• 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!

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war[W:292]

TheDemSocialist said:
No. I mean the United States House Select Committee on Benghazi.


Go ahead. It still shows clear hypocrisy. But hey have at it. She has agreed to testify again. But its showing to be a one sided partisan witch hunt without regards to logic and the truth.
Click to expand...

So investigating if Hillary destabilized a nation (even as lefties cry about Bush) is hypocritical?
Dont think its something worth investigating? Or is it you dont like what might be found?
 
Montecresto said:
I don't believe Kucinich is lying. Going into unnecessary wars, based on false claims seems to be a growing trend that only bothers some people when democrats do it, lol.
Click to expand...

Didn't dems shriek about this for years with Bush? Surely they would mind just as much in this case, no? Wouldnt it be hypocritical not to?
 
Montecresto said:
I don't believe Kucinich is lying. Going into unnecessary wars, based on false claims seems to be a growing trend that only bothers some people when democrats do it, lol.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to get it. Apparently its only OK when dems do it.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064284832 said:
Go back and read your post,
Click to expand...

I know what I posted. I dont think I moved the goal posts. Please point to where I did.

or maybe you can have Hillary read it for you.
Click to expand...
Why would I want that?
 
US Conservative said:
So investigating if Hillary destabilized a nation (even as lefties cry about Bush) is hypocritical?
Click to expand...
Uhhhh the country was in a civil war... It was already destabilized.
And as I explained earlier: "I was against Obama bombing Libya in the first place. But this is a clear hack show. On one end you have Republicans to get involved in Ukraine, get involved in Syria, etc. but when it came to Libya (in which many in the GOP vocally supported) they are suddenly against it. What happened? Did the GOP randomly become the anti-hawk, anti-interventionist party? Or were they just the party that is against anything Obama does? I think this clearly shows the hypocrisy and the hack show this has become."

Dont think its something worth investigating? Or is it you dont like what might be found?
Click to expand...
Im against a hack show which this "investigation" has clearly become.
 
US Conservative said:
This tells me you are worried. I wonder what implications this could have next election?
Hillary lied...Americans died. I bet thats what the ads would say. :2wave:
Click to expand...

If all else fails, kill the messenger.

Benghazi was "old news" because the MSM didn't cover it, but, oops there they were with "you can keep your plan..." running 44 times an hour" the first time they shut up since '08 we watched an exodus of socialists vacate PF...

Clearly the paid shills have no other come back, no way of challenging this, they cannot say it is "old news" since Libya is a war zone since Hillary got involved, it is news.

And look, first post, a drive by scoffing at a paper they've never read and never bothered to read what's there

"At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton argued that Gadhafi might engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded President Obama, NATO allies and the United Nations to authorize military intervention.

At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton argued that Gadhafi might engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded President Obama, NATO allies and the United Nations to authorize military intervention.
Click to expand...

I love how "might" ended up costing lives of Americans,

And, was that the same Arab Spring Obama was so fond of, thew one's he encouraged in Egypt etc.? How'd that work out for America?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhhh the country was in a civil war... It was already destabilized.
And as I explained earlier: "I was against Obama bombing Libya in the first place. But this is a clear hack show. On one end you have Republicans to get involved in Ukraine, get involved in Syria, etc. but when it came to Libya (in which many in the GOP vocally supported) they are suddenly against it. What happened? Did the GOP randomly become the anti-hawk, anti-interventionist party? Or were they just the party that is against anything Obama does? I think this clearly shows the hypocrisy and the hack show this has become."


Im against a hack show which this "investigation" has clearly become.
Click to expand...

Uhhh Libya was already in a civil war so it was ok to lie to get the US involved? :lol:

If its a hack show, surely it will come back to bite the republicans, no?
Yup-you are worried.
 
Last edited:
Fearandloathing said:
If all else fails, kill the messenger.

Benghazi was "old news" because the MSM didn't cover it, but, oops there they were with "you can keep your plan..." running 44 times an hour" the first time they shut up since '08 we watched an exodus of socialists vacate PF...

Clearly the paid shills have no other come back, no way of challenging this, they cannot say it is "old news" since Libya is a war zone since Hillary got involved, it is news.

And look, first post, a drive by scoffing at a paper they've never read and never bothered to read what's there

"At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton argued that Gadhafi might engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded President Obama, NATO allies and the United Nations to authorize military intervention.



I love how "might" ended up costing lives of Americans,

And, was that the same Arab Spring Obama was so fond of, thew one's he encouraged in Egypt etc.? How'd that work out for America?
Click to expand...

The "MSM" didn't cover Benghazi?
 
The point isn't to talk about what happens at Benghazi, but rather show that Clinton was lying about Libya from day one. There is MSM evidence of this. I am currently on my mobile, but I will post the info tomorrow.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Uhhhh the country was in a civil war... It was already destabilized.
And as I explained earlier: "I was against Obama bombing Libya in the first place. But this is a clear hack show. On one end you have Republicans to get involved in Ukraine, get involved in Syria, etc. but when it came to Libya (in which many in the GOP vocally supported) they are suddenly against it. What happened? Did the GOP randomly become the anti-hawk, anti-interventionist party? Or were they just the party that is against anything Obama does? I think this clearly shows the hypocrisy and the hack show this has become."


Im against a hack show which this "investigation" has clearly become.
Click to expand...

"Hack" is the unconditional support of Hillary.
 
Fearandloathing said:
If all else fails, kill the messenger.

Benghazi was "old news" because the MSM didn't cover it, but, oops there they were with "you can keep your plan..." running 44 times an hour" the first time they shut up since '08 we watched an exodus of socialists vacate PF...

Clearly the paid shills have no other come back, no way of challenging this, they cannot say it is "old news" since Libya is a war zone since Hillary got involved, it is news.

And look, first post, a drive by scoffing at a paper they've never read and never bothered to read what's there

"At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton argued that Gadhafi might engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded President Obama, NATO allies and the United Nations to authorize military intervention.



I love how "might" ended up costing lives of Americans,

And, was that the same Arab Spring Obama was so fond of, thew one's he encouraged in Egypt etc.? How'd that work out for America?
Click to expand...

Its like Hillary, Obama, and the rest of the lefty goon squad opened up pandoras box.

I love the lefty replies here up till now-declaring the thread over, etc. :lol:
 
Mr. Invisible said:
The point isn't to talk about what happens at Benghazi, but rather show that Clinton was lying about Libya from day one. There is MSM evidence of this. I am currently on my mobile, but I will post the info tomorrow.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The forums lefties will eventually figure this out.
 
US Conservative said:
Not in any meaningful way until they were made to, Kobie. You can thank Fox news for that. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Please refrain from responding to me in the future, under any circumstance.
 
Fearandloathing said:
If all else fails, kill the messenger.

Benghazi was "old news" because the MSM didn't cover it, but, oops there they were with "you can keep your plan..." running 44 times an hour" the first time they shut up since '08 we watched an exodus of socialists vacate PF...

Clearly the paid shills have no other come back, no way of challenging this, they cannot say it is "old news" since Libya is a war zone since Hillary got involved, it is news.

And look, first post, a drive by scoffing at a paper they've never read and never bothered to read what's there

"At the time, the Gadhafi regime was fighting a civil war that grew out of the Arab Spring, battling Islamist-backed rebels who wanted to dethrone the longtime dictator. Mrs. Clinton argued that Gadhafi might engage in genocide and create a humanitarian crisis and ultimately persuaded President Obama, NATO allies and the United Nations to authorize military intervention.



I love how "might" ended up costing lives of Americans,

And, was that the same Arab Spring Obama was so fond of, thew one's he encouraged in Egypt etc.? How'd that work out for America?
Click to expand...

Excuse me but, the non partisan in the group will call her out on it. Kucinich is telling the truth, but let the partisan right tell it and its the first time America went to war in the Middle East on false pretence. Damn it man. How can we ever expect to see things improve.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
The point isn't to talk about what happens at Benghazi, but rather show that Clinton was lying about Libya from day one. There is MSM evidence of this. I am currently on my mobile, but I will post the info tomorrow.
Click to expand...

That is totally true, not unlike the evidence that exists that Bush lied about Iraq from day one. Now, the question is, what the **** are we going to do about our leaders that keep doing this to us, and those poor citizens of the Middle East that are victimised by it???? Keep pretending that only the other party does it?
 
Secret meetings and tapes with foreign governments without state department approval or knowledge and interfering with official US policy.....

If true the WH may have a good case to charge all those involved with treason.



The surreptitiously taped conversations reveal an extraordinary departure from traditional policy, in which the U.S. government speaks to foreign governments with one voice coordinated by the State Department.

Instead, the tapes show that the Pentagon’s senior uniformed leadership and a congressman from Mrs. Clinton’s own party conveyed sentiments to the Libyan regime that undercut or conflicted with the secretary of state’s own message at the time.

“If this story is true, it would be highly unusual for the Pentagon to conduct a separate set of diplomatic negotiations, given the way we operated when I was secretary of state,” James A. Baker III, who served under President George H.W. Bush, told The Times. “In our administration, the president made sure that we all sang from the same hymnal.”.....
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rcut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/#ixzz3R1LS1HxU



The story is totally bogus.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
One, there's a topic here....I suggest people stick to discussing it, not attempting to derail it into all sorts of other conversations. If you don't want to discuss the specific topic than don't post

TWo, if you think something is breaking the rules than report it. Making accusations in thread about rule violations can be considered baiting

Three, no poster can demand people not respond to them. Doing so upstairs is baiting. If you don't like seeing persons post then put them on ignote
 
US Conservative said:
It meets the criteria in the BN MSM sticky. :2wave:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...king-news-guildelines-updated-10-29-09-a.html

Odd the position you take here.
Click to expand...

Times =\= Post. You linked to the Washington TIMES. That is a tabloid magazine. Washington Post is acceptable under BN. Again you are confused.

• *BN* - Mainstream Media: A news service whose primary means of distribution is print, broadcast, or wire services. Local newspapers forced to switch to a digital format may aslo be placed here as well as AP stories reposted to the web free of additional commentary.
Examples Include: CNN, Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Associated Press

What you posted:
US Conservative said:
Read more: Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Click to expand...

Do you now understand that these are different sites??? One extremely reputable and one crazy source?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom