Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

Montecresto · Feb 6, 2014

Boo Radley said:
The comment was meant to encompass more than you. Others clearly use it to diminish, and they are the universial you.

Bush my be gone, but his legacy is in going. As a realist, I know that no one had the ability to make everything right again after he invaded. Any good there will be bore by the Iraq people. They and only they can turn that mistake into something positive.

Also as a realist, I know conflicts and actions I disagree with will happen. Doing them at minimal cost is better that maximum cost. Still wrong, but significantly better.

We agree both are wrong. Left at that, there us no debate between us. However, when anyone say it is the same as bush, which is where I believe this discussion started, I have to disagree.

Good grief, two pages of you and I back and forth is enough!!

Boo Radley · Feb 6, 2014

Montecresto said:
Good grief, two pages of you and I back and forth is enough!!

That's fine. I'm only answering you. You jumped into this conversation; you can jump out. :coffeepap

j-mac · Feb 6, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Far more dangerous to us than Iraq. Though my previous post didn't address threat at all. Iraq was nothing. Libya was destabilizing, and if you've learn nothing from Iraq, such destabilization helps our enemies, and as such is a threat. Not one I think required our involvement, but more than Iraq.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. You have to show why you think Libya was more threat to us than Iraq at the time.

But, the real reason that you are twisting into a pretzel over that simple question is simply that Obama, a president you support says so. In fact you show your partisan dishonesty openly with your own logic.

Boo Radley · Feb 6, 2014

j-mac said:
Just because you say so doesn't make it so. You have to show why you think Libya was more threat to us than Iraq at the time.

But, the real reason that you are twisting into a pretzel over that simple question is simply that Obama, a president you support says so. In fact you show your partisan dishonesty openly with your own logic.

I never know why you travel down that road. It is equally true that because you say so it doesn't make it so.

And there is no twisting. That too is a figment of your imagination.

Sorry.

Now, do you have a point? Something we can discuss? Or is this all you have?

j-mac · Feb 7, 2014

Boo Radley said:
I never know why you travel down that road. It is equally true that because you say so it doesn't make it so.

And there is no twisting. That too is a figment of your imagination.

Sorry.

Now, do you have a point? Something we can discuss? Or is this all you have?

Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article in the National Review in 2011 that makes some good points that I'd like you to address one by one if you would.

1) We have no idea what North Africa, much less Libya, will soon look like — although the grotesque shooting of Qaddafi is in contrast with the trial of Saddam, and so far the Iraqi government has not subordinated its entire legal system to Sharia law, which was the first proclamation from the new Libyan “government” (i.e., the National Transitional Council, whose leader Mustafa Abdul Jalil just boasted, “As a Muslim country, we have adopted the Islamic Sharia as the main source of law. Accordingly, any law that contradicts Islamic principles with the Islamic Sharia is ineffective legally”).

In other words, to the degree the U.S., stupidly or wisely, puts troops on the ground before, during, or after an air campaign, it has a costly but positive role in postwar reconstruction (cf. Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.); but to the degree it does not, it does not. We hope that, in a year, Libya resembles an Islamizing Turkey and not chaotic Somalia or theocratic Iran, but we simply don’t know. I hope Friedman is correct that it “is now up to them,” but when a power removes by force a government (even a repulsive one) that did not pose a strategic threat, history suggests that it feels, or others feel, that it has some responsibility for what follows.

2) Whatever one thinks about Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not comparable to Libya. The former are distant, large countries of 30-some million people. Afghanistan is landlocked, with forbidding weather and terrain, and borders former Soviet republics, Pakistan, and Iran; Iraq in the heart of the ancient caliphate with neighbors like Syria and Iran. Libya, in contrast, is a tiny nation of 6.4 million people, almost all concentrated on the coast, and situated on the Mediterranean shore, an hour or so from traditional NATO bases. Removing Saddam or the Taliban and staying on to foster consensual government is simply a different level of magnitude than taking out Qaddafi — and who knows what next.

3) We cannot forget chronology: Iraq came before Libya. Qaddafi surrendered his biological, chemical, and quite surprisingly advanced nuclear programs after the removal of Saddam; had he not (and he probably would not have, without Saddam’s example), who knows what eight years of further development and deployment would have led to by 2011? With such weapons, both the rebels and NATO would have been far more cautious in their reactions to his use of force, The catalysts for the Arab Spring are many, but the trial of Saddam and the survival of a democratic government in Iraq were positive forces — as we saw from the Syrian departure from Lebanon and the arrest of Dr. Khan in Pakistan.

4) Qaddafi was a monster in rehab who by 2011 posed little strategic threat to the U.S. or its neighbors — at least so had argued the British, French, and Italian governments that were scrambling to negotiate new deals with him, and an array of American intellectuals, academics, and commercial reps who wrote about the so-called moderating influences in Libya and the next generation of Qaddafi offspring who would transition it back into the community of nations.

The Taliban, in contrast, were the hosts of the 9/11 attackers. We had fought one war against Saddam (who had attacked four of his neighbors) and were in the midst of a 12-year no-fly-zone effort that was shedding NATO allies, after a major bombing operation in the last year of the Clinton administration. Worries about Saddam were expressed in the 20-something writs passed by both houses of Congress in October 2002, after an earlier regime-change resolution passed in the Clinton era. There is no comparable legislation regarding Libya.

5) As far as authorization goes, it too is problematic: True, we got U.N. approval for Libya, unlike Iraq, but only to conduct a no-fly-zone and offer humanitarian assistance. Almost immediately we exceeded that — as we had to, if we were to win and remove the Qaddafi family — by targeted assassinations and a full-fledged bombing campaign in concert with the rebels. Does all that strengthen or weaken reliance on U.N. resolutions in the future? And unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, for which there were joint congressional resolutions, we intervened in Libya without the approval of Congress, and with many erstwhile critics of Bush’s interventions writing weird briefs explaining why the administration did not need congressional approval to bomb in Libya.

6) Friedman is right in saying that Republican leaders have a hard time admitting Obama’s anti-terrorism successes. But why is that? Perhaps because Obama was once a fierce critic of nearly all the Bush/Cheney anti-terrorism protocols — the Patriot Act, tribunals, renditions, preventive detention, Guantamo, Iraq — at a critical time when such political opposition almost ended them altogether, on the premise they were either amoral or ineffectual or both. But mirabile dictu, President Obama adopted or vastly expanded almost all of them, assured that his associates’ criticism would magically cease around January 2009, which of course it did.

Iraq vs. Libya | National Review Online

The problem is that liberals like you Boo try to have it both ways, denouncing, and condemning, and even lying about what the Bush administration had to do in the wake of 9/11, while at the same time praising Obama for the very same type of antics on the world stage. In fact I would argue that due to the weakening that Qaddafi underwent as a direct result of the removal of Saddam, paved the way for Obama to look strong when in reality he was just picking on a weakened despot, an easy pick, and gave another signal of the dhimmi like behavior from Obama in bowing to the pro Islamic state forces that made noise to have him give aid in the first place. How'd that work out for him? A year later they killed his ambassador, and three other brave Americans.

You want to hang your hat on Obama while denouncing Bush? Fine, do so...But you look like a hack when you do.

Boo Radley · Feb 7, 2014

j-mac said:
Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article in the National Review in 2011 that makes some good points that I'd like you to address one by one if you would.

The problem is that liberals like you Boo try to have it both ways, denouncing, and condemning, and even lying about what the Bush administration had to do in the wake of 9/11, while at the same time praising Obama for the very same type of antics on the world stage. In fact I would argue that due to the weakening that Qaddafi underwent as a direct result of the removal of Saddam, paved the way for Obama to look strong when in reality he was just picking on a weakened despot, an easy pick, and gave another signal of the dhimmi like behavior from Obama in bowing to the pro Islamic state forces that made noise to have him give aid in the first place. How'd that work out for him? A year later they killed his ambassador, and three other brave Americans.

You want to hang your hat on Obama while denouncing Bush? Fine, do so...But you look like a hack when you do.

Victor is a poor source (we've discussed this before). But I will look at it when I have a little more time.

I have never lied about Bush. You miss a lot because you add in your stereotype what has never been said by the person you talk to. Nor have I hung any hat on Obama. When you say that it suggests you don't understand what has been said. I have made no argument for Obama on this. I only argue they are not the same. I think it is an important point. But it does not make Obama right or perfect.

anatta · Feb 7, 2014

^
^ excellent find

As far as authorization goes, it too is problematic: True, we got U.N. approval for Libya, unlike Iraq, but only to conduct a no-fly-zone and offer humanitarian assistance. Almost immediately we exceeded that — as we had to, if we were to win and remove the Qaddafi family — by targeted assassinations and a full-fledged bombing campaign in concert with the rebels.
Does all that strengthen or weaken reliance on U.N. resolutions in the future? And unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, for which there were joint congressional resolutions, we intervened in Libya without the approval of Congress, and with many erstwhile critics of Bush’s interventions writing weird briefs explaining why the administration did not need congressional approval to bomb in Libya.

the "weird brief' mentioned was "kinetic military action" - the claim by the Obama Adm that this wasn't war, that needed Congressional approval, or notification;
it was 'something different' (my words)
It was just made up garbage language - this Adm's specialty. They will say any kind of cotton candy rhetoric that sounds good, but melts to sticky mess when dissected.

j-mac · Feb 7, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Victor is a poor source (we've discussed this before).

Yes, I know you don't like him because largely you disagree with him, however, his credentials suggest that he is a well thought out, and reasoned individual...

He was a professor of classics at California State University, Fresno, and is currently the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Victor Davis Hanson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am sure if I were quoting Chomsky, (similar backgrounds) then you'd have no problem with it right?

But I will look at it when I have a little more time.

Please do more than "look at it".... Read it, and answer what I highlighted.

I have never lied about Bush.

You omit much in forming your conclusions about what Bush did while in office, so in essence yes, you do "lie" about Bush.

You miss a lot because you add in your stereotype what has never been said by the person you talk to.

Oh please....Stop already with the attempt to place yourself above that fray....Everyone in this site has perceptions about whom they are speaking about. You can no more separate that thought pattern from thought anymore than you can hold your breath for 10 minutes.

Nor have I hung any hat on Obama.

Oh yes you have....I don't believe I have ever read a single post of yours, and that covers over 10 years of posts, that has anything good to say about republicans, or conservatives.

When you say that it suggests you don't understand what has been said.

No, that is your typical, silly little dodge to avoid speaking to inconvenient facts.

I have made no argument for Obama on this. I only argue they are not the same.

Oh, excuse me, your arguments of things not being "the same" or "like" is a method of defense whether you consciously know that or not.

I think it is an important point. But it does not make Obama right or perfect.

So then where is the level of condemnation from you toward Obama? It is conspicuously missing.

Boo Radley · Feb 7, 2014

j-mac said:
Yes, I know you don't like him because largely you disagree with him, however, his credentials suggest that he is a well thought out, and reasoned individual...

Lots of idiots have credentials. I've explained before why he fails to impress.

I am sure if I were quoting Chomsky, (similar backgrounds) then you'd have no problem with it right?

I've never used nor endorsed Chomsky. See what I mean about you carrying your stereotype with you, and going where the person you're speaking with didn't?

Please do more than "look at it".... Read it, and answer what I highlighted.

You omit much in forming your conclusions about what Bush did while in office, so in essence yes, you do "lie" about Bush.

I do nothing of the kind.

Oh please....Stop already with the attempt to place yourself above that fray....Everyone in this site has perceptions about whom they are speaking about. You can no more separate that thought pattern from thought anymore than you can hold your breath for 10 minutes.

That's another misreading.

Oh yes you have....I don't believe I have ever read a single post of yours, and that covers over 10 years of posts, that has anything good to say about republicans, or conservatives.

Then your memory is poor.

No, that is your typical, silly little dodge to avoid speaking to inconvenient facts.

When you say something not true, it's not a dodge to tell you. Calling it a dodge is your tactic. Not mine.

Oh, excuse me, your arguments of things not being "the same" or "like" is a method of defense whether you consciously know that or not.

Again, nothing of the kind. You expect the reaction form liberals or democrats to be the same when the acts are not the same. If your memory was any good, you'd remember I agrued Bush would be better to act without occupation as the reaction would fire, but die quickly. Even point to that idea being expressed in Imperial Hubris.

So then where is the level of condemnation from you toward Obama? It is conspicuously missing.

It was expressed in the threads we had concerning his invading Libya, and in his drone strikes, and when he went with the surge for a limited time in Afghanistan. Somehow you always miss it.

j-mac · Feb 7, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Lots of idiots have credentials. I've explained before why he fails to impress.

I've never used nor endorsed Chomsky. See what I mean about you carrying your stereotype with you, and going where the person you're speaking with didn't?

Please do more than "look at it".... Read it, and answer what I highlighted.

I do nothing of the kind.

That's another misreading.

Then your memory is poor.

When you say something not true, it's not a dodge to tell you. Calling it a dodge is your tactic. Not mine.

Again, nothing of the kind. You expect the reaction form liberals or democrats to be the same when the acts are not the same. If your memory was any good, you'd remember I agrued Bush would be better to act without occupation as the reaction would fire, but die quickly. Even point to that idea being expressed in Imperial Hubris.

It was expressed in the threads we had concerning his invading Libya, and in his drone strikes, and when he went with the surge for a limited time in Afghanistan. Somehow you always miss it.

ok, so I will await your addressing the specifics from Mr. Hanson I provided.

Boo Radley · Feb 7, 2014

1) We have no idea what North Africa, much less Libya, will soon look like

True, which was the same with Iraq and Afghanistan, something that has not produced heaven on earth, but instead trained and continues to train terrorist.

2) Whatever one thinks about Iraq and Afghanistan, they are not comparable to Libya.

True. But Iraq especially was even more reckless and full of hubris.

3. Qaddafi surrendered his biological, chemical, and quite surprisingly advanced nuclear programs after the removal of Saddam; had he not (and he probably would not have, without Saddam’s example), who knows what eight years of further development and deployment would have led to by 2011?

Not entirely true. We showed you back then that he had started doing this long before Iraq. Only the blind partisan sees it as due to Iraq. I believe even Powell debunked that Iraq was the cause.

4) Qaddafi was a monster in rehab who by 2011 posed little strategic threat to the U.S. or its neighbors —

Not important. We didn't just decide to invade, as was done with Iraq. Qaddafi was already in a conflict with his people. it was getting bloody. The UN and NATO decided to intervene. The US worked within those confines, unlike Iraq.

The Taliban, in contrast, were the hosts of the 9/11 attackers.

We can start how that might have gone differently, but Afghanistan is not where Bush lost his mind. Iraq was. He'd have fared much better if he had stayed their.

Worries about Saddam were expressed in the 20-something writs passed by both houses of Congress in October 2002, after an earlier regime-change resolution passed in the Clinton era. There is no comparable legislation regarding Libya.

A bit of a misrepresentation. Much of the concerns were declared dealt with after Clinton's bombings. Your side always leaves that out. And not of that talked called for invading. It is not the natural conclusion that concerns equal invasion.

5) As far as authorization goes, it too is problematic: True, we got U.N. approval for Libya, unlike Iraq, but only to conduct a no-fly-zone and offer humanitarian assistance. Almost immediately we exceeded that —

With NATO, still far more than with Iraq, which is why there wasn't the UN uproar.

6) Friedman is right in saying that Republican leaders have a hard time admitting Obama’s anti-terrorism successes. But why is that? Perhaps because Obama was once a fierce critic of nearly all the Bush/Cheney anti-terrorism protocols — the Patriot Act, tribunals, renditions, preventive detention, Guantamo, Iraq — at a critical time when such political opposition almost ended them altogether, on the premise they were either amoral or ineffectual or both. But mirabile dictu, President Obama adopted or vastly expanded almost all of them,

As well we all should have opposed. And Most of us still do. The hypocrisy is on your side in changing position.

j-mac · Feb 7, 2014

I think I see a pattern here, bear with me in this...

Boo Radley said:
True, which was the same with Iraq and Afghanistan, something that has not produced heaven on earth, but instead trained and continues to train terrorist.

Which was why Bush decided, (now in my opinion wrongly) to nation build. It didn't work. And we never learned the lessons of WWII and after where we to this day have SOFA agreements, and troops in country nearly 72 years later.

True. But Iraq especially was even more reckless and full of hubris.

Bup bup bup.....The highlighted part in color is your personal opinion....It matters not on whether Hanson is correct...And you agree with him on this point so moving on.

Not entirely true. We showed you back then that he had started doing this long before Iraq. Only the blind partisan sees it as due to Iraq. I believe even Powell debunked that Iraq was the cause.

Nonsense, that excuse was politically used by liberals to downplay a clear success by product of Saddam's removal, but rational people know why Qaddafi gave his stockpiles up. But this is where you start inserting the wrongness of everything, only when YOU don't agree with the conclusions...

Not important. We didn't just decide to invade, as was done with Iraq. Qaddafi was already in a conflict with his people. it was getting bloody. The UN and NATO decided to intervene. The US worked within those confines, unlike Iraq.

"Not important"? Are you kidding me here? All through the removal of Saddam, you and others were screaming how Iraq was no threat to us, now that it is clear that not only was Qaddafi no threat to us, he was little to no threat to his neighbors, unlike Saddam was, and you brush over it with feigned concern of the population within? Tell me, how do liberals decide which populations to save, I am sure the Syrian's would love to know.

We can start how that might have gone differently, but Afghanistan is not where Bush lost his mind. Iraq was. He'd have fared much better if he had stayed their.

He'd have fared much better if he didn't have a weak President taking office after him.

A bit of a misrepresentation. Much of the concerns were declared dealt with after Clinton's bombings. Your side always leaves that out. And not of that talked called for invading. It is not the natural conclusion that concerns equal invasion.

What the?....Are you joking? You must be...What concerns were dealt with? Aspirin overages?

With NATO, still far more than with Iraq, which is why there wasn't the UN uproar.

NATO was involved in Iraq....Have you forgotten the NATO training mission in Iraq? That was from 2004 thru 2011.

As well we all should have opposed. And Most of us still do. The hypocrisy is on your side in changing position.

Possibly you could say that on some things I, or others that supported the Iraq mission are hypocritical, however, certainly not as disingenuous as liberals are in their hands down pass of everything now that Obama is doing it....

US Conservative · Feb 7, 2014

j-mac said:
I think I see a pattern here, bear with me in this...

Which was why Bush decided, (now in my opinion wrongly) to nation build. It didn't work. And we never learned the lessons of WWII and after where we to this day have SOFA agreements, and troops in country nearly 72 years later.

Bup bup bup.....The highlighted part in color is your personal opinion....It matters not on whether Hanson is correct...And you agree with him on this point so moving on.

Nonsense, that excuse was politically used by liberals to downplay a clear success by product of Saddam's removal, but rational people know why Qaddafi gave his stockpiles up. But this is where you start inserting the wrongness of everything, only when YOU don't agree with the conclusions...

"Not important"? Are you kidding me here? All through the removal of Saddam, you and others were screaming how Iraq was no threat to us, now that it is clear that not only was Qaddafi no threat to us, he was little to no threat to his neighbors, unlike Saddam was, and you brush over it with feigned concern of the population within? Tell me, how do liberals decide which populations to save, I am sure the Syrian's would love to know.

He'd have fared much better if he didn't have a weak President taking office after him.

What the?....Are you joking? You must be...What concerns were dealt with? Aspirin overages?

NATO was involved in Iraq....Have you forgotten the NATO training mission in Iraq? That was from 2004 thru 2011.

Possibly you could say that on some things I, or others that supported the Iraq mission are hypocritical, however, certainly not as disingenuous as liberals are in their hands down pass of everything now that Obama is doing it....

Some on the left like to pretend their opinions are fact. They sprinkle it in amongst fact and think nobody notices.

Boo Radley · Feb 7, 2014

j-mac said:
Which was why Bush decided, (now in my opinion wrongly) to nation build. It didn't work. And we never learned the lessons of WWII and after where we to this day have SOFA agreements, and troops in country nearly 72 years later.

Click to expand...

The lesson lost on many was that this was not like WWII at all.

Bup bup bup.....The highlighted part in color is your personal opinion....It matters not on whether Hanson is correct...And you agree with him on this point so moving on.

Click to expand...

It matters on what he is missing.

Nonsense, that excuse was politically used by liberals to downplay a clear success by product of Saddam's removal, but rational people know why Qaddafi gave his stockpiles up. But this is where you start inserting the wrongness of everything, only when YOU don't agree with the conclusions...

Click to expand...

No, just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate it. You were shown timelines, as well as Powell's testemoney. It wasn't possible that Iraq was the cause.

"Not important"? Are you kidding me here? All through the removal of Saddam, you and others were screaming how Iraq was no threat to us, now that it is clear that not only was Qaddafi no threat to us, he was little to no threat to his neighbors, unlike Saddam was, and you brush over it with feigned concern of the population within? Tell me, how do liberals decide which populations to save, I am sure the Syrian's would love to know.

Click to expand...

The point you're missing is this wasn't about threat. Though an unstable Libya is a bit of a threat concern. It was about the raging civil war.

He'd have fared much better if he didn't have a weak President taking office after him.

Click to expand...

Nice try, but Afgabistan was falling apart long before Obama.

What the?....Are you joking? You must be...What concerns were dealt with? Aspirin overages?

Click to expand...

Again you miss the point. You can argue their words support you when they follow those words up with other words that say it's done.

NATO was involved in Iraq....Have you forgotten the NATO training mission in Iraq? That was from 2004 thru 2011.

Click to expand...

Again, not in the same way.

Possibly you could say that on some things I, or others that supported the Iraq mission are hypocritical, however, certainly not as disingenuous as liberals are in their hands down pass of everything now that Obama is doing it....

Click to expand...

If we could ever find a completely objective judge, you might find you fair worse than you think.

Boo Radley · Feb 8, 2014

US Conservative said:
Some on the left like to pretend their opinions are fact. They sprinkle it in amongst fact and think nobody notices.

Some on the right don't understand reasoning and mistake their lack of thought as being a sign they are right.

:roll:

See how easy that was.

Grant · Feb 8, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Victor is a poor source

That's incredible, but very leftist. Blame the source rather than the facts.

And Boo Radley actually believes that Boo Radley is a credible source?

The leftist world has spun completely out of control!!

Boo Radley · Feb 8, 2014

Grant said:
That's incredible, but very leftist. Blame the source rather than the facts.

And Boo Radley actually believes that Boo Radley is a credible source?

The leftist world has spun completely out of control!!

Didn't blame the source. But why do you guys think idiots should be called what they are? I certainly recognize liberal dumbass ****. Why can't you see the reverse?

Montecresto · Feb 8, 2014

US Conservative said:
Some on the left like to pretend their opinions are fact. They sprinkle it in amongst fact and think nobody notices.

True indeed. But then only an equal partisan would say that that only happens on one side.

j-mac · Feb 8, 2014

Boo Radley said:
j-mac said:

The lesson lost on many was that this was not like WWII at all.

It matters on what he is missing.

No, just because you don't like it doesn't invalidate it. You were shown timelines, as well as Powell's testemoney. It wasn't possible that Iraq was the cause.

The point you're missing is this wasn't about threat. Though an unstable Libya is a bit of a threat concern. It was about the raging civil war.

Nice try, but Afgabistan was falling apart long before Obama.

Again you miss the point. You can argue their words support you when they follow those words up with other words that say it's done.

Again, not in the same way.

If we could ever find a completely objective judge, you might find you fair worse than you think.

Click to expand...

Unbelievable amount of arrogance displayed here by you Joe...I have little interest in rehashing anymore of this with you, you just want your own point of view parotted back to you.

reinoe · Feb 8, 2014

Montecresto said:
I haven't ignored the differences between Iraq and Libya. I just consider the similarities to be paramount. That once again the US attacked a country that had not threatened or harmed us, at all. When is that **** going to stop?

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Qaddafi sponsored the bombing over Lockerbie in which many Americans died. Libya attacked us and just because there was a delayed response doesn't change that fact. Why do the deaths of Americans mean nothing to you?

j-mac · Feb 8, 2014

reinoe said:
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Qaddafi sponsored the bombing over Lockerbie in which many Americans died. Libya attacked us and just because there was a delayed response doesn't change that fact. Why do the deaths of Americans mean nothing to you?

Oh snap...so Obama attacking Libya was on response to Lockerbie? 30 some years later, and after Reagan already bombed them in the 80s?

reinoe · Feb 8, 2014

j-mac said:
Oh snap...so Obama attacking Libya was on response to Lockerbie? 30 some years later, and after Reagan already bombed them in the 80s?

No. Keep your ODS in check as I made no mention of Obama.

US Conservative · Feb 8, 2014

Boo Radley said:
Some on the right don't understand reasoning and mistake their lack of thought as being a sign they are right.

:roll:

See how easy that was.

Despite Obama's claim AQ is not on the run, they are expanding-and it was NOT a video that incited that attack. These are facts.

US Conservative · Feb 8, 2014

Grant said:
That's incredible, but very leftist. Blame the source rather than the facts.

And Boo Radley actually believes that Boo Radley is a credible source?

The leftist world has spun completely out of control!!

This is true.

Boo Radley · Feb 9, 2014

j-mac said:
Boo Radley said:

Unbelievable amount of arrogance displayed here by you Joe...I have little interest in rehashing anymore of this with you, you just want your own point of view parotted back to you.

Click to expand...

I always think that is what you want, as every time it's not parroted back to you you wuss out this way. You really should look in the mirror once and a while my friend.