DESERTER BERGDAHL, 6 DEAD AMERICAN MARINES AND 6 TERRORISTS GO FREE....

Well Hillary admitted she deleted 30,000 emails and you claim she turned over 55,000 ( which I don't think is correct, since she said the number was 30,000), so by your accounting Hillary shield more than 85,000 emails from FOIA and Congressional investigators.

That doesn't include emails between parties that were likely using non-governmental systems (personal email to personal email).

We really are just beginning to understand the Benghazi lies and cover up. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You are really thick. She admitted deleting personal emails. That number was not included in the 55K she turned over, which you incorrectly stated didn't happen, as the link below will show you. All you had to do was google 'hillary email' and it came right up.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/11/tech...y-email-paper/

did or did not Obama et al lie about Benghazi?

whats so difficult about that to understand

and they lied about bergdahl

that's evident as well
anyone who denies those two things is not worth getting into a discussion with for nothing good would come of it Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Did or did not Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? What is so difficult to understand?

Anyone who denies this is not worth getting into a discussion with about it.

As for Bergdahl, should we not have gotten him back to face charges? Of course they aren't going to broadcast that to the world because then maybe he doesn't come back or they decide not to trade him. There are lots of moving parts in a situation like that we aren't privy to. You are trying to identify something by only seeing a part of the image.

That will hurt the Army's case! Originally Posted by DSK

Assuredly, it's one of the reasons the Army isn't pushing for the death penalty. Bust him down to PVT. Impose a hefty fine to recoup that money he was paid after he went AWOL; then bust him out of the service with a BCD with no entitlements. He doesn't deserve another nickel.

Did or did not Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? What is so difficult to understand?

Anyone who denies this is not worth getting into a discussion with about it.

As for Bergdahl, should we not have gotten him back to face charges? Of course they aren't going to broadcast that to the world because then maybe he doesn't come back or they decide not to trade him. There are lots of moving parts in a situation like that we aren't privy to. You are trying to identify something by only seeing a part of the image. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Then Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator lied, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion.

The big sticking point for the Army is why they recruited a person who had psychological problems in the first place. Then deployed him to a combat zone. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

What makes you think they "recruited" him .. as in pursued him? I suspect he volunteered, like a lot of others for varying reasons, and they, in need of "fresh faces," enthusiastically signed him up as another stat to their credit.

It is if the evidence was spoliated....


Originally Posted by lustylad

My statement still stands. The absence of evidence is not evidence of wrongdoing. You had to add a stipulation in order to change it and make it mean something else. If it was destroyed, there would be evidence of that and therefore there would not be an absence of evidence. And why not just use the word 'ruined'? You try way too goddamn hard. And it lets me know that you and IBJizzy are the same person too. He uses $.25 words when a $.05 word would do just fine.

What makes you think they "recruited" him .. as in pursued him? I suspect he volunteered, like a lot of others for varying reasons, and they, in need of "fresh faces," enthusiastically signed him up as another stat to their credit. Originally Posted by LexusLover

They should have looked at his record and seen questionable things. But they didn't because in the wake of two wars, the army lowered their recruiting standards in order to fill quotas. The first article is about Bradley (now Chelsey) Manning and how they ignored obvious mental issues. The second article is about the lowering of standards.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97C0KD20130813

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...cruiting_x.htm

Assuredly, it's one of the reasons the Army isn't pushing for the death penalty. Bust him down to PVT. Impose a hefty fine to recoup that money he was paid after he went AWOL; then bust him out of the service with a BCD with no entitlements. He doesn't deserve another nickel.




Then Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator lied, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Clinton is a piece of shit. What do you want? You assume that like you because I align with one party, I tend to agree or like everyone from that party and it's just not the case. Knock yourself out on Slick Willy. I seriously couldn't give a shit.

Did or did not Bush lie about WMDs in Iraq? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Bush did not lie about WMD's in Iraq. Use another example that is legitimate.

My statement still stands. The absence of evidence is not evidence of wrongdoing. You had to add a stipulation in order to change it and make it mean something else. If it was destroyed, there would be evidence of that and therefore there would not be an absence of evidence. And why not just use the word 'ruined'? You try way too goddamn hard. And it lets me know that you and IBJizzy are the same person too. He uses $.25 words when a $.05 word would do just fine. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Spoliation is wrong doing, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion.

Clinton is a piece of shit. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

So are you, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion.

Bush did not lie about WMD's in Iraq. Use another example that is legitimate. Originally Posted by LexusLover

He absolutely did. He embellished at the least. You don't embellish if the truth is in your story.

Spoliation is wrong doing, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion.




So are you, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wrong again, cockbreath

spo·li·a·tion
ˌspōlēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action of ruining or destroying something

If you're going to lie, don't make it something so easy to prove wrong.

They should have looked at his record and seen questionable things. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I was addressing the use of the verb "recruit" ... not their negligence (or worse) of failing to look at his "record" .... Not having seen his CG PDR or Army OMPF or any disclosed part of them, it is difficult to assess what was readily available to review. And without having seen the documents I think it is difficult to criticize the recruiters doing the intake or anyone upstream reviewing the records.

https://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/...M_1080_10I.pdf

Wrong again, cockbreath

spo·li·a·tion
ˌspōlēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action of ruining or destroying something

If you're going to lie, don't make it something so easy to prove wrong. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Where was it that you proved anyone wrong, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion?

Wrong again, cockbreath

spo·li·a·tion
ˌspōlēˈāSHən/Submit
noun
1.
the action of ruining or destroying something

If you're going to lie, don't make it something so easy to prove wrong. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Where was it that you proved anyone wrong, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You said spoliation was wrong doing. It isn't. I just clearly showed you that it is defined as ruining or destroying something, like I'm doing to your asshole right now.

Spoliation is wrong doing, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion.

Spoliation is wrong doing, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion.




So are you, you "#Grubered", cock-sucking, Odumbo Minion. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Spoliation is not wrong doing. It's to ruin or destroy.