What difference does it make now?

You gave GWB 10 years for justice , can Obama have more than 9 months? .... Or would you rather he invade Lybia because of Benghazi? Originally Posted by WTF

presidents won't invade a country because one of their embassy consulates gets attacked and 220 people get killed ... they wait for some evil dictator who hasn't done squat to us

presidents won't invade a country because one of their embassy consulates gets attacked and 220 people get killed ... they wait for some evil dictator who hasn't done squat to us Originally Posted by CJ7

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04) had the following exchange in today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the legality of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the military operation in Libya.

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04): “Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a tomahawk missile or its equivalent into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?”

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: “Probably so.”

Congressman Forbes: “Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?”

Secretary Gates: “You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.”

Congressman Forbes: “Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war and what is not.”

http://www.forbes.house.gov/News/Doc...umentID=233219

BTW, CBJ7, your fallacious contention that Reagan could attribute the Lebanon attack directly to Iran remains repudiated, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04) had the following exchange in today’s House Armed Services Committee hearing with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates regarding the legality of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the military operation in Libya.

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04): “Mr. Secretary, if tomorrow a foreign nation intentionally, for whatever reason, launched a tomahawk missile or its equivalent into New York City, would that be considered an act of war against the United States?”

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: “Probably so.”

Congressman Forbes: “Then I would assume the same laws would apply if we launched a tomahawk missile at another nation—is that also true?”

Secretary Gates: “You’re getting into constitutional law here and I am no expert on it.”

Congressman Forbes: “Mr. Secretary, you’re the Secretary of Defense. You ought to be an expert on what’s an act of war and what is not.”

http://www.forbes.house.gov/News/Doc...umentID=233219

BTW, CBJ7, your fallacious contention that Reagan could attribute the Lebanon attack directly to Iran remains repudiated, no matter how many times you repeat it. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

attribute?

certainly not

Runnin Ronnie tucked his republican tail between his legs and hauled ass ... guess he felt obligated to Iran for the hostage release and simply ignored a blatant act of war against his country ... no big deal.

attribute?

certainly not

Runnin Ronnie tucked his republican tail between his legs and hauled ass ... guess he felt obligated to Iran for the hostage release and simply ignored a blatant act of war against his country ... no big deal. Originally Posted by CJ7

You've yet to provide a factual citation to definitively connect Iran to the bombing while Reagan was president, CBJ7, and you've had thirty years to find it! Until you do, your unfounded accusations are just so much regurgitated libertard Kool Aid.

BTW, noticed how you not-so-cleverly ducked the issue of Odumbo going to war against an "evil dictator".

yeah well, Iran said they had nothing to do with it but a pro-Iranian group calling itself the Islamic Jihad Organization took responsibility ...

kinda like Saudi said they had nothing to do with 911 but the majority if the terrorists were from Saudi so we go and fuck up Iraq

Reagan didn't bother to do jack shit and that's where I cut my Texas Republican loyalty off at the shoulders .. fuckem

yeah well, Iran said they had nothing to do with it but a pro-Iranian group calling itself the Islamic Jihad Organization took responsibility ...

kinda like Saudi said they had nothing to do with 911 but the majority if the terrorists were from Saudi so we go and fuck up Iraq

Reagan didn't bother to do jack shit and that's where I cut my Texas Republican loyalty off at the shoulders .. fuckem Originally Posted by CJ7

There it is again, CBJ7: that very large gap between the dots you present as evidence that leaves a wide-gaping hole in your argument. Kinda like a pro-Dallas Cowboy fan doesn't make the fan a Dallas Cowboy player!!!!

that's a stretch even for you

now if you could just stretch and inform the world of the laws Obie and Hillary broke according to the military (or our) legal system over the course of Benghazi, before, during, or after Im pretty sure everyone would appreciate it ...

that's a stretch even for you

now if you could just stretch and inform the world of the laws Obie and Hillary broke according to the military (or our) legal system over the course of Benghazi, before, during, or after Im pretty sure everyone would appreciate it ... Originally Posted by CJ7

Why another attempt at deflection, CBJ7? This discussion has never been about "violated laws"! It's about public officials being held accountable for their outrageous lies and deceptions to deflect from the stupidity and the gross incompetence of the ignorant buffoons you elected to be in office. It's been about holding those ignorant and incompetent buffoons responsible for the death of an American ambassador.

Why another attempt at deflection, CBJ7? This discussion has never been about "violated laws"! It's about public officials being held accountable for their outrageous lies and deceptions to deflect from the stupidity and the gross incompetence of the ignorant buffoons you elected to be in office. It's been about holding those ignorant and incompetent buffoons responsible for the death of an American ambassador. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

translation;

the right is on a witch hunt in the name of politics with no consequence other than bringing accountability or lack there of to the forefront .. mission accomplished, the right and the fringe group buffoons have done exactly that

translation;

the right is on a witch hunt in the name of politics with no consequence other than bringing accountability or lack there of to the forefront .. mission accomplished, the right and the fringe group buffoons have done exactly that Originally Posted by CJ7

translation;

the right is on a witch hunt in the name of politics with no consequence other than bringing accountability or lack there of to the forefront .. mission accomplished, the right and the fringe group buffoons have done exactly that Originally Posted by CJ7

Ask Ambassador Rice if there's been any consequences, and the same consequences may yet beset HildaBeast. Plus, as the investigation develops, more information will become available about why General Ham and Admiral Gauoette were dismissed so abruptly in the wake of Benghazi.

It's already come out -- despite the White House's vehement and fallacious statements to the contrary -- Petraeus did not personally agree with the White House talking points:

JON KARL (ABC): Yeah, this is fascinating . . . Petraeus finally saw the final version of the talking points. This is the Saturday afternoon before Susan Rice’s appearances on the Sunday shows. He looks at these and says "they’re essentially useless." And direct quote from his e-mail. He says, "I would just as soon not use them. But it’s their call, meaning the White House’s call."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-...ry?id=19159755

Ask Ambassador Rice if there's been any consequences, and the same consequences may yet beset HildaBeast. Plus, as the investigation develops, more information will become available about why General Ham and Admiral Gauoette were dismissed so abruptly in the wake of Benghazi.

It's already come out -- despite the White House's vehement and fallacious statements to the contrary -- Petraeus did not personally agree with the White House talking points:

JON KARL (ABC): Yeah, this is fascinating . . . Petraeus finally saw the final version of the talking points. This is the Saturday afternoon before Susan Rice’s appearances on the Sunday shows. He looks at these and says "they’re essentially useless." And direct quote from his e-mail. He says, "I would just as soon not use them. But it’s their call, meaning the White House’s call."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-...ry?id=19159755 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

its a political witch hunt .. just say it

its a political witch hunt .. just say it Originally Posted by CJ7

The term "witch hunt" implies fiction, CBJ7. Of course, everyone knows that four Americans died as a result of incompetent leadership, and that is NOT fiction.

And as stated earlier, ABC White House correspondent Jon Karl already noted that the White House and State Department "politicized" the incident when they "scrubbed" the Talking Points memo to deflect any blame from themselves.

The term "witch hunt" implies fiction, CBJ7. Of course, everyone knows that four Americans died as a result of incompetent leadership, and that is NOT fiction.

And as stated earlier, ABC White House correspondent Jon Karl already noted that the White House and State Department "politicized" the incident when they "scrubbed" the Talking Points memo to deflect any blame from themselves. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

turning over every grain of sand in the desert LOOKING for something that will have little or no consequence IF in fact something IS found just to prove a point implies political horseshit to have a talking point in 2016

speaking of 2016, how much $$ is this talking point costing the taxpayers anyway? Btecha the dems will be more than happy to keep score, and remind the voters the gop spent xxxxx$ to get nothing in a stagnant economy..

For zealous partisans who support their party's "leaders" no matter what they do, debates of any kind are fair game for deflection and non sequiturs. If a president exhibits a staggering level of negligence, deception, and incompetence, it's fully excusable if his predecessor served up much of the same.

Right? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Wrong Captain Moron. The staggering level of negligence, deception and incompetence was served up only by Bush. Reckless spending , fabrication of a War that cost 4 thousand lives and trillions of dollars (Haliburton made out though). Hillary did not read all of the cables, but she did not fabricate a war. The Bush adminstration had 11 embassy attacks with over 50 casualties. Where was John McClain then? The republicans are playing politics with this so that they will not have to face Hillary in 2016. It's not about the 4 casulaties. They already know what the remedy is. Increase the defense budget, and spend more money providing on-site protection for each embassy. The problem is the republicans pledged to Grover Norquist, we won't raise taxes. Thus, the republicans don't want to remedy the problem. The republicans are interested in bringing scandal to Hillary any way they can.