell to the UN to get it.

You are seriously wrong LostKeys.

Yes... and invading and removing the socialist government of Iraq was necessary in the Protecting the national security of the United States, because Iraq was a longstanding proponent of International Terrorism, who was known to have ongoing programs producing Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW) which fall into the category of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

You're conflating what was legally essential to rising above the threshold of respective treaties, with inherent justifications... .

In the post 9-11 paradigm, Saddam was an unacceptable risk to the security of the United States.
And while it was nice that the UN found enough members who recognized that... but in reality, had they failed to do so, it would not have changed anything.

The UN needed to appear relevant, so it complied... .

But, the Ideological Left is never relevant where US Security is concerned.

Sadly, we're a Republic, so from time to time ya find power and you screw us over... then you're kicked to the curb. At which time, we bury the dead and rebuild... and the deadly cycle begins anew.

You are completely off your rocker.

Yeah... and that's because there is absolutely no evidence that the Ideological Left has damaged the United States in ANY WAY...

I mean US Families... are stronger than ever.

US Education is the envy of the planet.

Why the US enjoys greater freedom because of the Left. Anyone can start any business they like, without any concern for Tens of thousands of dollars in immediate bureaucratic expenses, before one can legally trade so much as a single product or service.

The Internet... look at what you've done for THAT! Children are free to learn of every facet of human sexuality by simply being left alone with a computer that is connected to the World Wide Web and look how THAT is turning out... , with feminized males demanding to marry other feminized males... and unlimited Girl on Girl, where's the downside to THAT? Every Dad dreams of the day when his daughter will be on the home page of his favorite porn site!

And the list goes on and on!

Why in this very thread, we're witnessing the Left celebrate the murders of innocent US Citizens... all justified through a series of profoundly obvious deceits. All of which leads directly to unprecedented treachery, wherein the Commander in Chief, was informed of an attack on a US Mission, which directly threatened the life of the US Ambassador and at BEST he went to bed without being certain that his staff was authorized to do what was necessary to render the aid to save those US Lives.

Yes... any idea that the Left in the US threatens the US is a LIE! Because... After all, The Left believes that THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO THREATEN THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES! Because the Constitution of the United States GIVES THEM THAT RIGHT!

ROFLMNAO! You people are truly a menace to the human species. The Idiocracy: LIVES!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, I've heard it all now. Bush successfully conducted two wars. ...

There were not two wars... there was one war, within which were numerous campaigns.

I think ...

Really? How do you do so without leaving a trace of evidence that it's happened?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, Gurber accurately described American's who are too lazy/stupid to read and learn.[sic]

Gruber was describing YOU! Which is to say those who advocated for obamaScare being passed without the bill having been read, debated and vetted through that debate.

 

[Oldstyle]

False... We didn't forget about anything.

Afghanistan was a Special Operations campaign, wherein the Afghans were the lead by US Special Operators, who were heavily supported by US Air Operations... which eradicated the means of the Taliban to 'govern' the country. A new Afghan government was formed and they made it clear that they wanted to govern without large scale US forces.

The Taliban, which was spread across that region, slowly began to organize to push back against the new Government, which required further increases in US Forces, which came as operations in Iraq were drawn down.

That you need to claim that 'we forgot about Afghanistan' is purely a delusion on the part of your anti-American cult and has no bearing on reality.

Resources that were available to Afghanistan were shifted to Iraq. You really can't blame anyone but Bush and his team for taking the eye off the ball.

Are you serious? When George W. Bush left office both Afghanistan and Iraq were LIGHT YEARS better off than they are now after six years of "President Leading From Behind!" You blame Bush for taking his eye off the ball from his ranch in Texas where he's been retired for the last six years chopping brush? Who's been sitting in the Oval Office running things for all those years? I can't blame Barry for taking his eye off the ball because I don't think our current President has even figured out where the ball IS!