Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[QUOTE="BlindBoo, post: 14921669, member: 25197There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?
BB is absolutely correct - there weren't 2 'invasions'. There were, however, 2 UN-authorized, UN-sanctioned wars (1 still going on) in which Obama and Hillary allied themselves with terrorists in civil wars between terrorists and dictators to help the terrorists overthrow the dictators and thus win their own country. Obama was successful in Libya, but he hasn't been so in Syria yet.
The repercussions of their actions have been felt world-wide.
- Obama allowed ISIS to freely enter Iraq, taking over territory our military had already liberated at great cost. despite his promise of 'no boots on the ground' there are not only boots on the ground but also body bags once again coming home from Iraq.
- Al Qaeida successfully took over Libya, which is evidently ok - even though it cost us 4 Americans, to include the 1st Ambassador to be murdered in over 30 years. (Small price to pay to help Al Qaeida - who killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11/01 - get their own nation / safe haven, right?!)
- ISIS hits targets all over the world, none probably greater than the attack on Paris - the worst attack on France since WWII, occurring right after Obama bragged from France that he had ISIS contained. (Obama's protecting ISIS' Black Market Oil business helped ISIS finance the attack, and when France and Russia sent bombers to attack the production sites Obama dropped leaflets warning the enemy the attack was coming. 'Treason' anyone?)
Oh, there's more, but why bother?! Libs don't care.
Obama started wars with Libya and Syria, dufus.What was the Congressional bill that authorized Obama to invade two sovereign nations?
There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?
That is not to say we are not, or have not intervened in the area, but that has been the bipartisan policy since the end of WW 2 hasn't it?
So Russia can drop troops in New York and attack city hall and that's not war?Obama started wars with Libya and Syria, dufus.What was the Congressional bill that authorized Obama to invade two sovereign nations?
There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?
That is not to say we are not, or have not intervened in the area, but that has been the bipartisan policy since the end of WW 2 hasn't it?
No he didn't. Intervention, yes. War, no.
So Russia can drop troops in New York and attack city hall and that's not war?Obama started wars with Libya and Syria, dufus.What was the Congressional bill that authorized Obama to invade two sovereign nations?
There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?
That is not to say we are not, or have not intervened in the area, but that has been the bipartisan policy since the end of WW 2 hasn't it?
No he didn't. Intervention, yes. War, no.
Who said the left have no concept of reality?
American soldiers attacked the governments of Libya and Syria. We now have combat troops in those nations. No matter how you spin it, that's an act of war in every playbook on earthSo Russia can drop troops in New York and attack city hall and that's not war?Obama started wars with Libya and Syria, dufus.What was the Congressional bill that authorized Obama to invade two sovereign nations?
There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?
That is not to say we are not, or have not intervened in the area, but that has been the bipartisan policy since the end of WW 2 hasn't it?
No he didn't. Intervention, yes. War, no.
Who said the left have no concept of reality?
Gross Hyperbole passing for reality in the RWNJ's world.
American soldiers attacked the governments of Libya and Syria. We now have combat troops in those nations. No matter how you spin it, that's an act of war in every playbook on earthSo Russia can drop troops in New York and attack city hall and that's not war?Obama started wars with Libya and Syria, dufus.There were no 2 US invasions. Why isn't congress using the War Powers Act to force the president to withdraw all our soldiers in those two countries you allege he invaded?
That is not to say we are not, or have not intervened in the area, but that has been the bipartisan policy since the end of WW 2 hasn't it?
No he didn't. Intervention, yes. War, no.
Who said the left have no concept of reality?
Gross Hyperbole passing for reality in the RWNJ's world.
Within an hour of the attack in Benghazi beginning the State Department lead in Tripoli, who testified he had talked to Americans on the ground in Benghazi, said he spoke directly with Hillary Clinton and told her it was a terrorist attack.
As Americans fought to survive in Benghazi the State Department and WH changed the CIA's initial report - calling the attack a terrorist attack - 13 times, removing all references to terrorism.
According to Hillary Clinton herself in her own e-mails, on the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi Hillary told the Egyptian Ambassador, 'We KNOW it was a terrorist attack, that the video had nothing to do with it.'
According to Hillary Clinton herself in her own e-mails, on the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi Hillary told her own daughter in an e-mail that 'we' had lost 4 Americans in Benghazi due to a terrorist attack.
The next morning Rice and Hillary told the world that Benghazi had been a protest over a video gone wrong. Hillary vowed to make the film maker, who had exercised his 1st Amendment Right, pay, putting him in jail...which they did.
According to Obama HE acknowledged it had been a terrorist attack.
The CIA NEVER said it was a protest.
The FBI said there were NO SIGNS of a protest and called it a terrorist attack.
Hillary told the grieving families, as their loved ones returned home in flag-draped coffins, they had died because of a protest.
Weeks later, after Obama had claimed he knew it was a terrorist attack.
In an interview Hillary called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack.
Hillary then testified before Congress. During that testimony she declared she had no idea what it was, whether it had been a protest or a 'couple of people out for a walk one night (with ak-47s, rocket launchers, mortars and mortar shells to sustain an attack for approximately 8 - 10 hours) and decided they wanted to kill some Americans..." (She never mentioned the words 'terrorist attack in that false denial.)
When pressed on the issue Hillary finally declared it had been a terrorist attack.
....Hillary supporters still claim - despite the CIA, FBI, Obama, and Hillary declaring it was a terrorist attack - Benghazi was a 'protest'.
The Benghazi Mom came out and declared Hillary told her it had been over a protest.
AGAIN, many liberals are still arguing it WAS a protest. HILLARY, however, came out and denied she ever said that, even called the mom a LIAR.
-- So Hillary is saying it WASN'T a protest?
If it was really a protest then there would be no reason to call the mom a liar, because telling her it was a protest would be telling the truth .... if it had been a protest...right?
Libs, meanwhile, continue to claim it WAS a protest and the mom is a....liar?! Again, the mom is declaring Hillary told her it was a protest. If it was a protest, why are libs attacking the mom for saying Hillary told her that's what it was?!
And finally, stretching the hell out of Slick Willey's defense of 'the definition of the word 'is', part of Hillary's defense regarding Benghazi being a protest hinges on the definition of the words 'Protest' and 'terrorist attack'.
Evidently, according to Dems - whose definition of 'terrorist attack' differs from the CIA, FBI, State department, Obama, etc... - approx. 100 people carrying AK-47s, rocket launchers, mortar tubes, mortars, and enough ammunition to carry out a 'protest' for 8-10 hours, setting fire to and destroying a compound and murdering 4 Americans who fought for their lives for hours and who waited for help that never came is NOT a 'terrorist attack'. It is a 'protest'.
So, with liberals changing their stance whenever it benefits them on this argument, can liberals FINALLY pick one argument or the other - that Benghazi was a protest or a terrorist attack and stick to it?!
Thank you.
Within an hour of the attack in Benghazi beginning the State Department lead in Tripoli, who testified he had talked to Americans on the ground in Benghazi, said he spoke directly with Hillary Clinton and told her it was a terrorist attack.
As Americans fought to survive in Benghazi the State Department and WH changed the CIA's initial report - calling the attack a terrorist attack - 13 times, removing all references to terrorism.
According to Hillary Clinton herself in her own e-mails, on the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi Hillary told the Egyptian Ambassador, 'We KNOW it was a terrorist attack, that the video had nothing to do with it.'
According to Hillary Clinton herself in her own e-mails, on the night of the terrorist attack on Benghazi Hillary told her own daughter in an e-mail that 'we' had lost 4 Americans in Benghazi due to a terrorist attack.
The next morning Rice and Hillary told the world that Benghazi had been a protest over a video gone wrong. Hillary vowed to make the film maker, who had exercised his 1st Amendment Right, pay, putting him in jail...which they did.
According to Obama HE acknowledged it had been a terrorist attack.
The CIA NEVER said it was a protest.
The FBI said there were NO SIGNS of a protest and called it a terrorist attack.
Hillary told the grieving families, as their loved ones returned home in flag-draped coffins, they had died because of a protest.
Weeks later, after Obama had claimed he knew it was a terrorist attack.
In an interview Hillary called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack.
Hillary then testified before Congress. During that testimony she declared she had no idea what it was, whether it had been a protest or a 'couple of people out for a walk one night (with ak-47s, rocket launchers, mortars and mortar shells to sustain an attack for approximately 8 - 10 hours) and decided they wanted to kill some Americans..." (She never mentioned the words 'terrorist attack in that false denial.)
When pressed on the issue Hillary finally declared it had been a terrorist attack.
....Hillary supporters still claim - despite the CIA, FBI, Obama, and Hillary declaring it was a terrorist attack - Benghazi was a 'protest'.
The Benghazi Mom came out and declared Hillary told her it had been over a protest.
AGAIN, many liberals are still arguing it WAS a protest. HILLARY, however, came out and denied she ever said that, even called the mom a LIAR.
-- So Hillary is saying it WASN'T a protest?
If it was really a protest then there would be no reason to call the mom a liar, because telling her it was a protest would be telling the truth .... if it had been a protest...right?
Libs, meanwhile, continue to claim it WAS a protest and the mom is a....liar?! Again, the mom is declaring Hillary told her it was a protest. If it was a protest, why are libs attacking the mom for saying Hillary told her that's what it was?!
And finally, stretching the hell out of Slick Willey's defense of 'the definition of the word 'is', part of Hillary's defense regarding Benghazi being a protest hinges on the definition of the words 'Protest' and 'terrorist attack'.
Evidently, according to Dems - whose definition of 'terrorist attack' differs from the CIA, FBI, State department, Obama, etc... - approx. 100 people carrying AK-47s, rocket launchers, mortar tubes, mortars, and enough ammunition to carry out a 'protest' for 8-10 hours, setting fire to and destroying a compound and murdering 4 Americans who fought for their lives for hours and who waited for help that never came is NOT a 'terrorist attack'. It is a 'protest'.
So, with liberals changing their stance whenever it benefits them on this argument, can liberals FINALLY pick one argument or the other - that Benghazi was a protest or a terrorist attack and stick to it?!
Thank you.
You want to parse the reason insane zealots, freaking religious American hating extremists, attacked us?
Why?
Why does it matter?
They see us as the enemy and they saw an opportunity.
Had Congress raised taxes we might have had more money for protection.
Thanks Mitch for doing nothing and then trying to blame others.
So Obama will invade Mexico to go after terrorists murdering Americans? SPIN BOY SPIN!American soldiers attacked the governments of Libya and Syria. We now have combat troops in those nations. No matter how you spin it, that's an act of war in every playbook on earthSo Russia can drop troops in New York and attack city hall and that's not war?Obama started wars with Libya and Syria, dufus.
No he didn't. Intervention, yes. War, no.
Who said the left have no concept of reality?
Gross Hyperbole passing for reality in the RWNJ's world.
President Obama is just following through on President Bushes promise to seek out the terrorist whose goal is to kill Americans, anywhere in the world. If the governments of Libya or Syria (or Pakistan) can't do the job of policing their own territory of these fucks, we will. Not really ground troop or Bush Style Iraqi invasion, but embedded special Ops. Only time will tell if Obama's strategy will continue to work of course, but they've rolled ISIS back 50% I've heard.
So Obama will invade Mexico to go after terrorists murdering Americans? SPIN BOY SPIN!American soldiers attacked the governments of Libya and Syria. We now have combat troops in those nations. No matter how you spin it, that's an act of war in every playbook on earthSo Russia can drop troops in New York and attack city hall and that's not war?No he didn't. Intervention, yes. War, no.
Who said the left have no concept of reality?
Gross Hyperbole passing for reality in the RWNJ's world.
President Obama is just following through on President Bushes promise to seek out the terrorist whose goal is to kill Americans, anywhere in the world. If the governments of Libya or Syria (or Pakistan) can't do the job of policing their own territory of these fucks, we will. Not really ground troop or Bush Style Iraqi invasion, but embedded special Ops. Only time will tell if Obama's strategy will continue to work of course, but they've rolled ISIS back 50% I've heard.
The only terrorists in the world are Muslims?So Obama will invade Mexico to go after terrorists murdering Americans? SPIN BOY SPIN!American soldiers attacked the governments of Libya and Syria. We now have combat troops in those nations. No matter how you spin it, that's an act of war in every playbook on earthSo Russia can drop troops in New York and attack city hall and that's not war?
Who said the left have no concept of reality?
Gross Hyperbole passing for reality in the RWNJ's world.
President Obama is just following through on President Bushes promise to seek out the terrorist whose goal is to kill Americans, anywhere in the world. If the governments of Libya or Syria (or Pakistan) can't do the job of policing their own territory of these fucks, we will. Not really ground troop or Bush Style Iraqi invasion, but embedded special Ops. Only time will tell if Obama's strategy will continue to work of course, but they've rolled ISIS back 50% I've heard.
Why do you think ISIS or al Qaeda has cells in Mexico? Do you sleep under the bed at night or do you have a bunker you hide in?
The only terrorists in the world are Muslims?So Obama will invade Mexico to go after terrorists murdering Americans? SPIN BOY SPIN!American soldiers attacked the governments of Libya and Syria. We now have combat troops in those nations. No matter how you spin it, that's an act of war in every playbook on earthGross Hyperbole passing for reality in the RWNJ's world.
President Obama is just following through on President Bushes promise to seek out the terrorist whose goal is to kill Americans, anywhere in the world. If the governments of Libya or Syria (or Pakistan) can't do the job of policing their own territory of these fucks, we will. Not really ground troop or Bush Style Iraqi invasion, but embedded special Ops. Only time will tell if Obama's strategy will continue to work of course, but they've rolled ISIS back 50% I've heard.
Why do you think ISIS or al Qaeda has cells in Mexico? Do you sleep under the bed at night or do you have a bunker you hide in?
SPIN BOY SPIN!
Around ten to twenty thousand. Why isn't Obama invading Mexico to stop the terrorists from murdering Americans?The only terrorists in the world are Muslims?So Obama will invade Mexico to go after terrorists murdering Americans? SPIN BOY SPIN!American soldiers attacked the governments of Libya and Syria. We now have combat troops in those nations. No matter how you spin it, that's an act of war in every playbook on earth
President Obama is just following through on President Bushes promise to seek out the terrorist whose goal is to kill Americans, anywhere in the world. If the governments of Libya or Syria (or Pakistan) can't do the job of policing their own territory of these fucks, we will. Not really ground troop or Bush Style Iraqi invasion, but embedded special Ops. Only time will tell if Obama's strategy will continue to work of course, but they've rolled ISIS back 50% I've heard.
Why do you think ISIS or al Qaeda has cells in Mexico? Do you sleep under the bed at night or do you have a bunker you hide in?
SPIN BOY SPIN!
How many Mexican terrorist have declared war on the US?
Around ten to twenty thousand. Why isn't Obama invading Mexico to stop the terrorists from murdering Americans?The only terrorists in the world are Muslims?So Obama will invade Mexico to go after terrorists murdering Americans? SPIN BOY SPIN!President Obama is just following through on President Bushes promise to seek out the terrorist whose goal is to kill Americans, anywhere in the world. If the governments of Libya or Syria (or Pakistan) can't do the job of policing their own territory of these fucks, we will. Not really ground troop or Bush Style Iraqi invasion, but embedded special Ops. Only time will tell if Obama's strategy will continue to work of course, but they've rolled ISIS back 50% I've heard.
Why do you think ISIS or al Qaeda has cells in Mexico? Do you sleep under the bed at night or do you have a bunker you hide in?
SPIN BOY SPIN!
How many Mexican terrorist have declared war on the US?
Your spinning to defend Obama's invasions of two sovereign nations is getting more fun with every post, keep going.
Boy, you're ignorant. Mexico is more dangerous than Bagdhad. There are at least 7 major cartels murdering and kidnapping Americans right now.Around ten to twenty thousand. Why isn't Obama invading Mexico to stop the terrorists from murdering Americans?The only terrorists in the world are Muslims?So Obama will invade Mexico to go after terrorists murdering Americans? SPIN BOY SPIN!
Why do you think ISIS or al Qaeda has cells in Mexico? Do you sleep under the bed at night or do you have a bunker you hide in?
SPIN BOY SPIN!
How many Mexican terrorist have declared war on the US?
Your spinning to defend Obama's invasions of two sovereign nations is getting more fun with every post, keep going.
Ten to twenty thousand? Do they chant "Death to America" too?
What is the name of this terrorist group of 10 to 20 thousand in Mexico?
