• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate report: Attacks in Benghazi could have been prevented

US Conservative said:
Your entire premise that the president asked for a vote from congress to allow HIM to make all the decisions is absurd. If you think thats what happened crack open a book and GET reading.
Click to expand...

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not what happened. There was no vote for war. None. Bush just got to decide. You should read more.
 
Boo Radley said:
Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not what happened. There was no vote for war. None. Bush just got to decide. You should read more.
Click to expand...

As is to be expected, you sprinkle in a little truth amongst your boo boo.

There was no vote for war-there was a vote for military action in Iraq. And it was not simply "decided" by bush because of that vote.

Books-get to em.
 
US Conservative said:
As is to be expected, you sprinkle in a little truth amongst your boo boo.

There was no vote for war-there was a vote for military action in Iraq. And it was not simply "decided" by bush because of that vote.

Books-get to em.
Click to expand...

There wasn't that either. Such a vote would have been followed by action, and not a building of the coalition of the willing. Instead, they merely passed the buck to Bush, allowing the decider to decide and not congress.
 
annata said:
FOX Report
mentioned tonight was the absurd "blame the building" scenario as Krauthammer put it.

"State Dept." but absolutely no-one is mentioned. Like there is this entity that runs itself, with absolutely no-one in charge or even there.

Shape-shifting blameless unaccountable ghosts at Foggy Bottom.

Feinstein even came out yestersay and specifically defended Hillary, who wasn't even mentioned..

(asides from the attack was caused by the video, which is patently false - known in the first few minutes it WAS a terror attack)
Click to expand...

Of course they could have been prevented, as could many attacks on The US in times past.
 
Boo Radley said:
There wasn't that either. Such a vote would have been followed by action, and not a building of the coalition of the willing. Instead, they merely passed the buck to Bush, allowing the decider to decide and not congress.
Click to expand...

Again false, and revisionist at that. This was NOT simply Bush acting alone as much as you'd like to paint that picture.
Id ask for evidence to back your claim-but you never seem to be able to provide that, instead hiding behind amorphous comments like "check the speeches". :roll:

I'd hope you'd aspire to a higher standard.
 
US Conservative said:
Again false, and revisionist at that. This was NOT simply Bush acting alone as much as you'd like to paint that picture.
Id ask for evidence to back your claim-but you never seem to be able to provide that, instead hiding behind amorphous comments like "check the speeches". :roll:

I'd hope you'd aspire to a higher standard.
Click to expand...

He decided. No one else.

For years I linked Kerry's speech. The talk would start and then later there'd be a new thread, same people asking for the same speech. After a while, you have to figure you guts just don't want to know the truth. Now, as were this far down the road, iM not inclined to cover that same ground fir people who refuse to learn or know. You, people who link that out of context list of democrat quotes. Such people don't really want the truth.
 
Grant said:
Hillary Clinton claimed responsibility in order, it seems, to take some sort of high road. But neither she nor anyone else in the Obama Administration apparently feels that there should be any consequences of not responding to the warnings, not going to the aid of those under attack, and then trying to cover it up with some phoney story about a Youtube video.

That people would actually buy into this nonsense strongly suggests that both Clinton and Obama understand how foolishly naive their supporters must be.
Click to expand...

They are every bit as naive as Bush supporters were.

That's what partisans are .. naive.
 
Boo Radley said:
He decided. No one else.

For years I linked Kerry's speech. The talk would start and then later there'd be a new thread, same people asking for the same speech. After a while, you have to figure you guts just don't want to know the truth. Now, as were this far down the road, iM not inclined to cover that same ground fir people who refuse to learn or know. You, people who link that out of context list of democrat quotes. Such people don't really want the truth.
Click to expand...

speeches are not policy. Put up the proof or admit you have nothing.
 
Prevented? Ya.

1) Close down these redundant embassies in lost cause countries
2) If you're going to be window licking fools, continuing your futile attempt at reasoning with rabid dogs, at least arm the ****ing place to the teeth.

giphy.gif



Given the choice, I take number 1. Let the savages be savages.
 
US Conservative said:
speeches are not policy. Put up the proof or admit you have nothing.
Click to expand...

The knee jerk response for liberals that are caught red handed making comments that blurt too much of their true thoughts out there is to instantly go to the "out of context" excuse....It really is childish.
 
j-mac said:
Nothing I said there was "wild" or any "exaggeration".... And fact is not hyperbolic.... Sorry, you're wrong again.
Click to expand...

That you don't know it was wild and hyperbolic says a lot.
 
US Conservative said:
Lots of talk, no data. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Since you're incapable:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

TODAY IN HISTORY: John Kerry's Iraq Speech, October 9, 2002
 
Boo Radley said:
What's a amazing
is how tight you guys hang on to out of context quoting. I won't link the Snoopes Explanation concerning these quotes and why they are misleading, as it has been too many times, but you will never convince anyone who isn't a diehard believer like yourself with such poor evidence. You must do better. This has already been addressed too, too many times.
Click to expand...


LOL !!

The " CONTEXT" was Saddams Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In EVERYONE of those quotes.
 
Fenton said:
LOL !!

The " CONTEXT" was Saddams Weapons of Mass Destruction.

In EVERYONE of those quotes.
Click to expand...

That's not even true with Bush. If you will remember, Bush started with Saddam has wmds. Then it was Saddam as wmd programs. Then was Saddam has wmd program related activities. (why he didn't lose there, I'll never know). Then was spreading democracy.
 
j-mac said:
The knee jerk response for liberals that are caught red handed making comments that blurt too much of their true thoughts out there is to instantly go to the "out of context" excuse....It really is childish.
Click to expand...

Its tiring. They wish to be treated as adults but act otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom