John H. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:03:15 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:20:39 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Oh, by the way, the Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush
administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and
2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.

===

Oh goodness gracious, that's almost as many false statements as you
have made in a single year.

It's hard to believe Krause is discussing integrity.

Hard to believe a racist like you would even bring that up.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

On 17 Mar 2015 14:13:22 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 08:03:15 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:20:39 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Oh, by the way, the Center for Public Integrity alleges that the Bush
administration made a total of 935 false statements between 2001 and
2003 about Iraq's alleged threat to the United States.

===

Oh goodness gracious, that's almost as many false statements as you
have made in a single year.

It's hard to believe Krause is discussing integrity.

Hard to believe a racist like you would even bring that up.

Actually, you brought it up. Very inappropriately I might add.
--

Guns don't cause problems. Gun owner
*behavior* causes problems.

In article ,
says...


Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.

On 3/17/2015 3:04 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article ,
says...


Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.



The only thing that bothers me about the Benghazi thing is some of the
testimony given by Hillary herself to the House Committee.

She claims she never saw any of the requests for additional security
and never saw some of the initial reports about the attack.
She very pointedly shifted any possible blame for lack of action or
attention to staff underlings in the State Department.

In the world I live in the Captain is ultimately responsible for
anything that occurs in his command. If she truly was not informed it
indicates an even broader problem of leadership and management on her part.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:04:50 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.

It is just their way of avoiding the real question. Why did we allow
Q-daffy to fall without having a clue who was going to take over?
Our support of the "freedom fighters" was short sighted to say the
least.

Quit complaining. You just said we shouldn't be over there.
Now you say we should have propped up Qadafi with our military.
That's why they don't come to you for foreign policy advice.

On 3/18/2015 12:02 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:51:49 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 14:04:50 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


Her Republican opponents won't tread there?
Then what's all this "Benghazi, Benghazi,Benghazi" all about?

Good question. You tell me.

It is just their way of avoiding the real question. Why did we allow
Q-daffy to fall without having a clue who was going to take over?
Our support of the "freedom fighters" was short sighted to say the
least.

Quit complaining. You just said we shouldn't be over there.
Now you say we should have propped up Qadafi with our military.
That's why they don't come to you for foreign policy advice.


And we SHOULDN'T have (perhaps I phrased that wrong)
We didn't need to give him military assistance, we only had to NOT
assist the "rebels" or prevent other arabs from assisting him. The US
and the Brits gave the rebels active military assistance, fired a ****
load of Tomahawks and other stand off munitions and imposed a no fly
zone. (sound familiar).
That was the same pattern as our Iraqi misadventure except Saddam
didn't fall under that assault so we had to go get him. The end result
was the same tho. They are both a stronghold of islamic terrorists.
When are we going to learn?
We have asserted ourselves into a number of civil wars in that area
and every one of them turned out bad for us.


The US did not unilaterally go "after" Saddam. Saddam was increasingly
in violation of several UN Resolutions that he agreed to after being
kicked out of Kuwait.

What's the point in having the UN if it's authority and Resolutions can
be ignored at will?