View Poll Results: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, They are exploiting Benghazi

    73 68.87%
  • No

    27 25.47%
  • Other

    6 5.66%
Page 10 of 34 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 339

Thread: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    LOL....you fell right into it. Go back and re-read the OP. Too funny....
    What difference does it make ?

  2. #92
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    What difference does it make ?
    LOL.....wow.....you fell into it again. Keep distorting the "talking points" as the OP predicted that the fools would do......you are displaying yourself for everyone here to see.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Please do your homework-Hillary testified under oath that no security measures were cut due to funding. Her words.
    "If the host country will not or cannot protect foreign diplomats, then the physical security measures mandated by security standards can do little more than provide slight delay -- which is what they are designed to do. No physical security measures can stand up to a prolonged assault. If a militant group armed with heavy weaponry is permitted to attack a diplomatic facility for hours with no host government response -- as was the case in Benghazi -- the attack will cause considerable damage and likely cause fatalities despite the security measures in place." — The Benghazi Report and the Diplomatic Security Funding

    "Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi 'consulate' was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

    So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.

    This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA. In other words, the final version of the talking points may have been so wan [sic — wanting?] because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing. From a bureaucratic perspective, it may have seemed like the best possible solution at the time. From a political perspective, it turned out to be a disaster" — "An alternative explanation for the Benghazi talking points: Bureaucratic knife fight," Washington Post, May 10, 2013

  4. #94
    Sage
    Fenton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    26,321

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by a351 View Post
    Yes, yes they are. That's not to say that their counterparts wouldn't do the same under similar circumstances, or that their weren't legitimate failures in the chain of command, but they certainly have milked the event for all the political capital it's worth.
    The Democrats have milked it for 20 months.

    And they're STILL politicizing it by trying to claim the Republicans are "exploitating" the Deaths of four Americans.

    No, trying to find the truth is not exploitation.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I seriously doubt the Republicans who keep harping about Benghazi care about the four people who died September 11, 2012. They are in my opinion using their deaths for political gain, they want to use this tragedy to weaken the chances of Hillary Clinton should she decide to run for president in 2014. They misquote what Clinton said during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2013, they say she said "What difference does it make?" Here is what she actually said:

    "With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
    Absolutely. Not that there isn't cause to investigate, but the Republocrats exploit everything they can.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by Muhammed View Post
    Carney is a scumbag liar.
    A professional liar, reminds me of baghdad bob.

  7. #97
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    "If the host country will not or cannot protect foreign diplomats, then the physical security measures mandated by security standards can do little more than provide slight delay -- which is what they are designed to do. No physical security measures can stand up to a prolonged assault. If a militant group armed with heavy weaponry is permitted to attack a diplomatic facility for hours with no host government response -- as was the case in Benghazi -- the attack will cause considerable damage and likely cause fatalities despite the security measures in place." — The Benghazi Report and the Diplomatic Security Funding

    "Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi 'consulate' was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

    So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.

    This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA. In other words, the final version of the talking points may have been so wan [sic — wanting?] because officials simply deleted everything that upset the two sides. So they were left with nothing. From a bureaucratic perspective, it may have seemed like the best possible solution at the time. From a political perspective, it turned out to be a disaster" — "An alternative explanation for the Benghazi talking points: Bureaucratic knife fight," Washington Post, May 10, 2013
    Im going to hold the people in charge accountable. Obama should have had jets buzzing that compound every 3 minutes until the help he never sent arrived. The ambassador sent multiple requests for help, and none came. Some of those dead hero's went so far as to paint laser designators on the gun trucks that were part of the attack-hoping for air support that never came.

    And then the WH decides to wait weeks before sending the FBI in (it was unsafe, they said-after repeated requests for increased security by the dead ambassador were ignored). In the mean time, the masterminds of the attack are freely and openly seen in public all over Benghazi and elsewhere, at one point seen drinking cocktails in a high end western hotel. Quick reaction forces all over the region were told to stand down when they might have made a difference-and if they didn't-we wouldnt have left the Presidents representative and 3 other heros to die alone surrounded by terrorists.



    And the entire time, the spin machine of the Obama admin was running overtime. It was clear who committed these attacks but that might have hurt Obama in that election season-reminding people that AQ ISNT on the run, and on 9/11 no less-wouldnt be politically viable. So they lied, obscured, and left the families in the dark-all for politics.

    And yet the silly libs of this forum want to accuse the Republicans of playing politics here. Its mind boggling. This type of thing can't happen again, and with a select committee the Obama admin is going to be pulled kicking and screaming into the sunlight. We are going to find out what they knew, and when.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    is everything
    Last Seen
    02-19-17 @ 09:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    4,810

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    Obama should have had jets buzzing
    "[D]efense experts agree with the Pentagon's assessment that that there was no way military forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save any of the four American lives lost in the attack. … [I]f the proverbial 'fools' had rushed in, more lives and expensive equipment may have been lost — and it's probably safe to say that the current Benghazi witch hunt would have a far shriller tone." — "Expert: There Is Absolutely No Way Military Assets Could Have Reached Benghazi In Time, Business Insider, May 9, 2013
    ambassador sent multiple requests for help
    During the attack?
    Quick reaction forces all over the region were told to stand down
    "The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated." — Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, p. 29.

    Even the House report, issued by the Republican majority, states that "[t]here was no 'stand down' order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi." I suppose the implication is that other force were issued such orders.
    It was clear who committed these attacks but that might have hurt Obama in that election season-reminding people that AQ ISNT on the run, and on 9/11 no less-wouldnt be politically viable.
    In September 2012, the administration was acknowledging that Al Qaeda affiliates were involved in the attacks, and Republicans were already claiming that this was being "covered up."

    "They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ... At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb." —Matthew Olson, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testifying before a Senate committee hearing, Sept 19, 2012

    "But let us be clear. What is happening inside Mali is augmented by the rising threat from violent extremism across the region. For some time, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into neighboring countries. Now, with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi."— Remarks at a UN Secretary General Meeting on the Sahel by Hillary Clinton, Sept 26, 2012

    In its coverage of those remarks, the Christian Science Monitor reported that "Republican critics have said the administration for too long attributed the attack to a spontaneous and unorganized mob." (Hillary Clinton drops strong hint that Al Qaeda was behind Libya attack). This was two weeks after the attack and nearly six weeks before the election. Already, it had been too long. If the administration was seeking to avoid "reminding people that AQ ISNT on the run," they weren't doing a very good job of it, were they?

    These are statements made by administration officials during September in which Al Qaeda was specifically referenced. You also have Obama saying the attack was "an act of terror" on national television the morning after it occurred. He pointedly referred to this in one of the debates. You may recall this exchange:

    ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

    OBAMA: That's what I said.

    ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

    OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

    ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    OBAMA: Get the transcript.


    Critics of the administration like to say that the "lame stream media" continually fails to hold Obama accountable. Here's the Washington Post fact checker setting what seems to me to be a fairly high standard: Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism'. Of course, that article appeared after the election — all part of the elaborate and clever conspiracy, I suppose.

    A right-wing publication offers an interesting perspective:

    "President Obama is so arrogant and narcissistic that he is just about the only person in the administration clinging to the story that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event due to some pathetic movie trailer no one had seen – until he promoted it.

    Even though his Secretary of State, his Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.N. Ambassador, and the White House spokesman have all reversed the claim and actually admitted the murders were an act of terrorism; Barack Obama is adamantly determined to accept no blame nor will he use the word ‘terrorism’. In his mind, the events in Benghazi that killed four Americans must have been another incidence of ‘workplace violence’ since the movie trailer theory has been debunked.

    Shame on him!" — "Obama’s Libyan Lies – Cover-Up Peeling Away," Letting Freedom Ring, Sept 27, 2012

    That rag is published by someone who describes himself as having "survived the Vietnam War protests." Our hero.
    We are going to find out what they knew, and when.
    That information is already known and has been ground into a fine powder. What will happen is what's been happening: the GOP will be further weakened by the reactionary extremists that its leadership is unwilling to stand up to. As an American, I'm saddened, to the point where I can't even be pleased as a Democrat. I can't see any good coming from a continuation of this circus side-show, to use the Speaker's words. Gowdy is a gentleman and a skilled investigator, unlike the ill-mannered, incompetent buffoon that's been dragging Oversight and Government Reform through a sewer for the past three years. But he's on a fool's errand and that takes away from doing the country's business.
    Last edited by mmi; 05-09-14 at 04:23 AM.

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    "[D]efense experts agree with the Pentagon's assessment that that there was no way military forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save any of the four American lives lost in the attack. … [I]f the proverbial 'fools' had rushed in, more lives and expensive equipment may have been lost — and it's probably safe to say that the current Benghazi witch hunt would have a far shriller tone." — "Expert: There Is Absolutely No Way Military Assets Could Have Reached Benghazi In Time, Business Insider, May 9, 2013During the attack?"The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated." — Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, p. 29.

    Even the House report, issued by the Republican majority, states that "[t]here was no 'stand down' order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi." I suppose the implication is that other force were issued such orders.In September 2012, the administration was acknowledging that Al Qaeda affiliates were involved in the attacks, and Republicans were already claiming that this was being "covered up."

    "They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ... At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb." —Matthew Olson, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testifying before a Senate committee hearing, Sept 19, 2012

    "But let us be clear. What is happening inside Mali is augmented by the rising threat from violent extremism across the region. For some time, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into neighboring countries. Now, with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi."— Remarks at a UN Secretary General Meeting on the Sahel by Hillary Clinton, Sept 26, 2012

    In its coverage of those remarks, the Christian Science Monitor reported that "Republican critics have said the administration for too long attributed the attack to a spontaneous and unorganized mob." (Hillary Clinton drops strong hint that Al Qaeda was behind Libya attack). This was two weeks after the attack and nearly six weeks before the election. Already, it had been too long. If the administration was seeking to avoid "reminding people that AQ ISNT on the run," they weren't doing a very good job of it, were they?

    These are statements made by administration officials during September in which Al Qaeda was specifically referenced. You also have Obama saying the attack was "an act of terror" on national television the morning after it occurred. He pointedly referred to this in one of the debates. You may recall this exchange:

    ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

    OBAMA: That's what I said.

    ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

    OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

    ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    OBAMA: Get the transcript.


    Critics of the administration like to say that the "lame stream media" continually fails to hold Obama accountable. Here's the Washington Post fact checker setting what seems to me to be a fairly high standard: Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism'. Of course, that article appeared after the election — all part of the elaborate and clever conspiracy, I suppose.

    A right-wing publication offers an interesting perspective:

    "President Obama is so arrogant and narcissistic that he is just about the only person in the administration clinging to the story that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event due to some pathetic movie trailer no one had seen – until he promoted it.

    Even though his Secretary of State, his Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.N. Ambassador, and the White House spokesman have all reversed the claim and actually admitted the murders were an act of terrorism; Barack Obama is adamantly determined to accept no blame nor will he use the word ‘terrorism’. In his mind, the events in Benghazi that killed four Americans must have been another incidence of ‘workplace violence’ since the movie trailer theory has been debunked.

    Shame on him!" — "Obama’s Libyan Lies – Cover-Up Peeling Away," Letting Freedom Ring, Sept 27, 2012

    That rag is published by someone who describes himself as having "survived the Vietnam War protests." Our hero.That information is already known and has been ground into a fine powder. What will happen is what's been happening: the GOP will be further weakened by the reactionary extremists that its leadership is unwilling to stand up to. As an American, I'm saddened, to the point where I can't even be pleased as a Democrat. I can't see any good coming from a continuation of this circus side-show, to use the Speaker's words. Gowdy is a gentleman and a skilled investigator, unlike the ill-mannered, incompetent buffoon that's been dragging Oversight and Government Reform through a sewer for the past three years. But he's on a fool's errand and that takes away from doing the country's business.
    Not even close buddy. I wonder if you have figured out this isn't going away yet.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Are Republicans Exploiting Benghazi?

    Quote Originally Posted by mmi View Post
    "[D]efense experts agree with the Pentagon's assessment that that there was no way military forces could have gotten to Benghazi in time to save any of the four American lives lost in the attack. … [I]f the proverbial 'fools' had rushed in, more lives and expensive equipment may have been lost — and it's probably safe to say that the current Benghazi witch hunt would have a far shriller tone." — "Expert: There Is Absolutely No Way Military Assets Could Have Reached Benghazi In Time, Business Insider, May 9, 2013During the attack?"The Committee has reviewed the allegations that U.S. personnel, including in the IC or DoD, prevented the mounting of any military relief effort during the attacks, but the Committee has not found any of these allegations to be substantiated." — Review Of The Terrorist Attacks On U.S. Facilities In Benghazi, Libya, September 11-12, 2012, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1/15/14, p. 29.

    Even the House report, issued by the Republican majority, states that "[t]here was no 'stand down' order issued to U.S. military personnel in Tripoli who sought to join the fight in Benghazi." I suppose the implication is that other force were issued such orders.In September 2012, the administration was acknowledging that Al Qaeda affiliates were involved in the attacks, and Republicans were already claiming that this was being "covered up."

    "They were killed in the course of a terrorist attack on our embassy. ... At this point, what I would say is that a number of different elements appear to have been involved in the attack, including individuals connected to militant groups that are prevalent in eastern Libya, particularly the Benghazi area, as well we are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates, in particular al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb." —Matthew Olson, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, testifying before a Senate committee hearing, Sept 19, 2012

    "But let us be clear. What is happening inside Mali is augmented by the rising threat from violent extremism across the region. For some time, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other groups have launched attacks and kidnappings from northern Mali into neighboring countries. Now, with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions. And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions underway in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi."— Remarks at a UN Secretary General Meeting on the Sahel by Hillary Clinton, Sept 26, 2012

    In its coverage of those remarks, the Christian Science Monitor reported that "Republican critics have said the administration for too long attributed the attack to a spontaneous and unorganized mob." (Hillary Clinton drops strong hint that Al Qaeda was behind Libya attack). This was two weeks after the attack and nearly six weeks before the election. Already, it had been too long. If the administration was seeking to avoid "reminding people that AQ ISNT on the run," they weren't doing a very good job of it, were they?

    These are statements made by administration officials during September in which Al Qaeda was specifically referenced. You also have Obama saying the attack was "an act of terror" on national television the morning after it occurred. He pointedly referred to this in one of the debates. You may recall this exchange:

    ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

    OBAMA: That's what I said.

    ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

    OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

    ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    OBAMA: Get the transcript.


    Critics of the administration like to say that the "lame stream media" continually fails to hold Obama accountable. Here's the Washington Post fact checker setting what seems to me to be a fairly high standard: Obama’s claim he called Benghazi an 'act of terrorism'. Of course, that article appeared after the election — all part of the elaborate and clever conspiracy, I suppose.

    A right-wing publication offers an interesting perspective:

    "President Obama is so arrogant and narcissistic that he is just about the only person in the administration clinging to the story that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous event due to some pathetic movie trailer no one had seen – until he promoted it.

    Even though his Secretary of State, his Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the U.N. Ambassador, and the White House spokesman have all reversed the claim and actually admitted the murders were an act of terrorism; Barack Obama is adamantly determined to accept no blame nor will he use the word ‘terrorism’. In his mind, the events in Benghazi that killed four Americans must have been another incidence of ‘workplace violence’ since the movie trailer theory has been debunked.

    Shame on him!" — "Obama’s Libyan Lies – Cover-Up Peeling Away," Letting Freedom Ring, Sept 27, 2012

    That rag is published by someone who describes himself as having "survived the Vietnam War protests." Our hero.That information is already known and has been ground into a fine powder. What will happen is what's been happening: the GOP will be further weakened by the reactionary extremists that its leadership is unwilling to stand up to. As an American, I'm saddened, to the point where I can't even be pleased as a Democrat. I can't see any good coming from a continuation of this circus side-show, to use the Speaker's words. Gowdy is a gentleman and a skilled investigator, unlike the ill-mannered, incompetent buffoon that's been dragging Oversight and Government Reform through a sewer for the past three years. But he's on a fool's errand and that takes away from doing the country's business.
    Not even close buddy. I wonder if you have figured out this isn't going away yet.

Page 10 of 34 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •